Bunu İngilizce (Birleşik Krallık) da nasıl dersiniz? The harder he works, the worse he sleeps.

Why we need to put THE in front of adverb here and it's not even superlative form of it.
Can we say it without definite article?

Question

Bunu İngilizce (Birleşik Krallık) da nasıl dersiniz? The harder he works, the worse he sleeps.

Why we need to put THE in front of adverb here and it's not even superlative form of it.
Can we say it without definite article?

L84work · Accepted Answer

@tc77tatyana 
Hi Tatyana. You could call me Mike if you like: my name is Michael, and it's my preferred short form :) 
I hope it's good that work keeps you busy: I suppose that depends on how you feel about the work, and on busy being pleasantly busy and not too overloaded. 
I'm glad that my explanation helped: it's hard to know if an explanation makes things clearer or less clear!

You are right about the uses of the -ing form, tenses with a continuous (or progressive) aspect: these are for when you want to stress or bring out the continuing nature of an action over a period of time.

In the present tense, of course, the continuous aspect also signals that the action is not yet complete. "Finish your report." "I am finishing it!" This means that I am working on it now and am nearing completion, but have not yet finished it. As soon as the report is finished, we can say "I have finished it!" (Or "I've finished!")  The present perfect here signals that the action is recently completed. We know that it has an influence in the present, too, as we are still responding to the person who wanted to know if we had finished.

Your example questions:

"We stayed there for two weeks (past not connected with now)."  This is perfect - in the sense that this is correct!

"We have stayed there for 2 weeks ( meaning just recently, can I use there in this case?)" You can use this exacly like this, but it's better to adjust it a little: as it is it looks like a mistake in choice of tense.  Normally, this would be better in the simple past: "We stayed there for two weeks."

But you could find these words, in specific cases: 
"I expect that you've never spent a night in Russia."  "We have stayed there, for 2 weeks last year (or some specific time in the past.)" Then the "have" is an emphatic rejection of the assumption in the previous statement.  In this context this is OK.

"We have been staying here for 2 weeks  (means I am still at the place)."  This is exactly right (correct, perfect!)

Often, we would simplify this and leave out the "staying". "We've been here for two weeks."  The "staying" is implied by the "being", so to speak!  If you meet someone, who asks "How long have you been here?" or ""Have you been here long?" then you can reply "We've been here for two weeks. "

But if you are talking about a hotel or some place that you are living in - a rented apartment, a friend's house - then you could well say exactly "We have been staying here for two weeks." In this use, the "staying" implies sleeping at that place for those two weeks. The action is continuous in the grammatical sense that you have slept there every night for the two weeks (and are still due to sleep there at least tonight) but obviously not continuous in the logical sense of sleeping all the time: clearly you'd normally spend a lot of the day awake, and probably out of the hotel and doing things!

"I had stayed there for two weeks before he came (means that I would like to mention about my stay before)." This is all correct. This would be part of a narration moslty told in the simple past tense.  Again, unless you are talking about a hotel or other residence you would probably leave out the "staying."  "I had been there for two weeks before he arrived / came."

You're welcome! But lack of patience, as my wife ocasionally reminds me, is one of my bigger weaknesses, usually - along with answering too fully! i hope this has made sense, and has not left you more confused than before!

Mike

L84work · Answer

Not really. This structure is a standard element in English grammar, and without the "the"s your sentence would be understandable, but would not feel like English ...

https://www.englishgrammar.org/thethe-comparative-adjectives/ 
https://open.books4languages.com/english-b1-grammar/chapter/comparative-correlative-clause-the-the/

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana You're welcome. There's not very much logic in English grammar ... :)

L84work · Answer

"She is not as patient with people as I would like."  - This is fine just like this. It is probably better without the comma, although there are different approaches to the use of the comma in English.

You can extend it if you want to, but if you do then you really want to add a "be". So: 
"She is not as patient with people as I would like her to be."

I wonder if I can find a source for a rule here ...  OK.  You obviously understand these "as ... as ..." comparatives.  But if you like you can refresh this at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/as-as

For the part after the second "as", you can write out your meaning  in full  - "as I would like her to be". Or you can reduce this to "as I would like." The meaning is obvious from the first part of the sentence.  The two instances of "as" tell us that the quality stated in the first part (here, "patient") is being compared in the second part.

I hope this makes sense .,. if not, tell me and I'll try to find a better source or explanation.

We have a similar pattern with some comparatives in English.

She is not as greedy as me.  This is OK
She is not as greedy as I am. This is also OK. You can use either of these. In older English, you could also use "She is not as greedy as I," and you may still see this sometimes. But most people would find this too old-fashioned for normal use, or even for very formal use. It's not wrong; it's just not really used any more.

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana You're welcome ;) I'm not a teacher! But you are very kind. I'm sure you are a great student ;) In the whirlpool of English grammar, you are swimming not drowning!

L84work · Answer

I don't mind! It gives me the illusion of being useful - a great thing in a pandemic ;)

From what I understand, the approach of native English speakers to grammar rules may be quite different from that of native Russian speakers. But correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know any Russian.

For English, children learn to speak informal English in their (our) families, and there are many different variants of informal English. As we grow up, we use these varinats of informal English amongst friends and people we know.

But we have to learn a whole extra set of rules or conventions when we go to school, particularly in secondary school. We learn formal English - the English, probably, that you are learning, if you are learning from a teacher or a textbook.

For most native English-speaking children, school is their first exposure to formal English, and we learn to use it with teachers, bosses, officials and people in positions of authority. But we don't always use it when we "should", and we rarely use it in any social setting.

I hope this helps to explain why you can find such very different advice and guidance on English on the web; unfortunately there are lots of variants! A big advantage of learning formal English first, if you are, is that nearly every native speaker understands it, even if they prefer to speak in their own ways.

On your specific questions: 
"Ben here."  This means "This is Ben," or "Ben speaking". If you say "Ben is here", it means that you are not Ben, but he is with you. It's just a convention, enforced in many jobs, to say who you are when you first pick up a phone call. This may change now, as people use mobile phones more and have the ability to see the number and often the identity of whoever is calling.

"It's Kate" This is a similar convention. She is just telling the person who answered the phone who it is who is calling. It's an alternative to "Kate here."  ( In this use, you could sat that it is short for "the person calling is Kate." But nobody would ever say that, except as a joke. )

This structure with "it is" or "there are" at the start of sentences is very widely used in English. It's called using a "dummy subject."

You will hear it in lots of expressions, like: 
It's raining. 
It's late. 
There are lots of spaces. 
There are lots of problems for us to solve.

In English grammar (in formal English) we expect most sentences to have a subject. "It" or "they" can act as that subject, when we want them to, but often have no specific meaning. They don't relate to any specific thing,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/dummy-subjects

I hope this helps .... if not, I apologise. Tell me, and I'll try to be shorter and clearer.

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana Yes, that's right. Or different, more informal conventions apply.

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana And thank you!

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana 
1 here 
2 It's 
3 See you soon. (Speak soon also works, but you do not have that option.)
4 speak 
5 calling 
6 He isn't here (He's not here also works but again you do not have that option.)
7 message
8 back

This is fairly standard phone call English ;) 
I hope it helps.

L84work · Answer

Hi Tatyana ;) Nice to "see" you. This app is strange, with no messaging.

Simple past, present perfect, past perfect, the continuous aspect ... I wonder if I can explain these. I'll try.

The simple past is the most-used tense in English after the simple present, according to this link: https://ginsengenglish.com/blog/english-verb-tense-frequency  
Their data is a little out of date, and based on written not spoken English. But it still feels like a useful clue, I think.

"I was there for two weeks." SImple past. This is good. This is a very typical sentence, with no errors.

"I have been there for two weeks." This is present perfect - but you knew that! 
You can't really use this sentence, because the present perfect conflicts with the "there." We use the present perfect for things that continue into the present, or have a big influence in the present.  You could say "I have been here for two weeks," if you are still on the holiday. Does this make sense? But as soon as you say "there", this means you are no longer in that place - so you can't really use the present perfect.

CORRECTION : so you can't really use the present perfect in the kind of situation you ask about: "I have been there for two weeks [or any specific period of time]."

You can use the present perfect with "there" in a specific use, with no time period attached. Often, this will be in reply to a question or in contradiction of an earlier statement.  "Paris? I've been there." This doesn't specify a time period. At some time in your life you visited Paris. If you were to add a comma, you could then add a time period. "Moscow? I've been there, for two weeks last year." More formally, you would repeat the verb: "London? I've been there. I was there for two weeks last summer."  Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm making this any clearer. Sorry.  END OF CORRECTION

https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/present-perfect/ 
https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/present-perfect-vs-simple-past/

Present perfect continuous: when we use the continuous or progressive verb form, we are emphasising what is happening right now - in the present - or at the exact time we are talking about, in  th past.

"I eat": simple present. Our most-used tense. This can describe a particular action, or a regular, repeated action: "I drink coffee" probably means I regularly drink coffee.

In the past, the past continuous: "I was eating."  This emphasises the process of eating, and would often be used as a background action leading to a specific event: "I was eating when the doorbell rang."

Or, in speech: 
"Why didn't you answer the phone when I called you?" 
"I was fixing a light, and I was up a ladder."

The present perfect continuous; like the present perfect, this describes something that started in the past and continues to have an influence in the present. Using the continuous brings out that the action continued all through the time period we are describing.

"I have been eating for hours - and I'm still hungry." 
"She has been waiting here for you for two hours; where were you?"

I hope this helps. I am trying to describe these tenses clearly!  But do remember that our most-used tenses are the simple present and simple past.  These links might help more ... if not, do let me know ;)

https://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfectcontinuous.html

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/continuous-aspect

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/present-perfect-simple-and-continuous

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana You're welcome :)

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana Hi there Tatyana. It's good to hear from you. The bug iis still bad here - we have a mad government.  I hope life is better for you where you are :)

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana Hi there Tatyana. It's good to hear from you. The bug iis still bad here - we have a mad government.  I hope life is better for you where you are :)

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana  Three differences are quite subtle and tricky.

It might help me to know your goals for your English. The best approach may not be quite the same if you are learning for exams compared to learning for real-life understanding and usage

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana You obviously understand the basic differences in the use of these tenses.  So, can I work out what is troubling you here?

The task was repeated to the pupils several times but some of them still didn't understand it.

OK ... First of all  I can see why your grammar book suggests this form; it looks ok to me.

I can also understand your concern - isn't this "earlier time", so shouldn't we think of the past perfect?

The  thing I would draw your attention to is the writer's focus, the writer's relationship to the time being described.

The task was repeated to the pupils several times but some of them still didn't understand it.

Here, the writer is treating both elements as existing in the same time frame - they are both in the simple past.  What follows will probably also be in the simple past; this is all normal narrative English.

Could we use the past perfect for the first verb, and if so would we have to adjust the second verb?

Well, of course we could.  The task had been demonstrated to the pupils several times- so far so good , but now we might well want:: but still they had not understood it. Two past perfect verbs, happening in the same time frame: this is the writer's intent.

This then invites us to follow up with something in the simple past: what the teacher tried next was ....

But what about your idea? The task had been demonstrated to the pupils several times, but still they did not understand it. So what the teacher tried next was . ..

This works too, but the meaning is subtly different.  In the textbook version , the use of the simple past for both verbs suggests that the explaining several times and the not understanding are in the same time period: in the course of a few minutes or of a single lesson, and all some time in the indeterminate past.

If we separate the tenses, the past perfect demonstrating or explaining, as you know, is taken to be in an earlier time period than the students'  not understanding. So

The teacher had explained calculus a dozen times and in many different ways over the year. But when it came to exam time, it turned out that the students still did not understand it.

Does this help ...?  I hope it does.  If not, let me know .... It may be that it would take an actual discussion between us  for me to work out how it seems to you, and try to find a way to explain to you  how I see it.

In any event, it's good to see you questioning your text book!  There are many around that are not great, and your English is advanced enough for the nuances to be important :)

P.s. I tried to answer this on a phone, and I'm fairly useless on phones - so please forgive all typos and quirks!

L84work · Answer

I agree!

In normal use it should be "I'm sure that any boy wants to learn to play football."    (Not all boys do want this, though!)

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/beginner-to-pre-intermediate/verbs-followed-by-ing-or-by-to-infinitive-1
https://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/encomium/writingdemo/wa/gs/gs_01.htm

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=learn+to+play%2C+learn+playing&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Clearn%20to%20play%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Clearn%20playing%3B%2Cc0

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=to+learn+to+play+football%2C+to+learn+playing+football&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cto%20learn%20to%20play%20football%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cto%20learn%20to%20play%20football%3B%2Cc0

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana  Hey Tatyana! I'm sure you're  a lovely English tutor.  A tutor has to be able to communicate with the pupil, I think: well, that works better for me when I am learning anyway :)

OK ... 
"When I go for a walk ..." and "When I go walking ..."  are both OK, but "When I go for walk" is really not OK.  You need that article in there, the indefinite "a" - unless you are referring to a specific walk, like a local charity walk we have here called the Oxfam walk. For that, you might say, "I'm going on the Oxfam walk at the weekend."

THEN 
You do need the "to". This really comes with the "listen."

If the verb "to listen" has an object, it always has an indirect object - it always takes a "to", or perhaps a "for".  (Of course you can just be listening, with no stated object.  "Please be quiet, I'm listening."  Or you can tell someone to pay attention. "Please listen when I'm talking." Or "Please listen." Or "Please listen to me."

Wrong: When I go for a walk, I listen music. NO NO 
Right: When I go for walk, I listen to music.  YES YES

If you listen for something, or listen out for something, this means that you cannot hear it at the moment but that you expect you may hear it soon.  "I'm listening for the sound of footsteps." I can't hear them at the moment, but I expect someone to arrive and the footsteps will warm me.

"The baby is upstairs, and I'm listening out for him, so that if he wakes up and starts to cry I can go and fetch him, or comfort him."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/listen 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/listen%20for
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/verbs-and-prepositions

I hope this helps ;)

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana  You're welcome!  And we  all make little typos; it's nothing to worry a lot about. When there's  time, we try to fix them.  I see I misspelt your name - sorry!

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana 
Hi Tatyana

It's good to hear from you again!

You are clearly at an advanced level with your English, so forgive me if I over-explain; it's a regular fault of mine. I imagine it might help you more  to have a fuller answer (or discussion) rather than a simple (but sometimes misleading) rule of thumb. If my approach does not work for you, I'm sorry!

1. Had you discussed anything by the time Kate came?  This is all OK, obviously: you know that!

2. Did you know anything by the time Kate came? This is a typical construction too.  Obviously you know that the question form of the simple past looks like this, so here we have two simple pasts together. This is also fine, but doesn't have the separation of time period that the use of a past perfect would bring.  So, why ...?

2 (alt) Had you known anything by the time Kate came? This opening "had you ..." is the standard way of constructing a question with the past perfect, but would almost never be used like this with the verb "to know".  I don't know the point your textbook is trying to get across, so let's explore.

It seems to me that there are two points to consider here: stative verbs, and typical constructions for English conditionals.

Stative verbs: (It might be more helpful to think of these as verbs that are usually used with a stative sense - but that's for another day, perhaps!)

We do take extra care with the use of verbs in a stative sense: that is, when the verb is being used to describe a state rather than an action.

In this example, the verb "to know" is being used in its typical, stative sense - it is describing the state of knowing, rather than the action of getting to know.

So the distinction between past perfect and the simple past is blurred. Normally, with the past perfect we describe an event that happened in an earlier time period than the paired action in the simple past.

With stative verbs, that distinction between time periods is difficult: the "knowing" is not an event that happened, but a state that spans both time periods. So the standard usage would favour using both verbs in the simple past.

But when we come to conditional sentences we often do use the past perfect with stative verbs in exactly this way: let me offer examples. (These are often called "3rd conditionals" or "type 3 conditinals")

A If I had known that when she came, I would have reacted quite differently.

In formal English, this type of conditional is often used without the opening "if", instead using subject / verb inversion:

A (alternative) Had I known that, I would have reacted in another way.

So you can see that there is not really a blanket ban here: it is more a case of choosing the tense which works well with the meaning of the specific verbs being used. If the verb is describing a specific event at an earlier point in time than another action in the past, then the past perfect is good. If the verb is describing a state, a continuous state that encompasses both an earlier time period and then another time period in the past, then the simple past works better. And if you want to use a "third conditional", you will find that you want the past perfect whatever your choice of verb ;)

Aside on third conditionals: 
3rd conditional:  if + past perfect  -->  would + have + past participle
The third conditional is used to talk about something in the past that didn't happen, and to suggest consequences that might have followed if that something in the past had actually happened ... I hope that's clear enough!

Aside on stative verbs: 
Typically, in formal grammar, the use of verbs in a stative sense in continuous tenses is not seen as acceptable.  So, no present continuous, no past perfect continuous for "to know"!

This prescription is breaking down to some extent in recent decades, with a sharp rise in the (now widespread) use of the present continuous with so-called stative verbs in modern, idiomatic English. You will have seen, perhaps, the MacDonalds ad campaign with the slogan "I'm lovin' it", which has attracted much criticism from grammar traditionalists.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/stative-verbs 
https://www.thoughtco.com/differences-between-action-and-stative-verbs-1211141

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/conditionals-other-expressions-unless-should-as-long-as

https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-grammar/third-conditional

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-im-loving-it-proper-grammar 
https://secureyourtrademark.com/blog/im-lovin-it/

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana I'd like to make an additional comment here.

I think there are times when we can and do use the past perfect with "stative verbs", so called, used in a positive sense and in addition to their use in the conditional. This happens in particular when we have an appropriate adverb of time.

Examples of this: 
I had known her for years before I realised that she spoke Chinese.

I had known him for a while before he told me that he was an Arsenal supporter.

She had known what he was like for years by the time they got together, but still she imagined that she would be able to change him.

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana  You're welcome. Your students are lucky to have you, I think!

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana Hi Tatyana! It's good to see your smiling icon again ;)

As usual, you have picked on a tricky spot in English grammar. There are some points to consider, and some quite misleading general advice can be found on the internet (and in some teaching books.)

Let's start with definitions:  is a double negative any form of double negation, or only the use of two negative words in a clause when the intended meaning is strongly negative?  Opinions differ, I'm afraid. So I'll first consider double negation, then move on to intentional double negation all within standard English, and then consider idiomatic or informal uses of double negation.

There is no generally-accepted grammatical rule in English against double negation. The opinion, the widely-available opinion that a double negative is always an error should be considered as style advice rather than as a grammatical rule.

For a beginner, particularly a beginner whose native language uses multiple negation, it may be good advice to avoid the use of double negatives in English: it's easy to make mistakes. While the use of double negation may be entirely deliberate and correct, it's also quite possible to use two negatives by mistake and create a sentence which is misleading about your meaning, or which is accidentally unclear.

In standard English, each instance of a negative, a negation, counts separately: they do not reinforce each other (as I think they do in Russian ...?) but rather, like a + sign and a - sign in maths, they normally (in standard English) reverse each other.  You probably know this.  Of course in idiomatic or informal English and in some dialects of English the use of double negation with an intended emphatic negative meaning is widespread ... but I'll come to that later.

I know this.    Positive. 
I don't know this.   Negative. 
I don't not know this.  The second negation cancels the first: the meaning is that I do know this. If the intention of the writer is to reinforce the negative, then this is a mistake. But this kind of structure is often used deliberately in standard English, with the intended positive meaning. It can also be used to create a form of understated positive - "he is not unattractive" = he is attractive, but not in an emphatic way.

I saw this.  Postive. 
I never saw this. Negative. 
I haven't ever seen this. Negative. 
I haven't not seen this.  Positive: the meaning is that "I have seen this."

These are simple, you might almost say extreme examples, which I hope show the underlying grammar.  Negation can be created using  "no", or a "not", or any of a number of negatively-tinged adverbs - never, nowhere, none.  There are also several almost-negative adverbs - hardly, rarely, seldom, barely, and many other adverbial phrases. Care is needed with these.  Negation can also arise from a negative form of a verb, like disagree, or distrust, or dislike, or from a negative adjective, like untrue, or unfriendly, or unwilling.

In standard English, using two forms of negation in the same clause gives a positive meaning. The second negative reverses the first.

Informal or idiomatic English and some English dialects, though, use double negation more in the French style, with the intention that the second and subsequent negatives reinforce the negative meaning of the sentence. You have very probably come across the non-standard but widespread word "ain't", which is used a general-purpose negative verb - perhaps are not, is not, am not, have not, has not, according to context. 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ain-t

This is very widely combined into double negation in some idiomatic speech. An example from a classic song is from Nina Simone's I Got Life. This starts with a long list of the things she does not have: 
Ain't got no home, ain't got no shoes
Ain't got no money, ain't got no class
Ain't got no friends, ain't got no schooling
Ain't got no wear, ain't got no job
Ain't got no money, no place to stay

The intended meaning is fully clear: she does not have any of these things. 
https://youtu.be/L5jI9I03q8E

Other idiomatic uses in this reinforced-negative sense:
"I didn't do nothing."  In standard English, this means I did something, In non-standard dialects this often means I didn't do anything.

"I didn't hurt no one."  In non-standard informal speech this means I did not hurt anyone.

We have to rely on the context and our assessment of the speaker or writer to form an opinion as to whether the double negation is a deliberate, emphatic negation with the intended meaning negative,  or a deliberate double negation with the intended meaning positive, or an accident, again with the intended meaning negative.

If you display good mastery of English and use two forms of negation in a single clause, most people will assume you did it deliberately and that you intend the positive meaning that arises. This is not an error or a grammatical mistake.

If you use informal English or a dialect well and use double negation, people are likely to assume that you did this deliberately and that you intend the emphatic negative meaning that the context gives, and that this is not a mistaken attempt at a simple negative.

If you use English in a way that shows that you are not fully fluent, people may see your intentional double negation and interpret your intended meaning as negative, and assume that you have made a mistake in using the second negative.

I hope that this is clear enough; or perhaps should I say I hope that this is not too unclear!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20negative
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Negative-Adverbs.htm 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/negation_1 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/negative-adverbs-hardly-seldom-etc 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/double-negative-not-adjective-litotes

https://prowritingaid.com/art/1171/stop-your-students-using-double-negatives-in-their-writing.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html

Just to clear up any misleading impressions about prepositions from these links, I should add that there is also no valid rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition!

See, if you like: 
https://www.lexico.com/grammar/ending-sentences-with-prepositions 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with 
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition 
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dangling-Prepositions.htm

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana That's a lovely piece of music - and a tiny glimpse of insight into what you like! 
If you sometimes like more frenetic music, perhaps this one might appeal to you ...? 
https://youtu.be/5LoUm_r7It8

I'm OK, thank you. I hope you are too!

Little note: we have three words that sound identical, but with different spellings and meanings! These are weather. whether and wether ...!
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/wether-weather-whether/

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana I'm glad you liked the music. I rather like the modern feel as well as the energy and urgency of that piece. But very often I listen to music with lyrics - to songs ;)

And I agree, major admiration is due to Marin Alsop. There are very many fields of life where women still do not receive equal treatment and opportunities, at least here in the UK I think.

Back to the grammar: you have the general rule exactly right. This is another simple past / present perfect question, obviously.

The usage in your example has a tiny extra nuance, though, I think. Very often, this type of conversation (about whether or not we have seen a film, or read a book, or even been to a place)  has an 'influence in the present', in the jargon. So very often these conversations use the present perfect. I think we'd only really choose the simple past when we wanted to add an adverb of time that does not link to the present: I saw that film yesterday / last week / last year / when it came out. I read that while I was on holiday / as part of my exam course / when I was a child.

Otherwise, the present perfect is far more likely.  I have read several of Shakespeare's plays. I've seen three Woody Allen films.  I've seen that film before / I've seen that film.

But we might very well use these tenses in combination: something like, "I've seen that film already. I saw it when I was in Moscow." The first part tells us that the influence continues into the present - I feel like I know that film - and the second part, with the simple past, adds information about when we saw it.

Another example might be, "I've seen three Woody Allen films. I saw Annie Hall in New York, and loved it. Manhattan I saw when I was back in London, strangely. And when I discovered Vicky Cristina Barcelona was showing when I was visiting Barcelona, I had to go and see it there! "

I hope this helps ... :)

L84work · Answer

These articles explain perhaps more clearly than I managed!

https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/present-perfect-life-experiences 
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar/present-perfect 
https://blog.lingoda.com/en/present-perfect-life-experiences/

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana

Hi Tatyana!  As usual, you are well informed on English grammar. These are quite tricky little points - and the use of stative verbs is changing, and there are different views now. It's always important for a student wanting to take an exam to find out what the specific exam board views as correct grammar on the (quite numerous) points where different views are acceptable.

"When his friend asked me to watch this film, I told him that I had seen it already." This is completely fine. Many people, though, might move the "already" to mid position:
"When his friend asked me to watch this film, I told him that I had already seen it."

But it's not wrong as you wrote it. The position is optional, and in informal US English you will often hear "already" in end position too. 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/already

Your student's version: 
"I had seen this film when his friend asked me to see it together." 
As you say, this is not really "wrong" in any bad way, but is not really right either.

If the student wants to use the past perfect, then an adverb of time like "already" is really needed.  Then we need to think about "together." The meaning is clear, but this usage is a little non-standard. We might replace this with "with him" (or "with her", if appropriate!) Finally, we might think about "see", or "watch". For viewing a film at home or on a laptop - not at a cinema - then we are much more likely to use "watch", while at the cinema we would probably choose "see".

So a version of this with minimal changes might be: 
"I had already seen this film when his friend asked me to see it with her (or him)."

Then you go on to what are sometimes called "stative verbs", which we might perhaps better describe as verbs typically used statively. Traditional grammar rules for verbs used in a stative sense include that we do not use these in progressive or continuous tenses. But we can,and sometimes do use them with perfect tenses, particularly the present perfect - although this has to be handled with care!  You are quite right about your specific examples. Let's look.

https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/stative-verbs.html 
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/stative-verbs

"He hadn't like that film before he met her." This is clumsy, but not totally impossible in modern, informal English.  Your version is much better. "I didn't like that film at that time. After I met him, I discovered that it was quite good." 
A direct correction might be: "He didn't like that film before he met her."

Or, in a fleshed-out version, perhaps: 
"I didn't like that film before I met her, but now I like it. She helped me to see it in a new light."

I hope this helps!

L84work · Answer

Hi there!

Your sentence is good. "If you don't have time now, you can finish it next time" is completely correct and normal.  You could use "you will be able to finish it next time", but your version would more often chosen I think.

It's hard to explain why. In English we often use the present tense to talk about the future - when in other languages the future would be chosen
 
You could think of your example as a type-zero conditional, if you like. But it might be better just to learn the pattern

I'll post an introductory link, and an advanced one. English auxiliary verbs can be a minefield!

Yes. I'm well, thank you. I hope you are too!

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-reference/verbs-in-time-clauses-and-if-clauses?page=1

https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/elor/lo/modal-auxiliary-verbs/index.html

L84work · Answer

@tc77tatyana I hope you can take some time to enjoy the buildup to the holidays - and can have some time off as well over Christmas and the New Year!

I'm afraid the link I put in for the |British Council got truncated somehow - so it wasn't very useful. Sorry. The link I intended is this one: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-reference/verbs-in-time-clauses-and-if-clauses?page=1

This one might also be of some use ... 
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-reference/present-tense

Счастливых праздников!

L84work · Answer

Dear Tatyana, Hi!

I almost feel I know you - and then I remember we've never met! Maybe one day I'll see you on screen.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and your loved ones too! Let's hope the world starts to take a turn for a better this next time around the sun!

Your specific question today: these are fine, subtle distinctions, not always observed by native speakers. But let's try to make sense of them.

"Did you xxx?" or "Have you xxx?" 
What are the key elements here?
These are both good, correct grammatical structures (and you know that.)

How much did you eat today? This is a question in the simple past tense. It asks about an action that is already complete and in the past at the time of asking. The implication is that you will not eat any more today.

How much have you eaten today? This is a question in the present perfect tense. The simple past is the most-used English past tense, but sometimes we want the present perfect. This has a number of uses. The British Council (link below) offers the categories: 
Unfinished time and states - the present hour, or day, or even lifetime, might qualify as the current unfinished time period! 
Past actions with a result in the present, when the time of the event is not specified.

We can add to that: 
Accumulated lifetime experiences. 
"Have you been to Paris?" This is a question about your lifetime experience, and we often add an "ever" (but don't need to.) "Have you ever been to Paris?" 
The EF webpage (linked below) is a little fuller on these potential uses for the present perfect.

So for your question, the meaning matters: if the person being asked will not sleep any more in this time perdiod (today, from your question) then the simple past is OK: "How much did you sleep today?"

But if the person might sleep some more later on, then stick with the present perfect: "How long have you slept today?"  This asks about the accumulated sleep up until the present, and leaves open the possibility of more sleep later today. This might seem clearer if we switch from sleep, which we often expect to be in one continuous block (unless we have children!) and instead ask about eating.

How much did you eat today? We don't expect you to eat any more today.? 
How much have you eaten today? We may want to know how hungry you are so that we can plan an appropriate next meal for you today.

Just to add to your confusion, this is formal grammar in English, British and American. But in American informal English the present perfect is much less used, and very often a simple past tense will be chosen when grammar (including US English grammar) rules indicate the present perfect. This is so widespread as to be normal, and we wouldn't really call this an error: it's just what American informal English is like. And because the US has such strong cultural dominance, this usage is now becoming a little more often seen even in British English ...

I hope this all helps!

https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/present-perfect/ 
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/present-perfect

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/british-english-and-american-english

https://ginsengenglish.com/blog/english-verb-tense-frequency
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=how+long+did+you+sleep%2Chow+long+have+you+slept%2Cmuch+did+you+sleep%2Cmuch+have+you+slept&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chow%20long%20did%20you%20sleep%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chow%20long%20have%20you%20slept%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmuch%20did%20you%20sleep%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmuch%20have%20you%20slept%3B%2Cc0

Bunu İngilizce (Birleşik Krallık) da nasıl dersiniz? The harder he works, the worse he sleeps.

Why we need to put THE in front of adverb here and it's not even superlative form of it.
Can we say it without definite article?

Not really. This structure is a standard element in English grammar, and without the "the"s your sentence would be understandable, but would not feel like English ...

https://www.englishgrammar.org/thethe-comparati...
https://open.books4languages.com/english-b1-gra...

@tc77tatyana You're welcome. There's not very much logic in English grammar ... :)

@tc77tatyana You're welcome ;) I'm not a teacher! But you are very kind. I'm sure you are a great student ;) In the whirlpool of English grammar, you are swimming not drowning!

Öğrendiğiniz dili ana dil olarak konuşanlara ücretsiz olarak sorular sorun

Bunu İngilizce (Birleşik Krallık) da nasıl dersiniz? The harder he works, the worse he sleeps. Why we need to put THE in front of adverb here and it's not even superlative form of it.Can we say it without definite article? Bir çeviriye bakın

Not really. This structure is a standard element in English grammar, and without the "the"s your sentence would be understandable, but would not feel like English ... https://www.englishgrammar.org/thethe-comparati... https://open.books4languages.com/english-b1-gra...

@tc77tatyana You're welcome. There's not very much logic in English grammar ... :)

@tc77tatyana You're welcome ;) I'm not a teacher! But you are very kind. I'm sure you are a great student ;) In the whirlpool of English grammar, you are swimming not drowning!

Öğrendiğiniz dili ana dil olarak konuşanlara ücretsiz olarak sorular sorun

Bunu İngilizce (Birleşik Krallık) da nasıl dersiniz? The harder he works, the worse he sleeps.

Why we need to put THE in front of adverb here and it's not even superlative form of it.
Can we say it without definite article?

Not really. This structure is a standard element in English grammar, and without the "the"s your sentence would be understandable, but would not feel like English ...

https://www.englishgrammar.org/thethe-comparati...
https://open.books4languages.com/english-b1-gra...