A concept of time

<<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.

<<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.

I asked: <<What is the so-called misguided argument I have repeated over and over again?>>

Lazar wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
You must have referred to the Taiwan vote we discussed a few pages before. So, what you have claimed to be insensible is not really my recent definition of time. What a relief!

Another relief is, it is not my misguided argument! In that Taiwan-vote discussion I did point out that the reporter uses Simple Past on Monday to speak of the vote on the next day (a future thing). Obviously, I was asking how to explain this phenomenon. I hope you at least agree that I will not insist one ought to use Simple Past to say a future action, will I? It is just like a teacher challenges the boy students, "Who is President Washington?" I hope you will not mistake even the teacher doesn't know the answer, so she asks the students. Similarly, I didn't really hold the argument that Simple Past is used to say a future action.

I am sorry I haven't posted the explanation why the reporter uses Simple Past to say the so-called future thing. Coincidentally, in another forum we are presently discussing the same point. Examples show the likelihood that SIMPLE PAST DOES SAY SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE:
Ex: Did you want to buy this, sir?
== The buying has not finished, or even has not started yet. But why do we use Simple Past to say it? Examples like this have puzzled many English users.
Ironically, it is not me who has initiated the point there. My correspondents in that forum used these examples to disprove my long-term argument that tense is used to express time ONLY. The fellows there theorized Simple Past in these examples expresses "politeness" and doesn't always express time as I claimed.

I explained to them that Time alone can explain tense, including Simple Past in such examples. The mystery here is in the infinitive "wanted to buy". The analysis for it should be: there are two parts of actions. The wanting part is over, while the buying part is not. As a whole, however, the infinitive gives people an impression of a future action, which is expressed in Simple Past. Any shrewd shopper can use Simple Past to ask about the wanting part of "wanted to buy", but not the buying part. The logic is, if you didn't want anything at all, why did you come in his shop? Therefore it is explainable for the shopper to ask about the wanting part in Simple Past. He didn't use Simple Past to ask the buying part, did he? Therefore in such situation we don't say the buying part in Simple Past: "*Did you buy this, sir?" (It is incorrect in the sense for the shopper to ask the potential customer who didn't really buy it yet.)

Likewise, in the news of Taiwan vote, the reporters says:
Ex: "Taiwan's parliament WAS DUE TO WRAP UP debate ahead of a vote on Tuesday..."
The DUE part is in the past, while the WRAPPING-UP part of debate is not. The news was on Monday, and the debate was next day. If I claim the reporter uses Simple Past to say a future action, most readers including you don't know how to deny it. Therefore, in confusion, you admitted:
<<The newspaper is ambiguous as to whether the deadline is Monday or Tuesday, but you told me that it was Tuesday, and I have acknowledged that.>>

Obviously, you left the discussion because of confusion, not because you grew fatigued. If you had been fatigued, you should have just left the discussion alone and didn't have to charge the newspaper as ambiguous. Your words and mine are still there.

It is one of most discussed subjects, sometimes initiated by me. The pattern always contains an infinitive:
-- want to buy
-- is expect to stop
-- is due to leave
-- phone to ask
This may be the case: the main action is finished, while the part of infinitive is not. Therefore we say in Simple Past:
-- wanted to buy
-- was expected to stop
-- was due to leave
-- was phoning to ask
Because of such verb combination, the action can be judged as either past or future. Its correct identity has not been settled. But if I argue it is a future action, I am still correct. The point is, can readers explain the pattern? Can you prove me wrong? I don't think so.

The point is, it is wrong for you to recognize the combinational verb is solely a past action.

As for me, my argument repeated over and over again is that TENSE IS USED TO EXPRESS TIME, AND TIME ALONE. Time alone can explain the tense in this pattern. Simple Past doesn't express politeness, as some have argued it can.

I spoke of the time alone: <<the past cannot be overlapped with the present.>>

Lazar wrote: <<I was referring to actions or states that began in the past and continue into the present.>>

My reply:
Here exists the ultimate secret. Actually, all my philosophy of tense has started from here. Theoretically, though our arguments sound like different, both of us are correct. But what do you see from such difference?

Obviously, I am talking about time, and you, about the action. However, may I ask, does tense express time or action? If tense is used to express time, why will you stay on the action? If explaining time is a trouble, why will you bring the trouble into the action, so that you have two troubles at the same time?

Or do you think it is easier to shift the trouble to the subject of action? What is the common term for "action that began in the past and continue into the present"? Is it a past action or a present action? Or is it an action without time?

As always, in explaining tense, while I am talking of time, people are talking about the action. They have always linked Tense to Action, rather than Time. This is why they claim Simple Present expresses habitual ACTION, and I claim Simple Present expresses present TIME. Even though I remind them tense expresses TIME, they cannot get out of the confusion. They don't know how. They have always been crippled by the Action.

I agree: you were referring to actions or states, rather than the time directly. It is as bad as you have admitted. In other words, you were referring to an action that has time, but not directly to the time. It is therefore easy to predict the result: you will say Simple Present expresses some kind of action, rather than some kind of time. Am I correct?

I said:
<<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.>>

Lazar wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
I didn't misunderstand and, as I have now heard again what you explain, my words above still sustain.

If it is up to the interpretation of the individual, why can't one replace Simple Past with Simple Present, and switch to another interpretation?

In using tenses, do you know what exactly "it's up to the interpretation of the individual" means? It means there is no objective observation from others. It also means in such situation there is no grammar at all. However, the fact that you cannot explain various tenses in the news I posted doesn't mean other readers cannot. Actually, different from relating confession or story, news has most objective interpretations from us readers because we are aware of mostly what is going on. Simply put, the tense is not only the interpretation of the individual reporter. It also has to match up the interpretation from us readers.

Please think about this: how often we have such news "BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT"? We always have!! Then is it always up to the individual to use freely the three tenses you mentioned? I don't think so. Your misguided argument stems from the phenomenon that grammars always explain a tense with a single sentence:
Ex: I have eaten dinner.
On such one-sentence basis, really, you can use any tense at all, as you put it every well: "it's up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect":
Ex: I ate dinner.
Ex: I eat dinner.
Ex: I have eaten dinner.
On such basis, tense is used freely and has no grammatical restrictions whatsoever. Using tense now is free and rule-less. But what is the point? What is the rule a student should follow?

In contrast, here is my argument: Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect are used to contrast with one another. This corresponds with my saying that without past there is no present, and without present there is no past.
We use Simple Present because there is Present Perfect or some other tenses.
We use Present Perfect because there is Simple Present or some other tenses.
The suggestion I have repeated over and over again is we have to use at least two sentences to throw in a time contrast:
Ex: "I am full now. I have eaten dinner."
Ex: "I have eaten dinner. I am full now."

In my case, different from yours, it's NOT FREELY up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect:
Ex: *"I am full now. I eat dinner."
Ex: *"I have been full now. I have eaten dinner. I have helped clean the dinner table."
== The tenses here cannot form a contrast of time, so they lose their function and are regarded as wrong. If a student knows what is wrong, he will more likely use a correct tense.

I have recently revealed the secret of explaining time: it comes from contrasts. It follows that, if we use tenses to express time, we have to use them to form a contrast, with different tenses. Forming a contrast of time is the purpose of using tense. Your way of choosing tense – it's up to the interpretation of the individual – comes from not knowing how to define time. You are still not aware why I stress on the importance of defining time. I am afraid you still don't know the purpose of this thread. Small wonder you said "this thread makes absolutely no sense to me".

Conventionally, grammars explain tense on one-sentence basis. If they know tense is used to express time and how to define time, they will know their method is wrong.

However, if you should be able to define past or present time without a contrast, I then agree you may use a single sentence to explain tense. But you can't, can you?

You have missed the following point, so I repost it here.

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 in progress 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 (being judged by Tomorrow)?
Is there a perfect sense in using some English tense, any tense here?

<<I agree: you were referring to actions or states, rather than the time directly. It is as bad as you have admitted. In other words, you were referring to an action that has time, but not directly to the time. It is therefore easy to predict the result: you will say Simple Present expresses some kind of action, rather than some kind of time. Am I correct?>>

The Simple Present expresses a kind of action, but to a certain extent it also expresses time. If an action happened entirely in the past, then you can't use Simple Present.

<<If it is up to the interpretation of the individual, why can't one replace Simple Past with Simple Present, and switch to another interpretation?>>

As long as the action in question began in the past and continues into the present, then you can replace Simple Past with Simple Present (or Present Progressive).

<<Please think about this: how often we have such news "BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT"? We always have!!>>

No, sometimes news involves things that happened entirely in the past.

<<Then is it always up to the individual to use freely the three tenses you mentioned? I don't think so.>>

And I don't think so either. I didn't say that it's *always* up to the individual to use those three tenses.

<<Ex: I ate dinner.
Ex: I eat dinner.
Ex: I have eaten dinner.>>

Assuming that the person has finished eating dinner (in other words, they ate dinner in the past), then only the first and third sentences are acceptable. (The decision to use "ate" or "have eaten" would depend on the context of the sentence.)

<<Your way of choosing tense – it's up to the interpretation of the individual – comes from not knowing how to define time.>>

Excuse me, I only said it was up to the interpretation of the individual in one specific situation, not in all cases.

<<In using tenses, do you know what exactly "it's up to the interpretation of the individual" means? It means there is no objective observation from others.>>

If you say so. All I'm saying is, there are some situations (such as the newspaper article that you posted) where the individual speaker can decide whether Simple Past or Simple Present should be used.

<<As for any news report, can you tell us what tense will a reporter use, when he reports a happening in progress today, but the news will be seen in tomorrow's newspaper, where it will be deemed as yesterday's news?>>

He's probably going to use the Simple Past (because he's writing for a future audience), but if it's an action that's going to continue into the future, then he has the option of using Simple Present.

Lazar wrote:
<<All I'm saying is, there are some situations (such as the newspaper article that you posted) where the individual speaker can decide whether Simple Past or Simple Present should be used.>>

My reply:
As here, I am afraid you have used too many vague statements as an argument:
-- He's PROBABLY going to use the Simple Past...
-- he has THE OPTION of using Simple Present...
-- it's UP TO THE INTERPRETATION OF the individual...
-- As long as the action in question BEGAN IN THE PAST AND CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT.....
-- there are SOME situations.....
The bad thing is, you didn't provide details or examples for the argument. It is quite disappointing. It is hard to discuss with such vagueness. Your vagueness doesn't match up with your statement "The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense, and there's nothing mysterious or inexplicable about this newspaper article."

To students, for instance, "PROBABLY" is mysterious or inexplicable. It doesn't make perfect sense in claiming "he probably uses Simple Past, or he probably uses other tenses".

Now in your quoted statement, "there are SOME situations" can also be an explanation. If it really can, we don't need any grammar at all, do we? I am afraid you need to be more specific. Just because we can use any tense on one-sentence basis, we need rules to guide the students whether right and wrong.

I have posted the news here because I find it is hard to explain how Simple Past or Simple Present should be used. But you say, in such news, "the individual speaker CAN DECIDE whether Simple Past or Simple Present should be used". What on earth have you really said?

Guest above is engtense. I have forgot to sign.

I asked:
<<As for any news report, can you tell us what tense will a reporter use, when he reports a happening in progress today, but the news will be seen in tomorrow's newspaper, where it will be deemed as yesterday's news?>>

You wrote:
<<...but if it's an action that's going to continue into the future, then he has the option of using Simple Present.>>

My reply:
As here, when your reply is not vague, which is seldom, it defies nature. How possibly a reporter, who is not God, knows whether or not the action is going to continue into the future?

On the contrary, the routine is, even though a reporter knows the fire or rainfall may probably last for a few days, the reporter uses Simple Past to say yesterday's fire or rain. I have repeated over and over again that yesterday's happenings are expressed in Simple Past. We have to agree with this rule, so that we may explain those which are not in Simple Past.

On the other hand, I hope you agree that in many news, both "he says/he said" are used in the same context. According to you, the reporter knows the action of saying "is going to continue into the future", so he has the option of using Simple Present? Isn't this ridiculous? Obviously, your explanation fails to explain Simple Present.

<<Now in your quoted statement, "there are SOME situations" can also be an explanation. If it really can, we don't need any grammar at all, do we? I am afraid you need to be more specific. Just because we can use any tense on one-sentence basis, we need rules to guide the students whether right and wrong.>>

By "some situations", I meant situations in which there is a continuous state (such as "wanting", "opposing", "believing") that began in the past and continues into the present. In this situation, a newspaper reporter can use either Simple Past or Simple Present.

<<On the contrary, the routine is, even though a reporter knows the fire or rainfall may probably last for a few days, the reporter uses Simple Past to say yesterday's fire or rain. I have repeated over and over again that yesterday's happenings are expressed in Simple Past. We have to agree with this rule, so that we may explain those which are not in Simple Past.>>

Yes, we're in agreement here.

<<According to you, the reporter knows the action of saying "is going to continue into the future", so he has the option of using Simple Present? Isn't this ridiculous?>>

If it's an exact quote, then you would have to use the Simple Past.

EX: Mr. Smith said, "I think that's a bad idea."

But if you're using "say" in the sense of "believing" or "thinking", then you can use Simple Present.

EX: Mr. Smith said it was a bad idea.
or
EX: Mr. Smith says it is a bad idea.

I predicted: <<It is therefore easy to predict the result: you will say Simple Present expresses some kind of action, rather than some kind of time. Am I correct?>>

Lazar wrote:
<<The Simple Present expresses a kind of action, but to a certain extent it also expresses time. If an action happened entirely in the past, then you can't use Simple Present.>>

My reply:
Then I am correct. It is really as bad as you have admitted: "The Simple Present expresses a kind of action, but to a certain extent it also expresses time." What a mess!! You really think that tense is somehow used to express some kind of action, perhaps as well as time. You have mixed up TENSE and ACTION, failing to tell any rule that is sensible and practical.

Actually, SENTENCE expresses ACTION, and TENSE expresses TIME. If I have achieved in anything at all, it is because I have defined basic terms such as Time, Action, Past Time Adverbial, Present Action, Past Action, etc. I am afraid you can define none of those.

Because it is a fact that Sentence expresses Action, and that Tense has nothing to do with Action, whatever you say to any action can be said again in any other tenses. I have never failed to prove that. People have argued that Simple Present expresses a habitual (or regular) action, for example. But when you speak of the yesterday's part of it you use Simple Past.
When you talk about its future part, you use Future Tense.
When you are doing the habitual action, you use Present Progressive.
You cannot say those actions said in other tenses are not habitual action, can you? It follows that Tense has nothing to do with Action.

To me, tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences. As there are nearly a dozen of such time relations between sentences, they match the number of tenses. The theory that tense is used to express time is therefore supported and proven.
However, do you know how many kinds of actions we have? They are endless. There are actions of love, hate, habit, war, school, law.... and countless terms or situations. How can one use just a dozen of tenses to signal endless kinds of actions? Their numbers just don't match. Reasonably, only endless Sentences can signal endless Actions.

I said: <<Please think about this: how often we have such news "BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT"? We always have!!>>

You wrote:
<<No, sometimes news involves things that happened entirely in the past.>>

My reply:
Please use some logic and give some examples. If something happened entirely in the past, it is not news anymore. It will not be mentioned in newspapers. But if something is mentioned in newspapers, it must be news "BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT".

By the way, you couldn't make clear whether an action "BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT" is a past action or a present action. Or is it an action without time?
"BEGAN IN THE PAST *AND* CONTINUES INTO THE PRESENT" is a murmur from those who don't know the simple term "present action".

I said: <<Then is it ALWAYS up to the individual to use freely the three tenses you mentioned? I don't think so.>>

You wrote:
<<And I don't think so either. I didn't say that it's *always* up to the individual to use those three tenses.>>

My reply:
I am afraid it makes no difference. Because you ALWAYS fail to tell of any rule, so it is ALWAYS freely up to the individual. But if you will bring up any rule, then your theory "it's up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect" is collapsed. Either English is as ridiculous as you put it, or your misguided argument is a sheer ridicule.

I have given three examples:
<<Ex1: I ate dinner.
Ex2: I eat dinner.
Ex3: I have eaten dinner.>>

You wrote:
<<Assuming that the person has finished eating dinner (in other words, they ate dinner in the past), then only the first and third sentences are acceptable. (The decision to use "ate" or "have eaten" would depend on the context of the sentence.)>>

My reply:
I agree. Now you have mentioned some rule, and it will threaten your own theory.

According to what you say, if the person is eating dinner (an action began in the past *and* continues into the present), we should NOT use "ate" or "have eaten", as you will agree. Then your theory is collapsed. It's NOT "up to the interpretation of the individual whether it should use Simple Past, Simple Present, or Present Perfect."

I hope you can see English tense can have grammars that are so objective that an individual has many restrictions or rules to follow. It is about Time. The bad thing is, as you have admitted, you think that Tense expresses both Action and Time.

When I said that tenses express both time and action, I should have made myself more clear. I meant to say that tense expresses both time and aspect. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect .) For example, the difference between the Simple Present and the Present Progressive ("I play tennis" versus "I am playing tennis") is not a difference of time, but rather of aspect.

<<However, do you know how many kinds of actions we have? They are endless. There are actions of love, hate, habit, war, school, law.... and countless terms or situations.>>

You have accused me of vagueness, but I think that the term "action", as you are using it, is too vague. I think you are confusing action with aspect. I would say that the aspects in English are: habitual ("I play tennis"), progressive ("I am playing tennis"), and completive ("I've played tennis"). My impression is that English tense represents both aspect and time.