<<...it is not probable that "I have lived in Japan". >>
What do you mean? Is it not correct to say so?
What do you mean? Is it not correct to say so?
A concept of time
Thank you for your explanation, Geoff_One.
Mxsmanic wrote:
<<You know, if you skip the six thousand pages of rules and just work by giving clear examples, you can get students to learn tenses a lot faster….. If they don't know the differences, I explain them.>>
My reply: I want to see a-lot-faster way from you, Mxsmanic. May you tell me the difference between the following frequently used tenses:
ExA: I lived in Japan.
ExB: I have lived in Japan.
Mxsmanic wrote:
<<You know, if you skip the six thousand pages of rules and just work by giving clear examples, you can get students to learn tenses a lot faster….. If they don't know the differences, I explain them.>>
My reply: I want to see a-lot-faster way from you, Mxsmanic. May you tell me the difference between the following frequently used tenses:
ExA: I lived in Japan.
ExB: I have lived in Japan.
<< ExA: I lived in Japan.
ExB: I have lived in Japan.
One reason:
I would use "A", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
I believe have the idea that it is plausible that "I lived in Japan".
I would use "B", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
I believe have the idea that it is not probable that "I have lived in Japan". >>
These can be tidied up:
I would use "A", if I was speaking to a person or group of people
who seem to have the idea it is plausible that "I lived in Japan".
I would use "B", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
who seem to have the idea it is not probable that "I have lived in Japan".
ExB: I have lived in Japan.
One reason:
I would use "A", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
I believe have the idea that it is plausible that "I lived in Japan".
I would use "B", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
I believe have the idea that it is not probable that "I have lived in Japan". >>
These can be tidied up:
I would use "A", if I was speaking to a person or group of people
who seem to have the idea it is plausible that "I lived in Japan".
I would use "B", if I was speaking to a person or group of people,
who seem to have the idea it is not probable that "I have lived in Japan".
But what about the case you are sure the dont' know whether you have lived in Japan or not. What if to them both the variants are equiprobable?
u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate.
If both variants are equiprobable to them , I would use "I lived in Japan".
I am some what interested in seeing other explanations concerning the difference between "I lived in Japan" and "I have lived in Japan". However, it is engtense's question/case study.
I am some what interested in seeing other explanations concerning the difference between "I lived in Japan" and "I have lived in Japan". However, it is engtense's question/case study.
"u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate."
You must be joking.
You must be joking.
Please
these sentence is correctly
Betty has not written he mother since she left home.
I want to know about present perfect and simple pas with some negative senteces
We.......(see) he......(for/since)1987. (negative)
Bob............(see) a movie for many yars.
my mail is mdgri@comcast.net
thank you
these sentence is correctly
Betty has not written he mother since she left home.
I want to know about present perfect and simple pas with some negative senteces
We.......(see) he......(for/since)1987. (negative)
Bob............(see) a movie for many yars.
my mail is mdgri@comcast.net
thank you
Geoff_One wrote:
<<If both variants are equiprobable to them , I would use "I lived in Japan".
I am some what interested in seeing other explanations concerning the difference between "I lived in Japan" and "I have lived in Japan".>>
My reply: Here is at least another explanation:
If both variants are equiprobable, I would use "I have lived in Japan".
<<If both variants are equiprobable to them , I would use "I lived in Japan".
I am some what interested in seeing other explanations concerning the difference between "I lived in Japan" and "I have lived in Japan".>>
My reply: Here is at least another explanation:
If both variants are equiprobable, I would use "I have lived in Japan".
isabel C Cooper,
«I want to know about present perfect and simple pas with some negative senteces»
Present Perfect would be ok in both the examples, because they deal with a period since some past moment till the moment of speech.
But questions like "I want to know about..." are no good. If you know nothing about the subject you better start with grammar books. As you investigate, questions will emerge. These should be asked at forums.
Engtense,
«My reply: Here is at least another explanation:
If both variants are equiprobable, I would use "I have lived in Japan".»
But Geoff_One didn't mean variants of the usage of tenses. He meant two different situations: when he had lived in Japan, and when he hadn't; and by 'equiprobable' he meant that these were equally probable to his interlocutor(s).
Geoff_One,
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I have lived in Japan, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
Do you think it would be better to use Past Simple in this example?
«I want to know about present perfect and simple pas with some negative senteces»
Present Perfect would be ok in both the examples, because they deal with a period since some past moment till the moment of speech.
But questions like "I want to know about..." are no good. If you know nothing about the subject you better start with grammar books. As you investigate, questions will emerge. These should be asked at forums.
Engtense,
«My reply: Here is at least another explanation:
If both variants are equiprobable, I would use "I have lived in Japan".»
But Geoff_One didn't mean variants of the usage of tenses. He meant two different situations: when he had lived in Japan, and when he hadn't; and by 'equiprobable' he meant that these were equally probable to his interlocutor(s).
Geoff_One,
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I have lived in Japan, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
Do you think it would be better to use Past Simple in this example?
Ant_222 wrote:
<< Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I have lived in Japan, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one.">>
My reply: I would like to agree with you. It is a correct way to explain tense with a paragraph (= more than one sentence). The longer the paragraph, the more certain a tense is.
Conventionally, grammars wrongly explain this on one-sentence basis:
Ex: I have lived in Japan. (I know Japanese.)
In this case, Simple Past can also do this:
Ex: I lived in Japan. (I know Japanese.)
On such basis, no one can explain the difference between the two examples. With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate." And Mark, a reader above, has believed in it, unfortunately.
<< Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I have lived in Japan, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one.">>
My reply: I would like to agree with you. It is a correct way to explain tense with a paragraph (= more than one sentence). The longer the paragraph, the more certain a tense is.
Conventionally, grammars wrongly explain this on one-sentence basis:
Ex: I have lived in Japan. (I know Japanese.)
In this case, Simple Past can also do this:
Ex: I lived in Japan. (I know Japanese.)
On such basis, no one can explain the difference between the two examples. With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate." And Mark, a reader above, has believed in it, unfortunately.
«I would like to agree with you. It is a correct way to explain tense with a paragraph (= more than one sentence). The longer the paragraph, the more certain a tense is.»
I don't think the longer the parargaph, the better. IMHO, the only requirement is that the situation (context) should be clearly described, no matter how many sentences it takes to do this.
«With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate.»
I believe that even conventional grammar books don't propose rules like the one you quotated. It is not only a wrong explanation, but a downright mistake.
And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One?
I don't think the longer the parargaph, the better. IMHO, the only requirement is that the situation (context) should be clearly described, no matter how many sentences it takes to do this.
«With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate.»
I believe that even conventional grammar books don't propose rules like the one you quotated. It is not only a wrong explanation, but a downright mistake.
And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I don't think the longer the parargaph, the better. IMHO, the only requirement is that the situation (context) should be clearly described, no matter how many sentences it takes to do this. >>
My reply: Some difference. Your assumption bases on the ridicule that the longer the paragraph is, the context is less clear.
To tell the truth, the situation you described should bring up just Simple Past, rather than Present Perfect:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
=====
Because you LIVED there, rather than you HAVE LIVED there.
The method of using many sentences to explain tense is good, as has been recommended in my book. But your example is not enough to justify the use of Present Perfect here.
----------------
You wrote:
<<«With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate.»
I believe that even conventional grammar books don't propose rules like THE ONE YOU QUOTATED. It is not only a wrong explanation, but a downright mistake.>>
My reply: Here I quoted and commented on Mark's idea and example. May I ask what did you mean by "the one you quoted"?
----------------
You asked:
<<And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One?>>
My reply: I have answered it. Please review my reply entirely.
<<I don't think the longer the parargaph, the better. IMHO, the only requirement is that the situation (context) should be clearly described, no matter how many sentences it takes to do this. >>
My reply: Some difference. Your assumption bases on the ridicule that the longer the paragraph is, the context is less clear.
To tell the truth, the situation you described should bring up just Simple Past, rather than Present Perfect:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
=====
Because you LIVED there, rather than you HAVE LIVED there.
The method of using many sentences to explain tense is good, as has been recommended in my book. But your example is not enough to justify the use of Present Perfect here.
----------------
You wrote:
<<«With authority in class, a teacher may utter anything to a young student: "u cannot use have in just a simple sentence without a adverb according to british english grammar rules so ------ i lived in japan ------is most appropirate.»
I believe that even conventional grammar books don't propose rules like THE ONE YOU QUOTATED. It is not only a wrong explanation, but a downright mistake.>>
My reply: Here I quoted and commented on Mark's idea and example. May I ask what did you mean by "the one you quoted"?
----------------
You asked:
<<And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One?>>
My reply: I have answered it. Please review my reply entirely.
«Some difference. Your assumption bases on the ridicule that the longer the paragraph is, the context is less clear.»
No. If it were so I would say: "The shorter the explanation, the better." But, as I wrote, the length doesn't matter. the only important thing is how good the situation is described. But if two explanations describe the situation equally well, then I will choose the shortest one.
«To tell the truth, the situation you described should bring up just Simple Past, rather than Present Perfect:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
===== »
Hmmm. I made a search in the web and found many examples which confirmed my opinion:
1. I have lived there and I know the risks to people and the damage that Mugabe's henchmen can do to innocent people. People seem only concerned by the fact...
2. I have lived there and I do know that Ocalan is the one who can help to get the peace in Turkey.
3. I have lived there and I know how it works. They donT have any GPS, read the web site one more time.
I had searched the phrase: "I have lived there and I". So you can perform the same search if you need to know the context.
A search of "I lived there and I" didn't give results that could conform to your explanation.
«Because you LIVED there, rather than you HAVE LIVED there.»
Really?
«But your example is not enough to justify the use of Present Perfect here.»
Though enough to "justify" Past Simple?
«Here I quoted and commented on Mark's idea and example. May I ask what did you mean by "the one you quoted"?»
Of course, I meant Mark's words that you had quoted.
«My reply: I have answered it. Please review my reply entirely.»
Did you assume that without this GOTO operator I would have missed the rest of your post? LOL!
No. If it were so I would say: "The shorter the explanation, the better." But, as I wrote, the length doesn't matter. the only important thing is how good the situation is described. But if two explanations describe the situation equally well, then I will choose the shortest one.
«To tell the truth, the situation you described should bring up just Simple Past, rather than Present Perfect:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
===== »
Hmmm. I made a search in the web and found many examples which confirmed my opinion:
1. I have lived there and I know the risks to people and the damage that Mugabe's henchmen can do to innocent people. People seem only concerned by the fact...
2. I have lived there and I do know that Ocalan is the one who can help to get the peace in Turkey.
3. I have lived there and I know how it works. They donT have any GPS, read the web site one more time.
I had searched the phrase: "I have lived there and I". So you can perform the same search if you need to know the context.
A search of "I lived there and I" didn't give results that could conform to your explanation.
«Because you LIVED there, rather than you HAVE LIVED there.»
Really?
«But your example is not enough to justify the use of Present Perfect here.»
Though enough to "justify" Past Simple?
«Here I quoted and commented on Mark's idea and example. May I ask what did you mean by "the one you quoted"?»
Of course, I meant Mark's words that you had quoted.
«My reply: I have answered it. Please review my reply entirely.»
Did you assume that without this GOTO operator I would have missed the rest of your post? LOL!
I am sorry I didn't respond earlier. I have another discussion started elsewhere. I thought the discussion here had ended a few days ago.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Hmmm. I made a search in the web and found many examples which confirmed my opinion:
1. I have lived there and I know the risks to people and the damage that Mugabe's henchmen can do to innocent people. People seem only concerned by the fact...
2. I have lived there and I do know that Ocalan is the one who can help to get the peace in Turkey.
3. I have lived there and I know how it works. They donT have any GPS, read the web site one more time. >>
My reply: None of the examples above can compare with the situation wherein you have described Albert's knowledge of Martin's PAST living:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I (HAVE) LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
=====
Your opinion, if there is, must include such 5-year-ago knowledge. But your examples from the web don't. Simply put, your own example has a stand-alone annotation to it. I am afraid you cannot search for such examples on the web. How can you search for also their PAST annotation?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Hmmm. I made a search in the web and found many examples which confirmed my opinion:
1. I have lived there and I know the risks to people and the damage that Mugabe's henchmen can do to innocent people. People seem only concerned by the fact...
2. I have lived there and I do know that Ocalan is the one who can help to get the peace in Turkey.
3. I have lived there and I know how it works. They donT have any GPS, read the web site one more time. >>
My reply: None of the examples above can compare with the situation wherein you have described Albert's knowledge of Martin's PAST living:
=====
Here is a situation. Martin returned from Japan 5 years ago. He had lived there for two years. His friend Albert knows this. But during a dispute Martin says to his friend: "I (HAVE) LIVED IN JAPAN, and I know: loss of job is a real catastrophe for a Japanese, for it'll be almost impossible for him to find a new one."
=====
Your opinion, if there is, must include such 5-year-ago knowledge. But your examples from the web don't. Simply put, your own example has a stand-alone annotation to it. I am afraid you cannot search for such examples on the web. How can you search for also their PAST annotation?