Все 25 уроков английского в одном видео, без 12 времён, но с ними

So, in order to know English, we need to be able to describe four types of situations. The first is the description of an action. The second is the description of an object, the third is the description of an experience or the result of an action. And the fourth is duration. Description of an action. He works on a non-cash basis. Description of an object, this is my workspace. This is an office for four people. Description of an experience or the result of an action. We developed this project and description of the duration of the action. We have been working on this project for 2 weeks. Actions or objects can be different, but there are only four situations. And for each of these four situations, we must be able to construct an affirmative statement, a negation, and a question for the past, present, and future. This is what our lessons will be about. After that, we cover modal verbs. It's easy. They work the same way as Russian ones. I can, I must, I should, and so on. And that's it, you've mastered English. English is one of the easiest languages. So, four types of situations, three tenses: past, present, future. 3 times 4, that makes 12. 12 tenses of the English language. How do they usually do it? Well, like today we're covering Present Simple, in a week Past Simple, in another week Future Simple. It's like if I came to learn to play the guitar, and they told me: "Today we're covering the first string, in a week the second string, and so on." But you can study like this for 10 years and learn nothing. Well, or learn something, but it won't be the teacher's merit, it will be the merit of your own persistence. This person studied for 10 years while the teacher was essentially putting obstacles in his way. That's why it turns out that a very easy language is taught in school for 10 years and they can't teach it. Dmitry Petrov said that your teacher should teach you to speak English within a year. I will even strengthen this statement. If a teacher doesn't teach you in a year, then they will never teach you. Perhaps you will learn yourself, using such a teacher as a weak support, but it will no longer be the teacher's merit. Will you be able to learn English thanks to my course? Yes, you will, if you really study, and not like this. Started, quit, then started again. And then it's forgotten, you have to start over, and so on. So keep in mind, it requires discipline, it's a challenge. For a year, 5 days a week, you will need to dedicate half an hour to it. This includes watching series and YouTube in English, but not in the way you watch videos for fun. It requires concentration. And how to work correctly with video materials, I will explain at the end of the course in the lesson on expanding vocabulary without rote memorization. First, we understand the logic of the language, its structure, and then we build on that with the "meat," the vocabulary. All those students who came to me, saying, "I know English, I generally understand how it works, but I just need to build up my vocabulary." It was never like that. There were always some gaps in logic. I would ask questions like: "Tell me, how do you say in English? I should have done it differently." or do you want me to do something else? Very simple words. It's not something from the category of "from the point of view of banal erudition," and so on. If you know English, you should be able to say it. If this course is so good, why am I posting it completely for free? Well, you know, I would sell it if I knew how. Suppose you are going to buy a car. You go to a car dealership, you can look at it, sit in it, drive it. But it turns out that you are selling the course "in the dark" because it really works, believe me, bro. I've watched these paid courses, not all of them, but some. And none of them even come close to Dragunkin's course, which is freely available on the channel "Real Dragunkin." And the production, and the filming are pathetic for all of them. They don't invest any money or intellect there at all. And by the way, this applies not only to English courses. I often work with IT professionals. I've asked all of them if these paid IT courses, like Skillbox, Skypro, and so on, work. So, they don't work so much that for many employers, a certificate of completion of such courses is a red flag. This is the second version of the course. If you have watched the first version of the course, you will not find anything new here. In terms of content, the content is the same. The first version turned out great in this regard. The only difference is in the picture quality, how the subtitles are organized, and so on. There are a lot of comments on the first version of the course like: "Maestro, you are a teacher from God." With these "maestros from God," it's better to go to Ponosenku's channel. He loves it when people flatter him, but I prefer money. So let's consider the course to be paid. Watch it, send me money. Well, and if you are not of noble birth, give likes, leave comments. This helps with promotion. But keep in mind that we tend not to appreciate what we get for free. Therefore, if you don't send donations, there is a high probability that you will never learn English. You will remain an eternal student, and that is sad. And if you send donations, you will know English. Luck will always be with you, and perhaps you will even feel the power of the earth. And most importantly, where did these hairs come from and who is this snuffling here? Here she is. Here she is. >> The first thing we need to understand in language is how the verb works. We understand how the verb works. We understand how the language works. How many tenses are there in English? Naturally, three. These are past, present, and future. And to begin with, we need to learn to describe actions for the past, present, and future. Let's start with the present. "I play" will be "I play." "I play the stock markets." Why do we need "the," we'll talk about next time. For now, let's learn to form negations. "I do not play." "Do" itself translates as "to do," but here it doesn't translate at all. You might ask, why is this "do" needed at all? Wouldn't it be understandable if I said "I not play"? Good question. And, by the way, about questions. To form a question, mere intonation is not enough in English. You need to bring "do" forward, and we get "Do I play?" "Do I play?" We change "do" to "did." And we get the same question for the past. "Did I play?" "Did I play?" We do the same with negation. We change "do not" to "did not." And we get the negation for the past. It is precisely by changing to "did" that we can distinguish negation in the present tense from negation in the past tense. "I did not play." "I did not play." In the affirmative "I play," we don't have an auxiliary verb that we can change to the past form, but we can fix this and say "I do play." Do they say that? Yes, they do, when they want to emphasize their thought. "I do play the stock market." Like, I really play the stock market. The sentence "I do play the stock market" approximately translates as "I really play the stock market." This is a literary translation, because for the word "really" they have the word "indeed," which clearly translates as "really" or "in fact." "I play the stock market indeed." "I play the stock market indeed." In terms of emotional and semantic message, the sentences "I do play the stock market" and "I play the stock market indeed" are completely equivalent. It's just that in the sentence "I do play the stock market," "do" is not translated; it carries an auxiliary function and allows for emphasis. It's like putting an accent mark over the entire sentence. In Russian, particles "же" or "да" take on a similar role. "Я же играю на рынке ценных бумаг" (I do play the stock market) or "Да я играю на рынке ценных бумаг" (Yes, I play the stock market). And these particles cannot be translated into a foreign language. This is called emphatic particles, from the Greek "emphatikos" meaning expressive. And sentences that have such particles are called emphatic, intensified. In Russian, the presence of such particles in this sentence would convey the speaker's irritation. Even if we just read it and don't hear the intonation. In English, "I do play the stock markets" does not imply any irritation in itself. And as I said, in terms of emotional message, it is completely equivalent to "I play the stock market indeed." We change "do" to "did." And we get "I did play the stock market." An emphatic affirmation for the past, like "I really played the stock market." What if we want to say it normally, without any emphasis? Then "did" moves to the end of the verb and turns into an ending. "I played the stock market." In the future, it's simple, we add "will" everywhere. "I will play." "I will play." "I will not play." "I will not play." And for a question, we bring "will" forward and get "Will I play?" "Will I play?" We can replace the pronoun "I" with the pronoun "you," "we," "they." Well, of course, we can replace pronouns with other subject designations. "Traders play the stock market," and so on. If we use the pronoun "he," "she," or "it," then we add the ending "s" to the verb in the present tense. "He plays the stock market." Why? Wouldn't it be clear if we said "He play the stock market"? Of course, it would be clear, and no one would pay attention. It's like saying in Russian: "одеть" instead of "надеть" (to dress someone vs. to put on oneself) or "звонит" instead of "звонит" (different pronunciations of the same word). "He plays." This is a normal affirmation. An emphatic affirmation would sound like "he does play." The "s" goes to the auxiliary verb because it has more gravity. The negation would be "he does not play" or "he doesn't." And for a question, we bring "does" forward. And we get "Does he play?" The same will be with "she," the same will be with "it," which is the singular for objects or animals if their gender is not important to us. If a biologist is describing the mating behavior of animals, they will use "he" or "she." And we will also call our pets "he" or "she." Let's repeat all this with the verb "work." "Work." "I work every day." In British English, the "r" in "work" will not be pronounced. If we take a verb and add "er" to it, we get the person who does it. "Work" - to work. "Worker" - a worker. "Play" - to play. "Player" - a player. In British English, "er" is pronounced only when it is followed by a vowel, as in "every" or in the word "worker," otherwise it's impossible to say, it's just a hum. In American English, it's pronounced almost always "worker." More on this in the video about Accent. Watch it so you don't wonder why I sometimes say "real" instead of "real." And there is a lot more useful information there, even if you are a specialist. "She works every day." "She works every day." We add the ending "s" to the verb. Negation "I do not" or "I don't." "I don't work every day" or "she doesn't work every day." We start the question with the auxiliary verb. "Do I work every day?" "Does she work every day?" And in the future, "she will work tomorrow." Affirmative, negation "she will not work tomorrow." And question "Will she work tomorrow?" In the future, all pronouns work the same way. You don't need to add "s" anywhere. All these games with "s" are only in the present tense. The affirmative statement "She worked yesterday" will sound like "She worked yesterday." The same for "I," the same for all other pronouns. Negation "She didn't work yesterday" and question "Did she work yesterday?" Let's pay attention to the affirmative "worked." This "ed," which is written like the Russian "е," is pronounced. "Learn" will be "learn," "learned" will be "learned." "Help" - to help. "Helped" - helped. "Use" - to use. "Used" - used. That is, the "e" in the ending is not pronounced, but it is pronounced when the verb ends in "t" or "d," otherwise it's impossible to say. "Want" - to want. "Wanted" - wanted. "Need" - to need. "Needed" - needed. As a result, we get such a table. It is called Petrov's table, because it was Dmitry Petrov who came up with systematizing not by twelve tenses, but by three auxiliary verbs. And today we covered the first one. Three rows are past, present, future. Three columns are question, affirmation, negation. Instead of "work," we put any other verb, run it through all the cells, and thus not only memorize the verb but also eliminate unnecessary pauses and lags in your communication. The first lesson is finished. Now, an elective. Let's recall the beginning of the video. You might ask, why is this "do" needed at all? Wouldn't it be understandable if I said "I not play"? Let's imagine that we are given the opportunity to improve the English language and make it even better and easier, although it is already one of the easiest, but nevertheless. Are there options? Yes, there are. Let's take a look. In the present, we will have "I play," "I not play." And for a question, we will bring "play" forward, so as not to rely solely on intonation to form a question. Because relying on intonation to change the meaning of a sentence is still an archaic feature of the language. The past would be "I played," "I not played," and "played I." Well, and in the future, they already have everything fine. "I will play," "I will not play," and "Will I play?" And indeed, in Old English, there was no auxiliary verb. There was a semantic one, as now. "They do their job well." Okay, understood. In Old English, "I do not play" would sound like "Ic ne playe" or "Ic ne playeth," depending on the accent; they didn't speak the same way there either. But the Welsh are guys from the southwest of Great Britain, like: "Well, there wasn't, but now there is." And everyone else, the Angles, the Britons, and others, like: "Cool, 'do'." And it went viral. Thus, "do" began to be used in negations and questions. It became widespread in Early Modern English. And in Shakespeare, we can find both old forms like "I know not" and new ones like "I do not know." Let's recall another point from the lesson. If we use the pronoun "he," "she," or "it," then we add the ending "s" to the verb in the present tense. "He plays the stock markets." Why? Wouldn't it be clear if we said "He play the stock markets"? Look, in Russian, different pronouns affect verbs in their own way. "Я играю" (I play), "вы играете" (you play), "они играют" (they play). And in Old English, it was the same. Different pronouns affected the verb in their own way. "I play" sounded like "Ic playe." "We play" sounded like "We playeth," and "He plays" sounded like "He playeth." The influence of person on the verb is a completely normal thing. It is still the case in German, Tatar, and many other languages. In Russian, if we have "he," "she," or "it," we add "ет." "Он играет" (He plays). "Она играет" (She plays). "Оно играет" (It plays). In Old English, "he plays" was "playth." "She plays" was "playth." And "it plays" was "hit playth." And over time, "th" changed to "s," and then just to "s." In Modern English, "I," "we," "you," "they" no longer affect the verb form. And thank goodness, it's easier for us. But the pronouns "he," "she," "it" still affect it in the present tense. This similarity between "playth" and "he plays" is rather an exception. If we can still more or less understand ancient Russian, where it's a bit of a mess, then a modern Englishman would hardly understand Old English. Let's compare the same text in Modern English and in Old English. These are the words of the Lord's Prayer. "Our father, our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever and ever. Amen." "Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum; wēorþe þīn nama gehālgod. Tōbecume þīn rīce; gewurþe þīn willa on eorþan swā swā on heofonum. Ūre dæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ. And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forgyfað ūrum gyltendum. And ne gelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac alys ūs fram yfele." And so on, and so on, beautiful in its own way, right? Let's figure out what an irregular verb is using the example of the Russian language. "Вижу" (I see), "видел" (I saw), "говорю" (I speak), "говорил" (I spoke), "иду" (I go), suddenly "шёл" (I went). The word "иду" is similar to "шёл" because they have the same number of letters, but the words are of different roots. "Ити" is an irregular verb in Russian. In English, "I go" is "I go." "I went" is "I went." "Go" is an irregular verb in English. "Go" and "went" are very different. This is unusual even for irregular verbs. As a rule, the first and second forms of verbs are very similar, regardless of whether the verb is regular or irregular. For example, "I set" (I install) is "I set." "I installed" is "I set." How to understand? Only through context in this case. "I set the lighting equipment yesterday." By the way, we can say "I did set." The sentence will be emphatic, but if we say it with normal intonation, it will be perceived normally. "I did set my alarm clock for 6 am. But I overslept." "Sleep." An irregular verb. "Sleep" - to sleep. "Oversleep" - to oversleep. "Overslept" - overslept. We talked about two forms of the verb, but you've heard about three forms of the verb. So, the third form of the verb is not a verb; it is a word that answers the question "what kind?" Let's take a regular verb first. "Use" - to use. The second form will be "used." Used. The third form will also be "used." This is not a verb; it is a word that answers the question "what kind?" And we have two options. The first is active, "using," and the second is passive, "used." So, for the third form, we choose only the passive, "used." "Sell" - to sell. "Sold" - sold. "Sold" - sold. "Kill" - to kill. "Killed" - killed. "Killed" - killed. "John sells used cars." "John" is "he," so we add "s" to "sell." "John sells used cars." John sells used cars. "John sold a couple of used cars last week." For most irregular verbs, the second and third forms coincide, just like with regular verbs. And don't get bogged down, as I already said, if you forget the second form, you can get by with an emphatic sentence. Forgot that the second form of "see" is "saw," so you said "I did see it." Forgot that the second form of "go" is "went," so you said "I did go." Well, and to completely calm down about irregular verbs, look at the lead singer of the band Metallica, James Hetfield, where he got bogged down with the verb "to write." We have many sentences where one verb governs another. For example, "I want to speak English fluently." What am I doing? "Want." What to do? "Speak." We won't say: "I want, speak." Because that would be a list of homogeneous sentence members, and that is also sometimes needed. For example, every morning I walk the dog, have breakfast, and go to work. "Every morning" is a time category. We can put the time category at the beginning or at the end. Affirmative or negative sentences do not have questions. Questions are only at the end. "Every morning I walk my dog" or "I walk my dog every morning." "Do you walk your dog every morning?" "Do you walk your dog every morning?" Now let's return to the sentence. "I want to speak English fluently." To connect the verbs "want" and "speak," we put the particle "to" between them. Not "to," but "to." "I want to speak English fluently." "To speak" is an infinitive. I try to avoid terminology as much as possible, but here we need to remember what it is, because it helps us understand the logic of the language. An infinitive in English is the same as an infinitive in Russian, that is, a verb without tense and person. What does this mean? So, "I want to speak," "she wanted to speak," and "they will want to speak." Let's remove the first and last words, and we get "want," "wanted," "will want." From these verbs, we can understand who and when. "Want." Here it can only be "I" and it's only the present tense. "Wanted," we understand that it's a woman and it's definitely the past. "Will want." We understand that it's a group of people, and the judgment is about the future. That is, these verbs have both tense and person. Now let's remove the first two words, and we get "to speak," "to speak," "to speak." It's unclear who, unclear when. This is the infinitive from the Latin "infinitivus" meaning indefinite. In Russian, we get the infinitive through the suffixes "-ть." "-чь" with a soft sign, "-ти" with a soft sign, and "-ти" - "говорить" (to speak), "беречь" (to protect). The Russian language is complex, English is much simpler. We just put the particle "to" before the verb. And we get the infinitive. "To go," "to speak," "to save." "We need to go." "We need to go." "I want to speak English fluently." We know this. "We have to save money." They need to save money. If after "have" there is a noun or some object, then we translate "have" as "to possess." If after "have" there is an infinitive, then we translate "have" as "must." "They have to save money." They have to save money. For native speakers, it's the same "have." "I have to go." "I have to go." Well, like, I have it in my plans. The logic is like this. If "he must go," then "he has to go." It used to be "he haves to go," but over time it got worn down and turned into "has." Let's look at different examples and sentences with verbs and we will better understand how they are structured. Let's start with something useful and frequently used. "I have to speak on the phone." "To speak on the phone" is "speak on the phone." Memorize it as a whole. "I have to." If after "have" there is an infinitive, then we translate "have" as "must." "I have to speak on the phone." "Who do you have to speak on the phone with?" "With whom? With what?" This is the instrumental case. In English, there are no cases, thank goodness, for about 800 years. Therefore, we cannot start a question with "who with," because questions start either with a question word or with an auxiliary verb, in this case, with a question word. Therefore, first of all, we have "who," then we have "do," because we need to understand that it is the present tense. Then we have the subject "you," then the verb "have," then "to speak on the phone," and only then do we have the preposition "with," because all other places are already taken. And we get "Who do you have to speak on the phone with?" "Who do you have to speak on the phone with?" "What do you want to speak about?" "About whom, about what?" This is again a case, the prepositional case in this case, which does not exist in English, so it's just "what?" "What?" And then in the familiar order. "What do you want to speak about?" "What do you want to speak about?" "Want to" is often shortened to "wanna." It originated in the black neighborhoods of America, spread throughout America. And now in Great Britain, they also say: "What do you wanna speak about? What you wanna speak about?" "We decided not to cooperate with them." "We decided not to cooperate with them." "Not to cooperate," just like in Russian, is an infinitive in English. Therefore, this phrase has no tense. Not cooperating yesterday, not cooperating now, not cooperating tomorrow. Always "not to cooperate." And we decided in the past. "We decided not to cooperate with them." "Do you remember how she looks?" "Do you remember?" It's simple. It's a normal question. "Do you remember?" "How she looks?" This is not a question. We are asking if you remember or not. We are not asking how she looks. "Do you remember how she looks?" "She looks good." "I want her to give me what I want, a Ferrari." This construction, "I want her to," does not exist in English, so it will simply be "I want her." If we put a period here, we will have a spicy sentence: "I want her." But if we put an infinitive after it, it will turn from spicy into a normal, as it should be. "I want her to give me a red Ferrari." "I want her to give me a red Ferrari." "I need my assistant to prepare the documents." The same story. "I want her to," "I need my assistant to." So, let's follow the same pattern. "I need my assistant." "I hope he will understand what I told him." "I hope" - present. "I hope." "He will understand" - future. "What I told him" - past? "What I told him?" "I hope he will understand what I told him." "He will" is shortened to "he'll." "T him" is removed. It becomes "told him." "I hope he understands what I told him." If you want to bring back the word "that" for connection, "I hope that he will understand." So, for connection, they don't use the word "what," they use the word "that." The word "that" has two translations. The first translation is "that." The second translation is "so." "I like that." "I like that." Uh-huh.

So. And what? So, we get, they speak like Odessa Jews. I hope that he will understand. I hope that he understand. What did I tell him here? That we don't have for binding? What is the subject here? What? That is, behind this, some idea, some information that I conveyed to him is hidden. Therefore, I hope that he will understand what I told him. I hope that he understand what I told him. The freight forwarder reports that they encountered some delays last quarter, but they expect to meet all deadlines next month. Man a new ventilation because oldes properly anymore. So, we've dealt with verbs. Now let's deal with everything else, that is, with all other parts of speech. For example, this. And after that, any word at all. This is a flower, this is here, this is interesting, this is different. Or it might not be a word at all, but some symbol. This is five. Or it's a heart drawn next to it. The third form will finally come in handy here. It is done. It is done or ready? He is killed, killed. In most cases, the second and third forms coincide, but this is never confusing, because the third form cannot be in the first table. Okay. In English, it will be okay. This came from the 19th century. It's an abbreviation of all correct. Everything is correct. Like modern ll. Only the abbreviation is not literal, because all correct is written through AC, and the abbreviation is phonetic. Is is an auxiliary verb, translated as is. We add the particle not. We get it is not okay. Negation or it isn't okay. You can say it's not okay. We bring is forward. And we get the question: is it okay? We replace is with was. And we get the same for the past. It was okay, it was not. OK or it wasn't okay. And wasn't it okay? We replace is with will be. And we get everything for the future. It will be okay. It will not be okay. And it be okay. That is, in the question, not will be is brought forward, but only will. Instead of it, we can have he or she, or those who are hidden behind it. Sasha is okay. Sasha is okay. Her health is okay. Health is okay. If we have a plural, then instead of is it will be are. We are okay. We are okay. We are not okay. Negation and question. Are we okay? We change are to were. We get the same for the past. We were okay. We were not. and we okay. The future is the same for all persons. We will be okay. We will not be okay. And we be okay. Instead of we, it can be they or you. I is different in the present. I am okay. I am not okay. And I okay. For the past, it will work like the singular. I was okay. I was not okay. And was I okay? And in the future, everything is the same. I will be okay. I will not be okay. And I be okay. We get this second table. All these yellow words are the auxiliary verb B. Just B is a more irregular verb than a regular irregular verb. Its form depends not only on the tense, but also on the person. In this second table, there is no action, only a description of the situation, and we describe anything in any way. Let's consider an example. The market situation is favorable for investments. The market situation is favorable for investments. Statement negation the market situation isn't favorable for investments. And we bring the question forward. And we get is the market situation favorable for investments? We replace is with was. We get everything for the past. We replace is with will be. We get everything for the future. The market situation was favorable for investments. The market situation wasn'table for investments. Was the market situation favorable for investments? The market situation will be favorable for investments. The market situation be favorable for investments. And the question situation bevorable for investments. Now let's analyze the plural. The papers are signed. To sign will be sign, a regular verb. Signed was signing and signed is signed. The papers are signed. The papers are not signed. And are the papers signed? Was clearly translates as was in the singular. Plural clearly translates as were. The papers were signed. The papers were not. And the question and for the future the papers will be signed. The papers won be signed. And the question will the papers be signed? And about myself. I at the office now. I am at the office now. I not at the office. Negation. And Am I at the office? We ask ourselves after the corporate party. For the past, we replace M with was, I was at the office, I wasn't at the office and was I at the office. And for the future, we replace with will. I will be at the office. I want be at the office will I be at the office. At the beginning of the lesson, I said that there can be no verbs here, but the infinitive can be. If you haven't watched the video about the infinitive, watch it. I don't have any unnecessary lessons here. Remember the gum Love is Love is to give her the last of pizza. Love is to give her the last piece of pizza. The lesson is over. Now facultative translates as you or you, but initially it is you, and initially it is an address to a group of people. Therefore, it works like a plural. You are here or you are here will be you are here works the same as we are here. And you were. And in Shakespeare, you can also find. says art. Thou art as wise as thou art good. Titan spoke of the basis. For you, be had its own form, it sounded like. You are okay, it would be like. This is still used today, for example, in church services. Remember, in the first lesson, we compared Old English and modern English. And when the prayer was read in modern English, it began like: Our father who in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Yours, yours sounded like. In one of my favorite songs by Metallica, there is a line so the unforgiven. I name you unforgiven. Let's look at the table again. Why all these complexities? In the future, we have one option for everyone. Why two in the past, and three in the present? Wouldn't one was for the past and is for the present be enough? Of course, it would be enough and it would be simpler, but it happened historically. The oldest is bee, so it is quite fair that it is the main form. We got this word from proto-Indo-European tribes, and it sounded like bukh. Then, among the Germanic tribes, it changed to bion, and among the Slavic tribes, to biti. Proto-Indo-European tribes lived in the Caspian steppe, and they themselves originated from Northern European mammoth hunters. M came from the word aom, and this, in turn, is a form of bion. They also had different verb forms that depended on the tense, on the person, declined by cases, and so on. English also used to decline by cases. Not anymore. And thank God, we got words like guest, guest from them. It sounded like gosti. Gost was the singular. Hero meant devoted. Hereus, Hiro. War sounded like qwoine and meant revenge or punishment. The totem animal was, apparently, the bear. Based on what? Based on the frequency of mention. It sounded like ber and meant the color brown. Brown and bur are the same. And all sorts of ancient words like night or mouse in Indo-European languages are not coincidentally similar. The fact that we are in the same language family gives us an advantage. Because of this, it is much easier for us to learn Indo-European languages. If you don't think so, try learning Chinese, which is from the Sino-Tibetan language family, or Arabic, which is from the Afro-Asiatic language family. The past form came to us from tribes that lived in the forests in the territory of modern Germany, but not from those from which we got Bion and Aom. It sounded like vizana and meant the same thing: to be, to exist. Vizana, in turn, was divided into vez and vere. And used only in church services, came to us from the Angles. At least something came from them. And it originated from the word e: to rise, to grow. The word is also in modern English and means to be born, to arise, to appear. And then the Romans came. They are also descendants of Indo-European tribes who first descended to the Mediterranean Sea, passed through the Semites, Phoenicians there, got veel up and then went through all of Europe up oklo through and all the tribes, and the Germans, and the Angles, and the Slavs all began to speak is. Iste ye is, or rather iste was not even a word initially, but a suffix. A person who believes or follows what this suffix belongs to: atheist, monarchist, idealist, and so on. Well, all this remained, because, well, why throw it away, it's a pity. For each of these forms of the verb bi, our grandfathers fought. What happens if you attach an ing ending to a word? Correct, you get a word with an ing ending. The ing ending means a dynamic state of the system. Something is moving or stirring. It is called continuous from the Latin continuum, meaning continuity, or progressive from the Latin progressus, meaning moving forward. Look. I speak English. The first table is a statement. I speak English. This means in the sense of being able to. I am speaking English. The second table serves us for description. I am speaking English. I am describing my state. At the moment, I am speaking English. Speaking, this is no longer a verb, neither in Russian nor in English. And since it's not a verb, it goes into the second table. She is walking her dog. She is walking her dog right now, in the process. I drive a car. I drive a car, I have a license. I driving a car. I am behind the wheel. I am behind the wheel, I'll call you back later. What do you do? What do you do for a living? What are you doing there? What are you doing there? Get away from the corpse. What are you doing there? Get away from the corpse. I read. I am literate. I'm reading a book. I'm reading a book right now. Reading Alice in the Wonderland. I am reading Alice in Wonderland. Not necessarily right now, but it's a temporary action. I started recently, I'll finish relatively soon. And by the way, progressive differs from continuous precisely in this. Progressive is what is happening right now at this very moment. Continuous is not necessarily at this very moment, but a temporary action that started recently and will end soon. I'm working with this team. I am working with this team, a one-time thing for some project. I work. with this team. I work with this team constantly. We are colleagues, we work together all the time. I can say: I was reading Alice in the Wonderland yesterday. I was reading Alice in Wonderland yesterday. If I want to make it clear that I haven't finished reading it. Can I say I read Alice in the Wonderland yesterday? Yes, if I haven't finished reading it? Yes, not necessarily. So what to choose? I was reading Alice the Wonderland yesterday or I read Alice in the Wonderland yesterday. It doesn't matter, both are fine. If you are simply listing past events, then only use the first table in the past. Yesterday I read a book, I walked the dog. Such a busy day it was yesterday. Yesterday I read a book, I walked my dog. That was that intense. Also, through continuous, we can emphasize the duration of an action for the past or for the future. Yesterday I was reading a book for two hours or tomorrow I will be reading a book for two hours. This is how we talk about duration. This is how I was taught in school. Can I say I read a book for two hours yesterday? Yes. Will it sound grammatically correct? Yes, it will sound natural and grammatically correct. And native speakers will mostly say it like this: "I slept only five hours yesterday." Native speakers will say it like this: "It will be beautiful, grammatically correct. The ing ending will not be a mistake here. I was sleeping, but it will be redundant, unnecessary." But where we definitely need the ing ending and we can't do without it is for describing events in the past that overlap. When I was talking to the client, my colleague came into my office. When I was speaking with a client, my colleague came into my office. There was a process. During this, something happened. I was in the process of talking. At that time, a colleague came in. I saw an accident while walking my dog. Seeing is not a process. It's an event, it happened and happened, it hit the retina. That's it. But walking the dog is a process. And this is an overlapping event in the past. While walking the dog, I saw an accident. When I was walking my dog, I saw a car crash. I was listening to music when someone knocked on the door. I was in a musical process. At that time, an event occurred. Okay. Now, consider this option. I was listening to music when somebody was banging on my door. This will show parallel processes in the past. I was listening to music while someone was banging on my door. And if we say: "I listened to music when somebody knocked on my door." This is not possible. Why? Because this is not Vietnam. There is a rule here. When else will we definitely need the ing ending in the past? When we describe actions at a specific moment in time, for example, a detective asks: "What were you doing yesterday at 5:00 PM? What were you doing yesterday at 5 pm?" I was surfing the internet. I was surfing the internet. The same applies to the future. Tomorrow at 5:00, I will be driving. I will be driving tomorrow at 5. Keep in mind that the ing ending is not attached to all verbs. They don't say I am wanting, they say I want. They don't say I am needing, they say I need. I will attach a list of stative verbs below. They are called stative verbs. You don't need to learn them by heart. You can just look at them to satisfy your curiosity. And when you have enough exposure to the English language, you simply won't be able to say I am agreeing. You will say: "I agree." Are there any other subtleties about the word with the ing ending? Yes, there are. Will we talk about it now? Of course not. First, we need to fix what is used in 90% of cases, and then deal with all sorts of details, otherwise everything will get mixed up in your head and the information will not be absorbed, not consolidated. What we have worked through now is needed in the vast majority of cases for you to be understandable and grammatically correct. Whenever pronouns are studied, a table with pronouns is given, like, here, learn them. This is not the best idea, because if you learn pronouns this way, they will get confused. It is much better to learn pronouns in sentences. The structure of an English sentence is subject, then action, then object, then where, then when, if necessary. Subject pronouns. I, you, he, she, we know them, we have them in the tables. Now it's time to learn object pronouns. We follow the scheme. I then the action will meet then the object you. Where? At the airport. When? Tomorrow. I will meet you at the airport tomorrow. You is one of the two pronouns that is the same in both subject and object form. It is the second pronoun that is the same in both subject and object form. You see it. You see it. It sees you. It sees you. And even if you don't see it. And even if you don't see it, it does see you. It does see you. It's right behind your back. It's right behind your back. Do you feel breath on the back of your head? Do you feel its breath on the back of your head? Cool, right, that they don't have the word for the back of the head. Back of your head. And note that now we are studying not only pronouns, but also various words and phrases. To remember one word or one short phrase, we need one memory cell. And thus, we use it as effectively as possible. It's worth it. It's worth it. Worth is not a verb in English, so we use it according to the second table, like it is worth something. Next. Do you hear me? Do you hear me? What else do you have for me? What else do you have for me? agent. She helped him find a good real estate agent. Wednesday. He talked to her about the best options on Wednesday. Wednesday offer for us. They have a good offer for us. We will meet them at the airport on Friday. We will meet them at the airport on Friday. And by the way, days of the week should also be learned in this way. in sentences and in variety. Don't learn them in order, as is usually the case, otherwise it will be like Friday, right? Well, damn it. Let's go. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I asked him to check the flight schedule for Sunday. I asked her to check the flight schedule for Sunday. I found them. I found their keys or kittens that had scattered. We have covered object pronouns. Now let's cover possessive pronouns my, your, etc. I bought a present for my little sister on Tuesday. I bought a present for my little sister on Tuesday. The one who drove the policeman to hysterics. This is my sister. What is your favorite wine? Your preferences are very refined. He asked his friend for advice. Most of his projects are really successful. Most of his projects are really successful. Her skills are quite impressive. Her skills are quite impressive. Wash her and bring her to me. Offer is better. Our offer is better. They don't meet their deadline. They don't meet their deadline. Meet generally means to meet. But here we will say: They don't meet. deadline. The company has a stock on its own territory. On its own territory. In English, there are no genders: masculine, feminine, neuter. And thank God, it's easier for us. Therefore, the company is it, its it. The title of the book does not match its content. The title of the book doesn't match content. We say in when we talk about premises, about enclosed spaces. In the room, in the room, in the box, in the box. In the building, in the building. In the conference hall, in the assembly hall. When we talk about countries in Japan, in Sweden or about cities in London, in New York, countries have borders, cities also have administrative borders. We say on when we talk about flat surfaces: on the floor, on the wall, on the ceiling, on the table. On the floor, on the wall, on the ceiling, on the table. And even if the area of the surface tends to a point, we still use on. On the end of the needle. On the end of the needle. We use at when we talk primarily not about a physical place, but about the social function of a place. At work. At work is not necessarily indoors. You can be all over the city on a motorcycle. At work, at the airport. This is not a premise or a country. It has a social function at the airport. At the university, the university is not buildings. The party, at the party. The restaurant. A restaurant can be a premise, or it can be a social function. Therefore, you can say at the restaurant, you can say in the restaurant. We sell coffee machines, delivered the order, we call the customer and say: "The coffee machine is in the restaurant." it is physically located there inside. We talk about time by the clock. At 5:30. At midnight, at midnight. At noon, at noon. Exact time. At the moment. At the moment. On. We talk about days. On Sunday, Sunday. One. 21. Now I said it in the American way, generally the numeral is used with the article on the 21st. But it's also possible, as I said, it's fine in any situation, even the most official. On June 21st. In the British way, it is said on the 21st of June. It's longer, so I say it in the American way. On June 21st. It's easier this way. No matter how we call the day, by the day of the week, by the date, or in some other way, it will be on the independence day, on independence day. In weeks of the month, more. In the second week of May, in the second week of May. In April in 2007 in the 21st century. Also, times of day. In the morning, in the daytime, you can say. In the afternoon, but daytime. I like it, it sounds more beautiful. In the evening and at night. Night is an exception. At night. Is this the only exception in the use of prepositions? No, of course not. But it is often used, so I mentioned it. First, we understand the basic rules, the rules that work all the time. But when you can already think in English and perceive it normally, then you need to delve into exceptions, otherwise everything will get mixed up in your head and you will study English forever, like in school. We need to conclude an agreement. What kind? Non-disclosure. We need to make an agreement. What kind? one. Here, instead of the word agreement, to avoid repeating it twice and not sounding like a robot, you can repeat it, say on disclosure agreement or just NDA. This before agreement means one. The word N is translated from Old English as one or one is. And now, if we say a million, it will clearly mean one million. If the word starts with a consonant, then instead of N, we say a, because it's just more convenient. An employee, an employee and a manager. Manager is simply inconvenient to say. Automation increases efficiency. Automation increases efficiency. Here we don't put n anywhere, because neither in Russian nor in English can we say one automation or one efficiency. Whenever we classify something, we use the article A or N. He is an engineer. He is an engineer. He is the father of two children. He is father of children. This is a peripheral device. This is a peripheral device. External hard drive. This peripheral device is an external hard drive. We have the word this here, this or that. And the words this, that, these, those, we can shorten to the. Yes, that's how it's pronounced. The you can say, "Rinat, but I heard the." Here's the rule: if it starts with a vowel, it's pronounced the. If it's a consonant, it's pronounced the. The apple, the pen. But in reality, native speakers say whatever comes to mind, so don't bother yourself. N is the indefinite article. The is the definite article. As if that makes it any easier. Let's try to clarify. The word article comes from the Latin articulus, which in turn is a diminutive or even a diminutive-affectionate from the word artus, which translates as member. So, an article is a small member or a little member. So don't be afraid of articles, it won't hurt. Let's consolidate. We asked Chinese suppliers to issue a refund, as the products did not meet the stated requirements. In response to what, we received a small Chinese dick? Chick. Let's take this example. She received a job offer from a well-known company. The company has a good reputation. She received a job offer from a wellkn company. The company has a great reputation. First, we have 'a' before the company, then we have 'the' before the company. And this is often explained as follows. Like, if we mention something for the first time, we use the indefinite article. If we mention something for the second time, we use the definite article. I call such explanations ritualistic, like everyone knows this and it has been this way since time immemorial. And besides, it's not true. The explanation is incorrect. Here is an example where it doesn't work. A good person tries to be responsible. A good person tries to be fair. If we don't follow rituals, but follow logic, then everything falls into place. A is some one, the is that very one. She received an offer from one well-known company. This company has an excellent reputation. She received a job offer from one well company. or job offer from the company. All these words fall into the category of determiners. In addition to them, possessive pronouns, which we have already considered, are also included here. Possessive from the word to attract, my, your, your, etc. Also included here are the words some, any, every. Before a subject or object, there can be only one determiner. We cannot say my, the woman. We can say the woman or my woman. In that case

Regarding articles, there are many subtleties, many exceptions. For example, the university "University" starts with a vowel. But it will be "A University," which is generally normal. "An University" is inconvenient to say. Well, okay. We also have "to the left" and "to the right." Why "the" is there, it's unclear, and what about celestial bodies like "Moon" or "the moon"? If we were to elaborate on all these minor details, subtleties, and exceptions, the video would be an hour long, which is not a problem. The problem is that it would be a pedagogical mistake. For a linguist, it's normal. It's their job. But for a person for whom language is a tool, to do their work, to relax well, it would be not just useless, it would be harmful. In general, the traditional system of education is rife with pedagogical errors. At its very foundation lies a huge pedagogical error, the essence of which is that not curiosity, not the pursuit of knowledge, not progress is encouraged, but the absence of mistakes. And mistakes are punished, which is generally wrong, and life works differently. Those who are not afraid to make mistakes are often successful, while those who are afraid to make mistakes sit in anxiety and depression. But this is a separate conversation and does not concern our course. The main thing on topic is that if you don't put "a" or "an" where needed, it will be a so-called non-communicative error. That is, it will not lead to misunderstanding. And native speakers constantly make such mistakes. So you shouldn't try to be holier than the Pope here. We understand that "a" or "an" is some kind of one. "The" is that very one. That's quite enough for us to sound literate in the vast majority of cases. By the way, Dragunkin once complained that the concept of determiners is used without reference to his surname. Like he invented it. Well, here you go, I'm referencing it, I don't mind. So, the general topic is mandatory determiners. The term is mine, the group of words is mine. Before me, this term and this group did not exist. The concept of determiners was not invented by him. Leonard Bloomfield, an outstanding American linguist, the founder of structural linguistics, in his book "Language" introduced the concept of "determiner." The work on determiners was published in 1933. We come to a person, and we need to say that there is a problem. We cannot say "I have a problem" or "we have a problem." Whose problem it is will be resolved at the end of the conversation. Well, if we say "you have a problem," it will be an attack. But there is a problem, it exists. And in order to say that something exists or does not exist, we use the phrase "there is." "There is" is singular, and "there are" is plural. "There is a problem." "There are problems." What about "it is a problem"? "It is a problem" translates as "this problem." If we start the conversation with this, the interlocutor will have the feeling that they missed the first half of the conversation. If we were answering the question: "What is it?" "It is a problem," then it's normal. "There are problems." There are problems. To form a question, we habitually move the auxiliary verb forward, and we get "problems." I would add "any." It would sound smoother, purely phonetically. Are there any problems with the new suppliers? There are no problems with the new suppliers. Everything is fine. And note, we say "no," not "not." "Not" is negation, "no" is absence. "No problems," no problems. We want to ask about the presence of anything. For example, if there is a free socket, I need to charge my phone. "Is there a free socket? I need to charge my phone." "Yes, there is a free socket." Affirmation. "No, there is no socket." Negation. "There" translates as "there," but it should not be understood literally. In this phrase, it means that it exists at all. A girl rummages in her purse and says, "Such a mess in my bag." "Is there intelligent life in the universe?" Is there intelligent life in the universe? Was there intelligent life in the universe before humanity? Will there be a settlement on Mars in the next 20 years? Let's take more examples for reinforcement. There are only two sexes: male and female. There will be a lot of traffic due to the concert. "There will be a lot of traffic because of the concert." There were many people at the party last night. Will there be enough money to cover the expenses? Nothing to worry about. We came to the bank, and we need to say, "I came to give you the documents." "To come" is an irregular verb. Come, came, come. To come, came, come. If I say "I came to give you the documents," it will be translated as "I came to give you the documents," as if I'm talking about yesterday. In Russian, "I came" is past tense. What did I do? Came. In English, it will be present, because you came now. And how do we say this? "I have come to give you the documents." "Have" is our auxiliary verb for the third table, which we are starting to study. After the auxiliary "have," only the third form can follow, in this case "come," and it turns out "I have come to give you the documents." We are handing over the documents in the present time. Let's consider two sentences from the perspective of the Russian language. First, "They kept their traditions." Second, "They have kept their traditions." "They kept their traditions." In this case, we understand that they no longer keep them. Perhaps they have either assimilated or been wiped out. "They have kept their traditions." Here we understand that the information is still relevant. They still practice their customs. If they "kept their traditions," it will be the first table, past simple. "They kept their traditions." If they "have kept their traditions," we will say, "They have kept their traditions." This is called present perfect, present completed. And we cannot formulate this thought any other way. "They have kept their traditions." They have kept their traditions, only like this. Look, they still wear their funny hats with serious faces. We can interpret this as "they have their traditions kept," and that would be close to the truth. But it's better not to translate it so literally in your head and just understand that "they have kept their traditions." Let's look again. "They kept their traditions." "Kept" is only the second form, no options, because the first table, past, we don't have the second form anywhere else except in the first table, in the past, in past simple. Consequently, in the statement "they have kept their traditions," "kept" is the form, nothing else remains. How do we not confuse the semantic "have," which translates as "to have" or "must"? With the auxiliary "have," which we use in the third table. We understand that the semantic "have" translates as "to have." If an object follows it, and it translates as "must," if an action follows it. With an object, it's clear, "they have funny traditions." "They have funny traditions." With a subsequent action, it's also clear, there must be an infinitive, i.e., the particle "to" and the base form. "They have to keep their traditions." "They have to keep their traditions." Let's crystallize our understanding that a completed action in English is present, and in Russian, it is past. And that there is logic in both. The situation is as follows. A girl is sitting, waiting, waiting, she can't anymore. And finally, I tell her, "I have cooked the steak. Here it is sizzling. It needs to rest for 5 minutes, and then we'll eat." "I have cooked the steak." I have cooked. This is a completed action, and it relates to the present moment. If I say "I cooked the steak," it will be translated as "I was cooking the steak." This is a past matter, we have definitely eaten it already. Completed or perfect in English translates as "perfect." In Russian, there is a perfective form of the verb: "kept," "have kept," "was cooking," "have cooked." In English, there is no such thing. In English, a perfective can only be a whole sentence or phrase. "I have cooked the steak." This is present perfect, present completed. And the key word here is "present," present. And the sentence "I have cooked the steak" is in the present tense. Here is the steak. Hot off the grill. Perfection beckons us. Perfect. "I have cooked the steak." This is the perfect form of the sentence. So, in Russian, "I have cooked the steak" is past completed. It makes sense, of course, because cooking is finished. In English, it is present completed. And it also makes sense, cooking is finished. And here is the result. I haven't cooked the steak yet. I'm still in the process. It will sound like "I hav" or "I have not." "I hav cooked the steak yet. Still in process." "Yet" means "yet" or "still." "Still" means "still." And we can only say this. We cannot say "I don't cook." "I don't cook" means that I fundamentally don't cook or don't know how. "I didn't cook." "I didn't cook." "I didn't cook the steak yet. I'm still in process." This means "I haven't cooked the steak yet. I'm still in the process," nevertheless. No, that doesn't add up. This is a speech error in Russian as well. Therefore, only "I haven't cooked the steak yet. I'm still in the process." And the question: "Have you cooked the steak yet?" In this case, "Yes" translates as "already." And since it is an actual result, and we are talking about now, we cannot have questions in Present Perfect that start with the word "when." What does "when" mean? Now. Here it is. Therefore, all questions that start with "when" are asked in the first or second table. "Are you hungry?" "Are you hungry?" "No, thanks. I have eaten." "No, thanks. I have eaten." There is a result, it is relevant now. We make it clear that we are full. So, whenever we talk about something actual but completed, we use this model. "I have come," "I have found," "I have lost," "I have finished," and so on. "I spoke with him" and "I have spoken with him." Is there a difference? No. And in English too. We can say "I spoke with him," we can say "I have spoken with him." We can emphasize "I have spoken with him" if it was just now, but we don't have to. And even if we just talked, we can still say "I spoke with him." So, no difference. But if we have an indicator of past time, no matter how recently, no matter how long ago, even a nanosecond ago, even an eternity ago, it's all past. We have a cut-off from the present time. And this is only past simple, past from the first table. "I spoke with them one minute ago." Only like this. We can say "I have spoken with him today." "I have spoken with him today." The time is not over. Today is not over yet. "I have spoken with him today." Or we can not use it, we can use past simple. "I spoke with him today." Normal. Let's consider a few more examples to reinforce. "We have bought new equipment." "We have bought new equipment." "I haven't decided yet." It will only be like this: "I haven't decided yet." "I didn't decide" would be "I didn't decide," so that's not suitable for us. Only "I haven't decided yet." "I have done the project." "I have done the project." We hand over the folder with the project. Let's consider more examples where we can say both past simple and present perfect, and the meaning will not change. "They have ruined the deal." We can say "They ruined the deal." The meaning will not change. "You have won." We can say "You won." Both will be grammatically correct. Yes, well, Renat, but I played Mortal Kombat, and there it was "you win." Generally, this is colloquial, it's not quite literate, it's wrong. You can sue them. After the auxiliary "have," only the third form can follow. There can be no particles, especially no "to" particle. But we can insert, for example, "just." "They have just left" or "They have just left." If we say "They just left," the meaning will not change, and both are correct. At one time, it was very difficult for me to understand where to use present perfect and where to use past simple. Precisely because no one explained that very often we can describe the same situation grammatically in both ways. And both. The reason is clear, they didn't want to confuse. Thank you very much. But because of this, it was harder to implement in practice. Here we are guided by the following rule. In any unclear situation, use Past Simple. Over time, mainly with exposure, you will use Present Perfect more and more confidently. Also, Present Perfect is used to indicate experience. About what has happened to you in life and how many times. "Have you been to Chile?" "Yes, I have been to Chile." "How many times have you been to Chile?" "I've been there once." "Have you been to Chile?" "Yes, I have been to Chile." "How many times have you been to Chile?" "I've been there once." Well, such a dialogue looks like Siri and Alice are talking. This is how it's normal. "Have you been to Chile?" "Yes, I have." "How many times?" "Just once." With the third table, we talk about the result or experience accumulated by the present moment. Therefore, questions that start with "when" do not make sense. If we ask about "when," we ask in the first or second table. "When were you in Chile?" "When were you in Chile?" or "When did you visit Chile?" "When did you visit Chile?" "I was there several years ago." "I was there several years ago." Something unusual happened. We ask: "Have you faced this?" "Have you faced it?" "No, I haven't faced it." "No, I haven't faced it." It sounds a bit school-like. In reality, we would answer simply "or I haven't." The question will sound more beautiful, purely phonetically, if we add "ever." "Have you ever faced it?" Or "Have you ever encountered anything like this before?" Well, the full answer would be: "No, I have never faced anything like that before." Or an affirmation: "I have already encountered something like that." "I have already faced something like that." It doesn't matter when, what matters is that there is such an experience that is relevant to the present time. So, with the application of Present Perfect, everything is very simple in meaning. Has this ever happened to you in life? And if it has, how many times? "He has launched three startups so far." "He has launched three startups so far." Over the years, they have built a strong brand. "They have built a strong brand over the years." "I have entered into partnership agreements with international companies." "I have entered into partnership agreements with international companies." "Have you ever managed a remote team?" "Have you ever managed a remote team?" Present can also be used to convey subtleties that cannot be conveyed in Russian. "I ran 10 km." If I say it in past simple, past from the first table, "I ran 10 km," then I imply that I won't run further. But if I say it in the third table, "I have run 10 km," then perhaps I will run further. "I had a cup of coffee today." "I had a cup of coffee today." As if I won't drink any more. "I have had a cup of coffee today." Perhaps I will drink more, or perhaps not. We'll see. But I must add, if it's normal with running, then with coffee it's a bit far-fetched. If I said "I had a cup of coffee today," who will forbid me to drink another cup? Well, no one will forbid running either. But why run for no reason, but you can drink coffee for no reason. Nevertheless, if I say that I drank a cup of coffee in the morning, only past simple, because the morning is over. "I had a cup of coffee this morning." Present perfect for indicating experience is elementary. We talk about what has happened to you in life or how many times it has happened to you. "He has been married twice." "He has been married twice." "We have not worked with this software." "We have not worked with this software." "I have never tried Korean cabbage, which is kimchi." "I have never tried kimchi." "And I would like to." Understanding present perfect, we can already say the difference between "he is gone" and "he has gone." They are contracted identically, by the way. "He is gone." "He is gone." This is passive voice. He is not here. Maybe he left himself? Maybe the orderlies took him away? We don't know. We only know that he is not here. "He has gone." This is active voice. We know for sure that he left himself. Therefore, if we see the sentence "he gone to the gym," we clearly understand that here it is "has," he went to the gym himself, voluntarily, on his own feet. "He is gone to the gym." He is not at the gym. It sounds funny, but it's nonsensical. This is how we use present perfect. Formally, it's very easy. We have "have" plus the third form. No other form can exist. Realistically, to make it work with your intuition, you need to get used to it. We will talk about the development of language intuition further in the appendices to the lessons on expanding vocabulary, listening comprehension training, and so on. If Present Perfect is not entirely clear, then Past Perfect, past completed, creates a mental block. A person thinks, "My God, I haven't figured out that yet, and now this too." But we have figured out Present Perfect, and Past Perfect will be very easy. First, something happened, then something else happened. That's all. This is the entire situation for Past Perfect. "I met her at the airport, and we went home." "She wrote a message but didn't send it." "Before the meeting began, the team had already prepared the presentation." That's all. This is the area of application of Past Perfect. Let's first say all this in the first table in Past Simple without using Past Perfect. "I met her at the airport, and we went home." "She wrote a message but didn't send it." "Before the meeting began, the team had already prepared the presentation." Now let's say the same thing using past perfect. The scheme is as follows. First, we had past perfect, then we had past simple. "I had met her at the airport and we went home." "She had written the message before the meeting, the team had already prepared the presentation." Question: if we got by so easily with past simple, why is past perfect needed at all? Answer: it's not needed. It just exists. And if you use only Past Simple in your speech and distinguish events and their sequence using words like "before" and "after," your speech will be understandable and literate. In spoken language, Past Perfect is rarely encountered, especially from the second half of the 20th century. But in written language, it is encountered constantly. And why is that? Well, why not, but it's the same in Russian. We say, "She got scared and ran out of the room." We don't say, "Having gotten scared, she ran out of the room." We say, "We talked to him and decided to start work from next week." We don't say, "Having talked to him, we decided to start work from next week." For modern spoken Russian, gerund phrases are not characteristic, but in literature, even the most modern, gerund phrases are constantly found. A person studying Russian may not use gerund phrases, but it will be useful for them to understand them, because they are rare, but sometimes they occur. And in literature, as I said, it's commonplace. So, first on the timeline, past perfect happens. Following this, past simple happens on the timeline. Let's look at more examples. "They couldn't finish the project before the deadline expired." "They couldn't finish the project before the deadline expired." "She didn't buy anything because she left her card at home." "She didn't buy anything because she left her card at home." Here we clearly understand that first she read the book, and then she watched the adaptation. But we can also say it all in past simple. "She read the book and after she watched the adaptation." In all these examples, we see that past perfect is combined with past simple, which is logical, some event in the past led to some other event in the past. Can past perfect be used without past simple? Yes, it can, but it will still be related to some event in the past. It just won't be indicated by "past." "We had finished the project before the deadline." "We had finished the project before the deadline." "By the end of the year, we had achieved all our sales targets." "By the end of the year, we had achieved all our sales targets." Well, here's a table with "have." If you encounter Future Perfect, which is used naturally, you can open a bottle of champagne, you definitely won't get drunk because you'll drink it once every 5 years. Even in literature, the first and second tables for the future are quite sufficient. You'll watch a couple of TV series, and it will be natural for you. "TV series and will." I used future perfect just to use it. In reality, I would say, "After you watch a couple of TV series, it will be natural for you." This is how it sounds human. By the way, I started a Telegram channel where you can download tables and some other useful things. We have already said that "have" is used to describe the experience of visiting certain places. "Have you been to Spain?" "Yes, I have been to Spain several times." We are asking about the experience of visiting a place. We use a preposition of direction. We will use the preposition "in" to describe how long. "How long have you been in Spain?" "How long have you been in Spain?" "I've been in Spain for six weeks." "I've been in Spain for six weeks." These are examples in the active voice. Voice, I don't like this word from school, it's some kind of unclear word. Form. That's a normal word. Active form. Passive form. The passive form is used, for example, to avoid directly saying who messed up. We call the accountant, she tells us that the bill for the equipment purchase has not been paid yet. "The bill for the equipment purchase hasn't been paid yet." "Paid" in this case means paid, paid, paid, i.e., not a verb, the third form. Or we lent the car to our brother, he returns the keys and says, "The car hasn't been refueled." "The car hasn't been refueled." To which we say? What do you mean "hasn't been filled up"? You didn't fill it up. "What does it mean hasn't been filled up?" Politicians love the passive form. Mistakes were made in planning something. Instead of saying, "I made some mistakes." Yeah, right. Or it may not necessarily be excuses, it could be something like "your offer has been taken into account." Like taken into account, or "your fee has been paid." "Your fee has been paid." But we can also show the passive form in the second table. "Your fee has been paid." In the present time, the second table. So, we have "your fee is paid" and "your fee has been paid." Both sentences are correct. The meaning of both sentences is the same, but, let's say, with slightly different emphasis. In the first case, "is paid." We emphasize the description, because the second table is for description. In the second case, "has been paid," we emphasize the result. And if your fee was paid yesterday or any other time ago, here it will only be "your fee was paid yesterday." You cannot say, this is present, present perfect. And indicators of past time for the present. This doesn't happen. Okay. And past perfect, past from the third table. "Your fee had been paid." Why do we need it? Something past happened by a certain point in the past. "Your fee had been paid before the bank closed." "Your fee had been paid before the bank closed." Can we say "fee was paid before the bank closed"? Yes. And what's the difference? In meaning, none. If we say "was paid," we emphasize the status of the fee. If we say "had been paid," we emphasize the result. Let's look at more equivalent examples for passive forms. "The document is signed." "The document is signed." "The document has been signed." "The problem is solved." "The problem is solved." "The problem has been solved." "The window is broken." "The window is broken." "The window has been broken." Let's consider this example about the window. What if we want to say that the window has been broken since last week? Broken since last week. Still relevant. We can only say: "The window has been broken since last week." "The window is broken." This is present simple. It occurs in the present, therefore, in the first and second tables. In this case, the second table. We cannot use Present Simple to describe duration from the past to the present moment. Why? Well, who knows. I didn't invent the English language. I'm just explaining how it works. It would be fine for me to say, "The window is broken since last week." It would be understandable, but it would be grammatically incorrect. Therefore, only "The window has been broken since last week." "They are married." "They are married." We described their status, described their condition. If

We want to say that they have been married for 10 years. It is cold. We described the state. If we say it's cold all week, then it's already "all week". Okay, let's take the next sentence. He is killed. If you watch detective series, you will hear such things. So, he is killed. We can describe this both through the state and through the result. He is killed, he has been killed. If we say an hour ago, then only "he was killed one hour ago". Okay, returning to the present. The forensic expert says: "He is killed with a knife." How will he say this? "He is killed with a knife." Describing this through a state is absurd. After all, here is the result of an action. "He has been killed with a knife." That's normal. And if he was killed with a knife an hour ago? Here only "he was killed one hour ago". Fine, what about "he had been killed with a knife"? This is our past perfect, the third table. Accordingly, this happened at some point in the past. For example, he was killed with a knife, and the crime scene was thoroughly examined. He has been dead for 2 hours. How will we say: But we can say, he died 2 hours ago. First table, past. "He died hours ago." Well, how's the flight? Take another look and rewrite all the sentences by hand. This way it will be absorbed better. If after we add a word with an -ing ending, continuous, then we get a continuous, drawn-out duration that connects the past with the present. I have been waiting for you for 15 minutes. As if it would be normal to say "I am waiting for you for 15 minutes already." But this would be grammatically incorrect. So, do we have to create a whole new tense because of this trifle? Well, it turns out so. So, instead of "I am waiting for you for 15 minutes already," you should say "I have been waiting for you for minutes." Something from the past stretches to the present. We have been working on this project for 2 weeks. He has not been playing the piano for 2 days. We never watch TV. I have not been using this app for several weeks. Question: What have you been doing lately? How long have you been studying this issue? How long have you been working on this project? Now we were looking at examples from Present Perfect Continuous. Present, perfect, continuous. The name is still not consumer-friendly at all. Present continuous. I still understand that something from the past stretches to the present. Okay. But what does "perfect" have to do with it? Something stretched from the past to the present and ended? No, not at all. In the sentence "I have been waiting for you for 15 minutes already." It means what it means. Just as we understand it in Russian, the same is understood in English. I have been waiting for you for 15 minutes already. It does not mean and does not imply that, well, I will not wait for you anymore. It does not mean and does not imply that, well, maybe I will wait a little longer. It only says that I have been waiting for you for 15 minutes and nothing more. So the name is silly, but the topic is the easiest, and the applicability is elementary. Something from the past stretches to the present. That's all. Here is your fourth and last table. In the present affirmative "I have been drawing." It's like something is left unsaid. It would be logical to say: "I have been drawing this picture for 2 hours." In the past affirmative "I had been drawing" also seems to be cut off in the middle. In the past, we talk about events that were relevant up to a certain point in the past. Something lasted and what it led to. For example, I had been drawing this picture for two days, and then I gave it to my girlfriend. Here are the sentences that I voiced while showing the table so that you can write them down. "I have been drawing this picture for hours." "I had been drawing this picture for days and then it to my girlfriend." More examples. I have been driving since morning. I had been driving since morning and finally I got to the sea. Something stretched in the past, and in the past it led to some point. We have been drinking all night. We had been drinking all night long before we thought, "Why not?" I have been playing this game for a couple of days. I had been playing this game for a couple of days and then I quit it. Can we say "played this game for a couple of days and then I dropped it"? Yes, we can. And why can we say the same thing differently in English, for the same reason as in Russian? Having played this game for a couple of days, I quit it. I played this game for a couple of days and quit it. Let's ask more questions about this table about the past, about Past Perfect Continuous. How long had you been doing this business before it became profitable? How long had it been raining before the sun came out? Now some English teacher is watching and thinking: "Finally, Rinat has normal sentences." How long had the rain been falling before the sun came out? I like it too. Let's take the negation for the past. We had not been using this software until the main bugs were fixed. The team had not practiced enough before the championship began. Future Perfect Continuous. The future according to the third table is a completely useless thing. The only place where you can encounter Future Perfect Continuous is in English textbooks where the topic of Future Perfect Continuous is explained. He will have been studying for five years before he graduates from university. Of course, I won't use this absurdity in life. I will say it humanly. "He will study for five years before he graduates from the university." First table about the auxiliary verb "do". In the present tense, we describe what happens generally and regular actions. "I speak English" generally. "I go to the gym two times per week." In the past, the same, plus durations, plus results of actions. "I went to the gym yesterday." "I trained for an hour." "I completed my to-do list." In the future, we describe the same as in the past. "I will go to the gym on Friday." "I will train for 45 minutes." "I will complete my to-do list." The second table is about the auxiliary verb "to be". We describe objects, we describe various states, static and dynamic. "It is right." "It was right." "It will always be right." In the present tense. The car is fast. The car is expensive. It was expensive, it will be expensive. The car is speeding up. Now, at the moment, it will be like the car is speeding up. In Russian, we describe this through action. What is it doing? Speeding up. In English, we describe this through a state. What kind of car? Speeding up. In the past, we describe a dynamic state for a specific point in time. Yesterday at 5:00 I was driving. I was driving when my friend called me. Or yesterday at 5:00 I was driving when my friend called me. Events in the past intersect at a specific point in time. In the future, the same. Tomorrow at 5:15 I will be driving. I will be driving when the concert starts. Well, I won't quite make it. Also, in the present, we use a word with an -ing ending, present continuous, to describe some temporary action. Maybe I'm not doing it right now, but I started something relatively recently and will finish it relatively soon. "I am reading an interesting book." We can use continuous to describe parallel processes in the past or future. I was driving and listening to music. Or I will be driving and listening to music. Keep in mind that not all verbs take an -ing ending. So, if we want a glass of water, we will say, "I want a glass of water," because "wanting" is not a word. If we want to say, "We need to continue training," we will say, "We need to continue our training," because "needing" is not a word. You can download a list of verbs that cannot take an -ing ending from my Telegram channel, the link is below. The third table is about the auxiliary verb "have". In the present tense, we describe a result that is relevant now or experience accumulated up to the present moment. "We have been to Thailand many times." "He has built the house." There is a result, and it is relevant now. Can we say in how much time he built the house? In 2 years. "He has built the house in two years." In the past, we describe accumulated experience or the result of an action that was relevant up to a certain point in the past. "They had built the house and they had the third kid." The fourth table also has the auxiliary verb "have", but also "been" and a word with an -ing ending, plus "continuous". In the present tense, it is needed when something started in the past and is still relevant. "I have been building the house for almost a year." In the past, something lasted and was marked by something past. "I had been building the house for months when the prices for building materials jumped by 20%." The future according to the third and fourth tables will not be needed. The first two are quite enough for grammatically correct speech. Well, if you want to have fun, do it when your English is fluent. And now let's consolidate. We choose the best options. "We choose the best options." We always do it this way. Last year I chose a good hotel for our trip. "Last year I chose a good hotel for our trip." I chose a new hotel for our trip. It doesn't matter when I made the choice. What matters is that the choice is relevant. "I have chosen a new hotel for our next trip." Now we are choosing from two candidates for the position of chief engineer. "Now we are choosing from two candidates for the position of chief engineer." A temporary action. Random samples are chosen for the test. "Random samples are chosen for the test." Can we say "random samples have been chosen for the test"? Yes, we can. In the first case, we emphasize the state of the samples. What are they? Chosen. In the second case, we emphasize the result. They were selected and have been selected. And if we selected them during the day, then here we need to emphasize the result of the action, because that's how it is. They were selected all day and have been selected. "Random samples chosen within a day." We have been selecting samples for 2 hours during the day. "We had been selecting samples for hours when we found out that not all agents were prepared." "I go to the gym two times per week." was. I am going to the gym, will be "I am going to the gym." I was going to the gym or I was going to the gym when I received a message from my colleague. "I was going to when I got a message from my colleague." Intersecting events in the past. I came to the gym, and now I am there. Result of action: "I have come to the gym." He has gone to the gym. "He has gone to the gym. He is gone." He is not here. Or did he disappear? Passive form. "I have been going to the gym for several years." "He does his job well." "He did this project in 2 weeks." "He did the project in 2 weeks." Normal. Excellent. What's the difference? And what's the difference in Russian? He was doing the project for 2 weeks and he did the project in 2 weeks. Well, whatever the difference is in Russian, it's the same in English. "He has been doing the project for 10 days." "He has been doing the project for 10 days." You can't say it any other way. "He had been working on the project for 10 days when the client suddenly decided to change the main requirements." "When the client suddenly decided to change the main requirements." A good example shows what a difficult client. A person worked for 10 days, when the client suddenly had some new idea. "He was doing the project and listening to music." "He was doing the project and listening to music." The project is finally ready. We can say "The project is finally done" or "The project has finally been done." In the first case, we emphasize the state of the project. In the second case, we emphasize the result, but the meaning is the same. "I sell real estate." If I say it this way, it means I don't treat it as a temporary action. Perhaps this is my profession. I am a real estate agent. "The apartment is sold." The apartment is sold. We are describing its state. You can say "flat", you can say "apartment". Initially, "flat" is British, "apartment" is American. But now in Britain, both are used. It's as if "flat" is something simpler. "Apartment" is something more prestigious, but not necessarily. Can we say "apartment has been sold"? Yes, we can. In the first case, we emphasize the state of the apartment. It is sold. In the second case, we emphasize the result. If you need to say that the apartment was sold in 2 months, then only "The apartment has been sold in two months." I have been selling my apartment for 5 months. It started in the past, it is still relevant. "I have been selling my apartment for five months." Can we say "I am selling my apartment for five months" or "I sell my apartment for five months"? No. There is a result. There is a purchase and sale agreement in hand. I sold the apartment and moved to the countryside. Can we say that? Yes, we can. That would even be better. She prepared the annual report yesterday. It doesn't matter when, what matters is that the result is relevant now. Here is the report on the table. There she sits, swearing. She had been preparing the report for several hours when she discovered an error in the source data. A good example shows that she had been preparing the report for several hours before she found a flaw at the very beginning. "She was preparing the report when she noticed an error in the initial data." She was preparing the annual report when she noticed an error in the source data, intersecting events in the past. She prepared the annual report, handed it over to the boss. Can we say that? Yes, we can, and it sounds better. "The annual report is prepared." "The annual report is ready." It doesn't matter. So, is there a difference between "has been prepared" and "is prepared"? In the second case, we emphasize the status of the report. In the first case, we emphasize the result. In terms of meaning, there is no difference. If you need to say that the annual report was prepared in 2 days, then only "The report has been prepared within two days." Within 2 days. I watched a good movie yesterday. "I watched a good movie yesterday." "It is a good movie." Description of the subject. "I am watching a movie." I am watching a movie. Now in progress. "I am watching a series." I am watching a series. It might be in progress now, or I might be talking about some temporary action. I started recently, I will finish soon. "This movie is made in Hollywood." The movie is made in Hollywood. Passive form. I have already watched this movie. It doesn't matter when exactly, what matters is that there is such an experience as of today. "I have watched this movie already." I have been watching this series for 2 weeks. "I've been watching this series for two weeks." I watched this series in 2 weeks. We can say "I watched the series in two weeks" or "I have watched the series in two weeks". In this case, I would choose perfect if it were somehow relevant to the present. For example, I finished it today. I was watching a movie when my friend called: "I was watching a movie when my friend called me." Intersecting events in the past. I had been watching the series for several days and then lost interest. "I had been watching the series for several days and then I lost interest." Can we say "I watched the series for several days and then I lost interest"? Yes, we can. "I read nonfiction books." I read nonfiction books generally. "I read a book yesterday." I read a book yesterday. "I am reading the Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker." I am reading this book now, in progress, or a temporary action. I started recently, I will finish soon. "I've been reading this book for two days." I have read this book several times. "I've read this book several times." Let's have more. "I drink wine." I drink wine generally. Pinot Noir. I prefer Pinot Noir, so don't forget to donate. "I am drinking wine." As if in progress now. "I was drinking wine with my friends." I was drinking wine with my friends when my wife called me. Intersecting events in the past. "We have been drinking wine for an hour." We have been drinking wine for an hour. We have drunk a bottle of wine. Maybe that's enough. Result for now. Maybe we'll drink more. "They drank until the bar closed." "He drank half a bottle of whiskey and got behind the wheel." We tell in detail how yesterday evening went. Can we say: "He had drunk half a bottle of whisky and he got behind the wheel."? Yes, we can. But it's unnecessary. Usually, modal verbs are explained starting with the modal verb "can", "may". We will start with "should" because it is more correct. A modal verb expresses an attitude towards an action, and only towards an action. Let's first consider this using the example of the Russian language. After the Russian modal verb "should", there must also be a verb. "I should talk to her." We cannot say: "I should her," because that would be incomplete. "I should her" what? Talk. The same is true in English. "I should speak with her." A regular verb can also express an attitude towards an action. "I want to drink a cup of coffee." But it can also express an attitude towards an object. "I want a cup of coffee." A modal verb expresses an attitude only towards an action. Neither in Russian nor in English can you say: "I should coffee." Therefore, only "I should drink a cup of coffee" is correct. A modal verb has the characteristics of an auxiliary verb. You can add the particle "not" to it, and you get a negation. If we put it in front, we get a question: "Should I buy this book?" "I should not buy this book." And "Should I buy this book?" "What should we pay attention to?" What should we pay attention to? First, after a modal verb, the particle "to" is not placed. Correct: "I should buy," "I should buy." Incorrect. After a modal verb, only the base form of the verb, the first form, can follow. If we have he, she, it, we don't have any s endings. "She should keep it in mind." We don't say "she should keeps it in mind" or "she should keeps it in mind." Well, that's good, one less worry. Let's take examples for practice. "We should consider this offer." Let's make an affirmative, negative, and question. "We should consider this offer." "We shouldn't consider this offer." And "Should we consider this offer?" And let's form an affirmative, negative, and question with the sentence. "You should sign this agreement." "You should sign this agreement." "You shouldn't sign this agreement." And "Should you sign this agreement?" Next, "must" translates as "must" or "obligated." We are already familiar with "have to," which also translates as "must." "Must" is a stronger word. A commander can say to a soldier: "You must follow my orders." You are obligated to follow my orders. A parent can say to a child: "You must do your homework." Or a close friend can say: "You must see this movie, it's just awesome." "You must see this awesome movie." We can, of course, say "must" about ourselves. "I must do it." In neutral expressions, when it must be true. "It must be true." Or it must be raining outside. "It must be raining outside." No one is obligated to anyone, it's just rain. In the negative, "have to" and "must" will have different meanings. "You don't have to." This means you are not obligated or it is not necessary for you. "You must not." You are not allowed to. "You don't have to give them a discount." You are not obligated or it is not necessary for you to give them a discount. If you helped a woman carry a heavy bag, she might say: "Thank you, you didn't have to." Thank you, you were not obligated. A waiter might approach and say: "You must not smoke here." You are not allowed to smoke here, and it will sound completely appropriate and normal. Or a librarian might say: "You must not speak loudly in the library." You are not allowed to speak loudly in the library. Modal verbs do not have a past tense. "Can" is an exception, so we will consider it later. So in affirmative statements for the past, we will say "I had to." And in negatives, "I wasn't allowed." "Allow" translates as "to permit." It's a regular verb. Here we have a passive form. "I wasn't allowed." I was not permitted. "I had to do it." I had to do it. "I didn't have to do it." I was not obligated to do it or it was not necessary for me to do it. And "I wasn't allowed to do it." I was not permitted to do it literally, or I was not allowed to do it. I don't like this phrasing. It's somewhat submissive. In future lessons, we will talk about how to convey this phrase better. In the future, accordingly, we will have "I will have to" or "I will not be allowed." "I will have to try it again." "I will have to try it again." "I will not be allowed to do it." I will not be allowed to do it. "I won't have to do it." I will not have to do it. "Would" is the equivalent of our "would." Only if in Russian "would" is a particle, then in English "would" is a modal verb. "I would watch some movie." I would watch some movie. "I would eat something." I would eat something. "That would be better." That would be better. Or "you wouldn't dare." You wouldn't dare. "I would watch some movie." Can be contracted as "I'd watch some movie." And look, "would" is contracted as an apostrophe. And "had," the auxiliary for past perfect, is contracted as an apostrophe. How to distinguish? Very simple, by following rules that have no exceptions. After a modal verb, we always have the base form of the verb. After the auxiliary "had," we always have the third form. Accordingly, "I'd watch some movie." Here it is definitely "would" because "watch" is the first form. "I had watched the adaptation before I read the book." Here it is definitely "had" because "watched" cannot be the first form. Here it is only the third form. An expression you need to remember is "I would like" or "I'd like." We will translate this literarily as "I would like." "Would you like tea or coffee?" "I would like scotch." We will use "would" for polite requests. "Would you turn the music down, please?" In fact, the word "could" is not here, but essentially it is. "Would you pass the sugar, please?" Another useful thing is "Would you mind?" "Would you mind if we reschedule our meeting to Friday?" "Would you kindly?" This is a very, very polite request. The equivalent of our "Would you be so kind?" "Would you kindly get to Ryan's office and kill the son of a bitch?" Let's consolidate what we've learned using the verb "continue" as an example. "We should continue our research." Affirmative, negative, and question. "We should continue our research." "We should not continue our research." And "Should we continue our research?" "We have to continue our research." We have to continue our research.

Research. We must continue our research. We don't have to continue our research. And we cannot continue our research. Would you like to continue your research? We would continue our research if we had more funding.

"Would" is also used for the past when it was a habitual action for someone, an action that used to be repeated. "She would listen to a podcast and fall asleep." This can be translated as "she had a habit" or "she used to." "She used to listen to a podcast and fall asleep to it." "He used to spend his money on gambling." That is, in this way, we describe an action that was repeated in the past. Personally, I don't use it for that, and I'm explaining this to you so that you understand if you encounter it. Instead, I myself use "used to." "He used to spend all his money on gambling." "Used to" can generally be translated as "used to" or "formerly." "Formerly, he spent all his money on gambling." "Formerly, she listened to a podcast and fell asleep to it." And since it can be translated as "formerly," it will have more applications. We can use it where "would" doesn't work. For example, "She used to have waist-length hair." VS. "I used to have a collection of video tapes." "There used to be a beautiful historical building here, then it suddenly burned down, and now they are building another high-rise." By the way, I've started a Telegram channel where you can download tables and some other useful things.

"They helped the woman carry the heavy bag." She might say, "Thank you, you didn't have to." "Thank you, you were not obligated."

"May" is the equivalent of our "surely." "Might" is the equivalent of our "probably." That is, "may" has a slightly higher probability. "Kate is a quite clever girl, she will surely get this job." "Kate is a quite clever girl. She may get this job." Or, "Probably, Kate is a quite clever girl. She might get this job." "He will surely get a chance to fix everything." "He may get a chance to fix everything." Or, "probably, might."

We call a friend, he doesn't answer. We assume he's busy. "He may be busy" or "he might be busy." If we know for sure, we say "he is busy." If we assume, we replace "is" with "may + be" or "might + be." "We know for sure that this is true." We say "it is true." We assume that this is true. We replace "is" with "may + be" or "might + be." We say "it might be true." If we say "it may be true," it's as if there's a slightly higher probability, but the meaning doesn't change. "They are in Moscow now, that's a fact." "They are in Moscow now." We assume they are in Moscow, we replace "are" with "may + be" or "might + be." "They might be in Moscow now." That is, we replace the auxiliary verbs "is" with the modal verb you need plus "be." "They are in Moscow now." "They are in Moscow." "They must be in Moscow." "It is true." "It is true." "It must be true." "It must be true." "It is surely true." "It may be true."

"Will," which we use for the future tense, is actually also a modal verb. We use it when we have definitely decided: "I will be a little late." "I will be a little late." Definitely a little late. If it's possible I'll be a little late, then "I might be a little late" or "I may be a little late."

As for contractions in negatives, yes, there are contractions like "mayn't" and "mightn't." They are quite rare; people usually say the full form. For example, a realtor tells you: "You may not like this house because the layout of the rooms is not the most convenient." "You may not like this house because the layout of the rooms is not the most convenient."

Questions that begin with "may" or "might" are used to politely ask for permission. And "may" is used more often. "Might" is used rarely. "May I ask you a question?" "May I ask you a question?" about a service. And compare "Can I ask you" or "Might I ask you?" "May I ask you" just sounds smoother.

A phrase that you would do well to remember is "you may want." "You may want to remember this phrase." "You would do well to remember this phrase." "You would do well to pay in advance." "You may want to pay in advance." "You would do well to make a visual presentation." "You may want to make a graphic presentation." This is a more formal, more official version of "you better" or "you would better." "You had better." "You better make a donation." "You had better make a donation." "You would better make a donation." "You may want to make a donation." Here, I've politely asked.

Now let's look at the most frequent modal verb, "can." It translates as "to be able to." You've probably heard it: "Can I help you? How can I help you?" "Can I help you? How can I help you?" Another example. "I can't speak right now. Please call me back later." "I can't speak right now. Please call me back later." "They can do it better." "They can do it better."

I call the first and second tables plus the modal verb "can" "tourist English." This is quite enough to travel around Africa, Asia, Southern Europe, and South America. If you start using all sorts of perfect tenses and modal verbs like "should" and "would" there, the locals might get confused. Nevertheless, the modal verb has a feature: it has a normal past tense form. "He can do it." "He can do it." "He could do it." "He could do it." "I couldn't speak back then." "I couldn't speak back then." "How could they help you?" "How could they help you?" "Oh, dear. How could you do that?" "Oh, dear. How could you do that?" "When she was younger, she could dance all night long and go to work the next day with barely any sleep." "When she was younger, she could dance all night long and go to work the next day with barely any sleep."

"Could" is also used for polite requests. "Could you stop here, please?" "Could you stop here, please?" In fact, it's not. Essentially, it is. Here, we can replace "could" with "would." The meaning will not change. Just like in Russian, we use the past tense for polite requests. "Could you," instead of "can you" or "will you," "can you stop here, please?" It sounds perfectly normal, both in Russian and in English. The nuance changes slightly, as if we are asking about objective possibility, whether there is a place to stop, whether the brakes are working, and so on. Look at this. "Can you come tomorrow?" "Can you come tomorrow?" We are asking about objective possibility. Will he be in town? Will there be time, and so on. "Could you come tomorrow?" "Could you come tomorrow?" A polite request. We ask a taxi driver to turn off the music. There are options like "Can you turn the music off, please?" or "Could you turn the music off, please?" There's a belief that if you ask using "can," it will sound a bit rude. On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, no, because the norms of prim England or Puritan America have long since passed. Therefore, if we ask using "can," it will sound appropriate. But we already have "may," "would," meaning we have different tools for subtle social adjustment. And sensing the situation is an exclusive skill, even in your native language environment. However, we cannot say "May you turn the music off, please?" With "may," we ask permission for ourselves. "May I ask you to turn the music off, please?" That's normal. "May I pass through?" "May I pass through?" But "could" works in all directions. We ask permission for ourselves or politely ask someone else. We can use "could," a convenient multi-tool that is now at your disposal. "Could you turn the music off, please?" "Could I get through, please?" Please use it. And besides, it's more or less understood everywhere.

Moving on. It has already been mentioned that "will" is a modal verb. We cannot put two modal verbs in one phrase. We cannot say "I will can do it," meaning "I will be able to do it." But such a judgment exists. And to convey it in English, we will resort to the word "able." "I will be able to do it." This is simply the second table of affirmations in the future. Is it really necessary for us? Yes, not really, because we can manage with "can" just like in Russian. We can say, "I can do it tomorrow, I will be able to do it tomorrow." There's no difference. "I am able to do it tomorrow." "I can do it tomorrow." "I am able to do it now." "I can do it now" or "I am able to do it now."

I heard a thought from an English language specialist who teaches English that "can" is general ability, and "able to" is specific ability. Like, right now. "I can't swim." I know how to swim. "I am able to swim." I can swim now. Like, "I can't swim," I don't know how to swim. "I'm not able to swim," I can't swim now. But in reality, this is complete nonsense, which shows that native speakers are not a panacea. No native speaker will say, "I'm not able to swim now." They will say, "I can't swim now." Meaning not that the person doesn't know how to swim at all, but just can't right now. So, in the present tense, "I can't do it" works perfectly always. "I can't do it" also works always. There is "not able to do it," I am not capable of doing it. Well, you can use it if you want. In the past negative, "I couldn't do it" and "I wasn't able to do it" are also quite interchangeable. But in the affirmative, "I could do it" and "I was able to do it" will have different meanings. And this is interesting. "I could do it." I was able to do it. "I was able to do it." I managed to do it. "I could buy this house." I could buy this house. "I was able to buy this house." I managed to buy this house.

"Could" can also be used for the present/future in the sense of "would be able to." For example, our friend has some problem, and we tell him, "I could help you solve this problem." "I could help you to solve this problem." Or we suggest watching a movie to someone. We say, "We could watch a movie now." "We could watch a movie now."

Now it's clear why "can" should be studied last. It's the easiest modal verb to use. That's where you should start.

Finally, let's talk about the modal verb "shall." They say it's no longer used. Nothing of the sort, it's still used, and it will be useful to us. The peculiarity of the modal verb "shall" is that it is not translated into Russian. "Shall we go to the cinema?" will be translated as "Let's go to the cinema." The same as "Let's go to the cinema," but it sounds a bit more delicate. That is, thanks to this, you will be able to use your social skills more precisely. Meeting a delegation at the airport, we suggest going to the car. We say, "Shall we go to the car?" "Let's go to the car." We've arrived at the restaurant, we say, "Shall we go to the restaurant?" We've entered the restaurant, approached the table. "Shall we sit?" "Let's sit." Thus, we use it for polite suggestions in the form of a question. Affirmative and negative "shall" are not needed in modern English, except in legal English. For example, in contracts. Here, "shall" in meaning will be like "must," meaning obligated, something like that. "The distributor shall not sell the products outside the designated territory." "The distributor is obligated not to sell the products outside the designated territory." "The contractor shall obtain and maintain all necessary licenses and permits required for the performance of the services."

We can already say, "I should do it." "I should do it." "I should invest in bitcoins." "I should invest in bitcoins." And how to say, "I should have done it earlier?" After all, no modal verb, except "can," has a past form. It's very simple. "I should have done it earlier." That is, we have the modal verb, then "have," and the third form. "I should have done it earlier." "I should have done it earlier." "I should have invested in bitcoins earlier." "I should have invested in bitcoins earlier." "Should have" can be shortened to "should've." "I should have done it." "I should have done it." "I should not have done it." It can be shortened to "I shouldn't have done it" or "I shouldn't have done it." This is acceptable in spoken language, but not shortened in written language. Remember the expression "I wasn't allowed to do it?" It's a similar idea, but not quite. "I wasn't allowed to do it." It means I was forbidden to do it or I was not permitted to do it. Instead, I was told to drink warm milk and go to bed. "I shouldn't have done it." A more independent judgment, and it sounds nicer. "I shouldn't have done it." "We should discuss this issue." "We should discuss this issue." "We should have discussed this." "We should have discussed this." And to get a question, we need to bring "should" forward. "Should we have discussed this problem?" "Should we have discussed this problem?"

"They must be there." Depending on the context, it's either our confident assumption, "they must be there," or their obligation, "they are obliged to be there." If we put "must" in the past, it will be "they must have been there." And this is only a confident assumption about the past. Not, "they must have been there." "He is obliged to finish the project on time." "He must have finished the project on time." "She is obliged to pay taxes on time to avoid penalties." "She must have paid her taxes on time." And here we have two sentences: "She must have paid the taxes on time." and "She must have paid the taxes on time." What's the difference, why "in time" in one case and "on time" in the other? "In time" means to finish within the allotted time, to be on schedule. "On time" means exactly according to schedule, precisely on time. If someone arrives and is very punctual, like clockwork, very on time, we can say "right on time," exactly on time.

If we replace "must" with "might" for the past modal, we get a less confident judgment about the past. Instead of "must be," it will be "probably." "She probably paid her taxes on time." "She might have paid her taxes on time." If we replace "might" with "may" here, the meaning won't change much. "May" has a slightly higher probability, like "surely." "She surely paid her taxes on time." "She may have paid her taxes on time." But we don't use "may" when we need to describe something that could have happened but didn't. "Our team could have lost if the captain hadn't carried them." "Our team might have lost if the captain hadn't carried them." Here, we can only use "might." "May" would be incorrect here. "They could have bought this apartment, but the mortgage rate was too high." "They might have bought this flat but the rate was too high."

"Would" is used for assumptions that if it were like this, then it would be different. "They would have completed the project more successfully with proper support." "She would have solved this big data problem." "You would have done the same in my place." "You would have done the same in my place." Or the negative: "You would not have done the same in my place." And the question: "Would you have done the same in my place?" "Would you have done the same in my place?" "He could have talked to her about it." Here, neither in Russian nor in English is it clear whether we are talking about a past assumption or a present/future one. Therefore, context is needed. For example, the word "yesterday." "Yesterday." "He could have talked to her about it yesterday." "He could speak with her about it yesterday." But we also have "he could have spoken with her about it yesterday." What is this for? What is it and how does it differ? The first, as we've already said, is "he could have talked to her about it yesterday." The second will be translated as "he would have been able to talk to her about it yesterday." And here, if we say in Russian, "he would have been able to talk to her about it yesterday," there must be some justification afterward, right? In English, too. "He could have spoken with her about it yesterday, but he was busy." "He would have been able to talk to her about it yesterday, but he was busy." "They could have gone there, but all the hotels were booked." "They could have gone there, but all the hotels were booked." "We couldn't have launched a new product without effective marketing." "We couldn't have launched a new product without effective marketing." "Could we have achieved better sales with better marketing?" "Could we have achieved better sales with better marketing?"

Another expression with "could have" can be used as a mild reproach or complaint. "You could have told me about it earlier." "You could have told me about it earlier." "Given the volume, they could have given us a discount too." "Given the volume, they could have given us a discount too." In general, our expression "if" in English will sound like "could," "should," "would." Instead, in spoken language, it sometimes happens like this. "Could you..." Modal verbs for the past ("past modals") are considered advanced English, although there's nothing particularly special about them. It's a very rigid structure. We have a modal verb, then "have," and the third form. This is not taught in school, but they teach nonsense like converting direct speech to indirect speech. So, in my work, converting direct speech to indirect speech has been useful zero times, but Past Modals are needed constantly.

Let's summarize the modal verbs. First. A modal verb expresses an attitude towards an action, and only towards an action. For example, the verb "to offer" can express an attitude towards an action. Yes, it can. "They offer to increase the discount." "They offer to increase the discount." But the verb "to offer" can also express an attitude towards an object. "They offer a good discount." "They offer a good discount." A modal verb expresses an attitude only towards an action. "They should consider this offer." "They should consider this offer." "They should have considered this offer." "They will probably consider this offer." "They may consider the offer." "They will surely consider this offer." "They might have considered this offer." "They probably considered this offer." "They will surely consider this offer." "They will consider this offer." "Will" is also a modal verb. "They must consider this offer." "They must consider this offer." "They must have considered this offer." "They must have considered this offer." "We would consider this offer." "We would consider this offer." "They would consider this offer if they knew all the details." "They would consider this offer if they knew all the details." "They can consider this offer." "They can consider this offer." "I could consider this offer." "I could consider this offer." "They could consider this offer." "They could consider this offer." "They would be able to consider this offer, but the price was outside their budget." "They would be able to consider this offer, but the price was outside their budget." "He probably won't take this risk." "He might not have taken the risk." "He probably didn't take this risk." Let's replace "might" with "may." The meaning won't change, but "may" has a slightly higher probability, instead of "probably," it will be "surely." "He won't take the risk." "He won't take the risk." "He wouldn't take the risk." "He wouldn't take the risk." "He couldn't take the risk." "He couldn't take the risk." "He wouldn't be able to take the risk, because he knew the real consequences." "He wouldn't be able to take the risk, because he knew the real consequences." "He must not take this risk." "He must take the risk." "He should not take this risk." "He shouldn't take the risk." "He should not have taken this risk." "He shouldn't have taken the risk." "He cannot take this risk." "He can't take the risk." "May I ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement?" "May I ask you to sign a non-disclosure agreement?" "May I sign..." Let's replace it with "could." Nothing will change. "I ask you to sign," but we can ask, "Could you sign an NDA?" "Could you sign an NDA?" Let's replace "could" with "would." Nothing will change in the meaning of this question. "Would you sign an NDA?" It will also be a polite request. Also, "Could he sign an NDA?" This could be a question about the past. "He could have signed the NDA." "Could he sign an NDA?" "Can you sign?" We are asking about real possibility. Can a person sign an NDA? What if they have a conflict of interest? "Can you sign an NDA?" "Can you sign an NDA?" Do I have to sign some kind of non-disclosure agreement? Well, in any case, I would remove questions that start with "must." They don't sound right. It's better to use "have to." "Do I have to sign any NDA?" "Do I have to sign any NDA?" Or even better, "Should I sign?" "Should I sign?" "Shall we sign the NDA?" "Shall we sign the NDA?" And you can subscribe to my Telegram channel, there are all sorts of useful things there.

Let's look at conditional sentences. "Condition" means condition. "Conditional" means conditional. The idea is simple. If a sentence contains "if," "when," "before," "after," then "will" is not placed after these words. That is, it can be either present or past, but not future. And although it's not like that in Russian, it somehow easily fits our intuition. "We will hire another sales manager if our sales increase." "We will hire another sales manager if our sales increase." That is, here we have "if our sales increase," but not "if our sales will increase." That's all, the lesson is over, let's disperse. Or we can look at more examples. "When you come, we will watch a movie." "When you come, we will watch a movie." We can also change the order, just like in Russian. "We will watch a movie when you come." "We will talk about your promotion after you finish the project." "We will talk about your promotion after you finish the project." "I'll call you when I'm in the city center." "I'll call you when I am in the city center." "If we rush the banana without utilities, we'll suck." "If we rush the banana without utilities, suck." "We will buy more if you offer us a five percent discount." "We will buy more if you offer us a five percent discount." By the way, in the second part, I can also put "will," and it will be grammatically correct. It will be correct with "will," and it will be correct without "will" in this specific case. And why? It doesn't matter, I'm telling you this so you won't be surprised if you encounter it. Sometimes we can put "will" after "if," but it's always correct when we don't put "will" after "if." Or, let's analyze this example just out of curiosity, not that we really need it. "Will" is not such a simple word. Firstly, it can be a noun, "will." "Willpower" means strength of will. And sometimes "will" can carry a semantic function in the sense of "to deign." "We will buy more if you deign to offer a five percent discount." "We will buy more if you will offer a 5% discount." If the word "deign" sounds archaic, you can translate it literarily as "agree." "If you agree to sign the contract, we will start tomorrow." "If you sign the contract, we will start tomorrow." "If you don't help me, I'll do it myself." "If you won't help me, I'll do it myself." But in all these examples, we can also not put "will" twice, and it will still be grammatically correct. "If you sign the contract, we will start tomorrow." "If you sign the contract, we will start tomorrow." "If you don't help, I'll do it myself." "If you don't help, I'll do it myself." So, this topic is very easy if you don't overcomplicate it. If you start overthinking it, you can create such a suffocating atmosphere that even a graduate of Roman German literature would get bogged down. When we start classifying, explaining that these are complex sentences, in Russian this translates to subordinate clauses, that they are divided into groups, groups, in turn, are divided into types, and so on. If we talk about first conditional, second conditional, mixed conditional, then a simple topic will immediately become complicated. This is how our entire education system is structured. At least when it comes to learning languages. And the conjunctions can be not only "when," "if," "before," and "after." For example, "We won't go skiing tomorrow unless the weather improves." "We won't go skiing tomorrow unless the weather gets better." "I will message you in case the meeting is canceled." "I will message you in case the meeting is canceled." If you open Yandex.Translate and look at the translation of the word "get," you'll find dozens of translation options. And there are also phrasal verbs like "get down," "get out," and so on. How to remember all this? You don't need to remember it at all. You just need to understand how it works. "Get" is the direction of action. Remember vector quantities like speed, force, momentum. These quantities have no meaning without a direction of action. And an arrow is drawn above them. That arrow is "get." Our friend is going to the bar, we tell him, "Get me some beer." That is, the direction of action is towards me, the beer is towards me. We are not talking about tactics, how he should do it, buy the beer, take it from someone, or something else. We are talking about strategy. Beer towards me. "Get me some beer." If we understand this, then we understand how "get" works as a phrasal verb. "Get up," direction of action is upwards. Get up, rise, climb, and so on. "Get down." Direction of action is downwards. Sit down, lie down, descend, and so on. "I need to get up early." "I need to get up early." "Can you help me get down those boxes?" "Can you help me get down those boxes?" "Get out." Direction of action is outwards, for example, "get out," "take this out of here." "Get in." Direction of action is inwards, for example, "come in" or "bring this in here." "Get it in here." As my grandfather used to say, "take it from the street and bring it here." "My grandfather said, 'take it from the street and bring it here.'" "He was glad to get off the plane after a long international flight." "He was glad to get off the plane after a long international flight." "Get over" means "over." So, it's something like "overcome." "She was able to overcome her fear of public speaking." "She was able to overcome her fear of public speaking." "Get back." It means something like "return." "It's time to get back to our usual work schedule." "It's time to get back to our usual work schedule." Let's look at more examples in sentences. "I will get in touch with the client to confirm the meeting time." "I will get in touch with the client to confirm the meeting time." "Touch" means touch. "Get in touch" means to contact. "Let's get together next week." "Let's get together next week." And there's no point in digging deeper, because the algorithm is clear. For example, "through" means "through." Accordingly, "let me get through." "Let me get through." This is an extremely useful thing for English. If some points can be bypassed, this point cannot be bypassed, because it is the very basic foundation.

Questions using negation are not complicated, they easily fit our intuition because the principle is the same in Russian. We can ask, "Do you want to eat in this restaurant?" Or, "Don't you want to eat in this restaurant?" What's the difference in the question? None at all. The meaning is the same. In English, it's the same. "Do you want to eat in this restaurant?" or "Don't you want to eat in this restaurant?" But if we put a question word, for example, "why," then we will have completely opposite meanings. "Why do you want to eat in this restaurant?" Or "Why don't you want to eat in this restaurant?" "Why do you want to eat in this restaurant?" "Why don't you want to eat in this restaurant?" "Why doesn't she fire this idler?" "Why doesn't she fire this idler?" "Why doesn't he diversify his investments to reduce risk?" "Why doesn't he diversify the investment to reduce risk?" "Why don't you ask him to come sooner?" "Why don't you ask him to come sooner?" "Why didn't they pay the rent on Friday?" "Why didn't they pay the rent on Friday?" "Isn't she planning to participate in the upcoming exhibition in Hong Kong?" "Isn't she planning to participate in the upcoming exhibition in Hong Kong?" "Why aren't they using more advanced tools for data analysis?" "Why aren't they using more advanced tools for data analysis?" It doesn't contract, so it will be "why am I not..." "Why am I not at the sea now?" "Why aren't they at the party yesterday?" "Why won't we be at the sacrifice ceremony on Saturday?" "Why wasn't he at work this morning?" "Why hasn't he been training recently?" "Why hasn't he been training recently?" "Can't you see?" It's the same as "shouldn't we stay?" "Why don't you ask for a ten percent discount?" "Haven't we gone too far?"

Let's replace the word "subject" with the word "agent." The word "subject" is unclear. The word "agent" is clear. An agent is the one who performs the action. Thus, we get a question to the agent. This is a completely free topic. These are all questions that start with the word "who." The peculiarity of this question is that in the first table for the present or past, we don't necessarily need to use the auxiliary verb "do," "does," or "did." "Who cares?" "Who cares?" If we say "Who does care?" it will also be correct, it will just be an emphatic question. "Who does care?" You see, there is no pronoun in this question, and there is no one hiding behind this pronoun. There is no "he," no "she," no "my son" or "my brother." We are asking about exactly that. We are interested in whether it is "he," whether it is "she," and who it is at all. "Do you speak English?" We have "you" here, the subject. If we ask, "Who speaks English?" we are interested in the subject. Therefore, we ask, "Who speaks English?" We can also say "Who spoke English?" in the past. In the future, of course, we cannot do without "will," otherwise it will be unclear that it is the future. "Who will speak English?" "Who will speak English?" "Who told you that?" "Who told you that?" "Who sets all these rules?" "Who sets all these rules?" Maybe not necessarily "who," maybe "what." If the subject is something inanimate, what happens in such cases? "What happens in such cases?" or "What happened yesterday?" "What happened yesterday?" In this case, the subject is not some person. In this case, we are asking about some circumstances. "What helped you to cope with this?" "What helped you to cope with this?" After "help," you can put "to" or not. It's a special verb in this regard. You can simply say, "What helped you deal with it?" If you say, "What did help you deal with it?" it will also be grammatically correct, it will also be good. The question technically becomes emphatic, with emphasis, but if we say it with a normal intonation, it is perceived as such. That's it, congratulations. Now you know English. Happy sailing. Although, wait, in the next episodes, we will figure out what to do with our newfound knowledge.