Equivalents to the present tenseThe simple past tense vs. the simple present tensePresent perfect vs. past simpleSimple Past vs. Present PerfectWhat is the difference between simple past tense and present perfect tense here in the paragraph?the simple present tense or the present continuous tensePresent Perfect Tense vs. Present Perfect Continuous Tense“Simple past” vs “present perfect” with 'ever'Does this sentence mean 'recent past' in present perfect tense?tense question about 'Would it be okay if~' phrasePresent perfect simple tense in conditionals

Why does energy conservation give me the wrong answer in this inelastic collision problem?

Why does overlay work only on the first tcolorbox?

Knife as defense against stray dogs

What is the adequate fee for a reveal operation?

Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?

Do I need life insurance if I can cover my own funeral costs?

Describing a chess game in a novel

Bacteria contamination inside a thermos bottle

How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?

ERC721: How to get the owned tokens of an address

Print a physical multiplication table

Why is the President allowed to veto a cancellation of emergency powers?

A diagram about partial derivatives of f(x,y)

Do the common programs (for example: "ls", "cat") in Linux and BSD come from the same source code?

Adventure Game (text based) in C++

How do I change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using Notepad++?

How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?

et qui - how do you really understand that kind of phraseology?

What is "focus distance lower/upper" and how is it different from depth of field?

Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?

What is a ^ b and (a & b) << 1?

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

Why does a Star of David appear at a rally with Francisco Franco?

How to deal with taxi scam when on vacation?



Equivalents to the present tense


The simple past tense vs. the simple present tensePresent perfect vs. past simpleSimple Past vs. Present PerfectWhat is the difference between simple past tense and present perfect tense here in the paragraph?the simple present tense or the present continuous tensePresent Perfect Tense vs. Present Perfect Continuous Tense“Simple past” vs “present perfect” with 'ever'Does this sentence mean 'recent past' in present perfect tense?tense question about 'Would it be okay if~' phrasePresent perfect simple tense in conditionals













1
















Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



Do this to not do the dishes.




I am not sure what tense the first sentence is, I feel it's in the simple present too, but I am not sure. Is there a temporal difference in meaning between the two? I feel the difference is that the first one implies doing the dishes is an obligation, but there doesn't seem to be a "temporal difference in meaning".










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • @repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago












  • the whole sentence

    – repomonster
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago















1
















Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



Do this to not do the dishes.




I am not sure what tense the first sentence is, I feel it's in the simple present too, but I am not sure. Is there a temporal difference in meaning between the two? I feel the difference is that the first one implies doing the dishes is an obligation, but there doesn't seem to be a "temporal difference in meaning".










share|improve this question



















  • 2





    In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • @repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago












  • the whole sentence

    – repomonster
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago













1












1








1









Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



Do this to not do the dishes.




I am not sure what tense the first sentence is, I feel it's in the simple present too, but I am not sure. Is there a temporal difference in meaning between the two? I feel the difference is that the first one implies doing the dishes is an obligation, but there doesn't seem to be a "temporal difference in meaning".










share|improve this question

















Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



Do this to not do the dishes.




I am not sure what tense the first sentence is, I feel it's in the simple present too, but I am not sure. Is there a temporal difference in meaning between the two? I feel the difference is that the first one implies doing the dishes is an obligation, but there doesn't seem to be a "temporal difference in meaning".







tense auxiliary-verbs do-support imperative-sentences






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Jasper

18.3k43670




18.3k43670










asked 4 hours ago









repomonsterrepomonster

1,099116




1,099116







  • 2





    In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • @repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago












  • the whole sentence

    – repomonster
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago












  • 2





    In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    @BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

    – FumbleFingers
    3 hours ago












  • @repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago












  • the whole sentence

    – repomonster
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    @repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

    – BillJ
    3 hours ago







2




2





In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

– BillJ
3 hours ago





In the first sentence the avoid clause is an infinitival one, so no tense. Note that to is part of the clause. In the second, "to not do the dishes" is also an infinitival, but it is not a natural way of saying things. Stick with the first one.

– BillJ
3 hours ago




2




2





@BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago






@BillJ: Not exactly my position, but the mods / SO in general / some ELL users don't like "answers posted as comments", and are apparently cracking down on it. I think you've said just about everything there is to say about this one, but I at least don't want to flag this to the mods as "Should be an answer, not a comment". (Whatever - your move! :)

– FumbleFingers
3 hours ago














@repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

– BillJ
3 hours ago






@repomomster To be clear, are you asking about the tense of the whole sentences, or just the clauses commencing with to?

– BillJ
3 hours ago














the whole sentence

– repomonster
3 hours ago





the whole sentence

– repomonster
3 hours ago




1




1





@repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

– BillJ
3 hours ago





@repomonster Ah, in that case they are imperatives.

– BillJ
3 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1














It's simple present imperative, just like the second. They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently.



The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation.



As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. That action is having to do the dishes. Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation:




Do this to avoid doing the dishes.




In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do, and the other verbs - avoid, having, and the second do (whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing 'this' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. The other says that doing 'this' will allow you to not do the dishes. The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two.






share|improve this answer






























    2














    ** EDIT **



    I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. Just adding this in case it includes anything of use.



    ** END EDIT **



    "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing.



    Consider this phrase:




    Why am I doing the dishes? Because I have to.




    For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). But it is a very common English construction.



    In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. Why? Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form.




    I avoid running for the bus.



    He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework.




    Therefore, these sentences are equally correct:




    We all avoided having to do the dishes.



    You never avoid having to run for the bus.




    The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. If you said:




    I avoided having to do the dishes.




    then it would be past. In your sentence you have the present infinitive.






    share|improve this answer






























      1















      Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



      Do this to not do the dishes.




      No, they are not simple present. These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.



      They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having".



      The second is quite unnatural. Stick with the first.






      share|improve this answer
























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "481"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200853%2fequivalents-to-the-present-tense%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        1














        It's simple present imperative, just like the second. They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently.



        The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation.



        As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. That action is having to do the dishes. Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation:




        Do this to avoid doing the dishes.




        In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do, and the other verbs - avoid, having, and the second do (whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing 'this' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. The other says that doing 'this' will allow you to not do the dishes. The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two.






        share|improve this answer



























          1














          It's simple present imperative, just like the second. They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently.



          The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation.



          As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. That action is having to do the dishes. Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation:




          Do this to avoid doing the dishes.




          In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do, and the other verbs - avoid, having, and the second do (whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing 'this' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. The other says that doing 'this' will allow you to not do the dishes. The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two.






          share|improve this answer

























            1












            1








            1







            It's simple present imperative, just like the second. They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently.



            The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation.



            As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. That action is having to do the dishes. Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation:




            Do this to avoid doing the dishes.




            In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do, and the other verbs - avoid, having, and the second do (whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing 'this' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. The other says that doing 'this' will allow you to not do the dishes. The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two.






            share|improve this answer













            It's simple present imperative, just like the second. They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently.



            The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation.



            As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. That action is having to do the dishes. Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation:




            Do this to avoid doing the dishes.




            In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do, and the other verbs - avoid, having, and the second do (whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing 'this' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. The other says that doing 'this' will allow you to not do the dishes. The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            SamBCSamBC

            12k1545




            12k1545























                2














                ** EDIT **



                I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. Just adding this in case it includes anything of use.



                ** END EDIT **



                "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing.



                Consider this phrase:




                Why am I doing the dishes? Because I have to.




                For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). But it is a very common English construction.



                In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. Why? Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form.




                I avoid running for the bus.



                He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework.




                Therefore, these sentences are equally correct:




                We all avoided having to do the dishes.



                You never avoid having to run for the bus.




                The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. If you said:




                I avoided having to do the dishes.




                then it would be past. In your sentence you have the present infinitive.






                share|improve this answer



























                  2














                  ** EDIT **



                  I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. Just adding this in case it includes anything of use.



                  ** END EDIT **



                  "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing.



                  Consider this phrase:




                  Why am I doing the dishes? Because I have to.




                  For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). But it is a very common English construction.



                  In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. Why? Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form.




                  I avoid running for the bus.



                  He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework.




                  Therefore, these sentences are equally correct:




                  We all avoided having to do the dishes.



                  You never avoid having to run for the bus.




                  The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. If you said:




                  I avoided having to do the dishes.




                  then it would be past. In your sentence you have the present infinitive.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    2












                    2








                    2







                    ** EDIT **



                    I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. Just adding this in case it includes anything of use.



                    ** END EDIT **



                    "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing.



                    Consider this phrase:




                    Why am I doing the dishes? Because I have to.




                    For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). But it is a very common English construction.



                    In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. Why? Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form.




                    I avoid running for the bus.



                    He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework.




                    Therefore, these sentences are equally correct:




                    We all avoided having to do the dishes.



                    You never avoid having to run for the bus.




                    The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. If you said:




                    I avoided having to do the dishes.




                    then it would be past. In your sentence you have the present infinitive.






                    share|improve this answer













                    ** EDIT **



                    I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. Just adding this in case it includes anything of use.



                    ** END EDIT **



                    "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing.



                    Consider this phrase:




                    Why am I doing the dishes? Because I have to.




                    For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). But it is a very common English construction.



                    In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. Why? Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form.




                    I avoid running for the bus.



                    He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework.




                    Therefore, these sentences are equally correct:




                    We all avoided having to do the dishes.



                    You never avoid having to run for the bus.




                    The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. If you said:




                    I avoided having to do the dishes.




                    then it would be past. In your sentence you have the present infinitive.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 3 hours ago









                    fred2fred2

                    3,002719




                    3,002719





















                        1















                        Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



                        Do this to not do the dishes.




                        No, they are not simple present. These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.



                        They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having".



                        The second is quite unnatural. Stick with the first.






                        share|improve this answer





























                          1















                          Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



                          Do this to not do the dishes.




                          No, they are not simple present. These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.



                          They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having".



                          The second is quite unnatural. Stick with the first.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            1












                            1








                            1








                            Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



                            Do this to not do the dishes.




                            No, they are not simple present. These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.



                            They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having".



                            The second is quite unnatural. Stick with the first.






                            share|improve this answer
















                            Do this to avoid having to do the dishes.



                            Do this to not do the dishes.




                            No, they are not simple present. These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.



                            They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having".



                            The second is quite unnatural. Stick with the first.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 3 hours ago

























                            answered 3 hours ago









                            BillJBillJ

                            6,5731719




                            6,5731719



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200853%2fequivalents-to-the-present-tense%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

                                Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

                                inputenc: Unicode character … not set up for use with LaTeX The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEntering Unicode characters in LaTeXHow to solve the `Package inputenc Error: Unicode char not set up for use with LaTeX` problem?solve “Unicode char is not set up for use with LaTeX” without special handling of every new interesting UTF-8 characterPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character ² (U+B2)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. acroI2C[I²C]package inputenc error unicode char (u + 190) not set up for use with latexPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char u8:′ not set up for use with LaTeX. 3′inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeX with G-BriefPackage Inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ́ (U+301)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. includePackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ̂ (U+302)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. … $widehatleft (OA,AA' right )$Package inputenc Error: Unicode char â„¡ (U+2121)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]Package inputenc Error: Unicode char − (U+2212)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character α (U+3B1) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode characterError: ! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char ⊘ (U+2298)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX