From the blog

Main Clause Subordinate Clause Tense Agreement

A few days ago, I asked whether a current current of tension in an ancillary clause could be followed by a tension passed in the main sentence. An experienced grammar (Andrew Leach) says yes, it is possible to have a current tension in a secondary clause and a form of past in a main sentence. The perfect infinitive is used for an event or situation before the time of the main verb: with the current tension necessity replaced by the former senson-t, because the main adverb (said) is tense in the past. You will find other examples using forms of English verbs. Indirect language. In Russian object clauses, we can use all the tensions that properly convey the meaning, that is, the present, the future or the past. However, it is necessary to use any of the times spent in English object clauses if the verb in the main sentence is in the past. Despite the use of the subjunctive, verbal tensions follow rules similar to those of indicative mood. This subsidiary clause is replaced by this subjunctive; Similarly, the current parfait is replaced by its correlative form, that of the past subjunctive and the perfect past tension with the perfect past subjunctive. ESL students often have difficulty using periods correctly in subordinate clauses.

I hope this lesson will help you understand the fundamental rules of the chain of tensions. The following sentences show the right balance between the tensions between the clauses. As the Greek times express the aspect of the verb more than time, we do not have the “Consecutio Temporum” but the “Consecutio Modorum”, the sequence of moods. Note that present times are often used to refer to the future in clauses introduced by conjunctions such as if, when, as, while, before and after. It will be easier to understand the rules of the chain of tensions when you study how the direct language is converted to the related language. (See sequence of tensions in the speech reported in the grammar section.) There should be no comma that separates the restrictive covenant, which uses many special effects, from the main clause that I like to watch movies, because it is essential to the importance of the sentence. In the annex clause, we generally use a form of present to refer to the future. Note that this is only possible if the verb is in the main sentence in the future. Well, even in sentences where we can use the simple present to express a general property of the subject`s habit, it is very common to still use the past, in line with the main clause. This sometimes raises the question (here and on ELL) whether it should not be the present if the well described still exists at the time of media coverage: the constant clauses do not always follow the rule: what happens if I can find my wallet? If a clause in your sentence leaves us so, if it is separated from itself, it is a secondary clause. If the ancillary clause is in a current continuous tension, while the main clause is indefinite in the present, it means that the two actions are simultaneous.

If the secondary clause is in the current total tension, while the main clause is indefinite in the current period, it means that the action described in the annex clause took place indefinitely before that of the main clause. If the ancillary clause is indefinite in the future, while the main clause is currently indeterminate, it means that the action described in the subsidiary clause will take place after the action of the policy clause. If, in the past, the ancillary clause is indefinitely stretched, while the policy clause is currently indeterminate, it means that the action described in the subsidiary clause took place before the action of the policy clause. Unlike English, if the sentence is an indirect statement (which uses the accusative and infinite construction in Latin), the sequence of the tension rule does not apply in Latin, and the tension of the infinitive remains unchanged, regardless of the tension of the main verb.