|
|
A concept of time
engtense wrote:
<< Really, please tell me how many uses Simple Past has, so I may know if you can really understand newspapers? >> I can assure you that native English speakers can understand newspapers, even if their answer to your question is "Huh??"
English Deborah wrote:
<<I can assure you that native English speakers can understand newspapers, even if their answer to your question is "Huh??">> My reply: You mean you understand newspapers by not looking at the tense? All sentences in English newspapers have tenses, and how much do you know about tenses? In the following choose any question you want: How will you define Present Perfect? How will you define present time? How will you define future time? How will you define past time? If you can answer any one of these SIMPLE questions correctly, I am getting out of here.
Deborah wrote:
<<I can assure you that native English speakers can understand newspapers, even if their answer to your question is "Huh??">> My reply: If you fail to explain a tense, it is not only just there empty, but it also distorts your understanding. Please think about it.
<<If you fail to explain a tense, it is not only just there empty, but it also distorts your understanding. Please think about it.>>
I have thought about it, and I disagree with you completely. The system of English tenses is complex and hard to describe in simple terms; but a native speaker will nonetheless be able to understand the tenses perfectly (even if they are unable to "explain" the tenses as you ask).
<<I have thought about it, and I disagree with you completely. The system of English tenses is complex and hard to describe in simple terms; but a native speaker will nonetheless be able to understand the tenses perfectly (even if they are unable to "explain" the tenses as you ask).>>
My reply: Then without tenses, a native speaker will understand newspapers more perfectly. What is the use of tenses anyway? What do you think you can't do without tenses?
I have tried this:
Ex1: "I have found a new restaurant. I have ordered noodle and it has been good." But you would bring out a correct version: Ex1a: "I found a new restaurant. I ordered noodle and it was good." I agreed to your version. No matter what the reason, Simple Past can cancel the use of Present Perfect. Then what is the point in using Present Perfect at all? ------------------------ Similarly, I will further try this: Ex2: "I have found a new restaurant. I have ordered and eaten noodle. It tastes good. I have ordered another one. I have called my friend here to enjoy. He is expected to come here in five minutes." You would also remind me of the correct version: Ex2a: "I found a new restaurant. I ordered and ate noodle. It tasted good. I ordered another one. I called my friend here to enjoy. He was expected to come here in five minutes." Any objection? If you say no to Ex2, please speak up. If you accept Ex2a, as I think you will, then Simple Past is used again to connect things in sequence, regardless of their tenses. Can't you see that? Simple Past is not used to say things "in the past". It is used to connect things, and that is all. And the same question is, why on earth Simple Past can do that, canceling other tenses?
Correction:
Any objection? If you say no to Ex2a above, please speak up.
Can't you see? Simple Past doesn't stand for things in the past, so many Simple Past actions can be something in progression at present. Here was the news many days ago:
==================== Israeli forces cut water, power in Gaza By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer 49 minutes ago RAFAH, Gaza Strip - Israel KEPT UP the pressure on Palestinian militants to release a captive Israeli soldier Wednesday, sending its warplanes to bomb a Hamas training camp after knocking out electricity and water supplies for most of the 1.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip. Palestinians DUG IN behind walls and embankments, preparing for a major strike after Israel sent in troops and tanks, and bombarded bridges and a power station. ==================== Note: Tonight, because an Israeli soldier has been kidnapped, the atmosphere in Gaza Strip has become intensified. Here, as we may expect the tenses to be: Israel IS KEEPING UP the pressure..... Palestinians ARE DIGGING IN behind walls..... And yet in yahoo news, however, Simple Past is used to link up the sequence and everything is expressed in Simple Past. If you don't have another source of news, like TV news, you will think these happenings are over and "in the past", because of Simple Past. If you found no problem in reading the yahoo news, you simply don't look at the tense at all. Actions in Simple Past are NOT in the past. There are many such Simple Past uses every single day. As I say, we understand English news by not looking at the tenses at all. You can't tell Simple Past means whether Present Perfect, Present Progressive, or even Simple Present. All you know is that the Simple Past actions are in a sequence. When we put actions in a sequence, all tenses have been nullified by Simple Past. And I am here asking: Why would a reporter do that? What is the real expression of Simple Past? Why does Simple Past only have such power?
Here is another news:
================= British Oil-Fire Cloud Spreads to France Hemel Hempstead, England - Firefighters USED chemical foam to extinguish part of the inferno raging Monday after explosions at a fuel depot north of London, while a huge oily smoke cloud from the blaze DRIFTED over northern France and HEADED toward Spain. ================= By the time I read this, I know the fire has yet stopped and they ARE USING chemical foam, the smoke IS DRIFTING over to other countries, and IS HEADING to Spain. So, why does the reporter use Simple Past to describe something in progress right now? The answer is, if we put actions in a sequence, it is possible for us to use Simple Past to say something in progression at present. Simple Past doesn’t express something in the past. This phenomenon appears not only in newspapers. If you really know about the phenomenon, you may find it in many kind of readings.
<<If you found no problem in reading the yahoo news, you simply don't look at the tense at all. Actions in Simple Past are NOT in the past.>>
Engtense, I've told you many times before, this is just not true. Newspapers tend to encapsulate the current day's events and treat them as being in the past. We've just kept rehashing this issue over and over again. Actions in Simple Past quite definitely *are* in the past. Ten more newspaper articles aren't going to make me change my mind.
Lazar wrote:
<<Actions in Simple Past quite definitely *are* in the past.>> My reply: Your statement is making fool of us, both you and me. All the time I am proving that some Simple Past actions are NOT in the past, but you conclude my proofs are invalid. Your conclusion says that there is only one expression in Simple Past, but you yourself have proven there is another expression in Simple Past.
Yesterday I instantly quoted the Airbus news for discussion:
=================== 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. =================== If we cut the news here in piece, in an isolated sentence, the tense should be expressed NOT in Simple Past. This is the way we use tenses, in dialogue or TV news, according to my experience: -- Airbus HAS ARRIVED at the Farnborough International Airshow..... -- Costly new production delays to its flagship A380 superjumbo IS SPARKING high-level management changes -- It UNVEILS deals with plane leasing company International Lease Finance Corp., low-cost carrier AirAsia Bhd. In other words, these actions demonstrate that, to be precise, "Actions in Simple Past quite definitely *are* NOT in the past." If today is Monday, and there is a vote Tuesday, then the deadline is NOT in the past, no matter what tense you may choose!! No matter what you say! The deadline WILL BE Tuesday. Simple Past could not confuse us, people here in Hong Kong or in Taiwan, waiting for the vote!! Simple Past can only confuse those who claim "Actions in Simple Past quite definitely *are* in the past." You may make a fool of a person one time, but you cannot make fool of all the people all the time.
Judging by the news, because of Simple Past, you thought that "The vote may be in the future, but the deadline has already passed."
But in fact it is not. As simple as that. Keep your judgment to yourself, and yourself only, and yourself who claim to be able to read newspapers!
<<If today is Monday, and there is a vote Tuesday, then the deadline is NOT in the past, no matter what tense you may choose!! No matter what you say!>>
I took back what I said about the deadline being on Monday; I acknowledge now that the deadline was on Tuesday. But as I have explained to you above, the fact that the vote was in the future has nothing to do with my main argument. The vote is not the subject of a verb; so there is no future action. The sentence is past tense because it is in the past time. (I must have already explained this ten times.) <<The deadline WILL BE Tuesday. Simple Past could not confuse us, people here in Hong Kong or in Taiwan, waiting for the vote!!>> For the last time: the dealine and the vote WILL BE Tuesday as you say, but the deadline and the vote WERE NOT subjects of verbs. The subject of the sentence was Parliament, and the past-tense verb described a state (the state of dueness, as I have noted above) that Parliament was in *in the past*. (The state of dueness was going to extend into the future, but it nonetheless included the past.) <<Simple Past can only confuse those who claim "Actions in Simple Past quite definitely *are* in the past.">> Sorry to disappoint you, but I remain completely unconfused. I see nothing odd, perplexing, or abnormal about how the simple past is employed in newspapers. <<You may make a fool of a person one time, but you cannot make fool of all the people all the time.>> I'm not making a fool of anyone. <<Keep your judgment to yourself, and yourself only, and yourself who claim to be able to read newspapers!>> What the hell are you going on about? I'm a native speaker of English and I can read newspapers just fine. Your implication is that I'm such a dunce that I can't even understand a simple newspaper article, and that is an insult. You have just been rehashing this same issue for pages and pages and pages, and I truly have nothing more to say. I am *not* going to argue this point with you anymore, period.
The problem is, reporter has to fill a tense in every single sentence. There is always a pressure to do this.
As the action now is in progression, if he fills in Present Progressive, what if the action has finished after the reporter came back to the press room? Will he take a chance to say, in Present Progressive, the case is still in progress? Please think about it. The only way is, he has to put everything in Simple Past, believing readers don't really look at the tense so closely. Reader reads newspapers from youth, when he would not question the use of Simple Past. As time goes by, even he turned a scholar, he has long accepted the way of news expression, and lost his ability to question against the use of Simple Past. Actually, he will defense the in-the-past use of Simple Past, against all odds. He defenses wrong. In English news expression, an untold rule has been thus agreed that Simple Past is used to link up a sequence of actions. In this use, believe or not, Simple Past means "timeless". In this use, Simple Past is a timeless tense. |