The future also consists of events just like in the Simple Past and Present Perfect. So remembering shouldn't matter if we can't distinguish between the latter two either.
A concept of time
BoB wrote:
<<So why do we remember the past and not the future if tense is meaningless?>>
My reply:
How can one remember the future? It doesn't make sense.
<<So why do we remember the past and not the future if tense is meaningless?>>
My reply:
How can one remember the future? It doesn't make sense.
<<I won't say that because most readers are sensible.>>
I'm sensible, but this thread makes absolutely no sense to me either.
I'm sensible, but this thread makes absolutely no sense to me either.
<<I'm sensible, but this thread makes absolutely no sense to me either.>>
My reply:
If the whole thread is not sensible, does it include those opinions you have posted before? If you are sensible enough, how can you despise your own words in this thread?
If this thread "makes no absolutely no sense", it can be proved every easily, can't it? Say something sensible about English tense here, and you know how sensible you think you are.
Ultimately, as for English tense, if no opinions will be sensible, then it means the subject of English tense, rather than the thread, is nonsensical.
I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason. However, as I have now posted mine, you are not able to find fault with my points but claim grossly and vaguely that the thread is bad. It is a blessing to me.
In many forms, people can't even explain the tense in newspapers: As in the following news, why are sometimes Simple Past OPPOSED and sometimes Simple Present OPPOSE? They are speechless.
Is it sensible for English native speakers not able to explain even the tense in newspapers? Is the present thread, or the conventional explanation on tense, nonsensical?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear
---------------------------------
Russia, China OPPOSE N. Korea sanctions
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 12, 7:35 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China on Thursday OPPOSED tough sanctions the U.S. wants to impose against North Korea this week for its claimed nuclear test, saying they want time to work out a more moderate response to Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship.
After several hours of closed-door negotiations late in the day, Russia and China — the two Security Council nations closest to Pyongyang — reported good progress.
China OPPOSES any mention of the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which authorizes punishments including economic sanctions, naval blockades and military actions. China and Russia want to see sanctions focus primarily on reining in North Korea's nuclear and weapons programs.
Beijing and Moscow also OBJECT to the wide scope of financial sanctions and a provision authorizing the inspection of cargo going in and out of North Korea, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks are private. There is concern among some diplomats that boarding North Korean ships could lead to a military response from the North.
The measures to which Russia and China OBJECT were in an earlier revised U.S. draft resolution. The U.S. circulated the draft late Wednesday, formally introduced it in the Security Council on Thursday. Britain, France, Japan and Slovakia signed on as co-sponsors to the revised draft, a softer version of the original American proposal circulated Monday.
My reply:
If the whole thread is not sensible, does it include those opinions you have posted before? If you are sensible enough, how can you despise your own words in this thread?
If this thread "makes no absolutely no sense", it can be proved every easily, can't it? Say something sensible about English tense here, and you know how sensible you think you are.
Ultimately, as for English tense, if no opinions will be sensible, then it means the subject of English tense, rather than the thread, is nonsensical.
I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason. However, as I have now posted mine, you are not able to find fault with my points but claim grossly and vaguely that the thread is bad. It is a blessing to me.
In many forms, people can't even explain the tense in newspapers: As in the following news, why are sometimes Simple Past OPPOSED and sometimes Simple Present OPPOSE? They are speechless.
Is it sensible for English native speakers not able to explain even the tense in newspapers? Is the present thread, or the conventional explanation on tense, nonsensical?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear
---------------------------------
Russia, China OPPOSE N. Korea sanctions
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 12, 7:35 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China on Thursday OPPOSED tough sanctions the U.S. wants to impose against North Korea this week for its claimed nuclear test, saying they want time to work out a more moderate response to Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship.
After several hours of closed-door negotiations late in the day, Russia and China — the two Security Council nations closest to Pyongyang — reported good progress.
China OPPOSES any mention of the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which authorizes punishments including economic sanctions, naval blockades and military actions. China and Russia want to see sanctions focus primarily on reining in North Korea's nuclear and weapons programs.
Beijing and Moscow also OBJECT to the wide scope of financial sanctions and a provision authorizing the inspection of cargo going in and out of North Korea, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks are private. There is concern among some diplomats that boarding North Korean ships could lead to a military response from the North.
The measures to which Russia and China OBJECT were in an earlier revised U.S. draft resolution. The U.S. circulated the draft late Wednesday, formally introduced it in the Security Council on Thursday. Britain, France, Japan and Slovakia signed on as co-sponsors to the revised draft, a softer version of the original American proposal circulated Monday.
<<If the whole thread is not sensible, does it include those opinions you have posted before? If you are sensible enough, how can you despise your own words in this thread?>>
No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.
<<Ultimately, as for English tense, if no opinions will be sensible, then it means the subject of English tense, rather than the thread, is nonsensical.>>
No, English tense is quite simple and senscial (if "sensical" is a word). And *some* of the opinions that have been posted on this thread are sensical.
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.
<<In many forms, people can't even explain the tense in newspapers: As in the following news, why are sometimes Simple Past OPPOSED and sometimes Simple Present OPPOSE? They are speechless.>>
What is there to explain? The newspaper article deals with events and actions that overlap from the recent past into the present. Thus, it's not surprising that the newspaper writer is inconsistent with his use of the Simple Past and Simple Present - the same thing often occurs in vernacular speech. This *does not* mean that Simple Past and Simple Present mean the same thing; it means that if you're talking about actions (or states) that began in the recent past and continue into the present, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.
<<Is it sensible for English native speakers not able to explain even the tense in newspapers? Is the present thread, or the conventional explanation on tense, nonsensical?>>
The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense, and there's nothing mysterious or inexplicable about this newspaper article.
No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.
<<Ultimately, as for English tense, if no opinions will be sensible, then it means the subject of English tense, rather than the thread, is nonsensical.>>
No, English tense is quite simple and senscial (if "sensical" is a word). And *some* of the opinions that have been posted on this thread are sensical.
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.
<<In many forms, people can't even explain the tense in newspapers: As in the following news, why are sometimes Simple Past OPPOSED and sometimes Simple Present OPPOSE? They are speechless.>>
What is there to explain? The newspaper article deals with events and actions that overlap from the recent past into the present. Thus, it's not surprising that the newspaper writer is inconsistent with his use of the Simple Past and Simple Present - the same thing often occurs in vernacular speech. This *does not* mean that Simple Past and Simple Present mean the same thing; it means that if you're talking about actions (or states) that began in the recent past and continue into the present, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.
<<Is it sensible for English native speakers not able to explain even the tense in newspapers? Is the present thread, or the conventional explanation on tense, nonsensical?>>
The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense, and there's nothing mysterious or inexplicable about this newspaper article.
Lazar wrote:
<<No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.>>
My reply:
I say Thank You to you on Bob's behalf, for he cannot explain even this point, but you can express his idea in an emphatic way.
I myself also say Thank You to you, because you didn't really say the whole thread makes no sense. What you meant by "this thread" has now turned out only "the recent discussion". Do you know what people call this discrepancy? It is 'overgeneralization'. That is, one sees a small part of thing is not satisfactory, but vaguely say the whole thing is not satisfactory.
After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement. I didn't expect it is you, who seemed to agree with him, at the very first. Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.
----------------------
I said:
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
You wrote:
<<No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.>>
My reply:
What is the so-called misguided argument I have repeated over and over again? I don't know it by myself, or else I will not repeat the misguided. May you point it out to me, as you must see it over and over again. Or is it just another overgeneralization of yours?
----------------------
You wrote:
<<What is there to explain? The newspaper article deals with events and actions that overlap from the recent past into the present.>>
My reply: This is very wrong. Present is always in contrast with the past, so the past cannot get "into the present". How can Yesterday be overlapped with Today, for example? You can never tell the secret of explanation of time.
The future overlaps the present, but the past cannot be overlapped with the present.
<<No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.>>
My reply:
I say Thank You to you on Bob's behalf, for he cannot explain even this point, but you can express his idea in an emphatic way.
I myself also say Thank You to you, because you didn't really say the whole thread makes no sense. What you meant by "this thread" has now turned out only "the recent discussion". Do you know what people call this discrepancy? It is 'overgeneralization'. That is, one sees a small part of thing is not satisfactory, but vaguely say the whole thing is not satisfactory.
After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement. I didn't expect it is you, who seemed to agree with him, at the very first. Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.
----------------------
I said:
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
You wrote:
<<No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.>>
My reply:
What is the so-called misguided argument I have repeated over and over again? I don't know it by myself, or else I will not repeat the misguided. May you point it out to me, as you must see it over and over again. Or is it just another overgeneralization of yours?
----------------------
You wrote:
<<What is there to explain? The newspaper article deals with events and actions that overlap from the recent past into the present.>>
My reply: This is very wrong. Present is always in contrast with the past, so the past cannot get "into the present". How can Yesterday be overlapped with Today, for example? You can never tell the secret of explanation of time.
The future overlaps the present, but the past cannot be overlapped with the present.
Lazar wrote:
<<This *does not* mean that Simple Past and Simple Present mean the same thing>>
My reply:
Of course I know that, so I ask of the difference.
You wrote:
<<it means that if you're talking about ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
My reply:
You are talking of neither Simple Past nor Simple Present, but Present Perfect instead. That is, as grammars have long agreed, "ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT" are expressed in Present Perfect. You have mixed up three of the tenses, unfortunately. Below is a further proof of your confusion.
-------------------------
You wrote:
<<it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
My reply:
This shows how confused you are. Is it possible up to the individual speaker to decide? If so, why there is grammar at all?
When you report Yesterday's happening, you use Simple Past and NOT Simple Present. It is basic grammar, agreed and practiced by all. It is not up to you or any individual to decide freely.
-------------------------
You wrote:
<<The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense, and there's nothing mysterious or inexplicable about this newspaper article.>>
My reply:
As for any news report, can you tell us what tense will a reporter use, when he reports a happening today, but the news will be seen in tomorrow's newspaper, where it will be deemed as yesterday's news?
That is to say, what is the tense one uses today and it will be still correct and effective tomorrow?
Will he now use Simple Present because of the time notion of Today?
Or will he now use Simple Past because of the time notion of Yesterday?
Is there a perfect sense here in using some English tense?
<<This *does not* mean that Simple Past and Simple Present mean the same thing>>
My reply:
Of course I know that, so I ask of the difference.
You wrote:
<<it means that if you're talking about ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
My reply:
You are talking of neither Simple Past nor Simple Present, but Present Perfect instead. That is, as grammars have long agreed, "ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT" are expressed in Present Perfect. You have mixed up three of the tenses, unfortunately. Below is a further proof of your confusion.
-------------------------
You wrote:
<<it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
My reply:
This shows how confused you are. Is it possible up to the individual speaker to decide? If so, why there is grammar at all?
When you report Yesterday's happening, you use Simple Past and NOT Simple Present. It is basic grammar, agreed and practiced by all. It is not up to you or any individual to decide freely.
-------------------------
You wrote:
<<The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense, and there's nothing mysterious or inexplicable about this newspaper article.>>
My reply:
As for any news report, can you tell us what tense will a reporter use, when he reports a happening today, but the news will be seen in tomorrow's newspaper, where it will be deemed as yesterday's news?
That is to say, what is the tense one uses today and it will be still correct and effective tomorrow?
Will he now use Simple Present because of the time notion of Today?
Or will he now use Simple Past because of the time notion of Yesterday?
Is there a perfect sense here in using some English tense?
Lazar wrote:
<<No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.>>
My reply:
I say Thank You to you on Bob's behalf, for he cannot explain even this point, but you can express his idea in an emphatic way.
I myself also say Thank You to you, because you didn't really say the whole thread makes no sense. What you meant by "this thread" has now turned out only "the recent discussion". Do you know what people call this discrepancy? It is 'overgeneralization'. That is, one sees a small part of thing is not satisfactory, but vaguely say the whole thing is not satisfactory.
After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement. I didn't expect it is you, who seemed to agree with him, at the very first. Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.
----------------------
I said:
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
You wrote:
<<No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.>>
My reply:
<<What is the so-called misguided argument I have repeated over and over again? I don't know it by myself, or else I will not repeat the misguided. May you point it out to me, as you must see it over and over again. Or is it just another overgeneralization of yours?>>
Specificially, during our previous discussion, you argued that a certain newspaper article was using the Simple Past to describe future action, and I showed you that the sentence in question had no future action in it at all. But you kept repeating your argument over and over, so eventually I left the discussion - not because I was out of reason, but because I grew fatigued of arguing the same point over and over.
<<This is very wrong. Present is always in contrast with the past, so the past cannot get "into the present". How can Yesterday be overlapped with Today, for example?>>
<<The future overlaps the present, but the past cannot be overlapped with the present.>>
I was referring to actions or states that began in the past and continue into the present.
<<it means that if you're talking about ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
<<This shows how confused you are. Is it possible up to the individual speaker to decide? If so, why there is grammar at all?>>
Yes, there are certain situations where there is more than one grammatical option or interpretation that can be used, and it is up to the individual speaker to choose which one to use. To answer your question, there is grammar because only certain specific situations allow multiple options. Many other grammatical situations do not allow a choice.
<<When you report Yesterday's happening, you use Simple Past and NOT Simple Present. It is basic grammar, agreed and practiced by all. It is not up to you or any individual to decide freely.>>
Engtense, you're misinterpreting what I said. I'm not saying that any use of the Simple Past can be replaced by the Simple Present (that, as you point out, would be ridiculous). I am saying that if an action began in the past *and* continues into the present, then it's up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect.
If the speaker wants to emphasize the past nature of an action (ie, if the important thing is that the action was started, disregarding the fact that it continues), then he will use Simple Past. If the speaker wants to emphasize the present nature of an action (ie, if the important thing is that the action is being carried out now, disregarding the fact that it was started at some point in the past), then he will use Simple Present. If the speaker wants to emphasize both the fact that an action began in the past *and* the fact that an action continues into the present (or has a strong bearing on the present), then he will use Present Perfect.
Now, I just have to take issue with what you've said about Bob:
<<After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement.>>
Bob did not make any degrading comment on the readers of this thread. (I, for instance, did not find his comment insulting at all.) If he was making a degrading comment about anyone, then it was about you. When he said that this thread didn't make any sense, it was quite clear that he was referring to your arguments (because you started this thread and you have steered the course of discussion on the thread). To say that a thread makes no sense, or that a discussion makes no sense, does not mean that *every* opinion that's been expressed in the discussion is nonsensical. It means that the course/direction of the discussion, or a certain argument that has been presented many times in the discussion, is nonsensical.
<<Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.>>
I am not telling him these things, I am telling YOU! He *did not* say that every single opinion on this thread was nonsensical, and *did not* say that we can remember the future. You misinterpreted his words to mean these things, and therefore I am objecting to YOUR mistakes, not his.
<<No, I was just referring to the recent discussion on the thread. I don't despise my own words.
Specifically, your recent response to Bob ("How can one remember the future?") made absolutely no sense. Bob *wasn't saying* that we can remember the future; he was saying that we can't remember the future.>>
My reply:
I say Thank You to you on Bob's behalf, for he cannot explain even this point, but you can express his idea in an emphatic way.
I myself also say Thank You to you, because you didn't really say the whole thread makes no sense. What you meant by "this thread" has now turned out only "the recent discussion". Do you know what people call this discrepancy? It is 'overgeneralization'. That is, one sees a small part of thing is not satisfactory, but vaguely say the whole thing is not satisfactory.
After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement. I didn't expect it is you, who seemed to agree with him, at the very first. Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.
----------------------
I said:
<<I argued with every point readers suggested until they were out of reason.>>
You wrote:
<<No, they just grew fatigued because you kept repeating the same misguided arguments over and over again.>>
My reply:
<<What is the so-called misguided argument I have repeated over and over again? I don't know it by myself, or else I will not repeat the misguided. May you point it out to me, as you must see it over and over again. Or is it just another overgeneralization of yours?>>
Specificially, during our previous discussion, you argued that a certain newspaper article was using the Simple Past to describe future action, and I showed you that the sentence in question had no future action in it at all. But you kept repeating your argument over and over, so eventually I left the discussion - not because I was out of reason, but because I grew fatigued of arguing the same point over and over.
<<This is very wrong. Present is always in contrast with the past, so the past cannot get "into the present". How can Yesterday be overlapped with Today, for example?>>
<<The future overlaps the present, but the past cannot be overlapped with the present.>>
I was referring to actions or states that began in the past and continue into the present.
<<it means that if you're talking about ACTIONS (OR STATES) THAT BEGAN IN THE RECENT PAST AND CONTINUE INTO THE PRESENT, it's up to the individual speaker to decide whether he wants to treat it as being a past action or a present action.>>
<<This shows how confused you are. Is it possible up to the individual speaker to decide? If so, why there is grammar at all?>>
Yes, there are certain situations where there is more than one grammatical option or interpretation that can be used, and it is up to the individual speaker to choose which one to use. To answer your question, there is grammar because only certain specific situations allow multiple options. Many other grammatical situations do not allow a choice.
<<When you report Yesterday's happening, you use Simple Past and NOT Simple Present. It is basic grammar, agreed and practiced by all. It is not up to you or any individual to decide freely.>>
Engtense, you're misinterpreting what I said. I'm not saying that any use of the Simple Past can be replaced by the Simple Present (that, as you point out, would be ridiculous). I am saying that if an action began in the past *and* continues into the present, then it's up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect.
If the speaker wants to emphasize the past nature of an action (ie, if the important thing is that the action was started, disregarding the fact that it continues), then he will use Simple Past. If the speaker wants to emphasize the present nature of an action (ie, if the important thing is that the action is being carried out now, disregarding the fact that it was started at some point in the past), then he will use Simple Present. If the speaker wants to emphasize both the fact that an action began in the past *and* the fact that an action continues into the present (or has a strong bearing on the present), then he will use Present Perfect.
Now, I just have to take issue with what you've said about Bob:
<<After Bob's degrading comment on readers of this thread, I have sensed someone in this thread would come in and make a correctional statement.>>
Bob did not make any degrading comment on the readers of this thread. (I, for instance, did not find his comment insulting at all.) If he was making a degrading comment about anyone, then it was about you. When he said that this thread didn't make any sense, it was quite clear that he was referring to your arguments (because you started this thread and you have steered the course of discussion on the thread). To say that a thread makes no sense, or that a discussion makes no sense, does not mean that *every* opinion that's been expressed in the discussion is nonsensical. It means that the course/direction of the discussion, or a certain argument that has been presented many times in the discussion, is nonsensical.
<<Now the thing is clear: you tell him it is not the whole thread that is nonsensical, and that we cannot remember the past.>>
I am not telling him these things, I am telling YOU! He *did not* say that every single opinion on this thread was nonsensical, and *did not* say that we can remember the future. You misinterpreted his words to mean these things, and therefore I am objecting to YOUR mistakes, not his.