A concept of time

Ant_222 wrote:
<<As I understand, you concept is one of both teses and time, and that's bad, because time is a fundamental invariant of nature, while tenses are just part of a language. How can you talk about both of them together, calling the common concepts of both in question?>>

My reply:
So, according to you, "part of a language" is not a fundamental invariant of nature?

By the way, try 'tense', not teses.

Meh, I wouldn't bother with someone who tries to rephrase what you say needlessly and nitpicks over your spelling errors/typos. That's an obvious indication that you've got him by the testes satchel and he has no meaningful comeback.

«Meh, I wouldn't bother with someone who tries to rephrase what you say needlessly and nitpicks over your spelling errors/typos. That's an obvious indication that you've got him by the testes satchel and he has no meaningful comeback.»

Yeah, you may be right. I might have hit the mark in the 401th reply...


«<<«I'll write the letter tomorrow»
It is his CURRENT opinion about a FUTURE state of the Universe.>>»
My reply: Must I talk of the Universe?
-----
Well, if I say I have a matchbox in my flat, that's a property of the flat too, as well, as of the house the flat is in,... and of the Universe. So the statement that the letter will be written the next day refers to the the next day's state of Universe. However, you can replace "Universe" by "State of affairs".

«So, according to your idea, "He would have seen the letter yesterday" is not a doubt. Am I correct? Is it a certainty, may I ask again?»

To answer correctly, I'd like to see this exasmple in context: you gave it on "single-sentence basis", which you (!) insist is not enough.

«By the way, you have too often spelled 'sentence' as sentense. It seems to me that 'sentenCe' is the correct use. We are both not English native speakers. I am afraid you don't need to trust your intuition much more than mine.»

Oh, yes. Misprints are a well-grounded reason... Actually, this is argumentum ad hominem: «Ant_222 makes misprints, therefore he's stupid and his opinion (whatever it is about) is wrong.»

«My reply:
Try 'sentences', not senteces.
Try 'certainty', not certainity.»

Oh, you have nothing to oppose to my arguments and ingnore them... It's much more easy to swear, than to admit own wrongfulness.

«So, according to you, "part of a language" is not a fundamental invariant of nature?»

I am astonished at your deep knowledge. Now I have no choice but to abandon this thread. I've been trying to honestly and accurately reply to all your posts, but now it's got impossible.

In your strive for being not defeated by argument, you sin against the truth. You ignore strong argumets and concentrate on mispints. This helps you feel that you are correct, but that's self-deception.

<<Meh, I wouldn't bother with someone who tries to rephrase what you say needlessly and nitpicks over your spelling errors/typos.>>

My reply:
I have expected Ant_222 will somehow tune to this kind of comment. Did I ever do it, pointing out the typos of my correspondents? Never. At least not in this forum. But I have to point out what kind of person it is to claim this:
<<Seriously, I think that engtense is hopeless, that is, it's impossible to argue him out of his opinion, irregardless of whether it's correct or not.>>

I wanted to point out that Ant_222 will allow his personal attacks at others, but not accept others to point out his typos, which may help him substantially. Really, one cannot type 'sentense' forever. Some pointed out my typos before, and I said 'thank you'.

I have posted arguments on tense, and that is the point.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Seriously, I think that engtense is hopeless, that is, it's impossible to argue him out of his opinion, irregardless of whether it's correct or not. His purpose in not to know the truth, but rather to promote his approach. Through semi-out-argueing native speakers he feels self-affirmation or something.>>

My reply:
What if I now give up my opinion? Whose opinion shall I then follow? You must recommend yours, right? Or will you recommend another reader in this thread? Can't you see we all here don't have a consistent opinion at all?

Will Geoff_One agree to your such opinion:
<<Let's consider a simple exmple: «I'll write the letter tomorrow». This means that at the moment of speech the author thinks he'll do it the next day.
It is his CURRENT opinion about a FUTURE state of the Universe.>>
== Why Universe? The world is not enough? Are all opinions between you two are the same? I really don't think so. Will you then "argue him out of his opinion"?

Conversely, will you agree to Geoff_one's opinion:
<<The following is considered as good usage, by many who have a very good understading of English:
It is required yesterday. >>
You may try to search exact match for "It is required yesterday", and you know if you want to agree to him. But why will you tolerate Geoff_one's opinion, and not mine?

Actually, all of us here have no opinion whatsoever in common, why must you "argue me out of my opinion"?

<< (The work) It is required yesterday. >>

This is a crisp and entertaining way of stating that a work task
is very very urgent. The person who first used this statement
should be applauded for lateral thinking.

Oh, now understand that phrase...
I tried to consider it as «the work should have been done yesterday» and found it grammatically incorrect.

As for "(The work) It is required yesterday", Geoff_One explained:
<<This is a crisp and entertaining way of stating that a work task
is very very urgent.>>

My reply: I can't see the urgency is expressed or required in the original example. However, it is clearly stated in your explanation. I find "the work is very very urgent" is much clear and better.

If you want to emphasize 'yesterday', Ant_222 has given a better solution.

However, when we come to the tense, we always restrict ourselves to express anything in one sentence. This is very strange and entertaining. I allow myself to express in more than one sentence:
Ex: "The work should have been done yesterday. It is now very urgent."

THREE CONCEPTS OF TIME
Nevertheless, we don't have absolutely nothing in common. All of us agree that tense is used to express time. Dictionaries also define 'tense' this way. Tense comes from Latin tempus, meaning time. We may talk ourselves into this agreement, instead of creating endless Meanings like Habit, Current Relevancy, Universe, etc.

I have spent a lot of time in defining Time itself. What is the time concept we have in using English tense? How to define past, present, and future? I have found out that people are busy in creating jargons, so they scarcely have time in defining the concepts of past, present, or future. Or we had better say, because grammars are aware of the freedom of creating jargons, so they skip defining the time concepts.

I have repeatedly stated my experience in defining time: In my youth, I failed to define 'present time'. I had spent a few months in defining it and failed. In frustration, I stopped and turned to define 'past time', then I accidentally noticed why we call it present -- because it is "not yet past". An important notion is behind this experience: tense comes out by contrast. You cannot say it is present time, without contrasting with the past. It means that tenses must be explained in a paragraph. As I pointed out, without a contrast, you even cannot prove Yesterday is a past time, as next week you still have a new Yesterday. Since there is always a new Yesterday coming, why it is regarded a past time?

Past is past, and present is "not yet past". On the other hand, future time overlaps the present time, both throwing a contrast with the past. Finally, I have succeeded in defining the three time concepts.

A NEW CONCEPT OF TIME
I have further found out a new time concept. In a paragraph, between past time Last Week and present time Now, there is a time gap that cannot be noticed by grammars that explain tense on one-sentence basis. There is definitely a time gap between Last Week and Now, and I do believe English has Present Perfect designed to fill this time gap. Being unaware of this time gap, English grammarians have openly admitted that Present Perfect is far beyond their ability to explain.

An important notion is behind these time concepts. No meanings are needed to explain English tense. Tense is used to express time, and time only. Meanings are endless, and can only be handled by Sentences.

«What if I now give up my opinion? Whose opinion shall I then follow? You must recommend yours, right? Or will you recommend another reader in this thread? Can't you see we all here don't have a consistent opinion at all?»

No, you should never 'give up' your opinion. You should rather change it when you sincerely think that a change should be made so that your opinion better reflects reality. It must never be someone else's opinion. Rather it must be a modified (or not) opinion of yours.

If to hold to your philosophy, why to discuss? If in a discussion our opinions never can get a bit closer to reality, what is your purpose?

I am an objectivist. I believe the world exists not only in our minds, so does certain truth about the real world which is independent of the thinking person.

«If you want to emphasize 'yesterday', Ant_222 has given a better solution...»

He didn't want to «emphasize 'yesterday'».

You got me wrong. I tried to think of Geoff_One's phrase as of «... should have been done yesterday». And from this viewpoint I found it incorrect. But after Geoff_one wrote what it actually means, I found it good. My "solution" has a slightly different meaning, it's more literal.

«But why will you tolerate Geoff_one's opinion, and not mine?»

First, I often the differens is too small. Second, there are many things I can't prove reasonly. Third, a lot of 'differences' are subjective: our tases and preferences may (and even must) differ. Forth, I have no choce but to believe him when he writes that that phrase is ok. He probably thinks of time like me: now is the border between the present and the past, no overlapping and stuff (if he isn't a relativist)...

Last but not least, I think you are incorrect: your opinion conflicts with the objective reality. But if you are a subjectivist, that means nothing to you.

«The work should have been done yesterday. It is now very urgent.»
The problem is that Geoff_One's phrase would be correct even if the work was to be done to days ago, or if there were no any certain dedline and it was just very urgent...

You wrote, that tense expresses only time.

— Have you been to China?
(1) — Yes, I have been there, or
(1) — Yes, I was there in 1982.

Different tenses, the same time (= the time of the actual travel to China).

«I have further found out a new time concept. In a paragraph, between past time Last Week and present time»

How can it be? It is the past. What time gap? Last day is the past, last minute is the past, a moment ago is the past.

1. I see you.
2. I play chess.

Different meanings, the same tense.

I went to to the store yesterday.
I went to the store a couple of days ago.
I went to the store last Tuesday.
I went to the store the other day.
I went to the store a few days ago.
I went to the store sometime last week.

Kate, you also don't agree with the following?
<< (The work) It is required yesterday. >>

Ant_222,

May I change my opinion to the one of Kate's? I believe that, with Yesterday, we should use Simple Past.

In answering my argument:
«What if I now give up my opinion? Whose opinion shall I then follow? You must recommend yours, right? Or will you recommend another reader in this thread? Can't you see we all here don't have a consistent opinion at all?»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<No, you should never 'give up' your opinion. You should rather change it when you sincerely think that a change should be made so that your opinion better reflects reality. It must never be someone else's opinion. Rather it must be a modified (or not) opinion of yours.>>

My reply:
I just don't believe my eye. You have just reinforced my question: "What if I now change my opinion? Whose opinion shall I then change to? You must recommend yours, right? Or will you recommend another reader in this thread? Can't you see we all here don't have a consistent opinion at all?"

Since we don't have a consistent opinion, how do I know there is a better one? Which one? Yours? Shall I change to the following opinion?
<<Let's consider a simple exmple: «I'll write the letter tomorrow». This means that at the moment of speech the author thinks he'll do it the next day.
It is his CURRENT opinion about a FUTURE state of the Universe.>>
== I tell you again, if I write the letter tomorrow, I definitely not think of the Universe, let alone the future of the Universe. I think of the letter, not the Universe. I am afraid I cannot change to your so-called better opinion.

Whether Universe or the letter is said by the sentence. Tense expresses time only. Why don't you drop the Universe and change your opinion to the common agreement that tense is used to express time?

Ant_222 wrote:
<<You wrote, that tense expresses only time.
— Have you been to China?
(1) — Yes, I have been there, or
(1) — Yes, I was there in 1982.
Different tenses, the same time (= the time of the actual travel to China).>>

My reply:
I agree. Different tenses, the same time. It is well explained in my tense-changing process.

I am afraid I don't know what you wanted to say here. Did you want to prove, from your argument, tense is not enough to express time? Or what?