A concept of time

Lazar wrote:
<<Huh? The sentence says, "Taiwan's parliament <was due>..." That's simple past. Or are you referring to a different sentence?>>

My reply:
How many uses do you know Simple Past has? Does Simple Past have just only one expression, to say a past action? Please think about it.

Do you know how many uses in Present Perfect, Simple Present, or Future Tense? I guess you can tell a few uses for each of them. Then is there only one use in Simple Past? Please think about it.

Really, please tell me how many uses Simple Past has, so I may know if you can really understand newspapers?

The simple past is mainly just used for events that started and ended in the past. (In the context where the newspaper used the simple past to refer to Parliament being due to end discussion, people in vernacular speech would probably use the present tense instead. This is due, as I have said, to the peculiar nature of newspaper writing.) If you began to do an action in the past, and continue to do the action into the present, then you would generally use the present perfect.

<<The simple past is mainly just used for events that started and ended in the past. (In the context where the newspaper used the simple past to refer to Parliament being due to end discussion, people in vernacular speech would probably use the present tense instead. This is due, as I have said, to the peculiar nature of newspaper writing.) If you began to do an action in the past, and continue to do the action into the present, then you would generally use the present perfect.>>

My reply:
Even though you say "mainly just", you have mentioned only just one function for Simple Past.

If you think Simple Past's work is that simple, you are wrong.

<<If you began to do an action in the past, and continue to do the action into the present, then you would generally use the present perfect.>>

My reply:
I ask with a polite please. How many uses are there for Present Perfect exactly? Exactly one or two?

<<If you think Simple Past's work is that simple, you are wrong.>>

Well I was making a generalization. Most of the time, simple past is just used for actions begun and completed in the past.

<<I ask with a polite please. How many uses are there for Present Perfect exactly? Exactly one or two?>>

Um...two, I guess. You can use it for actions begun in the past and continuing into the present (for example, "I've been working on this for two months" or "He has refused to resign"), or you can use it for completed actions in the recent past that have a bearing on the present (for example, "I've lost my key" or "Have you done it yet?").

<<Well I was making a generalization. Most of the time, simple past is just used for actions begun and completed in the past.>>

My reply:
You can still tell only one function about Simple Past. As you say, even Present Perfect has two functions, why will Simple Past have only one?

To see another function of Simple Past, try the following example:
Ex: "I have found a new restaurant. I have ordered a noodle and it has been good."

See what is wrong?

<<To see another function of Simple Past, try the following example:
Ex: "I have found a new restaurant. I have ordered a noodle and it has been good."

See what is wrong?>>

Well, that sentence would sound much more natural if it used simple past instead of present perfect:

"I found a new restaurant. I ordered a noodle and it was good."

But I don't see how this example demonstrates a different function of the simple past. The verbs still describe actions that began and were completed in the past.

<<Well, that sentence would sound much more natural if it used simple past instead of present perfect:

"I found a new restaurant. I ordered a noodle and it was good."

But I don't see how this example demonstrates a different function of the simple past. The verbs still describe actions that began and were completed in the past.>>

My reply:
Your new example is correct.
"I found a new restaurant. I ordered a noodle and it was good."
And that is exactly what I wanted.

But I did use Present Perfect, not Simple Past. Why will you change them to Simple Past?

They are each correct Present Perfect structures:
Ex: I have found a new restaurant.
Ex: I have ordered a noodle.
Ex: It has been good.
But why you don't let me to put them together? Please tell me why. Then the reason is the "another" use of Simple Past.

Similarly, they are each correct structures or sayings. But see what happen if you put them together:
Ex: I have found a new restaurant.
Ex: I have ordered a noodle.
Ex: It has been good.
Ex: I am now eating noodle.
Ex: I have told my friend about the restaurant.
Ex: He is coming now.
Ex: To wait for my friend, I have ordered another noodle.

Please notice the tense you would choose.

<<But I did use Present Perfect, not Simple Past. Why will you change them to Simple Past?>>

Because the simple past is used to narrate a sequence of events that occurred in the past.

<<Because the simple past is used to narrate a sequence of events that occurred in the past.>>

My reply:
You have found the new use of Simple Past, not me. Please remember that.

That is correct. Even there are some actions in progress now, we still have to use Simple Past to put them into a sequence:
Ex: I have found a new restaurant.
Ex: I have ordered a noodle.
Ex: It has been good.
Ex: I am now eating noodle.
Ex: I have told my friend about the restaurant.
Ex: He is coming now.
Ex: To wait for my friend, I have ordered another noodle.

That is to say, Simple Past doesn't have to say something "in the past"!!

The examples above are like happenings around a reporter. Please think what tense he would choose to report them all at once! Simple Past, the one you have just found. It is the only tense.

It follows that Simple Past is also used to connect some future happenings, believe it or not!!
As long as the future happenings are part of the sequence, we may use Simple Past to say them.

Then the vote in the future days can be thus said in Simple Past, if we use "expected to; due to; were to" to make it part of the sequence.

<<Because the simple past is used to narrate a sequence of events that occurred IN THE PAST.>>

My reply:
After you have joined all the actions, you may say they are all "IN THE PAST". It doesn't matter now. What I mean is, your new found definition is still correct.

In the news of Taiwan vote, there are actually two kinds of Simple Past. One is used to say a sequence of actions, and another a past action.

In the news of Taiwan vote, there are actually two kinds of Simple Past. One is used to say a sequence of actions, and another a past action that is OUT OF THE SEQUENCE.

Present Perfect and Simple Present are used because the actions are OUT OF THE SEQUENCE.

Please understand that if we cut the news in piece, the sequence is broken and we shall not use Simple Past anymore provided it is not past.

If today is Monday and the vote is Tuesday, we cannot use Simple Past to say it:
Ex: Taiwan's parliament IS 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.
== There is no sequence of actions.