|
|
A concept of time
Lazar wrote:
<<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.>>
My reply: Not a conditional. Not may be. It IS. As you say, they do encapsulate it. Using conditional and 'may' means you are not so sure. But I am sure. This is the difference.
Even when the oil-fire still goes on, they are still using chemical foam, and the blaze is still drifting over to other countries, we may put things in a Past-Background context and use Simple Past to connect the whole text, because only Simple Past can connect a series of actions.
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_2_1.htm
As for "Past Background and Present Background", please see:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/5_1.htm
Now the question is, if firemen are using chemical foam to fight with a fire, can we use Simple Past to describe it? The answer is, it IS possible.
Similarly, when a case of happening lasts for a few days, a reporters will use Simple Past, as in "British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France", to connect all the actions. How long an action will be, will be implied in the news, perhaps by quoting someone's estimation.
As the internet epoch commences, even when a case of happening lasts for a few hours, the same as above will happen more and more frequently. That is, as the case is not yet over, the reporter online uses Simple Past to narrate it. However, it is seldom noticed by grammars. Hindered by the old approach, grammar writers will like to explain English tense on one-sentence basis (one sentence and one tense). The phenomenon of connecting actions with Simple Past is thus unrecognized and unrecorded.
------------------------
In Present Background, on the other hand, this use of Simple Past (of connecting a series of actions) is also the main difference from using Present Perfect:
Ex: For when we CAME into Macedonia, this body of ours HAD no rest, but we WERE HARASSED at every turn–conflicts on the outside, fears within. But God, who COMFORTS the downcast, COMFORTED us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. (2 Corinthians 7:5-7)
== There is a contrast between Simple Present COMFORTS and Simple Past COMFORTED. This comfort is eternal and will never finish. However, anything eternal can be seen as a completion because of the time relation to another action. A series of actions, being linked up only by Simple Past, here entails the use of COMFORTED. Present Perfect HAS COMFORTED is not likely used here.
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm
Ex: Husbands, LOVE your wives, just as Christ LOVED the church and GAVE HIMSELF UP for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word..... (Ephesians 5:25)
== Christ always loves the church. A Simple-Past action LOVED is used for the concordance of tense in a series of actions. That is to say, if without the latter part "and gave himself up for......", we will use Simple Present only, such as "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loves the church."
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm
>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.<
Chuck's response: What would be an example of "yesterday's Birds fly" and "today's Birds fly"?
>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.<
Chuck's response: "I have lived in Japan."(Present Perfect) does NOT mean "I live in Japan."(Simple Present) and vice-versa. If I live in Japan and say "I have lived in Japan" then you would assume I meant I had lived here at some another time in the past.
>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<
Chuck's response:
(c) should read: I have lived in HK *for* the past three years/since 2000.
(c) with its extra info overlaps (a) but not the converse, so they aren't really equivalent. If you truncate (c) to "I have lived in HK", this certainly is not equivalent to (a) "I live in HK".
(d) isn't equivalent to (b) because of the extra info in (d) but "I lived in Japan." is the same as "I have lived in Japan.".
<<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.>>
I assume you like tormenting them? It's obvious that you are a non-native speaker. You are arguing with Lazar and me, who are native speakers. No one is on your side because you are wrong. Spout off all you want. Won't make you a bit more right.
I see only one person looking foolish here through their own stubborness to be right, when they are obviously wrong. I'm through with this thread. Go ahead - you can say anything you want. I'm sure you will try to make fun of me :) That doesn't change who the real fool here is.
Tiffany,
You wrote:
No one is on your side because you are wrong. Spout off all you want. Won't make you a bit more right.
My reply:
Now you all are tormenting me! I have to fight back! So don't tell me to stop, OK?
Chuck's response:
What would be an example of "yesterday's Birds fly" and "today's Birds fly"?
My reply:
Yesterday you said "Birds fly"; today you have said "Birds fly". They are of different time spans. In our present discussion we say "Birds fly", so it is a present use.
-------------------
Chuck's response:
"I have lived in Japan."(Present Perfect) does NOT mean "I live in Japan."(Simple Present) and vice-versa.
My reply:
"I have lived in Japan" certainly doesn't mean "I live in Japan". But it means "I lived in Japan". Present Perfect will be same as only one of the two, that is, either Simple Present or Simple Past. My promise is "either...or", not 'both of'.
The logic is very simple. There are only two notions of time, past and present, which are occupied by Simple Past and Simple Present respectively. And you cannot define Present Perfect so that it escapes from both the past and the present time. It must fall into either the past or the present.
-------------------
Chuck's response:
If I live in Japan and say "I have lived in Japan" then you would assume I meant I had lived here at some another time in the past.
My reply: If you live in Japan, you can only say in Present Perfect with a DPTA (Definite Past Time Adverbial) "You have lived in Japan since 19xx".
Only if you LIVED in Japan, you may say "You have lived in Japan".
Actually, my promise "whatever you say to Present Perfect will be said word for word again to either Simple Present or Simple Past" can work only on one-sentence basis. But people will, as you do, automatically take in this crippled basis anyway. The difference of the three tenses can only be seen in a paragraph.
Chuck has questioned about the tense-changing process:
(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<
Chuck's response:
(c) should read: I have lived in HK *for* the past three years/since 2000.
My reply: If this year is 2005, "for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/over the past five years" is another way to say "since 2000".
Try to search exact march for "lived *** in the past three", where the asterisks stand for any few words, and among results you will see examples like these:
Ex: Dodd said no non- minority person has lived in Chocolate City in the past three years.
Ex: A familiar scenario for people who have stayed and lived in this country in the past three years.
Ex: They have lived through too many of those blown leads in the past three years.
Ex: I feel like I've lived a whole new lifetime in the past three months — new experiences, new routines, new surprises.
-------------------------
Chuck's response:
(c) with its extra info overlaps (a) but not the converse, so they aren't really equivalent. If you truncate (c) to "I have lived in HK", this certainly is not equivalent to (a) "I live in HK".
My reply:
As for the truncation of Since, please see: "6.3 The irreversibility of the tense-changing process"
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/6_3.htm
Simply put, you cannot truncate it without consideration.
-------------------------
Chuck's response:
(d) isn't equivalent to (b) because of the extra info in (d) but "I lived in Japan." is the same as "I have lived in Japan.".
My reply: The so-called extra info is time info. However, adding time info will not changing any meaning in any way.
Telling the time of a building is the same building.
Telling the age of a man is still the same man.
Telling the time of a living is still the same living.
However, telling the time of an action will change its tense.
In contrast, adding other info will be different:
Ex1: "Jim smokes tobacco."
Ex2: "Jim smokes tobacco in toilet."
Ex3: "Jim smokes tobacco in toilet with the door closed."
Ex4: "Jim smokes tobacco in toilet with the door closed because the company do not allow workers to smoke in the office."
== Here I have gradually added more information to Ex1, so they each are NOT of the same meaning. But we can still use the same tense. Obviously, imparting more information to the sentence does not necessarily change the tense.
>Yesterday you said "Birds fly"; today you have said "Birds fly". They are of different time spans. In our present discussion we say "Birds fly", so it is a present use.<
But that doesn't show how they are different and how they affect meaning.
>"I have lived in Japan" certainly doesn't mean "I live in Japan". But it means "I lived in Japan". Present Perfect will be same as only one of the two, that is, either Simple Present or Simple Past. My promise is "either...or", not 'both of'.<
When would it ever be the *same* as the other without modifying the phrases?
>The logic is very simple. There are only two notions of time, past and present, which are occupied by Simple Past and Simple Present respectively. And you cannot define Present Perfect so that it escapes from both the past and the present time. It must fall into either the past or the present.<
True, there is "overlap" but all three can me made to communicate different ideas.
>My reply: If you live in Japan, you can only say in Present Perfect with a DPTA (Definite Past Time Adverbial) "You have lived in Japan since 19xx".
Only if you LIVED in Japan, you may say "You have lived in Japan". <
Yes.
>Actually, my promise "whatever you say to Present Perfect will be said word for word again to either Simple Present or Simple Past" can work only on one-sentence basis.<
I don't see why not.
>My reply: If this year is 2005, "for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/over the past five years" is another way to say "since 2000".
Try to search exact march for "lived *** in the past three", where the asterisks stand for any few words, and among results you will see examples like these: <
I was trying to point out to you that "(c) I have lived in HK *for* the past three years/since 2000." infers that "I live in HK" but NOT "I have lived in HK in the past three years.". The latter means I lived in HK some time ago, but I don't necessarily live there now/anymore.
all three can me made = all three can BE made
Chuck,
I wrote:
Yesterday you said "Birds fly"; today you have said "Birds fly". They are of different time spans. In our present discussion we say "Birds fly", so it is a present use.
You commented:
<<But that doesn't show how they are different and how they affect meaning.>>
My reply: Though their meaning is the same, the three are different in Time. One "Birds fly" is said yesterday; another, today; still another, in our discussion. That is to say, they are specific enough. If "Birds fly" is put in a writing, its time is again specific.
Should I fail, you should try your way to connect "Birds fly" to time, if you agree tense is used to express time. To stop me from connecting tense to time is nonsensical.
----------------------
You wrote:
<<I was trying to point out to you that "(c) I have lived in HK *for* the past three years/since 2000." infers that "I live in HK" but NOT "I have lived in HK in the past three years.". The latter means I lived in HK some time ago, but I don't necessarily live there now/ANYMORE.>>
My reply: I agree that "The latter means I lived in HK some time ago, but I don't necessarily live there now." But so does "I live in HK". Or would you tell me that, as "I live in HK", I must be there all the time and cannot work in other countries? Of course I can. Simple Present "I live in HK" doesn't necessarily mean I live there now. Adding time info "in the past three years" will start the tense-changing process, as in (C).
Please understand, IT IS ONLY THE START OF THE ACTION, RATHER THAN THE WHOLE ACTION, THAT IS "IN THE PAST THREE YEARS". Therefore, any preposition (for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/over the past few years) is possible.
I doubt that by using "in the past three years", you mean you don't live there ANYMORE.
"In the past three years, etc." is another way to say Since. With Since, even you have finished a job, the whole action is not regarded as a completion, because Since is a part of the action and not yet completed. Because part of action (ie Since) is not finished, the whole action is not recognized as finished. Details are in the following page:
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/6_3.htm
>My reply: Though their meaning is the same, the three are different in Time. One "Birds fly" is said yesterday; another, today; still another, in our discussion. That is to say, they are specific enough. If "Birds fly" is put in a writing, its time is again specific.
Should I fail, you should try your way to connect "Birds fly" to time, if you agree tense is used to express time. To stop me from connecting tense to time is nonsensical. <
I'm still waiting for your example to see why "birds fly" needs to be connected to yesterday, today or some other time.
>My reply: I agree that "The latter means I lived in HK some time ago, but I don't necessarily live there now." But so does "I live in HK". Or would you tell me that, as "I live in HK", I must be there all the time and cannot work in other countries? Of course I can. Simple Present "I live in HK" doesn't necessarily mean I live there now. Adding time info "in the past three years" will start the tense-changing process, as in (C).
Please understand, IT IS ONLY THE START OF THE ACTION, RATHER THAN THE WHOLE ACTION, THAT IS "IN THE PAST THREE YEARS". Therefore, any preposition (for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/over the past few years) is possible.
I doubt that by using "in the past three years", you mean you don't live there ANYMORE. <
No, living status doesn't make the prepositions "in" and "for" interchangeable in (c). My explanation holds for continuous physical presence or living status in the country. To reiterate: if I have lived in HK *for* the past 3 years and in that time worked in other countries, then my current status is "I live in HK". However, if I have lived in HK *in* the past 3 years, then you don't that "I live in HK"; you don't know what my current residency status is. All you know is that I once resided in HK in the last 3 years.
Chuck,
You wrote:
<<I'm still waiting for your example to see why "birds fly" needs to be connected to yesterday, today or some other time. >>
My reply: You don't understand. I have given the example. For example, you have now said again "Birds fly" one more time, because of asking about it.
In my example:
"Yesterday you said "Birds fly"; today you have said "Birds fly". They are of different time spans. In our present discussion we say "Birds fly", so it is a present use."
== In this example I have already said three times of "Birds fly". The content of "Birds fly" is the same, but its three time spans are not, so we can tell the difference between the three times of "Birds fly". Time makes this separation possible.
Please don't wait for me to say, "Yesterday you said 'Birds flew', today you say 'Birds have flown', and in our discussion we use 'Birds are flying'." This is not what I meant.
------------------
You wrote:
<<However, if I have lived in HK *in* the past 3 years, then you don't that "I live in HK"; you don't know what my current residency status is.>>
My reply: If your living in Hong Kong is finished, why don't you use Simple Past? When there is a past time adverbial (ie "in the past three years"), and you don't live there anymore, why do you still use Present Perfect?
As you said, "All you know is that I once RESIDED in HK in the last 3 years." Why can't you also use Simple Past in "I lived in HK *in* the past 3 years", indicating a finished living?
Sorry, I forgot to put in my name. The above Guest is engtense.
|