A concept of time
I asked: My I ask, is "My father changes car sometimes" a past action or a present action?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I'd say that's a number of actions, some of which are in the past and some in the future. Therefore, if considered as a whole, it can be said it's a present action.>>
My reply:
I am surprised, you will interpreted 'sometimes' above as "some of which as in the past". But you claimed you don't see why I said "The number of times (of changing cars) within 'since 1979' can only be interpreted as Sometimes".
Now we add Since to the example above and replace 'sometimes' with a more concrete number of time, so we have:
Ex: My father has changed two cars since 1979.
== Still, as you well put, " if considered as a whole, it can be said it's a present action."
<<You hide your total incompetence under this delirium. It's a great shame not to know the very basics of the fundamental sciences.
By the way, if you want a web page, visit wikipedia.
Topics are:
set, multitude
set theory,
bollean logic,
George Boole
boolean algebra,
sentential calculus,
functional calculus/predicate calculus,
classical mechanics/mechanics
philosophy (especially, Aristotle and Bertrand Russel) >>
My reply:
As long as we use symbols unknown to each other, we both "hide our total incompetence under this delirium". I agree.
You visit the web pages you know, my symbols must be there, just as your symbols.
On the other hand, we may skip the symbols, and this is what I have been suggesting. Why can't use real examples for explaining tenses?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<For example, to denote all integer numbers more than 221, you can write:
{N, N>221}
That is, the multitude of integers N, such that N exceeds 221.>>
My reply:
I want to point out that there are not just symbols, but also the words behind these symbols:
"+inf is such time moment, that there is no later moments."
"-inf is such time moment, that there is no earlier moments."
"If we want to denote all time moments before some moment..."
"Time flows. The Universe goes through a series of states. The state is a single-valued function of time."
It is these words that disprove your own combination of symbols. You didn't get it, did you? Why don't you find examples to prove your own words? I tried to find examples to support your own words and I failed. Now it is your turn.
You don't mind if I hide here do you?
I'm trying to get away from all the other Adams.
Adam, if you start giving comments, you are one of my teachers also. Thank you in advance.
Ant_222,
Allow me to put your symbols this way:
Even if your symbols are as simple and understandable as 1+1; 2+3; 8-5; 6+7-9; etc. But if your words in defining these symbols are out of my reach:
"+inf is such time moment, that there is no later moments."
"-inf is such time moment, that there is no earlier moments."
"If we want to denote all time moments before some moment..."
"Time flows. The Universe goes through a series of states. The state is a single-valued function of time."
I still claim I don't understand your symbols. This is what I am saying.
But you seemed not to understand what I have said, and repeatedly claim that these symbols are existed.
This is what happens here.
Alright, engtense and Ant_222, where's Adam?
We know he's hiding around here somewhere!
«Alright, engtense and Ant_222, where's Adam?»
I suppose, he's reading «Other Actions» by Oleg Divov :)
Gotta stay on the move!
Oh no! Mada - here!
A STRANGE TIME CONCEPT
Some verbs expressing a finish will be interesting when one wants to express it is a present action - "Now Not Yet Finished". Verbs like finish, end, die, close, etc. are within this category. The verb itself means a finish anyway:
Ex: He has finished that since this afternoon.
== Though <Present Perfect + since> means a present, unfinished action. But as the verb itself means a finish, the whole action cannot but mean a finish. Strange, isn't it? When I have first encountered this structure, a note in NIV Bible says that the action is an "unfinished finish". It is a remarkable interpretation.
Similarly:
Ex: He has died since you went away in 1987.
Ex: His service has ended since 1987.
== A 'present' finish, a strange time concept.
One may easily take the following structure as a finished action:
Ex1: My father has changed two cars since 1987.
It is because, without Since, the example will mean a finish:
Ex2: My father has changed two cars.
== The number of times have been finished. The whole sentence is a finish. Present Perfect expresses a finish.
However, when we add Since to it, the whole action will be considered as not a finished action, as in Ex1.
Actually, Ex1 doesn't come from Ex2, but from a Simple Present such as this:
Ex3: My father changes car sometimes.
When we add Since to Ex3, not only the tense will change, but we may also want to change 'sometimes' to a more concrete number of times, resulting in Ex1:
Ex1: My father has changed two cars since 1987.
Why don't we just add Since to Sometimes, as in the following?
Ex4: My father has changed cars sometimes since 1987.
It is because now the meaning of 'sometimes' will be affected by 'since 1987'. The action now looks like it only happens "sometimes since 1987", which is not the meaning of 'sometimes' in Ex3.
Therefore, with "since 19xx", we may want to change 'often, sometimes, seldom' to a more concrete number of times:
Ex: My father has changed 8 cars since 2000. (implying 'often')
Ex: My father has changed 2 cars since 1997. (implying 'sometimes')
Ex: My father has changed 1 cars since 1952. (implying 'seldom')
Is Aspect a concept of time?
engtense : « My father has changed two cars since 1987. (...) when we add Since to it, the whole action will be considered as not a finished action (...) »
Peut-être parce que l'expression <depuis 1987> = <seit 1987> définit une borne gauche (1987) sans expliciter de borne droite — mais l'existence de cette borne droite (2006) est implicite car le père peut changer de voiture une 3e fois dès demain matin (on ne peut, a priori, prédire le futur). L'action de changer de voiture est repérée dans un espace temporel limité : 1987-2006. Il s'agit d'une réalisation repérée dans un intervalle de temps, non ?
engtense : « My father has changed two cars. (...) The whole sentence is a finish. Present Perfect expresses a finish. »
Ici le repérage temporel n'est pas 1987-2006. J'ai l'impression que l'accent est davantage mis sur le résultat (une simple réalisation) que sur un hypothétique intervalle temporel.
Impossible — car il y a un historique. Mais c'est pas grave !
:)