A concept of time

engtense   Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:59 pm GMT
3.1.10 Past time/action vs present time/action.

These terms are so intertwined that we have to tell them apart clearly. At any new moment, you may call it PRESENT TIME, so any time before PRESENT TIME is PAST TIME, which contrast is unavoidable. It follows that PAST TIME cannot come up to the PRESENT TIME. However, some PAST ACTIONS may not be finished when you choose that moment. Your PAST ACTIONS such as reading, sitting, working, and living, may continue, going on from the past up to the PRESENT TIME. They are then called the PRESENT ACTIONS. This analysis results in a few conclusions:

(a) Past time is not exactly past action; present time is not exactly present action. (Also, future time is not exactly future action, see 8.4.1.)
(b) At any new moment we may call it the present time, so any time before it is the past time.
(c) Past time cannot come up to the present, but a past action possibly can. For example, the year of 1987 cannot come up to the present, but one's living in the same year can.
(d) Both past action and present action have started in the past.
(e) A past action has started in the past and yet is finished now.
(f) A present action has started in the past and is not yet finished now. See further "Past action versus present action" in 4.4.1.
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1_10.htm

Opinions are welcome.
Ant_222   Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:20 pm GMT
Engtense wrote:

«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...»

But yesterday's dinner has no future part, it fully in the past. This sentecne is not about any action of eating dinner at that time (which is habitual and may be a prsent action if you still have the habit) but yesterday's dinner. No future part. I am sorry for repeating myself, but I really don't know how you still manage to misunderstand me...
engtense   Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:09 pm GMT
<<But yesterday's dinner has no future part….>>

My reply: Last weekend we had yesterday; today we have yesterday; next weekend we will still have yesterday. Therefore, yesterday does have a future part. Yesterday will never end.

Does this logic make sense?
engtense   Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:57 pm GMT
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I am sorry for repeating myself, but I really don't know how you still manage to misunderstand me.....>>

My reply: I didn't manage to misunderstand you. Perhaps you even misunderstand yourself. May I ask, what do you mean by "PART" in your analysis?
<<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.>>

PART of time? Or PART of action? Or PART of what? Try to define this "PART" and you may see the contradiction more clearly.
Geoff_One   Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:24 pm GMT
<< My reply: Last weekend we had yesterday; today we have yesterday; >>

Last weekend we had last Saturday's yesterday and last Sunday's yesterday.

They are described with respect to other temporal entities.

Yesterday's yesterday is dianteday, not yesterday.

Dianteday's yesterday is trianteday.

ETC
Geoff_One   Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:29 pm GMT
Tomorrow's yesterday is today, not yesterday.

Tomorrow's tomorrow is dipostday.

Dipostday's yesterday is tomorrow, not yesterday.
engtense   Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:19 am GMT
What about the main point "next weekend we will still have yesterday"?
engtense   Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:52 am GMT
I am not arguing for the sake of argument. In my book I have a long talk with people on the question:
4.10 Is Yesterday a past time?

I have also questioned about "Yesterday I ate dinner at 8:00pm". Is it a past action? However, next weekend I will repeat and say it again on time. Why then is it a past action, if it doesn't start yet?

I know we will have yesterday again and again in the future, so how can it be a past time at all?
Ant_222   Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:11 pm GMT
«<<But yesterday's dinner has no future part….>>

My reply: Last weekend we had yesterday; today we have yesterday; next weekend we will still have yesterday. Therefore, yesterday does have a future part. Yesterday will never end.

Does this logic make sense?»

No, it doesn't.

Today's yesterday is the day before the current day. Tomorrow's yesterday is today. Last weekend's yesterday is the day before the weekend.

Thus, you are not right. When we meet a 'yesterday' in a sentence, we know relative to what day this 'yesterday' is meant, and we can determine whether it is in the past or in the future.

«What about the main point "next weekend we will still have yesterday"?»

But this will be another yesterday, not the one we have now. Every day has it's own yesterday.
Geoff_One   Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:30 pm GMT
So one can speak in terms of one absolute yesterday and many relative yesterdays.
Frances   Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:18 pm GMT
"Tomorrow's tomorrow is dipostday. "

Never heard of this one! I've learnt something today (maybe)
engtense   Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:30 am GMT
I said: What about the main point "next weekend we will still have yesterday"?

Ant_222 wrote: <<But this will be another yesterday, not the one we have now. Every day has it's own yesterday.>>

My reply: You did nothing but agree that there is another new yesterday next weekend. Is it a past time? No, it isn't, because it hasn't started yet. So we have another new yesterday in the future and it is not a past time. We will have endless yesterday in the future.

Study the reasoning here:
-- I ate dinner last weekend; I eat dinner tonight; and I will eat dinner next weekend. So, is eating dinner a past? No, it isn't.
-- Similarly, we had yesterday last weekend; we have yesterday today; and we will have yesterday next weekend. So, is yesterday a past? No, it isn't.

------------------
I emphasize that I agree yesterday is a past, but the approach how to prove yesterday is past, is not yet well known to people. This is the point. For many times I explained how to prove yesterday is a past time, and no readers disagreed with it. However, when you re-take the old approach again, I have to challenge your definition. The question "Is yesterday a past time?" is designed to support my approach of explaining time.
engtense   Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:31 am GMT
Geoff_One wrote:
<<So one can speak in terms of one absolute yesterday and many relative yesterdays.>>

My reply: Now you have taught us yesterday can be an absolute or relative time. But how to see whether it is past time or not, please?

Did you want to say the yesterday of last weekend, and the yesterday of next weekend, are relative, so they are not past time? Or what?

Grammars can throw adjectives like Universal, Timeless, or Habitual to young students, so that students would believe Simple Present tense has been well explained. Are you going to throw to us adjectives like this?
Ant_222   Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:45 pm GMT
«You did nothing but agree that there is another new yesterday next weekend. Is it a past time? No, it isn't, because it hasn't started yet. So we have another new yesterday in the future and it is not a past time. We will have endless yesterday in the future.»

Yesterday may be considered as a variable. Its meaning is calculated depending on what day it is today. On different days 'yesterday' will equal to different days... The recalculation happens every day at 23:59:59.

Thus, every yesterday lasts not more and not less than one day (24 hours). There is no endless yesterday. The only endless thing is that for any given day it is true that it has a 'yesterday'.

«Study the reasoning here:
-- I ate dinner last weekend; I eat dinner tonight; and I will eat dinner next weekend. So, is eating dinner a past? No, it isn't.
-- Similarly, we had yesterday last weekend; we have yesterday today; and we will have yesterday next weekend. So, is yesterday a past? No, it isn't.»

Since yesterday is an environment variable (like in Linux), your analogy is not full. Eating dinner is an action, as distinct from 'yesterday'. Eating dinner is not an everlasting action. There are many single acts of eating dinner, but they all are different and occupy certain periods of time. We can't speak of eating dinner as of an action literally. It is a type of action or a multitude of actions. Of course, actions of this class will keep happening in the future. In this sence eating dinner has the future part.

«Now you have taught us yesterday can be an absolute or relative time. But how to see whether it is past time or not, please?»

Yesterday is the day preceding to some other day. It is relative since it is calculated relatively to some given day. But in most cases yesterday implies the day preceding to today (to the day that was/will be 'today' at the moment of speach), allowing for us to know the "absolute" day meant by yesterday. But yesterday and today are relative because their values are changing with time.

How to define if it is past time or not. Well, from context it is always clear what day 'yesterday' (that particular entry of 'yesterday') refers to. It can be a past, present or future day.

Every measured time is relative. When mentioning some time, we know relative to what moment this time is measured:
2 days ago — relative to the moment of speach.
1961 — relative to the beginning of the Christian era.

The time itself is absolute because simultaneity doesn't depend on time frame and on reference frame, not to mention the relativity theory...
engtense   Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:59 am GMT
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Thus, every yesterday lasts not more and not less than one day (24 hours). There is no endless yesterday. The only endless thing is that for any given day it is true that it has a 'yesterday'.>>

My reply: Is this the best you know about "endless". You guess I meant one yesterday that will never end. Did you accuse me of "managing to misunderstand" you? I now understand why. You have said it first, so that I cannot accuse you of managing to misunderstand me.

According to your precision, I have to admit I was also wrong in saying "Johnny goes to school every day", because you will find out a student doesn't go to school on Sundays, or holidays. Therefore, not "every day".
I was also wrong because I forgot to mention Johnny comes back home every day. How can I say he goes to school only, without mentioning his returning home. In your eye, this is wrong. Therefore, not "go to school every day", according to your judgment.

In front of you, I have to admit I was also wrong in saying "He always drinks coffee, but not wine", because how can a man drink without rest? How can I say he ALWAYS drinks and without mentioning eating? Therefore, not "always", you may argue.

----------------------
On the other hand, did it ever occur to you that "endless" would have of a few different meanings? The following is from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: 'endless'
Function: adjective
1 : being or seeming to be without end
2 : extremely numerous
3 : joined at the ends
== http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=endless

By "endless yesterday", I mean EXTREMELY NUMEROUS repetitions of yesterday JOINED AT THE ENDS, obviously. I didn't mean a yesterday WITHOUT END. If you search exact match of "endless yesterday" in google, you will find most of us mean just like this.