People in other websites cannot tell the difference between them. Can you tell the difference with your utmost care?
A concept of time
People in other websites cannot tell the difference between them:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Can you tell the difference with your utmost care?
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Can you tell the difference with your utmost care?
The most 'common' meanings would be:
"I play tennis" means you regularly play tennis.
"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.
"I am playing tennis" expresses the fact that NOW you are playing tennis.
By 'common meanings' I mean onec that would the sentences have if they had no context.
"I play tennis" means you regularly play tennis.
"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.
"I am playing tennis" expresses the fact that NOW you are playing tennis.
By 'common meanings' I mean onec that would the sentences have if they had no context.
By 'common meanings' I mean onec that would the sentences have if they had no context.
Should be replaced by
By 'common meanings' I mean ones that the sentences would have if they had no context.
Should be replaced by
By 'common meanings' I mean ones that the sentences would have if they had no context.
Ant_222,
You wrote:
<<"I play tennis" means you regularly play tennis.
"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.
"I am playing tennis" expresses the fact that NOW you are playing tennis. >>
My reply:
As you say, "I play tennis" means I regularly play tennis. But if NOW "I am playing tennis", does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? Of course not. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. Playing one time of the regularity doesn't change the regularity at all.
Now as I have finished the game: "I have played tennis". Again, does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? It doesn't make any sense. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. It is absurd for anyone to conclude that finishing one time of playing will imply I have changed my regularity. Furthermore, as I regularly play tennis, does it fulfill your requirement that I, at least for one time in my life, have played tennis? Of course, Simple Present meets your Present Perfect requirement.
So, I have proven they are of the same meaning in the three tenses:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Would you have some follow-up? Or try all over again, to tell the difference?
You wrote:
<<"I play tennis" means you regularly play tennis.
"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.
"I am playing tennis" expresses the fact that NOW you are playing tennis. >>
My reply:
As you say, "I play tennis" means I regularly play tennis. But if NOW "I am playing tennis", does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? Of course not. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. Playing one time of the regularity doesn't change the regularity at all.
Now as I have finished the game: "I have played tennis". Again, does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? It doesn't make any sense. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. It is absurd for anyone to conclude that finishing one time of playing will imply I have changed my regularity. Furthermore, as I regularly play tennis, does it fulfill your requirement that I, at least for one time in my life, have played tennis? Of course, Simple Present meets your Present Perfect requirement.
So, I have proven they are of the same meaning in the three tenses:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Would you have some follow-up? Or try all over again, to tell the difference?
Just entering this discussion for the first time, I'll say that these three sentences do not have the same meaning.
"I play tennis." This means that you play tennis on a regular basis.
"I am playing tennis." This means that you are playing tennis at this very moment, but it doesn't necessarily imply any regularity at all. You could say "I'm playing tennis" if you just happened to be playing a match with someone, even if you had never played tennis before in your life and never planned to play it again.
"I have played tennis." This implies that you have played tennis (either regularly or sporadically) in the past. Taken in isolation, this sentence would seem to imply that the speaker doesn't play tennis anymore.
"I play tennis." This means that you play tennis on a regular basis.
"I am playing tennis." This means that you are playing tennis at this very moment, but it doesn't necessarily imply any regularity at all. You could say "I'm playing tennis" if you just happened to be playing a match with someone, even if you had never played tennis before in your life and never planned to play it again.
"I have played tennis." This implies that you have played tennis (either regularly or sporadically) in the past. Taken in isolation, this sentence would seem to imply that the speaker doesn't play tennis anymore.
I'm jumping in here to say I agree with Ant_222's precis and Lazar's explanations.
<<Now as I have finished the game:>>
You would say "I just had/played a game of tennis".
<<So, I have proven they are of the same meaning in the three tenses:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.>>
They mean different things and can't always be used alone, as above, without a context so they're normally used in constructing sentences differently.
e.g. (Ex2)I have played tennis(Ex2) with Harry on many occasions. In fact, (Ex1)I play tennis(Ex1) with Harry on Wednesdays (every Wednesday). (Ex3)And I am playing tennis(Ex3) right now (at the moment).
Ex1, Ex2 and Ex3 are not interchangeable in the above example.
<<Now as I have finished the game:>>
You would say "I just had/played a game of tennis".
<<So, I have proven they are of the same meaning in the three tenses:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.>>
They mean different things and can't always be used alone, as above, without a context so they're normally used in constructing sentences differently.
e.g. (Ex2)I have played tennis(Ex2) with Harry on many occasions. In fact, (Ex1)I play tennis(Ex1) with Harry on Wednesdays (every Wednesday). (Ex3)And I am playing tennis(Ex3) right now (at the moment).
Ex1, Ex2 and Ex3 are not interchangeable in the above example.
//Partly repeating what Lazar wrote above
«As you say, "I play tennis" means I regularly play tennis. But if NOW "I am playing tennis", does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? Of course not. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. Playing one time of the regularity doesn't change the regularity at all.»
"I am playing tennis now" can be true irregardless of whether I regularly play tennis or not. I can say this phrase during my first (and last) tennis game. The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute. "I play tennis", which reports regularity and can be true irregardless of whether I am playing tennis now or not.
«Now as I have finished the game: "I have played tennis". Again, does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore?»
Again, I didn't say it means you don't play tennis regularly. As I said above:
«"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.» This may be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist.
«Furthermore, as I regularly play tennis, does it fulfill your requirement that I, at least for one time in my life, have played tennis? Of course, Simple Present meets your Present Perfect requirement.»
But not vise versa: from "I have played tennis" it DOESN'T follow that "I play tennis". Draw your attention to the fact that the opposite statement ("I don't play tennis") doesn't follow as well. Thus, these sentences are not equivalent.
The sentences
"I have played tennis" and
"I am playing tennis" say nothing about regularity.
If you want to be a sophist, you aren't smart enough: your logical mistakes are too clear.
As to the connection between the three sentences:
"I play tennis" => "I have played tennis". The other combinations are not connected. They may be true or false independently of each other.
«As you say, "I play tennis" means I regularly play tennis. But if NOW "I am playing tennis", does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore? Of course not. I still play tennis regularly, word for word as you define Simple Present. Playing one time of the regularity doesn't change the regularity at all.»
"I am playing tennis now" can be true irregardless of whether I regularly play tennis or not. I can say this phrase during my first (and last) tennis game. The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute. "I play tennis", which reports regularity and can be true irregardless of whether I am playing tennis now or not.
«Now as I have finished the game: "I have played tennis". Again, does it mean I do not regularly play tennis anymore?»
Again, I didn't say it means you don't play tennis regularly. As I said above:
«"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.» This may be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist.
«Furthermore, as I regularly play tennis, does it fulfill your requirement that I, at least for one time in my life, have played tennis? Of course, Simple Present meets your Present Perfect requirement.»
But not vise versa: from "I have played tennis" it DOESN'T follow that "I play tennis". Draw your attention to the fact that the opposite statement ("I don't play tennis") doesn't follow as well. Thus, these sentences are not equivalent.
The sentences
"I have played tennis" and
"I am playing tennis" say nothing about regularity.
If you want to be a sophist, you aren't smart enough: your logical mistakes are too clear.
As to the connection between the three sentences:
"I play tennis" => "I have played tennis". The other combinations are not connected. They may be true or false independently of each other.
I cannot meet all the posts at once. I will talk with Ant_222 first. Anyway, he says he is "Partly repeating what Lazar wrote above."
My argument is, eating part of the cake is still eating cake. Now I have a routine of playing tennis. Isn't a part of playing tennis -- "I am playing tennis" or 'I have played tennis" -- also a routine? I am sure it is.
Ant_222 wrote about Present Progressive:
<<"I am playing tennis now" can be true irregardless of whether I regularly play tennis or not.>>
My reply: I know I play tennis regularly and I don't know how I can be irregardless of it. If I don't play it regularly, during one time of playing, I will play badly. But since I am playing it as good as usual, how can the playing is irregardless of the regularity?
You wrote:
<<I can say this phrase during my first (and last) tennis game.>>
My reply:
Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
More examples: when Katrina hit the coast for the first time (that may be also its last time), are we not allowed to use Present Progressive to say it? I don't believe it. We use any kinds of tenses. Or would you insist that during Katrina's visit, we haven't used Present Progressive at all?
You wrote:
<<The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute.>>
My reply:
It is still not regarded as regularity, having played 333 times? I only play one time on Sundays. 333 times will take several years. Is it still not a regularity? It is a regularity already, but I agree we can still use any tense to say it.
---------------------------
You wrote about Present Perfect "I have played tennis":
<<Again, I didn't say it means you don't play tennis regularly. As I said above:
«"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.» This MAY be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist.>>
My reply: A regularity "I play tennis" must include 'at least for one time in your life'. Therefore, Simple Present has no difference from Present Perfect here. Further, your condition "MAY" is not a must, which can be ignored.
You wrote:
<<But not vise versa: from "I have played tennis" it DOESN'T follow that "I play tennis". Draw your attention to the fact that the opposite statement ("I don't play tennis") doesn't follow as well. Thus, these sentences are not equivalent.>>
My reply: Here are all negative statements. What can they prove? Your reasoning is, because "I am not a farmer, nor a teacher, nor a traveler", and therefore I am a king. I am afraid this is illogical. Your many negative statements are not criterions of proving anything.
You wrote:
<<The sentences
"I have played tennis" and
"I am playing tennis" say nothing about regularity.>>
My reply: I don't think so. When I have a regularity of playing tennis, why I cannot say "I am playing tennis", if a friend phones me and asks what I am doing. I may also say "I have played tennis" to my friend in the phone, if I have finished it.
I still insist that doing the regularity is still a regularity. For example, if I have a regularity of smoking, and when I am doing it now, it is not a regularity anymore? If so, I can quit the habit of smoking by smoking now. It hardly makes sense.
My argument is, eating part of the cake is still eating cake. Now I have a routine of playing tennis. Isn't a part of playing tennis -- "I am playing tennis" or 'I have played tennis" -- also a routine? I am sure it is.
Ant_222 wrote about Present Progressive:
<<"I am playing tennis now" can be true irregardless of whether I regularly play tennis or not.>>
My reply: I know I play tennis regularly and I don't know how I can be irregardless of it. If I don't play it regularly, during one time of playing, I will play badly. But since I am playing it as good as usual, how can the playing is irregardless of the regularity?
You wrote:
<<I can say this phrase during my first (and last) tennis game.>>
My reply:
Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
More examples: when Katrina hit the coast for the first time (that may be also its last time), are we not allowed to use Present Progressive to say it? I don't believe it. We use any kinds of tenses. Or would you insist that during Katrina's visit, we haven't used Present Progressive at all?
You wrote:
<<The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute.>>
My reply:
It is still not regarded as regularity, having played 333 times? I only play one time on Sundays. 333 times will take several years. Is it still not a regularity? It is a regularity already, but I agree we can still use any tense to say it.
---------------------------
You wrote about Present Perfect "I have played tennis":
<<Again, I didn't say it means you don't play tennis regularly. As I said above:
«"I have played tennis" implies that you, at least for one time in your life, have played tennis.» This MAY be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist.>>
My reply: A regularity "I play tennis" must include 'at least for one time in your life'. Therefore, Simple Present has no difference from Present Perfect here. Further, your condition "MAY" is not a must, which can be ignored.
You wrote:
<<But not vise versa: from "I have played tennis" it DOESN'T follow that "I play tennis". Draw your attention to the fact that the opposite statement ("I don't play tennis") doesn't follow as well. Thus, these sentences are not equivalent.>>
My reply: Here are all negative statements. What can they prove? Your reasoning is, because "I am not a farmer, nor a teacher, nor a traveler", and therefore I am a king. I am afraid this is illogical. Your many negative statements are not criterions of proving anything.
You wrote:
<<The sentences
"I have played tennis" and
"I am playing tennis" say nothing about regularity.>>
My reply: I don't think so. When I have a regularity of playing tennis, why I cannot say "I am playing tennis", if a friend phones me and asks what I am doing. I may also say "I have played tennis" to my friend in the phone, if I have finished it.
I still insist that doing the regularity is still a regularity. For example, if I have a regularity of smoking, and when I am doing it now, it is not a regularity anymore? If so, I can quit the habit of smoking by smoking now. It hardly makes sense.
«Now I have a routine of playing tennis. Isn't a part of playing tennis -- "I am playing tennis" or 'I have played tennis" -- also a routine? I am sure it is.»
Yes, it is part of the routine given the latter exits. But you may happily have no such routine and the Present Perfect and Present Continuous statements would mean the same as well — irregardless of the routine's presence.
«My reply: I know I play tennis regularly and I don't know how I can be irregardless of it. If I don't play it regularly, during one time of playing, I will play badly. But since I am playing it as good as usual, how can the playing is irregardless of the regularity?»
I didn't say you "can be irregardless of" the regularity. I said this about the meaning of "I am playing tennis", not about you.
Furthermore, the sentence "I am playing tennis" says nothing about how good you are at the game.
«Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".»
I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.
«More examples: when Katrina hit the coast for the first time (that may be also its last time), are we not allowed to use Present Progressive to say it? I don't believe it. We use any kinds of tenses. Or would you insist that during Katrina's visit, we haven't used Present Progressive at all?»
If that's her only visit she can't say "I visit this coast", because that's not a regularity. But not other tenses? You better give a concrete example about that.
«You wrote:
<<The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute.>>»
I am sorry. Here I placed the point at wrong place. The sentence should be:
«This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute [the sentence] "I play tennis", which reports regularity and can be true irregardless of whether I am playing tennis now or not.»
You commented:
«It is still not regarded as regularity, having played 333 times? I only play one time on Sundays. 333 times will take several years. Is it still not a regularity? It is a regularity already, but I agree we can still use any tense to say it.»
"It says nothing about regularity" doesn't mean there is not regularity. Do you understand it?
--------
«My reply: A regularity "I play tennis" must include 'at least for one time in your life'. Therefore, Simple Present has no difference from Present Perfect here.»
The word "samovar" must include letter 'm'. Therefore the word has no difference from the letter. How do you like it?
About my sentence "This MAY be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist."
you wrote:
«Further, your condition "MAY" is not a must, which can be ignored.»
No, you definetly have problems with sentential calculus ;)
My sentence means that in both the cases (1. the only game in your life 2. one of the hundreds played games) the Present Perfect sentence will have the same meaning: "There exists in the past a [at least one] game that you played."
«My reply: Here are all negative statements. What can they prove? Your reasoning is, because "I am not a farmer, nor a teacher, nor a traveler", and therefore I am a king. I am afraid this is illogical. Your many negative statements are not criterions of proving anything.»
That's very fun to read such posts. The point is how negative statements are used. You interpretation is incorrect.
If we have (A => B) and (B = >A), then we can say (A <=> B).
(If A then B)&&(If B then A)<=>(A equals B).
Now, if I disprove one or more of (A = > B) or (B => A), I will disprove that A eqauls B (A <=> B). That is what I did by the negative sentence:
not(A => B) => not(A <=> B)
not(B => A) => not(A <=> B)
That is it.
-----------
I said that the Past Perfect and Present Simple sentenses say nothin about regularity.
Your comment was:
«My reply: I don't think so. When I have a regularity of playing tennis, why I cannot say "I am playing tennis", if a friend phones me and asks what I am doing. I may also say "I have played tennis" to my friend in the phone, if I have finished it.»
Again you repeat your mistake. From my statement you conclude that: when you have a regularity you can not say "I am playing tennis". And, then, priove that, actually, you can sau that, and, therefore, I am incorrect.
Read: From my statement it doesn't follow that you cant say "I am playing tennis". Of course, I agree that you can say this, but in no way disrpoves my statement.
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
You can use them all, and all of them will have different meanings.
Hoping you carefuly read this post, Anton.
Yes, it is part of the routine given the latter exits. But you may happily have no such routine and the Present Perfect and Present Continuous statements would mean the same as well — irregardless of the routine's presence.
«My reply: I know I play tennis regularly and I don't know how I can be irregardless of it. If I don't play it regularly, during one time of playing, I will play badly. But since I am playing it as good as usual, how can the playing is irregardless of the regularity?»
I didn't say you "can be irregardless of" the regularity. I said this about the meaning of "I am playing tennis", not about you.
Furthermore, the sentence "I am playing tennis" says nothing about how good you are at the game.
«Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".»
I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.
«More examples: when Katrina hit the coast for the first time (that may be also its last time), are we not allowed to use Present Progressive to say it? I don't believe it. We use any kinds of tenses. Or would you insist that during Katrina's visit, we haven't used Present Progressive at all?»
If that's her only visit she can't say "I visit this coast", because that's not a regularity. But not other tenses? You better give a concrete example about that.
«You wrote:
<<The same can be said by a professional during his 333th game. This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute.>>»
I am sorry. Here I placed the point at wrong place. The sentence should be:
«This sentence says nothing about regularity, so it can't substitute [the sentence] "I play tennis", which reports regularity and can be true irregardless of whether I am playing tennis now or not.»
You commented:
«It is still not regarded as regularity, having played 333 times? I only play one time on Sundays. 333 times will take several years. Is it still not a regularity? It is a regularity already, but I agree we can still use any tense to say it.»
"It says nothing about regularity" doesn't mean there is not regularity. Do you understand it?
--------
«My reply: A regularity "I play tennis" must include 'at least for one time in your life'. Therefore, Simple Present has no difference from Present Perfect here.»
The word "samovar" must include letter 'm'. Therefore the word has no difference from the letter. How do you like it?
About my sentence "This MAY be either the only game in your life, or one the many (hundreds) games you have played, given you are a tennisist."
you wrote:
«Further, your condition "MAY" is not a must, which can be ignored.»
No, you definetly have problems with sentential calculus ;)
My sentence means that in both the cases (1. the only game in your life 2. one of the hundreds played games) the Present Perfect sentence will have the same meaning: "There exists in the past a [at least one] game that you played."
«My reply: Here are all negative statements. What can they prove? Your reasoning is, because "I am not a farmer, nor a teacher, nor a traveler", and therefore I am a king. I am afraid this is illogical. Your many negative statements are not criterions of proving anything.»
That's very fun to read such posts. The point is how negative statements are used. You interpretation is incorrect.
If we have (A => B) and (B = >A), then we can say (A <=> B).
(If A then B)&&(If B then A)<=>(A equals B).
Now, if I disprove one or more of (A = > B) or (B => A), I will disprove that A eqauls B (A <=> B). That is what I did by the negative sentence:
not(A => B) => not(A <=> B)
not(B => A) => not(A <=> B)
That is it.
-----------
I said that the Past Perfect and Present Simple sentenses say nothin about regularity.
Your comment was:
«My reply: I don't think so. When I have a regularity of playing tennis, why I cannot say "I am playing tennis", if a friend phones me and asks what I am doing. I may also say "I have played tennis" to my friend in the phone, if I have finished it.»
Again you repeat your mistake. From my statement you conclude that: when you have a regularity you can not say "I am playing tennis". And, then, priove that, actually, you can sau that, and, therefore, I am incorrect.
Read: From my statement it doesn't follow that you cant say "I am playing tennis". Of course, I agree that you can say this, but in no way disrpoves my statement.
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
You can use them all, and all of them will have different meanings.
Hoping you carefuly read this post, Anton.
Ant_222,
I said:
Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
You commented:
<<I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.>>
My reply:
If you insist the student's present new game is a regularity, I have nothing to say.
----------------------
You wrote:
<<If that's her ONLY VISIT she can't say "I visit this coast", because that's not a regularity. But not other tenses? You better give a concrete example about that. >>
My reply:
In the #4 page of this present thread, we have already talked about 'habit', which is regularity in your term, and I have quoted example:
"In reality, I don't think English users will wait for a habit and then use Simple Present to say it:
Ex: "As we CLEAR AWAY the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality," Bush said during a national prayer service with other political leaders....."
== English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway.
Some other examples are put here from my book:
Ex1: Recent polls SHOW Bush's standing with the public has weakened as Americans.....
Ex2: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, PLAN to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.
Ex3: Sony CLAIMS a power outage in Santa Monica right before launch slowed publishing.
Ex4: The 30 new candidates COME from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.
Ex5: Seventy percent of Americans SUPPORT a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex6: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country HOLDS the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......
== If you listen to a movie, they mostly use Simple Present to say thing in progress. Present Progressive is only used to emphasize a NEW progression.
My humble opinion is, just because there is regularity, we use Time to specify a case of it, so every case is specific (not regularity). Therefore, yesterday's "I play tennis" will be not mixed up with today's "I play tennis", even their contents are the same. It follows that weather in the last year can also be separated from the weather in this year. Time makes the separation possible. Simple Present is thus used to link a regularity to the present time we speak or write. Other tenses linked the regularity to the other time.
-------------------
You wrote:
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
My reply:
If #2 is not regularity, what is it? To express I am doing an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it expresses you are doing the regularity?
If #3 is not regularity, what is it? To refer my experience of an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it refers to your experience of the regularity?
In the presence of a regularity, when we use Present Progressive or Present Perfect, the regularity disappears? How wonderful. If I have a bad habit of smoking, and I want to quit, all I need to do is smoking one, and it is not regarded as a regularity of smoking. Is this acceptable to you?
If all I am doing and all experience about the regularity are not regarded as regularity, do I have the regularity at all?
I said:
Other than Present Progressive, you can also say "I play tennis" during my first (and last) tennis game:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a new game."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
You commented:
<<I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.>>
My reply:
If you insist the student's present new game is a regularity, I have nothing to say.
----------------------
You wrote:
<<If that's her ONLY VISIT she can't say "I visit this coast", because that's not a regularity. But not other tenses? You better give a concrete example about that. >>
My reply:
In the #4 page of this present thread, we have already talked about 'habit', which is regularity in your term, and I have quoted example:
"In reality, I don't think English users will wait for a habit and then use Simple Present to say it:
Ex: "As we CLEAR AWAY the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality," Bush said during a national prayer service with other political leaders....."
== English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway.
Some other examples are put here from my book:
Ex1: Recent polls SHOW Bush's standing with the public has weakened as Americans.....
Ex2: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, PLAN to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.
Ex3: Sony CLAIMS a power outage in Santa Monica right before launch slowed publishing.
Ex4: The 30 new candidates COME from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.
Ex5: Seventy percent of Americans SUPPORT a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex6: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country HOLDS the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......
== If you listen to a movie, they mostly use Simple Present to say thing in progress. Present Progressive is only used to emphasize a NEW progression.
My humble opinion is, just because there is regularity, we use Time to specify a case of it, so every case is specific (not regularity). Therefore, yesterday's "I play tennis" will be not mixed up with today's "I play tennis", even their contents are the same. It follows that weather in the last year can also be separated from the weather in this year. Time makes the separation possible. Simple Present is thus used to link a regularity to the present time we speak or write. Other tenses linked the regularity to the other time.
-------------------
You wrote:
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
My reply:
If #2 is not regularity, what is it? To express I am doing an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it expresses you are doing the regularity?
If #3 is not regularity, what is it? To refer my experience of an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it refers to your experience of the regularity?
In the presence of a regularity, when we use Present Progressive or Present Perfect, the regularity disappears? How wonderful. If I have a bad habit of smoking, and I want to quit, all I need to do is smoking one, and it is not regarded as a regularity of smoking. Is this acceptable to you?
If all I am doing and all experience about the regularity are not regarded as regularity, do I have the regularity at all?
On my words:
«I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.»
You answered:
«If you insist the student's present new game is a regularity, I have nothing to say.»
You are not right. When the student said "I play tennis", he didn't mean only that particular game. He meant that he regularly played tennis. If that had been his first game he wouldn't have said that.
Thus, in your example "the student's present game" is part of a regularity.
«English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway»
Yes, but that is not a regularity. The fact is that Present Simple doesn't denote only regularity. And in your examples Present Simple doesn't express regularity.
Such usage of this tense is often met is text adventures:
>You feel somewhat disoriented as you pass through.
>You enter the room and see...
...
«You wrote:
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
My reply:
If #2 is not regularity, what is it? To express I am doing an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it expresses you are doing the regularity?»
No. It expresses you are doing a game, no matter whether it is once-only or not.
«If #3 is not regularity, what is it? To refer my experience of an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it refers to your experience of the regularity»
No. It refers to experience of a game, no matter once-only or not.
I can add the following:
In the absence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the lack of regularity. ("I do not play tennis")
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
As you see, only the first statement has changed. That is because the other two do not depend on whether there is a regularity.
«In the presence of a regularity, when we use Present Progressive or Present Perfect, the regularity disappears?»
Of course, no. It is just that these tenses do not express regularity, and, therefore, one can not judge by them about the presence of regularity.
«I can say it. But that will have a totally different meaning, as compared to "I am playing tennis". In the above example the students just tell the coach they play regularly. So, that wasn't their first golf/tennis game.»
You answered:
«If you insist the student's present new game is a regularity, I have nothing to say.»
You are not right. When the student said "I play tennis", he didn't mean only that particular game. He meant that he regularly played tennis. If that had been his first game he wouldn't have said that.
Thus, in your example "the student's present game" is part of a regularity.
«English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway»
Yes, but that is not a regularity. The fact is that Present Simple doesn't denote only regularity. And in your examples Present Simple doesn't express regularity.
Such usage of this tense is often met is text adventures:
>You feel somewhat disoriented as you pass through.
>You enter the room and see...
...
«You wrote:
In the presence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the regularity.
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
My reply:
If #2 is not regularity, what is it? To express I am doing an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it expresses you are doing the regularity?»
No. It expresses you are doing a game, no matter whether it is once-only or not.
«If #3 is not regularity, what is it? To refer my experience of an once-only game? But you have agreed it is "In the presence of a regularity"! Wouldn't it be better to say it refers to your experience of the regularity»
No. It refers to experience of a game, no matter once-only or not.
I can add the following:
In the absence of a regularity you can use:
1. Present Simple — to express the lack of regularity. ("I do not play tennis")
2. Present Progressive — to express what you are doing now
3. Present Perfect — to refer to your experience.
As you see, only the first statement has changed. That is because the other two do not depend on whether there is a regularity.
«In the presence of a regularity, when we use Present Progressive or Present Perfect, the regularity disappears?»
Of course, no. It is just that these tenses do not express regularity, and, therefore, one can not judge by them about the presence of regularity.
When people find this huge thread (~350 posts) called "A concept of time" they probably think: "Wow. That is definitely a serious philosophic discussion." But when they open one of its 23 pages and read couple of posts...
Ant_222,
Please review the dialogue:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a NEW GAME."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
The students have to learn to play a NEW GAME they have never played before. One chooses to learn to play golf, while another, tennis. It is clearly not a regularity. May you get the point now?
---------------------------
I said and gave some examples:
«English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway»
You wrote:
Yes, but that is not a regularity. The fact is that PRESENT SIMPLE DOESN'T DENOTE ONLY REGULARITY. And in your examples PRESENT SIMPLE DOESN'T EXPRESS REGULARITY.
My reply:
If you say so, why you have at first said Simple Present "I play tennis" expresses a regularity? I didn't say it is a regularity, did I?
---------------------------
Perhaps you have shown some confusion. Let's get something straight first.
What does the Simple Present tense express in the following sentence:
Ex: I play tennis.
Please review the dialogue:
-- Coach: "Everyone has to learn to play a NEW GAME."
-- Student A: "I play golf."
-- Student B: "I play tennis".
The students have to learn to play a NEW GAME they have never played before. One chooses to learn to play golf, while another, tennis. It is clearly not a regularity. May you get the point now?
---------------------------
I said and gave some examples:
«English usually uses Simple Present to refer to an only-once case. But you will disagree anyway»
You wrote:
Yes, but that is not a regularity. The fact is that PRESENT SIMPLE DOESN'T DENOTE ONLY REGULARITY. And in your examples PRESENT SIMPLE DOESN'T EXPRESS REGULARITY.
My reply:
If you say so, why you have at first said Simple Present "I play tennis" expresses a regularity? I didn't say it is a regularity, did I?
---------------------------
Perhaps you have shown some confusion. Let's get something straight first.
What does the Simple Present tense express in the following sentence:
Ex: I play tennis.