|
|
A concept of time
Ant_222 wrote:
<<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.>>
My reply: I am sorry, but I don't search on erroneous assumptions.
In explaining tense, I depend on the time relation. As for the example from yourself:
=====
"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."
=====
I made use of this example and just changed the tense to Simple Past, so we may see the contrast between the two tenses. I took it for granted that we focused on the time relation between Simple Past and Simple Present. I didn't expect you now go into the word order: "I have lived there and I". I am impressed. I am sorry but I cannot follow your way of explanation.
My book suggests to readers we put sentences together to explain tense because now we can see the time relation, which displays the use of tense. But you put sentences together just because now we can see the word order: "I have lived there and I". You should have said it clearly so that I may take great care of the word order.
Here are some more examples for the time relations between Simple Past and Simple Present:
Ex: Now, in Portland, and I lived there, so I know this, many of the clubs, like Mr. Dacorsi, are in proximity to residences.....
Ex: I lived there so I don't believe that I take it to heart.
Ex: I was only 15 when I lived there so i cant wait to try it!
Ex: Yet, I was there and I know what I saw and what I felt.
Ex: but I was there, and I know that there were only two marshals.
Ex: But I was there, and I know that this picture isn't adequate to describe the whole decade.
== I say again, I didn't explain tense by the word order as you attempted to. I am pointing at the time relations between different tenses. My argument is, the combination of <Simple Past + Simple Present> exists. See also:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_1.htm#_3_3_3
Now please allow me to put our situation in a simple way. Both <I lived in Japan + Simple Present> and <I have lived in Japan + Simple Present> is possible. Therefore, your example still cannot explain the difference between "I lived/have lived in Japan". I suggest you try again.
However, I don't mind at all if you insist the word order "I have lived there and I" is the final solution to tell the difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect. If you want to, I may agree as well. No problem.
Ant_222 asked: <<And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One? >>
I replied you: <<I have answered it. Please review my reply entirely.>>
You wrote:
<<Did you assume that without this GOTO operator I would have missed the rest of your post? LOL!>>
My reply: I learn this way of reply from you, as you said before:
<<It seems to me that you didn't read my previous post entirely... That have been explained in it.>>
If this is ridiculous, we both are.
In your previous post, because you didn't quote exactly the point, I didn't know what the situation is:
<<And what tense would you use in the situation about which I asked Geoff_One? >>
You sometimes didn't quote the part you want to talk about, and let me take a wild guess about where it is. How did I know what is the situation about which you asked Geoff_One, instead of me? I did give answer to Geoff_One's example and I didn't know the situation between you two, unless you quoted.
If you don't want to quote, read my previous post entirely.
My book maintains we shall explain tense by way of paragraph (=more than one sentence) and there are numerous examples there. There is a time for Simple Past, and a time for Present Perfect.
Ex: "I have retired recently. Before my retirement, my company let me in charge of Asia's business for two years. I lived in Japan and I know that loss of job is very bad for a Japanese."
== "I lived in Japan" in Simple Past means it finishes within the time frame ahead: before my retirement.
Ex: "I would like to live in different countries. Last century, I lived in Thailand, China, Paris, and USA. I have lived in Japan and I know that loss of job is very bad for a Japanese."
== As I said, between Last Century and Now there is a time span that has no name. It is neither Last Century nor Now. Present Perfect is used to fill in this concept of time. Here, "I have lived in Japan" is an action finished outside (behind) Last Century and Now.
Therefore, time relation can decide whether we use "I lived in Japan" or "I have lived in Japan". On one-sentence basis, however, no one can tell the difference.
Here are collected some more examples showing Present Perfect actions happening outside the time frame "in 1987" and before now. They finish between 1987 and now. The time concept they are in has no name. It is neither "in 1987" nor Now. It can only be seen within a paragraph, putting sentences together. This time concept disappears on one-sentence basis.
Simple Present actions, if there are, happen outside "in 1987" and are not-yet-finished now.
(To look for the exact web page, copy part of the example and search exact match for it, today.)
------------------------
Ex: I ENJOYED the business so much that I STARTED my own small import company in 1987 and I HAVE BEEN CONTINUING to do so ever since. I HAVE SEEN my friends' children grow up and start their own families. It HAS BEEN incredible to see the growth of their village and see the improvements in everyday life that the fruits of their labor HAS BROUGHT.
== HAVE BEEN CONTINUING means another way to look at Simple Present. It is an old, not-yet-finished action.
Present Perfect actions, HAVE SEEN, HAS BEEN and HAD BROUGHT, indicate they finish within the time span outside 1987 and before now.
Ex: Though Green Dollars (supplementary local currencies) WERE INTRODUCED to New Zealand in 1987 the systems HAVE weaknesses, which INCLUDE dependence on the work of a few central organisers and HAVE NOT GROWN beyond small groups with very modest turnover. Time dollars HAVE ALSO BEEN INVENTED recently, being a 'service credit' for voluntary work…..
Ex: The illegal overthrow of democratically elected governments in 1987 and 2000 HAVE HAD a traumatic impact on the nation from which we HAVE STILL NOT RECOVERED, Opposition Leader Mahendra Chaudhry said.
Ex: The first revision WENT into affect in 1987 and there HAVE BEEN updates. Related standards for environmental, and health and safety HAVE MORE RECENTLY GONE into effect.
Ex: I WENT to Israel with them in 1987 and really HAVE ALWAYS LIKED them.
Ex: Instituted in 1987, the awards HAVE GIVEN public recognition to those who HAVE MADE outstanding achievements and innovations worldwide.
------------------------
Believe it or not: If we put sentences together, all we talk about tenses is Time. Even you must insert Meanings into the explanations, you still have to use Time to connect these Meanings. Then you will understand why we all subconsciously agree tenses are used to express Time.
In contrast, conventional grammars regard Simple Present as timeless, Present Perfect as not telling the time or the time is not important. Just because they cannot define the future time, they claim there is no future tense. So, in what way do they admit tense is linked to time at all?
One one-sentence basis, as grammar writers cannot see the use of a tense, they always mistake the meaning of the sentence as that of the tense. After they have materialized such empty meanings into Habit and Current Relevancy, they cannot put these meanings together, for meanings will have nothing in common. Then the vicious circle is, the more they explain tenses, the less likely they will put sentences together to explain tenses. My new approach is to get out of this vicious circle.
www.englishtense.com
«My reply: None of the examples above can compare with the situation wherein you have described Albert's knowledge of Martin's PAST living:»
Yes. All these situations rather imply that the reader has no knowledge about the past living, so they don't fit the initial example. But I think the grammar construction should in no way depend on the intercolluctor's knowledge. Don't you think so? What if to consider the example wherein Albert doesn't know about Martin's residence in Japan? Would your answer be the same — Past Simple?
And could you point out the difference between my initial example and the examples returned by google search that is the reason for using Past Simple in the former and Present Pefrect in the latters?
«I didn't expect you now go into the word order: "I have lived there and I". I am impressed.»
I just wanted to find similar examples.
«Here are some more examples for the time relations between Simple Past and Simple Present:
Ex: I lived there so I don't believe that I take it to heart.
Ex: I was only 15 when I lived there so i cant wait to try it!
Ex: Yet, I was there and I know what I saw and what I felt.
Ex: but I was there, and I know that there were only two marshals.
Ex: But I was there, and I know that this picture isn't adequate to describe the whole decade.»
These all are single-sentence example of <Simple Past + Simple Present>
Well, here are some example of <Present Perfect + Past Simple>:
1. I have been there and I know what it's all about.
2. I have been there, and I know the allure and
feeling of superiority provided with liberal membership.
3. I can actually image the places clearly because I have been
there and I know them so well myself.
4. I have been there and I know exactly what you are talking about.
5. I mentioned Hayman Island because I have been there and I know it's one of the top resorts in the world.
So, these are possible too. What did you want to show by your examples? The way you explain time relations
«I say again, I didn't explain tense by the word order as you attempted to.»
Neither did I. The fact is that sentences beginning with "I have lived there and I" are likely to resemble the situation discussed.
«My argument is, the combination of <Simple Past + Simple Present> exists.»
Of course, it exists. But how can this serve as an argument in favour of the use of Past Simple in "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"?
«Now please allow me to put our situation in a simple way. Both <I lived in Japan + Simple Present> and <I have lived in Japan + Simple Present> is possible. Therefore, your example still cannot explain the difference between "I lived/have lived in Japan". I suggest you try again.»
But you insist that in my example only Past Simple is possible, don't you? And my example wasn't meant as an explanation of the difference between the two tenses.
«My reply: I learn this way of reply from you, as you said before:
<<It seems to me that you didn't read my previous post entirely... That have been explained in it.>>
If this is ridiculous, we both are.»
But I wrote it after you had (as it seemed to me) (partially) skipped my post, while you wrote it before you had a chance to see if I had skipped your post. In other words, you assumed that I would skip it unless I run into "GOTO".
«You sometimes didn't quote the part you want to talk about, and let me take a wild guess about where it is.»
Well, you may be right. I should have quoted text I refered to, so that it is comfortable for people to read them.
«Ex: "I have retired recently. Before my retirement, my company let me in charge of Asia's business for two years. I lived in Japan and I know that loss of job is very bad for a Japanese."
== "I lived in Japan" in Simple Past means it finishes within the time frame ahead: before my retirement.»
An exmple:
I have bought a book recently. It is about Japan. I (have) lived in Japan, so I could compare my impressions of the country with those of the book's author.
"I lived in Japan" in Simple Past means it finishes within the time frame ahead: before I bought the book.
Did I give a correct explanation from your viewpoint? But I am sure the correct variant is Present Perfect. What is the matter?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<But I think the grammar construction should in no way depend on the intercolluctor's knowledge. Don't you think so? >>
My reply: Knowledge of what? Knowledge of the specific PAST time of the PAST living? Do you really think that this kind of knowledge has nothing to do with the tense of the living?
You wrote:
<<What if to consider the example wherein Albert doesn't know about Martin's residence in Japan? Would your answer be the same — Past Simple?>>
My reply: What do you mean by "What if"? We readers pretend not to see what you have reminded us to see?
The original example from yours is in 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 (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."
=====
If Albert doesn't know about Martin's residence in Japan, I agree Present Perfect can be used. But your annotation to it must have given a specific past time reference for us, so we use Simple Past to match your annotation. Or why did you give us the annotation at all? Was it used to mislead us, so that we misuse Simple Past? And so that now you may argue, "But I think the grammar construction should in no way depend on the intercolluctor's knowledge"?
-----------------------------
As for my examples:
«Here are some more examples for the time relations between Simple Past and Simple Present:
Ex: I lived there so I don't believe that I take it to heart.
Ex: I was only 15 when I lived there so i cant wait to try it!
Ex: Yet, I was there and I know what I saw and what I felt.
Ex: but I was there, and I know that there were only two marshals.
Ex: But I was there, and I know that this picture isn't adequate to describe the whole decade.»
you commented:
>>These all are single-sentence example of <Simple Past + Simple Present><<
My reply: What do you mean by that? You mean I cannot see the time relation between in the combination? I am afraid not. Any two tenses put together can form a time relation, either in coordination or subordination.
In above examples, the author assumes the readers know the time of the past happening, just as in your situation wherein Albert knows about Martin's living.
-----------------------------
You wrote:
<<Well, here are some example of <Present Perfect + PAST SIMPLE>:
1. I have been there and I know what it's all about.
2. I have been there, and I know the allure and
feeling of superiority provided with liberal membership.
3. I can actually image the places clearly because I have been
there and I know them so well myself.
4. I have been there and I know exactly what you are talking about.
5. I mentioned Hayman Island because I have been there and I know it's one of the top resorts in the world.
So, these are possible too. What did you want to show by your examples? The way you explain time relations>>
My reply: From the examples, I guess you actually mean <Present Perfect + PRESENT SIMPLE>.
Here the author assumes the readers don't know the time of living. It is such as without your annotation.
-----------------------------
I said: >>My argument is, the combination of <Simple Past + Simple Present> exists.<<
You commented: <<Of course, it exists. But how can this serve as an argument in favour of the use of Past Simple in "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: The combination <Simple Past + Simple Present> exists because, for example, in the whole context I have mentioned the situation such as your annotation. I mean the one wherein Albert knows about Martin's past living. The situation may have introduced in the context from which you take the example out.
=============
In the few points above, you pretend your annotation has nothing to do with tense. But if it is so, why did you give us the annotation at all? GIVE A REASON!!
You wrote:
<<An exmple:
"I have bought a book recently. It is about Japan. I (have) lived in Japan, so I could compare my impressions of the country with those of the book's author."
"I lived in Japan" in Simple Past means it finishes within the time frame ahead: BEFORE I bought the book.
Did I give a correct explanation from your viewpoint? But I am sure the correct variant is Present Perfect. What is the matter?>>
My reply: You didn't.
So, this is how far you have known about "WITHIN the time frame ahead": BEFORE I bought the book. You even omitted the important word "recently", which poses as a time frame.
By time frame, I didn't mean a time phrase made up by yourself, coming from nowhere: "BEFORE I bought the book".
By time frame, which is frequently used even in our everyday speech, we mean the timing implied by a time adverbial, like "recently" in your example. In the example above, the living in Japan doesn't refer to "recently". Indeed, we use Present Perfect to imply the living is outside the time frame "recently" ahead.
I do think that, in your discussion, you shouldn't have changed "I have bought a book RECENTLY" into 'BEFORE I bought the book', and then discuss my utterance "it finishes WITHIN the time frame ahead".
-- As I said WITHIN, how can you discuss BEFORE?
-- As I said "the time frame ahead", how can you bring up a time phrase "before I bought the book" from nowhere?
<< 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? >>
There are other good reasons for using "have" than the one I gave. I would use "have" in the example sentence (" ... ") given.
BTW - There are places were loss of a job is like winning the lottery.
In regard to the above:
The use of "have" also provides emphasis.
Geoff_One wrote:
<<The use of "have" also provides emphasis.>>
My reply: By now, I believe you know this kind of explanation doesn't work anymore. We have even discussed the theory of emphasis before, in this thread, but you still stick to the nonsensical explanation. To me, this is quite frustrating.
Yours is indeed a typical, conventional way to define a tense. Conventional grammars explain tense by concealment: it says a tense can express a meaning, but doesn't tell you whether other tenses could also do it or not. Should Present Perfect be able to do the emphasis, would you conclude Simple Past cannot do it at all? Would you say it clearly? Of course, you wouldn't. That is to say, the conventional way of explaining tense works out by not telling the truth.
The drawback of concealment is not only theoretical, but also realistic. For example, most grammar writers preach only Present Perfect denotes Current Relevancy, without telling readers its contrast with Simple Past. Then those readers who don't know the concealment will, by themselves, take it for granted that Simple Past cannot express Current Relevancy. Now if they find something on yesterday that has Current Relevancy, they have to 'emphasize' the case by using Present Perfect, so we may frequently see the erroneous pattern: have arrived yesterday, have seen yesterday, etc. See also:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_6.htm
Time controls tense. With Yesterday, Last Week, or Last Year, we don't use Present Perfect, so you think there are now no emphasis whatsoever in such time span, because of the absence of Present Perfect? How nonsensical it is. Of course we can express so-called emphasis, if there is, in Simple Past.
English native speakers don't care about how to explain English tense, because they have known how to use them by instinct. In practice, they put tenses together eventually, so they subconsciously notice that tenses are used to express time. However, in grammar books, as they explain tenses on one-sentence basis, they don't know how to link up tense to time. Therefore, they regard Simple Present as timeless, Present Perfect as not telling the time. They cannot differentiate Simple Past from Present Perfect. Also, they can't define future time, so they argue there is no future tense. Simply put, they have failed to link tense to time.
They carelessly tell something crippling to foreign students like yours: 'The use of "have" also provides emphasis'. But as foreign learners, we should not do it to our students. Emphasis of what? Of time? Or of falsity? Or of truth? Are we still not sensible enough to ask such questions? I don't think we can depend on the teaching on tense from English native speakers, except for their subconscious agreement that tense is used to tell time:
<<tense
The form a verb takes to indicate action in the present, past, or future.
From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.>>
== http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082911.html
However, in what concrete way do they, or now you, support this agreement at all?
At the beginning of this thread I have introduced a concept of time: between past time Last Week and present time Now (which is Thursday for example), there is a time span that has no name. It is neither Last Week nor Now. May I ask which tense is used to express happenings here? Perhaps, you meant Present Perfect is to provide EMPHASIS on this time span, don't you agree?
http://englishtense.com
One one-sentence basis (one sentence and one tense), as grammar writers cannot see the use of the tense in "Birds fly", they have to BORROW the meaning of the sentence to explain the tense, so that it seems that they really know something about the tense. In this case, the role of the sentence has to remain unmentioned. Young students have acquired the sentence-unmentioned method and, when they have grown up, cannot let it go. May I ask, in "Birds fly", what is the difference between the tense and the sentence?
However, as for me, there are still many ways to prove that it is the sentence that expresses the Meaning; the tense, the Time:
1. In "Birds fly", if we take away the sentence and leave only the tense, there is completely nothing there. How can one talk about the tense that is nothing at all? The conclusion, as he will truly believe and say, is that the tense is timeless. He has to bring the sentence "Birds fly" back and talk about it, and then pretend he is now talking about the tense.
2. Different sentences in the (same) Simple Present can be of different Meanings. It is therefore the sentences, rather than the tense, that produce different Meanings.
3. If we put sentences together, we then see time relation, which controls the tense:
Ex: "I am not hungry. I have eaten dinner."
== We will normally use Present Perfect here, instead Simple Present "I eat dinner', to throw a contrast in Time with another Simple Present. To English native speakers, it is so natural that they aren't even aware there is a time relation there.
4. Actually, by way of time relations, we may even do without any sentences and thus any Meanings, and yet we may still be able to explain tenses and Time. The time relations between the three tenses are such as this:
Combination X: <in 1970 + Past> + Perfect + Present + Past
== As a rule, we use the starting Simple Past to say a completion within a definite past time frame, here in 1970. Present Perfect is used to say also a completion, yet outside -- either before or after -- the time frame. Simple Present indicates a happening also outside the time frame, but "not yet finished now". The latter Simple Past indicates a completion also in the time frame of 1970. Two Simple Past actions, though being separated quite apart, can be regarded as a series of actions. The latter Simple Past is a subsequent action to the former, indicating they happened in the same time frame.
Therefore, I can prove tense expresses time only. Your opinion is welcome.
http://englishtense.com
engtense,
What about the Spanish subjunctive? The subjunctive is not really
a tense but a mood which includes several tenses. As I understand it,
the subjunctive is used much more commonly in Spanish than it is used
in English. So what do you have to say about the English subjunctive?
Geoff_One,
I have stopped posting here for a long time and restarted with a deeper idea derived from the old information. I would rather not to shift immediately to subjunctive mood.
How will you define the use of Simple Present in "Birds fly"? Is "Birds fly" a general statement? What is 'general statement'?
They are of the same meaning, aren't they?
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Your opinion is welcome.
Of course, they are not. Do you think they are?
|