ATTAMPT TO DISARGUE ENGTENSE
READ EVERYBODY
(maybe you'll support my argumentation)
Engtense, try not to ignore the argumets in the post below, please, for it makes normal discussion impossible. Thanks.
«Does the pattern <Present Perfect + since> have two implications, either a past action or not a past action?»
Yes!
1. My father has changed two cars since 1979 (— past actions)
2. We have lived here since 1986. — («still not a past action», as you call it.)
«If Tomorrow must be a future time, then next hour, next minute, next second, and next millisecond must be a future time too. If so, where is the present time? I have reported here that readers in another forum could not answer this question and the discussion has become a (temporary) halt. Today, there is still no further response there.»
Oh, no! I have answerd to that several times., including this thread. So, you should have written: «readers... couldn't give an answer that I'd agree with.»
«They help other verbs to indicate an uncertainty, a so-called future action.»
Again. Why do you call future actions uncertainities?
Ex.: Probably he was at home at that time.
That's an uncertainty about a past moment.
Ex.: Probably he'll be at home tomorrow
That's an uncertainty about a future moment.
Ex.: The Sun will certainly go down tomorrow, as it did today.
I think, uncertainity has nothing common with time.
Also, there is no strict certainty: one may be more or less sure about an action, be at a past, present, or a future action.
An anction's time mustn't depend on a person's certainty about it.
«Therefore, if next time "I see/am seeing the movie tomorrow", it is only a present habit that is not yet finished not.»
Nope, that's just an incorrent sentence ;)
«They will visit us Next Week.
Again, they [above examples] each are not really an action. They are only a supposition, an uncertainty.»
Visiting somebody is an action, irregardless of a person's knowledge of the given instance (that specific visit) of such action, and irregerdless of time of this action. Future visits are visits, and therefore actions, as well as past visits.
Let's read a couple of your statements:
1. « A future action is judged by an auxiliary modal verb.»
2. «We are not omniscience, and have uncertainty in the future, at the present, and in the past. Therefore, modal auxiliary verbs can pair with various kinds of time adverbials...»
So, you didn't supply a criteria of a future action. And all that is very confusing...
And I can express an unertainty with no auxilary verbs:
«Probably, ...»
--------------------
Also:
«I will leave for London tomorrow» — an uncertainity, as you call it.
But I can express exactly the same by saying:
«I am leaving for London tomorrow» — I hope, you won't call the latter a present action.
--------------------
«Even to be the most precise, in a timeline we can only cut into two parts, the past and the non-past:
---------------+----------------»
That's derived from one of my older posts. When I used the time axis, you told me that I couldn't divide it into time periods, and other nonsense. Now you are cutting the time axis «to be the most precise».
Ok, now that you have divided the time axis, you assert a very confusing statement:
«The shortest past instant is to the left, while the shortest present and the shortest future instants are overlapped [! — Ant] to the right.»
You came to this conlusion through speculation with the terms «time», «action» and «the time of an action»
How you did it:
1. You say that «I am watching the TV now» is a present action
2. You say that «In two mitutes my friend will call me» is a future action.
3. Since you'll be still watching the TV when he calls, you conclude that the future and the present are overlapped.
Number three is wrong. The problem is that you mixed the ideas of a presen action (and of just an action) and the present time (as well, as of time). Present time is a moment, while an action always has length.
«Ex: "I see the movie tomorrow."»
Again, this is grammatically incorrect!!! And you agreed with that a long time ago. Now you use it again.
«...Again, it has nothing to do with time adverbial, which is hardly a future time, for it is within this week.»
My car is mine. It's among the cars of THIS town (where I am now). Therefore, all cars in the town are mine! LOL!
Everything is withing something larger. Every time moment is withing an uncountable multiplicity of time periods, as well as every time period is part of an uncountable multiplicity of longer periods.
But that doesn't allow you to extrapolate properties of a part on the properties of the whole!
Your criteria for past actions is that they are finished.
But presebt and future actions are overlapped in your system.
Let's improve your criteria:
1. Finished action — a past action
2. An action that hasn't begun — a futurte action
3. Begun but not yet finished — a present action
No overlapping in actions classification. And no modal verbs are involved!
Furthermore, I am pretty shure you can classify any given time moment as a past, present or future moment. And that gives a clear definition of present, past and future times:
1. The multitude of all past moments is the past.
2. The multitude of all future moments is the future
3. The multitude of all present moments is the present, and it's clear that there's only one such moment.
No problems, no time overlapping, no confusing.
Why do you promote your complex and confusing system, where time is classified in terms of language, as if time depends on language?!
Can you explain the tense choice in your own sentence:
«Who has laid down the condition that the present action must be doing at the moment of speaking?»
You have everithing you need for that: the context. It's on the page 29 of this thread. Can you explain it it terms of your concept of time or not?
«If you say it is a present action and it turns out not a fact, it is not OK. You have a bad credibility. In some cases, it is a crime.»
LOL! It's rather a crime to answer my posts selectively and to ingnore argumets that you can't reply to.
READ EVERYBODY
(maybe you'll support my argumentation)
Engtense, try not to ignore the argumets in the post below, please, for it makes normal discussion impossible. Thanks.
«Does the pattern <Present Perfect + since> have two implications, either a past action or not a past action?»
Yes!
1. My father has changed two cars since 1979 (— past actions)
2. We have lived here since 1986. — («still not a past action», as you call it.)
«If Tomorrow must be a future time, then next hour, next minute, next second, and next millisecond must be a future time too. If so, where is the present time? I have reported here that readers in another forum could not answer this question and the discussion has become a (temporary) halt. Today, there is still no further response there.»
Oh, no! I have answerd to that several times., including this thread. So, you should have written: «readers... couldn't give an answer that I'd agree with.»
«They help other verbs to indicate an uncertainty, a so-called future action.»
Again. Why do you call future actions uncertainities?
Ex.: Probably he was at home at that time.
That's an uncertainty about a past moment.
Ex.: Probably he'll be at home tomorrow
That's an uncertainty about a future moment.
Ex.: The Sun will certainly go down tomorrow, as it did today.
I think, uncertainity has nothing common with time.
Also, there is no strict certainty: one may be more or less sure about an action, be at a past, present, or a future action.
An anction's time mustn't depend on a person's certainty about it.
«Therefore, if next time "I see/am seeing the movie tomorrow", it is only a present habit that is not yet finished not.»
Nope, that's just an incorrent sentence ;)
«They will visit us Next Week.
Again, they [above examples] each are not really an action. They are only a supposition, an uncertainty.»
Visiting somebody is an action, irregardless of a person's knowledge of the given instance (that specific visit) of such action, and irregerdless of time of this action. Future visits are visits, and therefore actions, as well as past visits.
Let's read a couple of your statements:
1. « A future action is judged by an auxiliary modal verb.»
2. «We are not omniscience, and have uncertainty in the future, at the present, and in the past. Therefore, modal auxiliary verbs can pair with various kinds of time adverbials...»
So, you didn't supply a criteria of a future action. And all that is very confusing...
And I can express an unertainty with no auxilary verbs:
«Probably, ...»
--------------------
Also:
«I will leave for London tomorrow» — an uncertainity, as you call it.
But I can express exactly the same by saying:
«I am leaving for London tomorrow» — I hope, you won't call the latter a present action.
--------------------
«Even to be the most precise, in a timeline we can only cut into two parts, the past and the non-past:
---------------+----------------»
That's derived from one of my older posts. When I used the time axis, you told me that I couldn't divide it into time periods, and other nonsense. Now you are cutting the time axis «to be the most precise».
Ok, now that you have divided the time axis, you assert a very confusing statement:
«The shortest past instant is to the left, while the shortest present and the shortest future instants are overlapped [! — Ant] to the right.»
You came to this conlusion through speculation with the terms «time», «action» and «the time of an action»
How you did it:
1. You say that «I am watching the TV now» is a present action
2. You say that «In two mitutes my friend will call me» is a future action.
3. Since you'll be still watching the TV when he calls, you conclude that the future and the present are overlapped.
Number three is wrong. The problem is that you mixed the ideas of a presen action (and of just an action) and the present time (as well, as of time). Present time is a moment, while an action always has length.
«Ex: "I see the movie tomorrow."»
Again, this is grammatically incorrect!!! And you agreed with that a long time ago. Now you use it again.
«...Again, it has nothing to do with time adverbial, which is hardly a future time, for it is within this week.»
My car is mine. It's among the cars of THIS town (where I am now). Therefore, all cars in the town are mine! LOL!
Everything is withing something larger. Every time moment is withing an uncountable multiplicity of time periods, as well as every time period is part of an uncountable multiplicity of longer periods.
But that doesn't allow you to extrapolate properties of a part on the properties of the whole!
Your criteria for past actions is that they are finished.
But presebt and future actions are overlapped in your system.
Let's improve your criteria:
1. Finished action — a past action
2. An action that hasn't begun — a futurte action
3. Begun but not yet finished — a present action
No overlapping in actions classification. And no modal verbs are involved!
Furthermore, I am pretty shure you can classify any given time moment as a past, present or future moment. And that gives a clear definition of present, past and future times:
1. The multitude of all past moments is the past.
2. The multitude of all future moments is the future
3. The multitude of all present moments is the present, and it's clear that there's only one such moment.
No problems, no time overlapping, no confusing.
Why do you promote your complex and confusing system, where time is classified in terms of language, as if time depends on language?!
Can you explain the tense choice in your own sentence:
«Who has laid down the condition that the present action must be doing at the moment of speaking?»
You have everithing you need for that: the context. It's on the page 29 of this thread. Can you explain it it terms of your concept of time or not?
«If you say it is a present action and it turns out not a fact, it is not OK. You have a bad credibility. In some cases, it is a crime.»
LOL! It's rather a crime to answer my posts selectively and to ingnore argumets that you can't reply to.