|
|
A concept of time
<<It doesn't make any sense to me. Why the vote MAY BE in the future? It IS in the future: Tuesday.>>
No, you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I wasn't implying that there's any uncertainty over whether the vote will occur. By saying "The vote may be in the future," I meant "Even though the vote will be in the future," "Regardless of what time the vote will be," etc. "May be" constructions like this are used all the time in English, often (such as in this case) referring to things that the speaker is *certain* will occur. "May be" doesn't imply uncertainty here, it merely indicates that the speaker is disregarding something as being irrelevant.
<<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:>>
But I quite clearly do see past action here. The impression that I get from reading the sentence is that the discussion was supposed to finish *on Monday*, and that by the time people read the article, the discussion should have already stopped.
<<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.>>
But newspaper writers know that the things they write will be read by people the next day, so they phrase things from the context of the next day.
<<That is to say, the writer writes on Sunday, reporting that:
On Monday, ....were expected to....
On Tuesday, ....was due to....>>
I see a difference between these two cases. The use of past tense for Monday seems perfectly fine to me, because the writer knows that the newspaper will be published, distributed, and read on Monday. The use of the past tense for Tuesday seems wrong to me because the events described will not have happened yet when people read the newspaper on Monday.
<<May you now see the absurdity of using Simple Past?>>
No.
<<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.>>
By "deadline", I meant "the point by which discussion was due to stop". In answer to your question, if the deadline has already passed, then he *would* use the past tense, because the discussion was due to stop by a point that has already gone by.
Lazar wrote:
<<The use of the past tense for Tuesday seems wrong to me because the events described will not have happened yet when people read the newspaper on Monday.>>
My reply:
Oh, isn't it a quick one? Now you have noticed this, finally! I thought you had a study about it throughout, before you dropped the statement and asked me: What do you mean by "a weakness"?
There is a weakness, isn't it? I noticed it at once when I saw the news. But it is because I am experienced. I have collected many such news examples.
------------
I asked, "May you now see the absurdity of using Simple Past?"
You say NO.
My reply:
You have admitted the tense seems wrong but still insisted there is NO absurdity. To my surprise, you aren't even aware of the need to explain why you said so. There "seems" to be a necessity to explain.
The truth is, even with your device of "phrasing things from the context of the next day", you are still unable to explain one of the two Simple Past statements speaking of the future. And the truth also is, however, there is no such device, and both the two Simple Past statements "seem" wrong.
------------
<<By "deadline", I meant "the point by which discussion was due to stop". In answer to your question, if the deadline has already passed, then he *would* use the past tense, because the discussion was due to stop by a point that has already gone by.>>
My reply:
If so, I can truly tell you the deadline is on Tuesday. It has NOT already passed. Both the deadline for the end of the debate and the deadline for the vote are Tuesday. On Tuesday, after the debate, there is a vote. And speaking at the time of the news, we people in Hong Kong are keep a keen eye on it.
By the way, why are there both "Ma said" and "Ma says" in the news, as I have also put here in the following?
===============
"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.
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.
===============
Is there some kind of explanation?
Also, why is there possibly Present Perfect in use, as in the following?
===============
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.
He insists his wife is innocent and HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED to quit.
===============
If what is happening on Monday or Tuesday is even 'phrased' in Simple Past, why would the accusation and refusal here be 'phrased' in Present Perfect?
<<My reply:
Oh, isn't it a quick one? Now you have noticed this, finally! I thought you had a study about it throughout, before you dropped the statement and asked me: What do you mean by "a weakness"?
There is a weakness, isn't it? I noticed it at once when I saw the news. But it is because I am experienced. I have collected many such news examples.>>
Engtense, I have noticed nothing new, and I still don't understand what you mean by this "weakness". I said that the use of the past tense for Tuesday (in the made-up sentence that you gave me: "On Tuesday...was due to") sounded odd, but I said that the use of the past tense for Monday sounded okay there. There is no future action in the actual newspaper sentence. In the newspaper action, the phrase "on Tuesday" describes the vote itself, not the *state* of being due to end debate (in other words, the action of the sentence). Even if, as you say, the deadline is on Tuesday, then the simple past is still acceptable (in a newspaper situation like this), because "dueness" (the state of being due to end the debate) is a state that the parliament is continually in right up until the vote. As I said in a much earlier post on this thread, newspaper articles tend to encapsulate the day's events and treat them as being in the past. There is no future action in the sentence because the sentence is describing what state the parliament was in on Monday, regardless of whether it will continue to be in that state into Tuesday. And you should remember that newspapers often have special stylistic or grammatical conventions that may not be found in vernacular speech. If I just happened to be talking to somebody on Monday, then I would have told them that "the parliament *is* due...", because people using vernacular speech don't try to encapsulate the day's events as being in the past, like newspaper writers do.
The simple past can be used in newspaper articles (as it has been used here) to describe a continuous action that has gone on during the current day and may/will continue into the future (such as the action of <being due to do something>), but the simple past can never be used for actual future action.
Now let me address your question regarding the present perfect:
<<If what is happening on Monday or Tuesday is even 'phrased' in Simple Past, why would the accusation and refusal here be 'phrased' in Present Perfect?>>
The present perfect tense is used in those two sentences because the sentences describe actions that began in the recent past and continue to the present. The phrase "The president's wife HAS ALSO BEEN ACCUSED..." means that people began to accuse the president's wife in the past, and they continue to accuse her. Likewise, the sentence "He insists his wife is innocent and HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED to quit" means that the president refused to quit in the recent past, and he continues to refuse right up to the present time.
<<Engtense, I have noticed nothing new, and I still don't understand what you mean by this "weakness".>>
My reply:
The weakness is, English has to use Simple Past to say even a future case, like they use Simple Past to talk about the vote two days later.
Lazar wrote:
<<I said that the use of the past tense for Tuesday (in the made-up sentence that you gave me: "On Tuesday...was due to") sounded odd, but I said that the use of the past tense for Monday sounded okay there.>>
My reply:
I am afraid I have to differ. You have said "seems wrong":
<<The use of the past tense for Tuesday seems wrong to me because the events described will not have happened yet when people read the newspaper on Monday.>>
Actually, however, the two Simple Past structures are also explainable. They are both quite normal. There is nothing Wrong or Odd.
Nevertheless, English has a weakness in the explanation of tense. I mean weakness, again.
<<There is no future action in the actual newspaper sentence.>>
My reply:
I would not say that if I were you. Try the following news:
==============
Visitors flock to D.C. for holiday
WASHINGTON - The nation's capital is preparing to welcome hundreds of thousands of visitors for today's Fourth of July festivities.
The highlight is a star-studded concert at the Capitol, followed by a fireworks display. National Park Service spokesman Bill Line calls the Washington show the "premier Fourth of July celebration in America."
Before the nighttime activities, there WILL BE an emotional reading of the Declaration of Independence on the steps of the National Archives by soldiers wounded in Iraq. The Archives remain closed because of last week's flooding in the Washington area.
Security WILL BE tight again this year, with visitors forced to enter the National Mall through one of 21 checkpoints.
Some cities kicked off their Independence Day festivities early. There were fireworks over Mount Rushmore and Chicago last night.
============
Note: The day of the news is Fourth of July. Two cases of "WILL BE" are future actions, ie: something not yet happened by the time of publishing.
Other than the above, it is quite natural for news to report and introduce a far future plan. That is to say, there are future actions in the actual newspaper sentences.
<<<<There is no future action in the actual newspaper sentence.>>
My reply:
I would not say that if I were you. Try the following news:>>
I didn't say there was never any future action in newspapers; I said there wasn't any future action in the specific sentence that we were discussing.
Newspapers are certainly not consistent in whether they treat the current day's events as past, present, or future. It depends on what the context is, what's being described, and when the writer expects people to read the article. But I still have to take issue with one specific thing you keep saying:
<<The weakness is, English has to use Simple Past to say even a future case, like they use Simple Past to talk about the vote two days later.>>
Let me repeat, the vote is only *mentioned in a prepositional phrase*. It is not the subject of any verb. The sentence describes what state the parliament was in *on Monday* (specifically, the state of being due to end debate before the vote, which <will be> on Tuesday). The newspaper is not using the past tense to express future action; it is using the past tense to express past action.
To be honest, I think you're spending too much time and effort focusing on a minor issue that is basically just a peculiarity of newspapers.
Lazar wrote:
<<There is no future action in the actual newspaper sentence.>>
My reply:
If you go yahoo in time, there is still the news that I have just quoted below. Should you miss, search it. It must be still there somewhere on the web these days.
What I want to prove is, there ARE future actions in the actual newspaper sentence, violating your imagination that there is no future action. I know because I read English news. English grammar just has a difficulty in the explanation of tenses.
Actually, below, one may find any tense inside. To save space, I have trimmed off some unnecessary statements in news.
==============
By JANE WARDELL and LAURENCE FROST,
AP Business Writers
43 minutes ago
FARNBOROUGH, England - European planemaker Airbus announced more than 60 new jet orders Wednesday, making up some ground on U.S. rival Boeing Co.
Airbus arrived at the Farnborough International Airshow on the backfoot after costly new production delays to its flagship A380 superjumbo sparked high-level management changes. It unveiled deals with plane leasing company International Lease Finance Corp., low-cost carrier AirAsia Bhd. and Greece's Aegean Airlines SA.
Aegean has now committed to 14 aircraft of the A320 family — including three additional A320s leased from ILFC — and has a further nine options. Delivery of the aircraft announced Wednesday is scheduled to take place between January 2007 and April 2009.
Deliveries of the 737s and the 777s will begin in the first quarter of 2009 and deliveries of the 787s will begin in early 2012.
Airbus is seeking to reassure investors at Farnborough that it is back on track after the A380 delays and management changes last month at both Airbus and its parent company European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.
The upheaval came amid mounting customer dissatisfaction with the midsized A350 program, which was billed as a rival to the 787 but had won only 100 firm orders prior to a $10 billion revamp announced this week, compared with the Dreamliner's 360.
Pressure for a rethink of the A350 had also intensified with rising oil prices, as Boeing's twin-engined 777 increasingly trounced the less-efficient, four-engined Airbus A340 in competition for contracts. Airbus fell behind Boeing on overall order value last year as a result.
Unveiled Monday, the A350XWB — for "extra-wide body" — seeks to beat the Dreamliner at its own game. It offers bigger windows, a roomier cabin, even greater fuel efficiency and a larger stretch version seating 350 passengers — 15 fewer than the 777-300ER.
Including nonbinding commitments, Boeing has sold 403 Dreamliners and says it is talks to sell twice as many more.
"If anything, the pace is picking up," said Mike Bair, head of Boeing's 787 program. But a decision on ramping up production from 2010 isn't needed for another year, he said.
==============
I think I've said all that I can say about this newspaper tense issue.
Lazar wrote:
<<I didn't say there was never any future action in newspapers; I said there wasn't any future action in the specific sentence that we were discussing.>>
My reply:
Did it ever occur to you that there is no actual Simple Past tense in newspaper, in the specific sentence that we were discussing? I am not skidding.
<<Did it ever occur to you that there is no actual Simple Past tense in newspaper, in the specific sentence that we were discussing? I am not skidding.>>
Huh? The sentence says, "Taiwan's parliament <was due>..." That's simple past. Or are you referring to a different sentence?
Lazar wrote:
<<Let me repeat, the vote is only *mentioned in a prepositional phrase*.>>
My reply:
So what? So the vote is not in the future anymore? So if we mention the vote on Tuesday, it is not actual future action anymore?
Is the following action a past already before it starts Tuesday, simply by claiming there is a prepositional phrase? Teach me exactly how, so I can make fool of people!
====================
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.
====================
<<So if we mention the vote on Tuesday, it is not actual future action anymore?>>
Um...yes. The action of the sentence is carried out by Parliament, in the past. The vote on Tuesday is merely being used as a reference point. The vote is in the future, but since the vote is not the subject of a verb, there is no future action.
Let's say, for example, that in the year 2000, someone sets the goal of completing a task by the year 2010. He ends up finishing the task ahead of schedule, in 2005. From my perspective in 2006, I could say:
"He set the goal of finishing the task by 2010."
2010 is still in the future; but in this sentence, 2010 is merely being used as a reference point, and there is no future action. The action of the sentence remains in the past.
|