Time sequence is okay as well
Student or Learner
1)"Did you notice that he's looking at you?"
2)"Did you notice he's looking at you?"
3)"Have you noticed that he's lookin at you?
Which one would sound naturally to you? Can we leave "that" out in sentence 2?
Time sequence is okay as well
Regards the tenses: the first two sentences don't sound quite right to me because the past simple that introduces the situation gives the impression of a situation that is no longer taking place in which case the following verb should be a past progressive:
• Did you notice he was looking at you?
If on the other hand the situation is still present then it should be introduced with a present perfect as you have done in sentence 3).
Last edited by apbl; 14-Oct-2010 at 19:18. Reason: typo
apbl, all of the sentences are complex sentences with so called noun clauses (declarative content clause to be more precise).
you mixed it up a little. In relative clauses you can obviously leave the relative pronoun (respectively the relative adverb) out.
Example: I saw a man that I know. -> I saw a man whom I know. -> I saw a man I know.
Note that difference.
the examples set by OP are no relative clauses!!!
further, if the main clause is in the past, all the following up clauses (subordinate clauses) need reflect this reality and adapt their finite verbs to that. The subordinate clause (aka the mentioned noun clause) "that he is looking at you" is okay if:
1) the situation is still happening at that time of speaking
2) the situation is a (present) fact
Are all these correct?
1. Did you notice he had been staring at you?
2. Did you notice he stared at you?
2. Did you notice he was staring at you?
3. Do you notice he is staring at you?
4. Have you noticed he has been staring at you?
5. Have you noticed he is staring at you?
With regards the verb, my point is that if the main verb is in the past simple then it is pretty likely that the situation is no longer taking place and therefore the present tense in the subordinate clause (sorry, the mentioned noun clause) doesn't really work: at least in this example.
However, a lot of these "theoretical problems" are difficult to resolve in a definitive way in absence of a real-life situation. We can provide pointers but if we don't know whether the situation is on-going or not we can't really provide a definitive answer.
the examples set by OP are not relative clauses
(subordinate clauses) need to reflect this reality
1. Did you notice (at a point in past time) his staring at at you (an action that had begun before that point and probably continued up to that point)?
2. Did you notice (at a point in past time) his staring at you (at that point)?
2.[your second 2] Did you notice (at a point in past time) his staring at you (an action that had begun before that time and continued after it)?
3. This is unlikely if the staring is happening at the moment the question is asked ( is more likely). However, it's just about possible if the context is something like: Whenever I see him, he is always staring at you (the staring began before I see him, and continues throught my seeing him). Do you notice this (i.e. on those accasions I am talking about)?
In  and , have you noticed implies that the possibility for you to notice began in the past and is still present. In both cases the staring is going on at the moment of speaking, but in  the speaker is emphasising the duration of the staring - it began in the past and continued up to, and through, the present moment.
I suspect that Americans might well use did you notice in  and