The following is a brief extract from my grammar guide, The English Tenses. The guide covers all the English tenses with examples and exercises. The present simple tense is mostly used for regular and repeating events. This section explains how to use the present simple tense, changing the verb with the third person singular -s rule. It includes examples and an exercise.
The Present Simple is formed by either using the bare infinitive or adding ‘-s’ (or ‘-es’) to the bare infinitive. The –s or –es is used for third person singular subjects (he, she, it, John, an object), so is sometimes called the third person s. Plurals and first person subjects do not take the s.
For example:
- The cat walks silently. (bare infinitive + s because it is third person singular)
- Cats walk silently. (bare infinitive with no s because it is a plural).
- I like reading. (bare infinitive with no s because it is first person).
The following table gives a full list of subjects with examples:
Present Simple Form
|
Subject |
Verb ( base + -s/-es) |
Additional information |
|
I |
like |
dogs. |
|
You |
run |
fast. |
|
He |
dances |
well. |
|
She |
plays |
piano. |
|
It |
looks |
expensive. |
|
John |
hates |
cats. |
|
They |
laugh |
loudly. |
|
We |
read |
magazines. |
Irregular forms
Irregular verbs often have a third person s in their third person singular form. Plural or singular forms of irregular verbs often do not.
For example:
- He has a guitar. but I have a banjo.
- She is a nurse. but They are builders.
For more information on verb forms and uses, do check out the full grammar guide here.
I got confused about how to use the tense in my writing in general. How can I improve the use of tense in my writing?
You can do lots of drills with books like Murphy’s Practical Grammar in Use or my own new book, The English Tenses Exercise Book. But mostly I would recommend lots of practice through writing things you are interested in and having it checked by a teacher or English speaking friend. Also read as much as possible!
Mr Williams, I am tutoring a lady from St Kitts to improve her English in a class run by Toronto Library. She is good but speaks Patois must of the time at hkme and has problems with tenses. She does not know formal grammar names, like si gular and plural. Would your tenses book be too advanced for her and if so can you suggest a simpler alternative
Thanks
Bill
Mavin
Hi Bill, thanks for asking – elements of the English tenses books might be too hard for her, as they do use some technical terms, but once she has the terms down it might be useful. “The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide” otherwise does present all the tenses in form tables and has some explanation of grammar terms, and I did aim to make the usage sections accessible, but from the sounds of it she may require some tuition to help with it.
I personally tend to use the English Grammar in Use (Murphy) books for students when starting out, as they nicely demonstrate the grammar without relying on technical understanding. But even these might be high level – I’m afraid I haven’t much experience with the beginner level books.
Hi Phil,
One of the use of the simple present tense is to express “something that is true in the present”. My queries are:
(a) Sorry if this seems like a strange question – but does this use of the simple present tense only refer to something that is definitely (or objectively) true at the present moment, or does it also include things which we think are true at the present moment? (My thought is that this use of the simple present tense should also be for things which we think are true in the present moment (i.e. now) since what we think is true in the present (whether or not what we think is actually universally/objectively thought of as true by everyone else), is true as far as I/we are concerned and hence we are right to use the simple present tense – am I right?
(b) Does this use of the simple present tense also refer to something that is true at the present moment, but not in the past or future, for example “I don’t like mushrooms” (meaning to say I didnt like mushrooms in the past, and I may or may not like it in the future, but one thing is that right now in the present, I don’t like mushroom). May I know if this the right understanding? and is my example correct?
(c) Other examples that I can think of to support the second point i made above are:
> I really love my job.
> Mrs Clare doesn’t teach me but she teaches my sister.
> Do you live in Glasgow? My cousin lives there too.
> Spiders don’t frighten me.
> Martha does what she wants. No one tells her what to do.
Essentially, what I mean by my examples above is that these are things which are true (or thought of as true by myself or others) in the present (i.e. now), but may or may not be true in the past and future. Am I right to use the simple present tense for the above examples to express the point that these things are only true now but may or may not be in the past and future?
Thanks.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, you are correct on all counts there; as is true of most of our rules, the language is used to express the speaker’s viewpoint. It is naturally subjective, so while the present simple is used to express a rule or truth, that is only according to the speaker. Likewise, it is not restricted by time – though the present simple can express timeless rules, and without additional context suggests a timeless truth, there’s nothing stopping it from changing over time. To say “I don’t like mushrooms.” implies you never did/will, but it does not securely confirm it. Though extra detail could easily add that information: “I don’t like mushrooms anymore.”
And, to get a little philosophical, I suppose the very nature of the verb ‘to be’ implies something temporary; for a state to exist, it must be possible that is also might not exist. So if we say, for example, “I am happy.” it comes with the implication that at some time, past or future, I must also be capable of not being happy, for the statement to have any meaning, as defining something other than a default state. But that’s getting a little existential!
Hi Phil,
I believe I’ve asked something similar in another article, but would greatly appreciate if you can advise on the following which would help me a lot. It’s about the word “happen” and its meaning.
Firstly, to start off, the definitions given for the word “happen” in most dictionaries are “occur” or “take place”. if I were to talk about the past and say that something (maybe an action or event etc) happened or something has happened, the meaning here is that this thing started and ended in the past. Of if I were to say that something will happen, it means that this thing will start and end in the future. Thus far, am I right?
Secondly, if I were to say that something (action or event) is happening right now, it means that this thing probably started just a short while ago, and is still unfolding or being play out right at this moment, but has not ended, correct?
Thirdly, is is right then to say that when using the word “happen” to talk about the past (i.e. happened), or to talk about the future (i.e. will happen), in either case, the meaning of the word “happen” or “occur/take place” automatically encompass both the start and finish of whatever it is we are talking about, and not just the start, correct?
Lastly, If I say that something happened two weeks ago, this by default means that this thing started and ended last week, since “last week” can represent a duration of time (which would tie in nicely with the fact that this thing started at a certain time and ended at a certain time), correct? But If I were to use “happened” with an expression which refer to a specific point or instance of time, such as “at 10pm” or “two weeks ago”, so for example I can say “something happened at 10pm last night”, does this mean that whatever this thing is (whether an action or event) started and ended exactly at 10pm last night? or does it simply mean that this thing started at 10pm (i.e, “happened” simply encompass the meaning of “start”, but does not include the meaning of end”)?
Thanks so much for your advice, and apologies for asking a similar topic to what I’ve asked previously, it’s just that whenever I try converting this word into my native tongue, the meaning gets a little different hence it’s been a source of confusion for me.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes I would say you’re right on the first three points – though when something is ‘happening’ it doesn’t necessarily mean it started recently, it could have been happening for a long time, but for the most part it will likely be a recent occurrence.
On the final point, yes you’re correct, the time essentially indicates the start and finish of the event, and it should really include the idea of it ending, not just starting. So you’re less likely to see longer events labelled as happening at a specific point without some kind of qualifier (e.g. “it happened around 10pm”) – say for example someone gave a talk that started at 10pm, it would sound less accurate to say the talk happened at 10pm than that it started at 10pm. (Though I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, certainly some people may use it to merely indicate a starting point, I’d just advise that’s not clearest way to use the word.)
Phil
Hi Phil, “it will likely be a recent occurrence”, with occurrence referring to the ongoing event as a whole, to mean it is likely to have only started a short while back?
But of course, unlike with the past (i.e. happened) which by default refers to something that started and ended in the past, or the future (i.e. will happen) which by default refers to something which will start and end in the future, something that is happening now probably (though not necessarily) started a short while ago?
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka, sorry for the slow response, I’ve been a little under the weather!
Yes, that’s right. It of course depends a lot on context, there are certainly exceptions, but for the most part I would say that’s true. (And a “short while” itself is relative, naturally; you might for example talk about much broader events such as “the world is warming up” or “political boundaries are shifting” and these could be things that have been happening for decades, but relative to the history of the Earth or nation histories we might still consider it recent!)
Phil