|
|
A concept of time
«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.»
= 'Thay did something, while something happened'. No present time. Do I get it right?
Can 'while' be changed to 'meanwhile' in the above sentence without loss of meaning?
Lazar wrote:
<<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*.>> My reply: So, after reading the message I have posted, you still don't know! I am dumbfounded. The purpose I specially use this news is that one may have an objective reference that nearly everyone is aware of. OK, perhaps you didn't know. But after I have said "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." You still HONESTLY don't know? You still don't know from me? Or what? You know something? Other readers here arguing against me depend much on your honesty.
<<My reply: So, after reading the message I have posted, you still don't know! I am dumbfounded.
The purpose I specially use this news is that one may have an objective reference that nearly everyone is aware of. OK, perhaps you didn't know. But after I have said "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." You still HONESTLY don't know? You still don't know from me? Or what? You know something? Other readers here arguing against me depend much on your honesty.>> Did you even read my post? I used a conditional clause: "IF I HAD JUST HAPPENED TO READ that article..." That means, if I had happened to come upon that article in the course of the day, not having previously read it in your post. What the hell are you trying to imply about my honesty?
«OK, perhaps you didn't know. But after I have said "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." You still HONESTLY don't know? You still don't know from me? Or what?»
I think too, that from the news it not clear. It just seems to me, that, by the moment the article was written, the cloud was still over northern France but the firefighters could have ceased using foam, and even they could have to extinguished the fire. But the sentence itself says nothing abou that.
Lazar,
You wrote: <<Did you even read my post? I used a conditional clause: "IF I HAD JUST HAPPENED TO READ that article..." That means, if I had happened to come upon that article in the course of the day, not having previously read it in your post. What the hell are you trying to imply about my honesty?>> My reply: My previous reply has taken your conditional into consideration!! I said: "OK, perhaps you didn't know. But...." This has clearly included your conditional clause. I didn't misunderstand. "The purpose I specially use this news is that one may have an objective reference that nearly everyone is aware of." That is to say, I take something everyone knows as a reference to discuss tenses. I am very very surprised that, by putting on a condition, you claimed 'my honest reply as a native speaker of English would have been "I don't know"'. And then I pointed out, just because of my words "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", your condition is not existent. That is to say, either from the other sources or from my words, you cannot pretend "I don't know"! --------------- Let me put the thing in another aspect: If you don't know about the situation, we may not discuss the question why we use Simple Past to describe the present situation in progress. Therefore, deliberately, I have to quote something we all know. And then you claim WHAT IF you don't know. This is not possible. Instead, you should have said "I DON'T KNOW why the reporter uses Simple Past", if you had uttered something like 'honest reply'. But you didn't want to say it.
<<My previous reply has taken your conditional into consideration!!>>
No, it hasn't. <<That is to say, I take something everyone knows as a reference to discuss tenses. I am very very surprised that, by putting on a condition, you claimed 'my honest reply as a native speaker of English would have been "I don't know"'. And then I pointed out, just because of my words "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", your condition is not existent. That is to say, either from the other sources or from my words, you cannot pretend "I don't know"!>> That's why I used the word IF!!! "IF" refers to a counterfactual situation here - that's the point! *IF* I had not previously read your post with the article, and *IF* someone asked me if the firefighters were still using foam or if the blaze was still drifting, *THEN* my honest response would have been "I don't know". That's because the article was written in the Simple Past, *and the simple past never denotes present action*. <<If you don't know about the situation, we may not discuss the question why we use Simple Past to describe the present situation in progress. Therefore, deliberately, I have to quote something we all know. And then you claim WHAT IF you don't know. This is not possible.>> Yes it is possible! Before reading your post, I HONESTLY would not have been able to tell you what the firefighters were doing or where the blaze was drifting. <<Instead, you should have said "I DON'T KNOW why the reporter uses Simple Past", if you had uttered something like 'honest reply'. But you didn't want to say it.>> You aren't even making sense here. If you want to know why the reporter was using the simple past, then it may be because newspapers try to encapsulate the day's events and put them in a past context. Let me tell you once again that that article tells me NOTHING about the present. And that's because it's written in the simple past, which *never* denotes present action.
Ant_222,
You wrote: <<I think too, that from the news it not clear. It just seems to me, that, by the moment the article was written, the cloud was still over northern France but the firefighters could have ceased using foam, and even they could have to extinguished the fire. But the sentence itself says nothing abou that.>> My reply: Does the title "British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France" look like a finish or cease to you? It seems to me that, here, I am the only one who knows about the oil-fire.
<<My reply: Does the title "British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France" look like a finish or cease to you?>>
Newspaper headlines are often written in the present tense, even if they're describing past action. For example, one might see a headline such as "Man dies in accident" followed by an article telling how the man *died* in the *past*.
«My reply: Does the title "British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France" look like a finish or cease to you?»
As I said, «But the sentence itself says nothing abou that.» But if I read this article in a fresh newspaper I would think that the cloud is still there, because clouds are huge and slow. It simply wouldn't have time to pass a significant distance or to dissolve in the air... But from the title I only know what's happened, not the current state of things...
<<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.">> At that point in time (the past), firefighters used chemical foam and the blaze drifted over France and Spain. If you know they are still extinguishing the blaze and that it is still drifting, then fine. But the article only talks about what happened in the past. The blaze could be extinguished, or it could be raging on. It does not matter to the story. The story does not indicate what is happening now nor give any indication of such. End of story. Engtense - you want to hear "you're right" but it isn't going to happen. Stop tormenting them because they are trying to give you correct information.
<<Can 'while' be changed to 'meanwhile' in the above sentence without loss of meaning?>>
Yes.
>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. ... 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?< Chuck's response: People breathe, birds fly, apples float on water, golfers play golf, tennis players play tennis... are complete phrases that don't require further elaboration. You can interpret the sentence "I play tennis." however you want, but native speakers would have no trouble discerning it by following the previous pattern of phrases. They would view such phrases as generalizations. >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.< Chuck's response: It's assumed that I/everyone eat/s dinner every day (culturally based), so "I've eaten dinner" is different to expressing having done or tried something at least one time in my life e.g. "I have eaten caviar" and it's not generally assumed that everyone eats caviar every day.
Tiffany wrote:
<<Stop tormenting them because they are trying to give you correct information.>> My reply: If you don't say that, I think I am on the losing, because there is no one else standing on my side. Surprisingly, I don't know, it looks like I am "tormenting" them. Thank you for your encouragement. When grammars hide away Simple-Present news examples and tell young students "grammars", the torment has already begun. Some people want to keep the torment. As I want to free the foreign young students from the torment, they ironically call me to stop tormenting the ones defending the old grammars. Young students cannot run away. But what about the adults? As long as the forum remains free, the readers are free to come and go. I am not holding any one down against their will. I can't. So, Tiffany, don't make a joke of yourself.
Chuck,
You wrote: <<People breathe, birds fly, apples float on water, golfers play golf, tennis players play tennis... are complete phrases that don't require further elaboration. You can interpret the sentence "I play tennis." however you want, but native speakers would have no trouble discerning it by following the previous pattern of phrases. They would view such phrases as generalizations.>> My reply: Yes, you are very correct. Native speakers "would view such phrases as generalizations". The bad thing is, on one-sentence basis (one sentence and one tense), as the tense doesn't function, they have to interpret the tense as same as the sentence. The consequence is, those Simple Present examples which don't look like generalization, such as news examples, will not be allowed to appear in their books. Do they really want to hide away those news examples whose actions will last one or two days? Of course not, but for the time being, they have to. Tell me if they are willing to do so. Their mind is troubled and they are waiting for updates. In explaining tense, I have restored the function of sentence, and the job is now much easier. Simple Present links news examples to the present time. As for those examples like "I play tennis", Simple Present also links to the present time we discuss. If not for the present discussion, why will we say "I play tennis" here? Actually, just because there is generalization, we use Time to specify a case of it, so every case can be specific. Therefore, yesterday's "Birds fly" will be not mixed up with today's "Birds fly", even their content and meaning are the same. It follows that everything last year can also be separated from everything this year. It is Time that makes such separation possible. Tenses are Time markers. Simple Present is thus used to link a generalization to the present time we speak or write, which is therefore different from other tenses, because other tenses link generalizations to other kinds of Time. Do you still agree tense is used to express time? If you don't, there is nothing more we need to talk about. But if you do, you have to find a way to link tense to time, rather than to generalization. Have you ever tried to do that? ------------------------- You wrote: <<It's assumed that I/everyone eat/s dinner every day (culturally based), so "I've eaten dinner" is different to expressing having done or tried something at least one time in my life e.g. "I have eaten caviar" and it's not generally assumed that everyone eats caviar every day.>> My reply: According to my tense-changing process, we understand Present Perfect is either Simple Present or Simple Past: (a) Simple Present action indicates a present action: Ex: I live in Hong Kong. (b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action: Ex: I have lived in Japan. BUT: If we add a definite past time, tenses have to be changed: (c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (= a): Ex: I have lived in HK in the past three years/since 2000. (d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (= b): Ex: I lived in Japan in 1987/five years ago. == http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_6 That is to say, Simple Past also expresses "having done or tried something at least one time in my life e.g. "I ATE caviar" and it's not generally assumed that everyone eats caviar every day." If you are new here, here is MY PROMISE: whatever you say to Present Perfect will be said word for word again to either Simple Present or Simple Past. I have never failed to keep this seemingly failing promise. |