A concept of time

engtense,

«The publishing company will not allow me to send a book electronically to anyone. Doing so will break the agreement.»

Your book is not actually yours. That's terrible. The point is that it is really uncomfortable to read it in the form in which it is published at your site: you don't like dividing actions, but you've divided your book into many small parts located at separate html pages. The readability of your book (html version) will increase if you divide it into not so many html pages.

«However, did I say it is particular? What if my example is "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday, as usual"?»

The initial sentence tells us that yesterday at 20:00 some action happened. AND that this action belongs to the class of eating dinners. Like "It is a samovar" menas that the object in question belongs to the class of samovars, the object itself being only one and particular. Thus, the addition of "as usual" only adds information, not changes it: "I ate dinner yesterday. Also you should know that I do it usually".

This replies to all your text between "---------------" rulers.

«All I can do is add "Of course, it is not finished" to it, because you allow us to cut an action into many parts»

Irrelevent. I allow you to divide actions, but I do not allow to state that every action is not finished...

«Simply put, according to your weird analysis, I don't think you can prove there is a past action at all.»
«If we look into the future part, how can there be a past at all? How can you prove there is a past action at all?»

Should I prove it? Don't you believe there are past actions? Of course, you may say the world was created 2 seconds ago with all of us and our false knowledge about the past... But why?

--------------
What I think about the world. Well, every theory needs invariants. The most natural invariants are: time, space and matter.
Time, because evrything happens in time.
Matter, because evrything must be made from something.
Space, because everything is next to something. If two things do not touch each other, then there is something between them.
The three invariants are parts of motion.
Since, they are invariants the are
1. Infinitely dividual: minute, second, microsecond...
2. Limitless. (applied to time, this yields the existence of the past)
3. Additive
4. Linear
...
And there is aether wicth MECHANICALLY transimts interaction (light, gravitation...) Since it fills the whole universe, it should be a gas...
Elementary particals are aether vortexes. Protons are simple thoroidal vortexes. Axial revolution creates charge, ecuatorial — spin... And this all can be numerically described by mechanics (namely, dynamics of gases)...
--------------

«In my humble opinion, just because we use tense, you cannot cut an action into many parts of time, for a certain tense has already specified a certain part of time.»

Not fully.
Ex.: Yesterday I had a dinner at 19:34.
But the action of having a dinner occupies some period of time: e.g. between 19:33 and 19:56; not a moment 19:34.

Actually, by dividing an action I meant dividing the time period the action occupies.
Ex.: I did my homework for two hours.
This means that the action of doing the homework occupies a period of tme of a 2-hour length (2 parts), of 120 min. length (120 pats), of 1 hour and 60 min. (61 parts)...

Let's assume you was solving task number 222 during the second 14 minutes. Hence, I can say: "The action of solving task #222 is part of the action of doing the homework." If during the 16th minute you were searching a word in a dictionary, I can say: "The action of searching that word in the dictionary is part of the action of solving task #222, also it is part of the action of doing the homework."

Thus, we can divide the action of doing the homework in different ways, depending to our needs.

Geoff_one,

«I live in Hong Kong.

You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong
at any stage of your life!»

What is "the above"? Did you mean my comment:
«And what? (1) The action of your living in Hong-Kong has non-zero past and future parts. (2) That is, 'now' lies within the period of time occupied by the action of your living in Hong-Kong. Did I answer your question?»

Which satement would be true if you never lived in Hong-Kong? IMHO, they both would become false.

Ant-222 wrote:
<<I allow you to divide actions, but I do not allow to state that every action is not finished...>>

My reply: You have said this to me:
<< We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>

Now do you allow me to divide every action into as many parts as we want? If you do, how can I find a past in the future part of the action?

On timelessness

A correspondent once said this is timeless:
Ex: He is my son.

I explained to him that, in a paragraph of sentences, any timeless actions will be timed:
Ex: "My wife married me in 1987. We have a son, sitting over there. He is my son."
== Simple Present says an unfinished action outside a time frame ahead. The sentence "He is my son" says a kin relation between us; the tense indicates the relation is unfinished.

Even on one-sentence basis, according to the tense-changing process, any Simple Present action can be said again in Present Perfect, by adding the time:
Ex: He has been my son since my wife married me in 1987.

I have never failed to tell the time of what grammarians have taken as timeless:
Ex: Two and two make four.
== "Two and two have made four since mathematic was invented.
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
== "The earth has revolved around the sun since they were formed.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, nothing is timeless. Everything can be timed by us.

Those who worship the word "timeless" ought to teach us how to define it. We use tense to tell time, then why will we have a tense to tell something timeless? It doesn't make sense.

Does timelessness mean something that will never finish.
-- If not, when a timelessness finishes, it is timeless or not? Of course it still is. It is but a past timelessness. We cannot argue like this: "in the past, we understand it was timelessness. But when it finishes, we realize we have made a mistake, it was not a timelessness." This is not fair. It is only by now a past timelessness.
-- If timelessness means something that will never finish, then we had better use simpler notions -- finished and unfinished -- to explain tenses. Timelessness is beyond the comprehension of many foreign students.

My definition for Simple Present, "not yet finished now", is regarded by me as an achievement. It explains all kind of Simple Present actions and contrasts with a past action, which is "finished by now". Before this, I could only murmur the word or a notion I didn't understand: "timelessness".

«Now do you allow me to divide every action into as many parts as we want? If you do, how can I find a past in the future part of the action?»

I do, as I have already said. But I didn't say the future part always exists, as well as the past part. And I didn't say it is possible to "find a past in the future part of the action". And it doesn't follow from what I have said. So, I just don't understand why you asked this.

If we divide an action into the past and future parts, we'll get
1. Past actions have only the past part.
2. Present actions (including so called timeless ones) have both parts
3. Future actions have only the future part.

Of course, future actions may not happen at all. But when mentioning a future action we mean the time period the action will occupy if it happens:

Ex.: I will go to school tomorrow.
If I really do this, it will be tomorrow. But I may take ill and leave at home.

Ant_222 wrote:
If we divide an action into the past and future parts, we'll get
1. Past actions have only the past part.
2. Present actions (including so called timeless ones) have both parts
3. Future actions have only the future part.

My reply: Then I will not mention the future part of the action.

As you must agree, your three points are realized in your former analysis:
<<If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech. Of course, the action of (just) [living in Honk-Kong] is not finished>>.

Now, if we consider the action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm yesterday] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech.

But is the action of (just) [eating dinner at 8:00pm] finished? Certainly not! Now I am eating dinner at that time, as usual. So, eating dinner at 8:00pm is not a finished action.

Therefore, word for word according to your analysis:
If we consider the action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm yesterday] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech. Of course, the action of (just) [eating dinner at 8:00pm] is not finished.

Still insist to cut an action into many parts of time? Then where is the finished action?

Geoff_One wrote:
<<I live in Hong Kong.
You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong at any stage of your life!>>

My reply: What if they ask you "How is the living there?"
Maybe you say, "I don't know. I have never been there in my life." Or what will you say?

<<I live in Hong Kong.
You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong at any stage of your life!>>

Maybe this one is drawing a long bow - However consider this:

As a result of this medical condition, I only have 6 months to live.
I exist here. I live ... in Space Station XYZ (1).

Draw on this information and add a few more bells and whistles
and one might be able to say:

"I live in Hong Kong.
You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong at any stage of your life! "




Footnote:
(1) Within Space Station XYZ the gravitational effect is 0.2 g.
Some medical conditions that would be fatal on Earth, would not be
on Space Station XYZ.

If you give details of living in Space Station, I agree and understand why you say "I live in Space Station". However, I still don't understand why you say "I live in HK", if you have never been there.

Actually, I didn't object you to say that. If I see you quit your job, sell your house, pack your luggage, book your one-way ticket to HK, and you tell me "I live in Hong Kong", I will not be surprised at all. You are now literally doing the action of living there. It is just an action "not yet finished". Simple Present and Present Progressive mean much more certainty than "I will live in Hong Kong."

«Therefore, word for word according to your analysis:
If we consider the action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm yesterday] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech. Of course, the action of (just) [eating dinner at 8:00pm] is not finished.»

What is wrong with it? The action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm] includes all your dinners you have had/will have at this time of day. How can it be finished? Only yesterday's dinner is really finished, as well as all the your past dinners, that is, the past part of the action of having a dinner at 8:00pm.

The action of having a dinner at 8:00 occupies not a single time period, but a number of periods on the time axis. That is, it is not a compact, but an interruptable action.

---------------
And your analogy with living in HK is not full. By writing that the action living there is not finished I meant that particular period of living in HK, that was mentioned in the sentence, not any period. The point is that you may live in HK since 1984 till 1988 and since 1990 till 1996.
---------------

«Still insist to cut an action into many parts of time? Then where is the finished action?»

The finished action is the one that is located fully in the past: yesterday's dinner, the past three years of living in HK — these are finished actions. And they are the past parts of the actions of having a dinner at 8:00pm and of living in HK accordingly.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<What is wrong with it? The action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm] includes all your dinners you have had/will have at this time of day. How can it be finished? Only yesterday's dinner is really finished, as well as all the your past dinners, that is, the past part of the action of having a dinner at 8:00pm.>>

My reply: We have expressed our opinions more than enough. I see contradiction in such explanation in applying to "Yesterday I ate dinner at 8:00pm". You don't. That is the difference.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<What is wrong with it? The action of [eating dinner at 8:00pm] includes all your dinners you have had/will have at this time of day. How can it be finished? Only yesterday's dinner is really finished, as well as all the your past dinners, that is, the past part of the action of having a dinner at 8:00pm.>>

My reply: If you agree the above can apply to "Yesterday I ate dinner at 8:00pm", it is then a present action, because you say only present action has both parts:

<<If we divide an action into the past and future parts, we'll get
1. Past actions have only the past part.
2. Present actions (including so called timeless ones) have both parts
3. Future actions have only the future part.>>

A present action vs a past action

In the section 4.4.1 of my book I explain the difference between a past action and a present action:
============
.....For example, a doctor is waiting to be judged in a criminal case. Prior to the court's final judgment, we cannot call the doctor a criminal. But this is not the way to judge time. A doctor has not a necessary relation to a criminal, while the past must has a necessary relation to the present.

Nothing escapes from time, and everything has time. We cannot say that, before we judge the time, some thing has no time at all. BEFORE WE JUDGE THE ACTION WHETHER PRESENT OR NOT, IT IS ALREADY A PAST ACTION, IF IT EXISTS AT ALL. Therefore, a present action is a past action not yet finished now..... If the past action is finished now, we don't call it a present action and it remains 'the past action'. That is to say, the difference between a past action and a present action is only whether it is now finished or not.
============

Therefore, a present action is itself actually a past action, but not yet finished now.

And because time is shifting so fast, even a very short, instantaneous action like "I now put this into the oven" can be of the same analysis: By the moment of speech, it is a past action not yet finished: a present action.

I have further explored this: in a text, what is the moment of speech? Then I realize there is the time flow, and tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences in the context.

After a doctor has been judged as a criminal, he is both a doctor and a criminal. But as a past action is judged as the present action, a not-yet-finished one, it cannot be both a past action and a present one.

Nevertheless, the present action will become a past action again, AFTER the moment of speech. It is then waiting to be judged in the next time we talk about it.

This is the time flow I have seen of an action.

>> However, I still don't understand why you say "I live in HK", if you have never been there. <<

Person A: I am extremely bored - I just exist here.
The boredom causes person A's movements to be
slow motion like and he looks like death warmed up.
Person A reads a lot about Hong Kong and belives that
it is a very exciting place that will transform him into a lively
individual.Therefore -
Person A: I live in Hong Kong
(There is a pause beteen "live" and "in".)

Geoff_One wrote:
<<Person A reads a lot about Hong Kong and belives that
it is a very exciting place that will transform him into a lively
individual.Therefore -
Person A: I live in Hong Kong
(There is a pause beteen "live" and "in".)>>

I agree. If you explain that much about living in HK, I truly have no surprise for you to say "I live in HK". I don't see there is a contradiction to what I have explained before. I don't see we need a pause between "live" and "in".