A concept of time

<<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 ?>>

My reply:
I am afraid that "since 1987" has no 'borne droite'. It is different from "1987-2006".

I searched for "from 1987 to 2006", and found there is no such time expression. I think it is not a valid time span expression.

I searched also for "1987-2006", it is only used for trademarks. I had a hard time to local a meaningful sentence carrying such time expression.

On the other hand, "since 19xx" is very usual time expression and has long been recognized by grammars. We use mainly Present Perfect with "since 19xx".

<<Is Aspect a concept of time?>>

It depends how one will define and express Aspect. If it means another angle to look at a tense, it can be a way to express tense.

Holy smoke, this thread's still going strong....

I wrote:
Even to be the most precise, in a timeline we can only cut into two parts, the past and the non-past:
---------------+----------------

Ant-222 wrote:
<<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.>>

Where is the older post exactly?

<<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... >>

My reply:
When there is a modal auxiliary verb, it is a future action. Why it is confusing at all?

You may prove it wrong, but it is not confusing.

Does English have a concept of time at all?

English news has a weakness in expressing time. As you can see from the below news about Taiwan, even though it is still Monday, they have to use Simple Past nearly all the way to speak of today. But the difficulty is, sometimes they still have to use Simple Past and Present Perfect.

In the first sentence, they also use Simple Past to tell of tomorrow's case. A disgrace of English tense.

==================
Monday June 26, 2:07 PM
Taiwan wraps up debate before vote on president's fate

TAIPEI (AFP) - Taiwan's parliament was due to wrap up debate ahead of a vote on Tuesday to decide the fate of embattled President Chen Shui-bian over a string of corruption scandals that have tarnished his government's image.

Parliamentarians from the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and its People First Party (PFP) ally were expected Monday to continue their attack on Chen, accusing the first non-KMT president of not being fit for the job.

The island's legislature -- the Legislative Yuan -- voted 113-96 last Tuesday in favour of holding a June 27 ballot on a recall motion to push Chen out of office -- the first in Taiwan's history.

If two-thirds of the 221 MPs pass it, a nationwide referendum on Chen's fate would be held three months later.

The KMT and the PFP together hold a slim legislative majority of 112, while Chen's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has 88 seats -- more than the one-third needed to block the national referendum from going ahead.

With the DPP widely expected to vote along party lines, KMT chief Ma Ying-jeou launched an appeal to ruling party members during the last of a series of protests by the opposition.

"As Taiwan has walked to the crossroads, DPP politicians should stand side-by-side with the people rather than helping consolidate the leadership," Ma said Sunday.

The president's wife has also been accused of accepting department store vouchers in exchange for political favours, while a top presidential aide has been indicted for corruption.

With the escalation of the scandals, the island has been plunged into what Vice President Annette Lu called the worst political crisis since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

As pressure from opposition protests mounted few DPP politicians dared to defend their leader who led the independence-leaning party to power in a stunning victory at the 2000 presidential polls. He was narrowly re-elected to a second and final term in 2004.

Chen, a lawyer-turned politician and an eloquent speaker, decided not to rebut the claims in the opposition-controlled parliament and instead appealed directly to the people in a nationally televised address last week.

He insists his wife is innocent and has categorically refused to quit.

To help defuse the crisis, Chen relinquished some of his powers to Premier Su Tseng-chang earlier this month. But that has not been enough to satisfy the opposition.

Ma says the move to oust Chen is not an effort seize power by the KMT, and if the president was voted out then Lu would be entitled to fill Chen's position as president in accordance with the constitution.

<<"Last Week" is a past time, and "Now" is a present time. But what about the time between last week and now?>>

Mmmm...What about "Recent Past"

<<Mmmm...What about "Recent Past">>

My reply:
What I want to prove is there is a time span between past time and present time, that is between Last Week and Now. It compares with Last Week and Now. It is between them.

Then how would you define your "recent past"? Compares with what?

"This week" covers the time between the end of "last week" and now. You can use the present perfect with it.

Example: This week I've taken my cat to the vet three times.

Or you can say "So far this week I've taken my cat to the vet three times," implying that there might be more occurrences before the end of the week.

Deborah,

So how would you say the use of Present Perfect?

Let me interject myself once more into this strange and colossal thread.

<<English news has a weakness in expressing time. As you can see from the below news about Taiwan, even though it is still Monday, they have to use Simple Past nearly all the way to speak of today. But the difficulty is, sometimes they still have to use Simple Past and Present Perfect.>>

What do you mean by "a weakness"? The newspaper uses the simple past to speak of today because it is describing events that occurred 1) today and 2) in the past. A day covers the whole range of 24 hours, so something that happened "today" (say, 10 hours ago) can nonetheless be "in the past".

<<In the first sentence, they also use Simple Past to tell of tomorrow's case. A disgrace of English tense.>>

"A disgrace"? If you're trying to imply that simple past is being used here for future action, then you're mistaken. The vote on Tuesday is merely mentioned in a prepositional phrase. The main thrust of the sentence is that the deadline for wrapping up debate *was today*, Monday. The vote may be in the future, but the deadline has already passed. I don't understand how this sentence could possibly be considered a "disgrace"; it's a perfectly fine and unremarkable sentence.

<<I searched for "from 1987 to 2006", and found there is no such time expression. I think it is not a valid time span expression.>>

Huh? I can attest that "from 1987 to 2006" is a *perfectly valid* time span expression. This specific phrase produces 347 Google hits ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22from+1987+to+2006%22 )

Lazar wrote:
<<The newspaper uses the simple past to speak of today because it is describing events that occurred 1) today and 2) in the past. A day covers the whole range of 24 hours, so something that happened "today" (say, 10 hours ago) can nonetheless be "in the past".>>

My reply:
I agree by all mean. But please look closely at the news. It is now Monday but it talks about Tuesday's vote, in Simple Past!! Here is part of the news:

====================
Monday June 26, 2:07 PM
Taiwan wraps up debate before vote on president's fate

TAIPEI (AFP) - Taiwan's parliament was due to wrap up debate ahead of a vote on Tuesday to decide the fate of embattled President Chen Shui-bian over a string of corruption scandals that have tarnished his government's image.
====================

What you have possibly thought of:
<<1) today and 2) in the past. A day covers the whole range of 24 hours, so something that happened "today" (say, 10 hours ago)..>>
fails to cover this news. This is what I call "weakness", which unfortunately happens also within your preparation.

You may now want to update the range of the description for Simple Past: 1) today and 2) in the past and 3) in the future. Will you do that? Or what do you think is the best description for Simple Past?

<<The main thrust of the sentence is that the deadline for wrapping up debate *was today*, Monday. The vote may be in the future, but the deadline has already passed.>>

My reply:
It doesn't make any sense to me. Why the vote MAY BE in the future? It IS in the future: Tuesday.

If this is Monday and the vote is Tuesday, the deadline has NOT already passed.

<<Huh? I can attest that "from 1987 to 2006" is a *perfectly valid* time span expression. This specific phrase produces 347 Google hits ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22from+1987+to+2006%22 )>>

My reply:
I was talking to Ant_222 and Greg about Present Perfect. We have been talking about the tense for pages.

By the time I wrote this:
"I searched for "from 1987 to 2006", and found there is no such time expression. I think it is not a valid time span expression."
I had the tense understood. I meant Present Perfect. Sorry you wasn't there by that time, or I would have a chance to explain myself.

As you say, you have interjected yourself here, a month after our discussion. Misunderstanding will be expected.

After viewing our discussion about Present Perfect, do you have any new information about the tense? I would explain anything you have found misty.

Lazar wrote:
<<The main thrust of the sentence is that the deadline for wrapping up debate *was today*, Monday. The vote may be in the future, but the deadline has already passed.>>

My reply:
Let's go back to the time of the news, which is Monday. We in Hong Kong look closely at the debate. It is about our country. After the debate on Tuesday, there will be a vote and the result is still vague. Therefore, there is nothing past in the following, and yet Simple Past is exerted:

====================
Monday June 26, 2:07 PM
Taiwan wraps up debate before vote on president's fate

TAIPEI (AFP) - Taiwan's parliament WAS DUE TO wrap up debate ahead of a vote on Tuesday to decide the fate of embattled President Chen Shui-bian over a string of corruption scandals that have tarnished his government's image.

Parliamentarians from the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and its People First Party (PFP) ally WERE EXPECTED Monday to continue their attack on Chen, accusing the first non-KMT president of not being fit for the job.
====================

Please be reminded that, if the news is published on Monday, it has been written on Sunday. News is written one day before publication. And this is for sure for most of the news. News is seldom written and published on the same day.

That is to say, the writer writes on Sunday, reporting that:

On Monday, ....were expected to....
On Tuesday, ....was due to....

May you now see the absurdity of using Simple Past?

If as you say the deadline has already passed, the writer would not use "were expected to/was due to", would he? I don't even know what kind of deadline you meant.