What is the past tense of hate?
Dear Anonymous:The past tense is “hated” for all persons. The verb “to hate” is regular.(I answered a similar question here for an irregular verb: Sarah Madden's answer to What is the past tense of “give”? For irregular verbs, go to Learn English by the British Council.)Below are some examples of tenses for this verb. Also see Mahdi Boumelit’s excellent answer to this question.BASE — hate; INFINITIVE — to hate; PAST — hated; PAST PARTICIPLE — hated; PRESENT PARTICIPLE — hatingBASE FORM — “hate” — This is the form in the dictionary.INFINITIVE — “to hate” — I hate being late to class!SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE (use “hate” for everything except third person singular) — I hate, you hate, he hates, we hate, they hateSIMPLE PAST TENSE (use “hated” for everything) — I hated, you hated, he hated, we hated, they hatedIMPERFECT TENSE – I was hating, you were hating, he was hating, we were hating, they were hatingFUTURE TENSE (use “will hate” for everything) — I will hate, you will hate, he will hate, we will hate, they will hatePRESENT PARTICIPLE with continuous tenses — hating — (“He is hating his class.” “He was hating the food he had to eat.” “He will be hating it when he has to work.” “He has been hating the wrong thing.” “He had been hating his sister.”)PAST PARTICIPLE with PRESENT PERFECT — hated (e.g., “He has hated many things.”)PAST PARTICIPLE with PAST PERFECT — hated (e.g., “He had hated many things.”)Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) explains verb tenses well.—Sarah M. 2/25/2018ORIGINAL QUESTION: “What is the past tense of hate?”
I've written three books but I hate them all after I finish them. How can I break this cycle and meet my own standards?
I think the best thing for you to realize is: you’re not alone.Writers especially, but every kind of artist has expressed dislike, disgust, and yes, even hatred, of their work when they finish it.Remember Michelangelo wrote a poem about how much he hated working on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And there are numerous examples of the authors we all love saying they didn’t like what they had written. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle even disliked writing about Sherlock Holmes so much that he killed the iconic character so he wouldn’t have to anymore.I think this is a good thing.I believe it means you have a standard for yourself that is extremely high, which forces you to make the hard decisions in your books that make them better and more engaging.Think about the alternative option, for a moment.Imagine if every book you wrote met your standard, however high it is. You sent it to the publisher, (or self-published, whatever you choose to do) in what you believe to be a “good-enough” form, and then never looked at it again. After all, if it meets your standards, what use is there in going back to it? If you’re able to be completely satisfied with your book every time you write one, then you’re either the most talented writer that has ever existed, or you have very low standards, and your books are probably not going to be very interesting.But if you struggle to meet your own standards, if you end up going back to your books because something “just didn’t feel right” or could have been just a bit better, every book will build on the success and your lessons of the one before it.The worst thing you can do is to lower your expectations of yourself, and your books.The “cycle” you describe, seems to be the natural life-cycle of every writer and author. It is a cycle that forces you to improve, to grow, and produce things that people actually want to read.We’ve all read things that went out as “good enough,” or were written by authors with low standards. They’re forgettable, or memorably terrible.For a good writer, there are always more ideas we want to force into a book, more events, more conflict, better ways to write a witty line, more imagery. We know what we left out, but the reader only sees the best, the cream off the top, that we only were able to give them after long hours and late nights of hating what we wrote.
What is the future tense of "l hate you"?
What an interesting though beguilingly simple question!Of course the answer is “I will hate you” but take a moment to explore the implications (peek into what linguists call pragmatics, semantics, entailment, implicature, etc.).You cannot plan to begin hating someone. That would go against what hating entails. You will not hear someone say “Hey, today is Monday. I will hate you on Wednesday.” It’s not ungrammatical. It’s just odd as it implies that a psychological state that is usually not deliberate will be deliberate. Would you ever hear someone say “I will intentionally hate you by Friday!”?If you already hate someone, then the future tense conveys that you expect you will continue to hate them. “I hate you right now and I will hate you tomorrow.”Then there is a conditional aspect too where subjunctive has fallen out of use in much of modern English (that is certainly the case in my dialect of American English). One could say “I will hate you if you do that” with pretty much the same meaning as “I would hate you if you did/were to do that.”So in my dialect (okay, my idiolect at least), “I will hate you” must be predicated on either:Projected continuation of a current psychological state (a real, continuing hatred), orProjected arising of a new psychological state conditional on some possible future event (a newly arisen hatred that would come about if a hypothetical were to occur)In either case, I’d advocate for letting go of hate. And I certainly wouldn’t plan on hating someone in the future. Life’s too short.
Why do most high school students hate reading?
As a child, I adored reading. My mother, on multiple occasions, would catch me reading, whether under the covers or in the bathroom, way past my bedtime. I made frequent visits to the library, a space of comfort and joy for me, and almost every time, I would reach the library’s maximum borrowing limit. At one point, my mother had to ban me from the library because reading was all I did.Then, I entered high school. It wasn’t long before I stopped itching to read books, and started growing a sense of antipathy towards them. Teachers began to hold me accountable for reading “chapters one through nine by next Tuesday” or “the first 40 pages by Friday.” I hated that there was a deadline in reading novels, and that you could no longer read them at your own pace. Reading, as assigned by school, felt like a controlled act, a rush to meet a deadline, a job. It was no longer synonymous with my happiness.That was only a part of the issue, however. High school also dictated what I read. They didn’t ask me to choose a book on a topic I was interested it or one I would enjoy reading. They chose for me. They only chose books with sonnets or too many metaphors or deep symbolic messages that nobody except the teacher would care to speculate upon. I despised what the system did to my love for reading, and so many other students, who also once loved reading, felt the same way.Yeah, so why not read “enjoyable books” in your free time? Okay, but like, what free time?Of course, once in a blue moon, we would read a somewhat interesting book, but thanks to high school, the chances of me reading even those were 50/50.I am now nearing the end of my high school career, and in the past year or so, I’ve desperately wanted to reignite my love for reading. I’ve started to disregard reading deadlines, immerse myself in books I want to read, and skim through books that I don’t care for in the slightest. It’s a slow return back to my childhood reading habits, but surely enough, I’m getting there.The answer isn’t in the habits of high school students, it’s in the botched high school system that plants the seeds of our animosity towards things we once loved.
How do I use present voice in my essay?
Present tense and passive voice are not mutually exclusive. Present tense, active voice: Lucy is walking the dog. Present tense, passive voice: The dog is being walked by Lucy. In the second example, Lucy is still performing the action, but the dog is the subject of the sentence. I didn't read the entire essay, but it looks to me like you're writing is in present tense/active voice.
In 1984, What is the purpose of the Two Minutes hate?
Hatred makes people to stick together to form a community. Moreover, the (fake-)war and the mean enemy makes people work harder and expecting lesser prosperity, because the ressources have to be used for that war or any other greater good. Goldstein and the other countries of the world are the enemies. During the "two-minute-hates" people are kinda conditioned to connect hatred with Goldstein. Have you read until the end of the third part of the book, yet? The whole principle of Oceania will be explained. Does Goldstein exist? We dont know and as we learn in the end of the book, it doesnt matter. Truth becomes irrelevant, because those who control the past and present (those who can change facts) will control the future. Newspeak disables the people to think and to even consider the possibility that something that has been said could be a lie. To create enemies is not only a method which is used by the perfect totalitarian state of 1984. All regimes need those enemies. The Nazis needed the Jews and the Russians. The Soviet Union needed the imperialist-capitalist USA, Cuba need the USA, too. Orwell is obviously influenced by the totalitarian countries of the 20th century. You find paralles to the Soviet Union, so in my opinion it is possible that "Goldstein", as it is a kinda jewish name, could be a parallel to Nazi-Germany. Edit.: Ok, according to wikipedia Goldstein does not exist... ...but we dont know if the Big Brother exists.
Tips on becoming a great writer?
I love to write, I am currently a college student trying to decide between being a journalist or a lawyer. I eventually want to be a full time fiction writer. Any advice?
Why do religeous conservatives hate gays and lesbians?
I was brought up to be accepting of everyone, so in a college Anthropology class I was mystified by any kind of "ism" (racism, sexism, etc.) I asked my instructor to explain this to me, and I was so impressed by his answer it has stayed with me for years: In our ancient past, there was SURVIVAL VALUE in being wary and cautious of anyone who was "different" from one's own tribe. Example: in your tribe, waving the right hand means "hello, friend". You met humans from another tribe, to whom that means "I'm going to kill you!" So you waved. And they tried to kill you! So you learned that any time you meet someone from a tribe not your own, you cannot count on anything meaning the same as it does to you! Also, consider this: homosexuals cannot reproduce "naturally". So if the goal was survival of our species (which it was back then, before overpopulation), anyone who engaged in homosexual behavior "threatened" the species goal. Fast forward to today. Homophobia exists because our society is very uneven in how it grows and develops. We have grown to the point where gays and lesbians cannot be legally discriminated against. Yet humans have the same "hard-wiring" we have always had, which says different=bad. And non-reproduction=bad. We know we don't really NEED more humans on the Earth, yet our programming tells us to reproduce. And there are still some religions who promote and reward cranking out lots of kids, and/or punish those who artificially limit their reproduction. Or different=scary. Religious conservatives are scared, in general. They are a good example of ethno- religio- and every other- centrism. (-centrism loosely defined is "mine is better than yours", i.e., ethnocentrism is "my ethnic group is better than yours", etc.) So in answer to your question, the answer is "Yes. Religious (and other) conservatives DO need a minority (or "other") to beat up on. It makes them feel safer, more in control, more "right" (no pun intended) to do so. That was a pretty verbose answer. The short version is: Phobia = irrational fear. Once upon a time, the fear of anyone different was rational. In modern times, it isn't. Our social conscience evolution has not keep up.