|
|
A concept of time
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I don't get your distiction between tense and sentence. A huge majority of sentences have verbs, and the latters, in their turn, have tenses. So, tense is part of sentence. How can you divide sentence into (sentence wothout tense, which you call "sentence") and tense? And furthermore, dividing meaning into (meaning without time — you call it "meaning") and time is unnatiral as well.>>
My reply:
You are talking about your own distinction. Not mine.
If you think the present-day English grammars don't even have a general distinction between Tense and Sentence, I will have nothing to say. Maybe you are correct, after all.
<<That is, the second wasn't literally present. Ok. >>
My reply:
Maybe it wasn't. But it is.
To know more about definition of a sentence, we may search "what is a sentence". In the following are some of the web pages. I find they all have a consistent idea of what is a sentence, which is also consistent with mine:
Ex1:
<<What is a SENTENCE? A sentence is a group of words that express a complete thought or idea. A sentence always begins with a CAPITAL letter and ends with a Period ( . ), a Question mark ( ? ) or an Exclamation point ( ! ).>>
== http://www.say-it-in-english.com/BasicEnglish3.html
Ex2:
<<A. What is a sentence?
A written English sentence is a group of words with four characteristics:
1. All sentences begin with a capital letter: A, B, C,?
(The other kind of letters are called lower case: a, b, c,? )
2. All sentences end with a period or an exclamation point or a question mark: . ! ?
3. A sentence contains at least one clause.
That is, a sentence contains at least one subject and at least one predicate.
4. All sentences follow a standard word order. These are correct sentences:
The dog bit the man.
The man bit the dog.>>
== http://faculty.deanza.edu/flemingjohn/stories/storyReader$14
Ex3:
<<A reminder: what is a sentence?
a series of words that explore one idea
and starts with a capital letter - a Capital letter.
A sentence is a series of words that end with a full-stop.
It usually has a subject, an object and a verb (e.g. The dog bit the cat - dog is the subject, bit is the verb, cat is the object). >>
---------------------------
What is tense? Tense is the form of verb:
Ex: I eat dinner. (verb form in Simple Present)
Ex: I have eaten dinner. (verb form in Present Perfect)
Ex: I ate dinner. (verb form in Simple Past)
Ex: I am eating dinner. (verb form in Present Progressive)
---------------------------
I think English grammars have already had a basic definition between Sentence and Tense. The callings are clear enough. I have merely pointed out that the explanation why they use a tense form is vague and difficult. The usage is so vague that they confuse the use of a sentence with that of a tense.
For example, they say the tense expresses a habit:
Ex1: They go to school together every day.
I point out it is the sentence, not the tense, that expresses a habit. The tense only says it is at the present time. Then as a whole, the sentence and the tense express a present habit.
We have to put Ex1 in contrast with Ex2:
Ex2: They went to school together every day.
== The sentence expresses a habit, and the tense says it is past. As a whole, therefore, it is a past habit.
Because of the existence of Ex2, we cannot loosely conclude Simple Present expresses a habit, as in Ex1. The conclusion is too loose.
As for the two action:
<<Ok. What about «I feel it» «I use my PC for desktop publishing»? >>
you claimed:
<<That is, the second wasn't literally present. Ok.>>
My reply:
This is the point. You don't know the second of WHAT. You don't even know it is a sentence, and therefore you just call it "the second....".
And later, you merely claim it is not a present action, but you don't care to add what else time it is. If "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is not a present action, is it past or future?
I am afraid that you definitely know what a sentence is and what a present action is. You know them very well. But you just skipped the word 'sentence', and claimed it is not present. But if it is not present, is it past or future? Or what else time it is?
«My reply:
This is the point. You don't know the second of WHAT. You don't even know it is a sentence, and therefore you just call it "the second....".»
The second _action_ was meant.
«And later, you merely claim it is not a present action, but you don't care to add what else time it is. If "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is not a present action, is it past or future?»
As I have already told you, this "action" consists of a number of periodically happening actions such that a part of them are in the past and a part in the future. Also, I may happen that one of these actions is a present action (if I was really doing desktop publishing right at the moment of speech).
«I am afraid that you definitely know what a sentence is and what a present action is. You know them very well. But you just skipped the word 'sentence'»
Of course, I knew it's a sentence, and I skipped it not to confuse you...
<<As I have already told you, this "action" consists of a number of periodically happening actions such that a part of them are in the past and a part in the future. Also, I may happen that one of these actions is a present action (if I was really doing desktop publishing right at the moment of speech).>>
My reply:
But you haven't told me whether "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is past or future, if not a present action?
I have warned that, on one-sentence basis, you cannot tell why Yesterday is past time. Now you seem to remind me that, on such basis, you cannot even tell whether "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is a present action or not. Is it timeless?
Time Relation Explains Tense
Many grammars explain Present Perfect and put the example this way:
Ex: I have eaten dinner. (I am full now.)
== The example says Present Perfect has a current result in "I am full now", which is implied and put in the brackets.
In my new approach, I want to point out, it is because the explicit existence of "I am full now", so we use Present Perfect to throw a contrast with Simple Present:
Ex: "I am full now. I have eaten dinner."
A past action is made in contrast with a present action. Their existence depends on each other. This is why we have to put at least two sentences together to explain tenses. As I said, on one-sentence basis, one cannot even explain why Yesterday is a past time, as we have always had a new Yesterday next week. It is not ridiculous for me to suggest putting sentences together, because we always use more than one sentence to express ourselves.
I didn't say there is no time implication in a sentence on one-sentence basis:
Ex: He eats dinner
Ex: He is eating dinner
Ex: He has eaten dinner
Ex: He ate dinner
Ex: He had eaten dinner
Ex: He was eating dinner
Ex: He will eat dinner
Etc.
But in this case, there are so many tenses to share just a few time concepts -- past, present, future. We will soon run out of concepts of time. As time concepts are not enough, one has to start to borrow unrelated Meanings for help, breaking the agreement that tense is used to explain time.
In contrast, if we explain tenses in a paragraph, between sentences there can be many time relations, which are enough to hire many tenses. That is to say, in a paragraph there are enough time relations to explain all the tenses. In this way, we may keep our tense-expresses-time agreement, and leave Meanings to the sentences. For example, I have pointed out that the tenses in a story are different from those in a commentary. In a story there are mainly Simple Past, Past Perfect, and Past Progressive. Therefore, using time relations of a story -- the past background, we can separate these few tenses from those in present background. This is an example of using time relations to explain tenses.
Also, "only can Simple Past relate a series of actions" is also a rule using time relation to explain tense.
There are also many time relations in explaining tense:
Combination X: <in 1970 + Past> + Perfect + Present + Past
The consequence is, since there are so many time relations to explain tense, we don't need to use Meanings anymore.
If you go to yahoo news now, you will see reporters use Simple Past to report the present rainfall and flood in New England:
==============
Flooded New England Hit With More Rain
HAVERHILL, Mass. - Emergency crews USED boats to rescue people trapped in their homes and sewage systems overflowed Monday as rain POUNDED New England for the fourth straight day in what could prove to be the region's worst flooding since the 1930s.
Tens of millions of gallons of sewage SPILLED into the Merrimack River after pipes burst in Haverhill on Sunday, and millions more poured from a treatment plant in Lawrence after floodwaters knocked it out of service Monday.
==============
That is, the rainfall is in present progression, but they use Simple Past to say it. This is also using time relation to explain tense.
On one-sentence basis, in contrast, you can't even conclude "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is a present action.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<As I have already told you, this "action" consists of a number of periodically happening actions such that a part of them are in the past and a part in the future. Also, I may happen that one of these actions is a present action (if I was really doing desktop publishing right at the moment of speech).>>
My reply:
I have reported to here that in my youth I had a hard time in defining the present. It was as difficult as you do above. I eventually failed to define it. But as I tried to define the past, I suddenly realized that what is present: it is not past. A present action is action "now not yet past".
Now, can you say "I use my PC for desktop publishing" is a past action? I don't think so. Then it is a present action, an action now not yet past.
Debug impossible.
«I use my PC for desktop publishing» is an action, by the moment of speech located in the past and in the future. And, maybe, in the present (when one says it when sitting at his PC in, say, Aldus Pagemaker).
Anyway, debug impossible. At least, for me.
No, just debug on the common-sense-and-logic basis.
Actually, common grammar doesn't use only the so-called one-sentence basis. For example, the use the Past Perfect tense is often explained using certain context, provided with examples.
Furthermore, even in single-sentence examples certain context is always implied by default, and the students usually understand it.
«I will watch "The Battleship Potemkin" tomorrow» — what additional info do you need? Does the lack of explicit context cause any vagueness here?
<<Actually, common grammar doesn't use only the so-called one-sentence basis.>>
But you are, if referring to "I use my PC for desktop publishing" alone.
By the way, what is "debug"?
<<Furthermore, even in single-sentence examples certain context is always implied by default, and the students usually understand it. >>
I did answer it:
"I didn't say there is no time implication in a sentence on one-sentence basis:
Ex: He eats dinner
Ex: He is eating dinner
Ex: He has eaten dinner
Ex: He ate dinner
Ex: He had eaten dinner
Ex: He was eating dinner
Ex: He will eat dinner
Etc.
But in this case, there are so many tenses to share just a few time concepts -- past, present, future. We will soon run out of concepts of time."
As time concepts are not enough, one has to start to borrow unrelated Meanings (like "DEBUG") for help, breaking the agreement that tense is used to explain time.
Now you may see what I meant.
<<«I will watch "The Battleship Potemkin" tomorrow» - what additional info do you need? Does the lack of explicit context cause any vagueness here? >>
My reply:
People don't even know whether it is a present action or a future action!! No vagueness here?
|