Thursday, October 29, 2026

The Strange Conjugation of Irregular Verbs in the Past Perfect Tense

 Those of you who are bilingual, especially in French, Spanish, or Italian, will know that there are regular verbs and irregular verbs in almost all languages. Regular verbs are conjugated a certain way that is consistent. In Spanish, the verb to speak or to live is a regular verb, but to be or to go is irregular.

English has the same system. The verb to have is complicated for some people. In the simple past tense, it's a regular verb. For example, I have, you have, he or she has, we have, and they have. To have itself remains regular when we move into the past tense. For example, I had, you had, he or she had, we had, they had. Easy peasy. But wait a minute. Where we run into problems is when we use to have as an auxiliary verb, otherwise known as a helping verb, for the past present tense. Here’s what I mean:

Sometimes the conjugation is regular, e.g., I had lived, I had seen, I had been, I had served, I had gone. No problemo, señor! On those occasions, you are simply taking the past tense of your verb and adding some form of to have, which remains a regular verb. However, that won’t work for verbs like to see or to be. You can say I lived or I had lived, I walked or I had walked. You can say I had seen, but you can’t say I seen. You can say I went, but you can’t say I had went or I gone. You can say I ate, but you can’t say I had ate; you can only say I had eaten. This is not something you can figure out with any kind of formula. Just like Spanish or Italian, you have to memorize your irregular verbs.

Most people with English as a first language figure this out easily because they hear their parents, teachers, friends, and colleagues speaking correctly. Still, some people don't get it. If you’re a fan of reality TV like me—hey, come on! It’s my one guilty pleasure. I could do cocaine or pop Adderall, but instead I watch 90 Day Fiancé and Married at First Sight as my big guilty pleasures—I recommend watching Judge Judy for a great example of how not to talk and how not to write! Some participants on the show make really bizarre conjugations, particularly with the past perfect tense of to have. This drives Judy crazy, and often she will correct them in her signature rude fashion.

But, as I always say to my fiction writers, there is a place at the table for bad language. No, not THAT bad language, although that pertains as well. I’m talking about I seen or I been there. Where do you put that in your book? In dialogue because sometimes it’s super realistic. But you have to be careful because you don’t want to make fun of anyone or sound classist. You have to create a character who would actually talk that way. Conversely, you don’t want to sound pretentious with your characters; it’s not a good idea to have your characters talking too formally without ever using contractions or never making a grammatical mistake. I routinely advise many of my fiction writers not to use the word whom in dialogue because it just doesn’t sound natural for their character.

 To summarize, pay careful attention to the past perfect tense of to have.

Happy writing.

Sigrid

 

 

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Regardless and Irregardless

What’s the difference between these two words? Easy. One is legit, and the other isn't a word at all, but you’d be surprised how often people use it in speech and writing.

Which is the real word? Regardless. It means no matter what. I think people get it mixed up with irrespective. Now, that’s a word, and it’s a synonym for regardless. You can use them interchangeably, although irrespective is more formal. Here’s an example: “Regardless of the price of gas, people keep driving.” Or “Irrespective of his father’s disapproval, Tom decided to go to the concert anyway.”

Irrespective and regardless are another way of saying despite. Irregardless is probably a mistaken way of saying irrespective; however, it’s not a word, so you don’t want to use it.

Happy writing.

Sigrid