|
|
A concept of time
<<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?>>
In a context like this, it would sound far more natural if the students said, "I'm playing golf" and, "I'm playing tennis" (or if they used the future tense: "I'll play golf" and "I'll play tennis").
I'm not exactly sure of what's gone on here since the last time I've posted, but the simple present *does* denote regularity in English.
I have to comment on this earlier thing though:
<<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.>>
Negative statements can be logical, and they can have an important role in argument. They can't be used to prove things, but they can most certainly be used to disprove things. You were saying, in simplest terms, "x implies y", and Ant_22 was pointing out "no, x does not imply y".
engtense,
«Please review the dialogue:...»
Oh, I didn't understand the situation correctly. Now my answer will be: if your example is grammatically correct (see Lazar's last post), then Present Simple doesn't mean regularity IN THIS EXAMPLE.
«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?»
You supplied no context. If I heard someone say "I play tennis", I would think he means a regularity. That is why I wrote: "The most 'common' meanings would be:...".
Lazar,
«...the simple present *does* denote regularity in English.»
Do you mean it denotes only regularity? I think, in some cases it doesn't.
First, sentences like "I hear somehing", "I think that...", ...
Second, newspaper captions: "Rob Reinolds sings to do silent movie".
Third, text adventures:
> push lever
You push the lever, but nothing happens.
My opinion is that the Present Simple denotes not only regularity.
«Negative statements...»
I have commented on this too. Look at my post on Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:07 pm GMT, on page 23. I'm just interested whether someone except me can understand what I wrote there... Engtense seems not to have got it.
<<Do you mean it denotes only regularity? I think, in some cases it doesn't.>>
No, I meant more along the lines of "It can (and often does) represent regularity." (Sorry if I didn't really make that clear.) You give some good examples of when the simple present doesn't denote regularity. Another situation that pops to mind is when the present is being used for the proximate future: "First we go down to the store. Then we by some food. Then we..."
Ant_222,
You now wrote:
<<You supplied no context. If I heard someone say "I play tennis", I would think he means a regularity. That is why I wrote: "The most 'common' meanings would be:...".>>
My reply: May I interpret from your reply that, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SUPPLIED THE CONTEXT, you also cannot tell the difference. Am I correct?
My original question:
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?
Your answer is: you are not so sure, right?
Lazar,
You wrote:
<<I'm not exactly sure of what's gone on here since the last time I've posted, but the simple present *does* denote regularity in English.>>
My reply:
Just because grammars have said so, they skip those not-so-regular examples being displayed daily in newspapers. You cannot see such examples in grammar books:
Ex: 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.
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.....
Ex: Three hospitals ACKNOWLEDGE putting discharged homeless patients into taxicabs and sending them to the downtown skid row area, the Los Angeles Times reported.
== They are news I have collected in the past. Compared with today, they are in a wrong tense. But we have to explain them, rather than to ignore them. They each are correct Simple Present examples if compared with the day they were published.
However, grammars writers find it embarrassing to put these examples in their books, because, by the time the grammar is printed, these news examples are in wrong tenses.
Therefore, they want to skip these news examples. Instead, they have collected so-called examples of regularities that can be safely put in Simple Present, AS LONG AS THE GRAMMAR BOOK EXISTS:
Ex: Birds sing.
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
Ex: Babies cry a lot.
Ex: Wood floats in water.
Ex: I love you.
Ex: Tommy goes to school every day.
The most malicious thing of all is that, ignoring those news examples, grammar writers can now conveniently rationalize that expressing regularity is the function of Simple Present. We all are victims.
--------------------
You wrote:
<<Negative statements can be logical, and they can have an important role in argument.>>
My reply:
I am afraid I have to differ. In several structures: questions, negative, or passive structures, the action displays no time at all, because it is not really an action.
Perhaps you are correct. Your argument can survive in non-existent actions.
-------------------
Your latest new post:
<<You give some good examples of when the simple present doesn't denote regularity.>>
My reply: Above, I have explained why they hide away those "good examples". News examples in Simple Present are only news. And news is usually not regularity.
Also, people will not vaguely give so-called regularity of which we don't know the time. As I say, just because there is regularity, they will use Time to specify a case of it, so every case is specific enough (not regularity). Therefore, yesterday's "I play tennis" will be not mixed up with today's "I play tennis", even their content and meaning are the same. Time makes the separation possible. Simple Present is thus used to link a regularity to the present time we speak or write, which is different from other tenses, because other tenses link the regularity to other kinds of time. Simply put, there is no what you say regularity.
If you are new to this forum, you may want to take a look at the following page first:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/AtAGlance.htm
<<My original question:
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?
Your answer is: you are not so sure, right?>>
No, engtense, as I have said before, I can quite easily discern three quite obvious, quite distinct meanings from those three sentences.
Ex1: I play tennis regularly (even though I *may or may not* be playing it at this moment).
Ex2: At some point in the past I played tennis (either once, sporadically, or regularly.)
Ex3: I am playing tennis at this very moment. (I *may* play tennis regularly, or I *may not*.)
<<My reply: May I interpret from your reply that, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SUPPLIED THE CONTEXT, you also cannot tell the difference. Am I correct?>>
No, you are not correct. Each of those sentences, taken in isolation, has a distinct meaning. *Context may mitigate that meaning*, but taken in isolation, the meanings of those three sentences are obvious, and distinct.
<<My reply:
...
However, grammars writers find it embarrassing to put these examples in their books, because, by the time the grammar is printed, these news examples are in wrong tenses.>>
And if you had read my subsequent post, engtense, you would have noticed that I said "simple present can (and often does) represent regularity". I quite readily acknowledge that in certain contexts, it does not connote regularity. But in the sentence "I play tennis", it *does* denote regularity.
Lazar,
You wrote:
<<Ex1: I play tennis regularly (even though I *may or may not* be playing it at this moment).
Ex2: At some point in the past I played tennis (either once, sporadically, or regularly.)
Ex3: I am playing tennis at this very moment. (I *may* play tennis regularly, or I *may not*.) >>
My reply: Are you aware that it is the time information you have added to them that gives you the sense of time?
Do you know that the tense doesn't function on one-sentence basis (one sentence and one tense)?
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
------------------------
You wrote:
<<I quite readily acknowledge that IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS, it does not connote regularity. But in the sentence "I play tennis", it *does* denote regularity.>>
My reply: Do you know that tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences? One has to use at least two sentences, so that he may see the function of time:
Ex: "I am not hungry. I have eaten dinner."
Do you know that, when you say "I play tennis" expresses regularity, it is because of the sentence, but not because of the tense?
>My reply: Are you aware that it is the time information you have added to them that gives you the sense of time?<
No, the added info doesn't change the "sense of time".
>My reply: Do you know that tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences? One has to use at least two sentences, so that he may see the function of time:
Ex: "I am not hungry. I have eaten dinner."<
"I am not hungry" on its own expresses the same "function of time".
>Do you know that, when you say "I play tennis" expresses regularity, it is because of the sentence, but not because of the tense?<
The sentence is dependent on the tense. "I play" on its own expresses regularity.
Chuck,
You wrote:
<<No, the added info doesn't change the "sense of time". >>
My reply:
Then may you please tell me again the difference:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Because you haven't yet tried to show me the difference between them, I cannot make any comment.
Is it logical and grammatical to use Simple Past to describe what is happening now? For example, if I am playing tennis now, is it grammatical for me to describe or say "I played tennis"?
In another website, they say it is not possible. But I think it is. Your opinion here?
>My reply:
Then may you please tell me again the difference:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.
Because you haven't yet tried to show me the difference between them, I cannot make any comment.<
You should have more than a reasonable idea by now. Lazar and Ant_222 have explained the differences profusely. All I can offer is a few quasi-equivalencies:
Ex1: I am a tennis player.
Ex2: I have played tennis at least one time in my life.
Ex3: I am in the middle of a game of tennis right now.
To go through all this again would be OCD-like and a mockery to the aforementioned posters.
<<My reply:
Then may you please tell me again the difference:
Ex1: I play tennis.
Ex2: I have played tennis.
Ex3: I am playing tennis.>>
Engtense, we have told you several times, and in very clear terms, what the meanings of those sentences are.
<<Is it logical and grammatical to use Simple Past to describe what is happening now? For example, if I am playing tennis now, is it grammatical for me to describe or say "I played tennis"?
In another website, they say it is not possible. But I think it is. Your opinion here?>>
No, it is not possible. If you are in the action of playing tennis, then you would have to say "I am playing tennis", not "I played tennis".
Chuck wrote:
<<You should have more than a reasonable idea by now. Lazar and Ant_222 have explained the differences profusely. All I can offer is a few quasi-equivalencies:
Ex1: I am a tennis player.
Ex2: I have played tennis at least one time in my life.
Ex3: I am in the middle of a game of tennis right now.>>
My reply:
You should have more than a reasonable idea by now. People are profoundly wrong.
On one-sentence basis, the tense doesn't function, and you are explaining the sentence only. In the #22 page in this present thread I have explained how to see between the function of a tense and that of a 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.>>
Now as you are aware of the point above, we may discuss your opinions to the three tenses:
1. If the tense "I play tennis" says I am a tennis player, what then does the sentence "I play tennis" say? Can you answer this?
2. As for "I have played tennis", your notion of at-least-one-time is eccentric. Do you believe when I say "I have eaten dinner", I want to express I have experience in eating dinner? Do I want to express I have at least eaten dinner one time? Is that English expression?
The at-least-one-time notion is used by persons who cannot explain a tense.
3. As for "I am playing tennis", I have repeatedly told you, every news in Simple Present expresses the notion of "in the middle of":
Ex: Recent polls SHOW Bush's standing with the public has weakened as Americans.....
Ex: 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.
Ex: Sony CLAIMS a power outage in Santa Monica right before launch slowed publishing.
Ex: 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.
Ex: Seventy percent of Americans SUPPORT a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex: 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......
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.....
Ex: Three hospitals ACKNOWLEDGE putting discharged homeless patients into taxicabs and sending them to the downtown skid row area, the Los Angeles Times reported.
== Therefore, the in-the-middle-of notion cannot explain why we use Present Progressive. Actually, grammars have to hide away these news examples, so they can argue Simple Present expresses regularity or general truth, and has a difference from Present Progressive tense. But such deceiving argument is not acceptable to me. Will you agree or not?
I agree that it is helpful for you to claim "many learners here have said so". But please understand when every truth has first come out, it must be in the least minority, and perhaps no one said it before. As for your viewpoint, I regard as falsity the grammar that hide away unfavorable evidence and jump into a conclusion. While they cannot explain tense, such grammar writers only make fun of young students.
----------------------
I hope you will not avoid this important point:
-- If the tense "I play tennis" says I am a tennis player, what then does the sentence "I play tennis" say? Can you answer this?
Lazar,
As for the three tenses, please view my reply to Chuck. There are comments that are also related to your post.
-----------------
I asked:
Is it logical and grammatical to use Simple Past to describe what is happening now? For example, if I am playing tennis now, is it grammatical for me to describe or say "I played tennis"?
You wrote:
<<No, it is not possible. If you are in the action of playing tennis, then you would have to say "I am playing tennis", not "I played tennis".>>
My reply: I have talked about this lately in another forum. But now there seems to be a more realistic example.
In Hong Kong, these days there are riots and protests against WTO. People who have come from other countries and policemen got hurt and a few was sent to hospital. The local news has engaged most of the time and obscured other news around the world. Only this morning was I aware the oil-fire in the UK is a big news. In the morning news, TV said the fire has not yet stopped and firemen are using chemical foam to fight with it. I rushed to my computer. However, on the internet, why do they use Simple Past to report it, as follows?
Ex: "British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
Hemel Hempstead, England - Firefighters USED CHEMICAL FOAM to extinguish part of the inferno raging Monday after explosions at a fuel depot north of London, while a huge oily smoke cloud from THE BLAZE DRIFTED OVER northern France and headed toward Spain."
By the time I read this, I know the fire has not stopped and they ARE USING CHEMICAL FOAM and the smoke IS DRIFTING OVER to other countries. So, why does the reporter use Simple Past to describe something "in the action" RIGHT NOW? Is this usage of tense really not possible?
To tell the truth, it is possible. But people are seldom aware of it. I hold englishtense.com and therefore I am aware of this. The problem is, can you think of any explanation?
<<By the time I read this, I know the fire has not stopped and they ARE USING CHEMICAL FOAM and the smoke IS DRIFTING OVER to other countries. So, why does the reporter use Simple Past to describe something "in the action" RIGHT NOW? Is this usage of tense really not possible?>>
Simple past *does not* denote present action, period. When I read that news article, I interpret what Thomas Wagner wrote as being *in the past*. The article does not tell me what's going on in the present. If I had just happened to read that article, and then someone had asked me, "Are the firefighters still using foam?" or "Is the blaze still drifting over France and heading toward Spain?", my honest reply as a native speaker of English would have been "I don't know", because that article is only describing what happened *in the past*.
Let me reiterate in the most unequivocal manner, the simple past *never ever ever* denotes present action.
|