گرامر زمان گذشته ی استمراری

PAST CONTINUOUS

AGE IS JUST A NUMBER

When he first told town hall officials of his plan, the judges were laughing like little girls.

Were the judges singing like little girls? No, the judges weren’t singing like little girls. The judges were laughing like little girls.

Many were thinking he was a victim of Peter Pan syndrome.

What were many thinking? Many were thinking he was a victim of Peter Pan syndrome.

A psychiatric evaluation was proving he wasn’t suffering from a midlife crisis.

What was proving he wasn’t suffering from a midlife crisis? A psychiatric evaluation was proving he wasn’t suffering from a midlife crisis.

They were saying Emile had practical reasons for carrying out his course of action.

Were they saying Emile had practical reasons for carrying out his course of action? Yes, they were saying Emile had practical reasons for carrying out his course of action.

Emile was delivering a moving speech to the court.

What kind of speech was he delivering to the court? He was delivering a moving speech to the court.

He was saying modern society had liberated itself from the shackles of old schools of thought.

Was the judge saying modern society had liberated itself from the shackles of old schools of thought? No, the judge wasn’t saying modern society had liberated itself from the shackles of old schools of thought. Emile was saying modern society had liberated itself from the shackles of old schools of thought.

He was arguing that we are all free to become whatever we want to be even if that’s someone 20 years younger.

Was he arguing that we are all free to become whatever we want to be even if that’s someone 20 years younger? Yes, he was arguing that we are all free to become whatever we want to be even if that’s someone 20 years younger.

Emile was comparing his struggle to the transgender movement.

Was he comparing his struggle to refugees? No, he wasn’t comparing his struggle to refugees. He was comparing his struggle to the transgender movement.

The court was begging to differ.

What was the court doing? The court was begging to differ.

They were ruling there was no evidence of discrimination, unlike transgender people whose medical needs are officially recognized.

Were they ruling there was no evidence of discrimination? Yes, they were ruling there was no evidence of discrimination.

They were claiming Emile did not have a valid argument.

What were they claiming? They were claiming Emile did not have a valid argument.

The court was saying Emile is free to act any age he feels.

Who was saying Emile is free to act any age he feels? The court was saying Emile is free to act any age he feels.

But they were disagreeing with his plan to make 20 years of records go up in smoke.

Were they agreeing with his plan to make 20 years of records go up in smoke? No, they weren’t agreeing with his plan to make 20 years of records go up in smoke. They were disagreeing with his plan to make 20 years of records go up in smoke.

They were saying this would have severe legal and societal implications.

What kind of implication were they saying this would have? They were saying this would have severe legal and societal implications.

Emile was appealing the court’s ruling.

What was he appealing? Emile was appealing the court’s ruling.

He was arguing, “What is time? Time is a figure. I say it’s not fixed.” Was he arguing, “What is time? Time is a figure. I say it’s not fixed.”? Yes, he was arguing, “What is time? Time is a figure. I say it’s not fixed.”