A concept of time

engtense   Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:21 pm GMT
Past and present are always in contrast. Without today, there is no yesterday. On next weekend if we have another new yesterday, it is because it is in contrast with the "today" of next weekend. Because of the contrast, the earlier time is a past time. This kind of contrast is not just for discussion. We make it quite often indeed:
Ex: When you have done your homework, we go to see your uncle.
== You haven't done the homework yet, but why will we use Present Perfect to say it? It is because of contrast with Simple Present 'go'.

My new approach is therefore suggesting that, since past and present exist by contrast, we have to use at least two actions for contrasting tenses:
Ex: "He feels sick. He and I have played the merry-go-round."
More examples can be seen here (from NIV Bible):
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm

I disagree "yesterday of next weekend" can be deemed as a future day. Should it be a future day, I want to say:
Ex: ?I will see you yesterday of next weekend.
Can we have such appointment? I don't think so. On next weekend, how can we go back to yesterday? But if we acquiesce we meet a day before next weekend, is it the yesterday of next weekend?

Simply put, I still agree Yesterday is a past time, even if it is the Yesterday of next weekend, because there is still a contrast there.
engtense   Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:43 pm GMT
Achab,

I want to consult you with a question. I would have no trouble in displaying everything on my website. The bad thing is, however, I have explained details and other tenses by way of discussion. If I have shown to people the discussion, I will have no discussion in other forums anymore. This will prevent me from learning more about tense.

I don't know if you know what I am asking?
Achab   Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:43 am GMT
Hi englishtense.

I’m not sure what you mean, but it should be considered that displaying the whole content of the book in your website may spark more discussion, for example by bringing more feedback. At least theoretically. After all, the bigger a website becomes, the more its traffic increases. Quality and quantity both count. Keep in mind that some people tend to shun those Internet websites that provide only incomplete resources, because they are *perceived* by these people as sort of lacking to convey a pleasing "sense of wholeness," or something like that.

This is of course just my speculation.

Anyway, the actual reason why I suggested you put the entire content of your book online is that by doing so you would turn your website into one of the "top dogs" in the field of English language learning/usage/etc. I would consider that a remarkable achievement, and a beautiful gift for the Internet-based community of people interested in the language of Shakespeare.


Wishes,
Achab
engtense   Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:09 am GMT
Achab,

Thank you for your opinion, again.
engtense   Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:19 pm GMT
From the following two sentences, it seems we are able to see that Ms A knows the project more than Ms B. Or do you think there is no difference?
1. Ms A knows the project.
2. Ms B is knowing the project.

Opinions are welcome.
engtense   Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:04 pm GMT
In google I searched exact match for "he is working", and the first result in the first page is this:

---------------------------
Smallscreen News
(Title) Joss Whedon says HE IS WORKING on Spike TV movie

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' creator Joss Whedon says He's Working on a TV movie surrounding the blond vampire, Spike.

Whedon reportedly told a fan Web site he HAS BEEN TALKING to actors, writers and executives, 'trying to put something together,' the New York Post reported Thursday.
== http://smallscreen.monstersandcritics.com/article_1048394.php
---------------------------

Why in the beginning does Joss Whedon use Present Progressive and not Simple Present? And why does the reporter in the article use Perfect Progressive instead? Are two progressive tenses here explainable?
engtense   Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:32 am GMT
Yesterday I searched exact match of "he is working", and I got the news example above. Today it is not in the first page, however. Again, I searched the phrase and noted the following page:
http://www.astro.oma.be/SBC/staffact.html
It came in the second result in the first page, preceding many others. I think this web page would keep the position a little longer. In the following examples, all I can see is progressive tense, sometimes Present Progressive, and sometimes Perfect Progressive. I cut them short to save the space here. But as you may check, I didn't cut much, actually. From the examples I believe that progressive tenses mean much more than "in progress", but what are the Time Concepts of using them? Or perhaps Meanings?


-- Dr. Ph. Cardin (LGIT): he is studying the motions set out in the fluid outer core by the precession of its solid container, in collaboration with D. Jault. He is now running numerical models but plans to devise an experimental one in the new facilities at Grenoble University.

-- A. Chulliat (IPGP) (Ph.D. student): he is currently working with G. Hulot on some new ways of investigating core flows, using a local approach based on the tangentially geostrophic approximation.

-- Dr. P. Defraigne (ROB): she has been working on modeling mantle convection in order to obtain the boundary displacements inside the Earth, the geoid and the plate velocities, in particular in order to evaluate the CMB displacement.

-- Dr. V. Dehant (ROB): she has been working on the Earth interior modeling in the frame of nutation theory (as well as earth tides); she has been working on core modes in the theoretical point of view in the frame of superconducting gravimeters; she has been working on the FCN and FICN using both the analytical approach as well as the numerical integration approach; she has been working on the FCN period and amplitude from nutation data (free oscillations as well as resonance effects). She is currently continuing to work on nutation modeling incorporating new physics of the Earth interior and lenght-of-day (lod) modeling related to the core effects. She is presently extending her work to the planet Mars.

-- Dr. O. de Viron (ROB): he is working on the effects of the atmosphere on nutations and LOD; he is performing numerical computations based on meteorological data and theoretical computations based either on the angular momentum conservation approach or on the torque approach (as for the core, he is using the pressure torque, the gravitational torque and the friction torque). He is presently extending his work on other geophysical fluids, namely the ocean and the fluid core of the Earth.

-- E. Dormy (IPGP) (PostDoc): he is working on numerical modeling of the Geodynamo and turbulent motions in the Earth's core. He is concerned with numerical difficulties associated with the modeling of motions in the core. He is presently working at UCLA.

-- Dr. M. Greff-Lefftz (IPGP): she has been working on modeling the elastic, viscoelastic and fluid deformations of the Earth induced by external sources as well as internal sources (internal load within the mantle, pressure and tangential traction at the CMB and ICB ...). At the present, she is investigating the influence of the magnetic field on the rotational eigenfrequencies of the Earth.

-- Dr. J. Hinderer (EOPGS): he has been working on the theory of the rotation and deformation of an earth model including a solid inner core, fluid outer core, elastic mantle surrounded by atmospheric and oceanic thin surficial layers.

-- Dr. R. Holme (FGZ, Potsdam): he has been working on electromagnetic core-mantle coupling, demonstrating that this is indeed a possible mechanism to explain decadal variations in lenght of day. He is studying the influence of a priori assumptions on models of fluid flow and the core angular momentum calculated from them.

-- Dr. G. Hulot (IPGP): He has been investigating (both theoretically and numerically) the dynamical consequences of such flows on the Earth's rotation (LOD variations, polar motions). He is currently working on some new ways of investigating core flows (with A. Chulliat), and on the possibility of seeing zonal flows that could relate to the presence of an inner core (with A. Pais). He is also investigating the possible influence of an inner core on core-mantle interactions (again with A. Pais).

-- Dr. A. Jackson (ULeeds): He is interested in morphology of magnetic field at the core mantle interface using contemporary and historical data. Also working on construction of models of radial magnetic field and its secular variation compatible with frozen flux and radial vorticity conservation.

-- Dr. D. Jault (LGIT): He is developing numerical models in collaboration with Ph. Cardin. He is now completing this study with Dr. J. Wicht (Exeter University).

-- Prof. H. Legros (EOPGS): he has been working on the mantle visco- elastic deformations and on the core topography. .....and presently he is working about the resonances associated with these modes.

-- Prof. J-L. Le Mouel (IPGP): He is working on the electromagnetic and topographic core-mantle coupling, both axial and equatorial.....

-- J. Noir (LGIT) (Ph.D. student): he is doing a thesis devoted to the study of the precession of a fluid volume under the supervision of D. Jault and Ph. Cardin.

-- A. Pais (IPGP) (Ph.D. student): she is currently working with G. Hulot on the possibility of seeing zonal flows that could be related to the presence of an inner core. She is also investigating the possible influence of an inner core on core-mantle interactions.

-- S. Ponsar (ROB) (Ph.D. student): she is presently working (starting a Ph.D. thesis) on the possible influence of the magnetic field on nutations. In particular, she is studying the different coupling mechanisms at the CMB.
engtense   Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:13 am GMT
Of using progressive tense, I have cut short my explanation in my book as follows:

7.1.1 A Theory Of The Progressive Tense

I have posted the following 'timeline diagram' for many times. I keep the 'horizontal curve' this way because it is composed by characters that can be posted to any forum for discussion. The horizontal curve from A to D is the present action.

A//////B||||||||||||||||||||||C\\\\\\D

1. When the present action is at A-B, it is a new action, expressed in Present Progressive: "He is working in the garden."
2. When the present action is at C-D, it is a long-term, old action, expressed in Perfect Progressive: "He has been working in the garden." However, sometimes Perfect Progressive is a just-finished action, indicating the action is at D (see further explanation below).
3. When the present action is in B-C, it is an action 'now not yet finished': "He works in the garden."

Here is further explanation why the diagram is a curve: We use sentences to describe so-called actions in our daily living. Most of these happenings are not like running a 60-meter match that has a clear start and end. Most actions are vague as to when to have started, or when will be ended. Progressive tenses are used to help express the vagueness of timepieces. When you are taking a travel to Europe next Saturday, for example, the travel doesn't really just start from next Saturday. It may have actually started in one onerous afternoon when you thought about a trip to refresh yourself. And then, as you book the ticket or pack up your baggage, you are literally on the traveling. You may now tell your friends that you are traveling to Europe next Tuesday, but is the trip really starting only next Tuesday? Who can tell? It is the time you use Present Progressive.

The same vagueness is at the ending part of the journey. Who can tell exactly when it was over? Was it when in the last day you were so tired and slept in the plane flying back? Or when you walked down the plane? Or by the time you reached home? What if the journey made you so tired that you need a day or two to rest? You also have to go to photo shops for printing the photos. You will be eager to meet your friends and tell them about the exciting trip. All these belong to parts of the travel, if we are allowed to say so. It is the time you use Perfect Progressive: "I have been traveling to Europe."

This is why the three tenses are often interchangeable, but they still have a difference.
engtense   Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:30 pm GMT
In the following page there is an explanation about Past Perfect tense: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html

But I want to know more about its example:
Ex: I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S.

I am puzzling, what is its difference from the Simple Past?
Ex: I STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S.
Guest   Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:08 pm GMT
>>I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S. <<

To me, this is almost equal to "I HAD STUDIED a little English BEFORE I came to the U.S. ". Or maybe you can write like this: "I STUDIED a little English. After that, I came to the U.S. ".


>> I STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S. <<

This could sound like " I STUDIED a little English when I was in the U.S., and I came here again." If so, however, it is better to say "I STUDIED a little English when I had come to the U.S. previously". Too rash! Or the above could mean "I STUDIED a little English when I was in the U.S., and I am still staying here."
Or "I STUDIED a little English when I was coming to the U.S."?

I am also puzzled now! Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ant_222   Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:38 pm GMT
«I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S.» is the same as:
«I had already known English when I came to the US.»

Here Past Perfect denotes an action prior to another action.

« I STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S»

Here Past Simple indicates an action that happened at a certain time. Actually, after a certain time: the speaker BEGAN learning English when he came to the US.
engtense   Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:27 pm GMT
<<the speaker BEGAN learning English when he came to the US>>

Thank you Ant_222. But is the beginning of the study here prior to coming to the US? If the study is prior to coming to US, which I think so, it makes no difference from the one in Past Perfect you analyzed above.

On the other hand, both sentences are using "studied A LITTLE English". I don't think the one in Past Perfect means "had already known", while the one in Simple Past means "began learning". To me, it is the same studying, but the question is whether we shall use Simple Past or Past Perfect. Is there a difference?
Ant_222   Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:48 pm GMT
In these examples Past Simple and Present Perfect mean different things.

«I STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S»
Here the speaker studied the language AFTER he came to the US.

«I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S.»
According to this sentence, the speaker knew English when he came to the US.

In the previous post I wrote:
«I had already known English when I came to the US», which is incorrect. Past Simple should have been used:

«I already knew English when I came to the US»
engtense   Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:23 am GMT
<<In the previous post I wrote:
«I had already known English when I came to the US», which is incorrect.>>

My reply: You mean "...know a little English..."? Am I correct?
engtense   Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:43 am GMT
If we try to convert actions with obvious order of happenings:
Ex: "I telephoned the police. There had been an accident."
we may notice something wrong in the example from Englishpage.com.

Shall we say this?
Ex1: "There HAD BEEN an accident when I telephoned the police"?
I don't think so. This will create vagueness.

We may say instead:
Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police.
This is more likely.

---------------------
And the example from Englishpage.com has created vagueness:
Ex1: I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S.

The more correct version will be:
Ex2: When I HAD STUDIED a little English, I came to the U.S.

Then why did they make such confusion? First, they insist on using one-sentence basis. Even though the example contains a subordinate clause, it is strictly one sentence. They put two sentences into one, as we do above.
Secondly, they don't know which action shall be put into the subordinate clause -- the one in Simple Past or the one in Past Perfect?

The two Ex1s above are not wrong, but if you search and take note of Past Perfect, it is usually put within the subordinate clause, as in two Ex2s.