A concept of time

I said:
<<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.>>

You wrote:
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.

My reply:
You will regard this – (such as "wanting", "opposing", "believing") – as specific enough? Why are these verbs with "ing" so special"? Why not all the verbs? Do you mean they are Actions, or Verbs, or now Aspects?

Lazar wrote
<<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.>>

My reply:
But they are different tenses! So, what you regard as "The conventional explanation of tense makes perfect sense " is because there is no rules at all and one may use either Simple Past and simple present?

As I have repeated to you, however, we don't use Simple Present if we refer to yesterday:
Ex: "I asked him what he would think. *Mr. Smith says it is a bad idea. Therefore I didn't go there."
== Simple Present 'says' here is erroneous. Even it is in the sense of "believing" or "thinking", you can't use Simple Present here.

<<You will regard this – (such as "wanting", "opposing", "believing") – as specific enough? Why are these verbs with "ing" so special"? Why not all the verbs? Do you mean they are Actions, or Verbs, or now Aspects?>>

Those verbs are special because they refer to thought processes, rather than physical actions. They can take either Simple Past or Simple Present because of their continuous, "stative" nature. In other words, if you "wanted", "opposed", or "believed" something yesterday or a week ago, you probably are going to want*/oppose/believe it today or two days from now. This isn't a peculiarity of tense, it's a peculiarity of these specific verbs.

*Presuming, of course, that in the intervening time you haven't acquired the thing that you wanted.

<<As I have repeated to you, however, we don't use Simple Present if we refer to yesterday:
Ex: "I asked him what he would think. *Mr. Smith says it is a bad idea. Therefore I didn't go there.">>

And I agree with you here! The example that you give refers to a specific utterance: you asked Mr. Smith, and he *uttered* a response. Therefore it needs to use the Simple Past. But the verb "say" is often used in a broader sense, synonymous with "think" or "believe", in which case its meaning becomes stative and non-time-specific.

Lazar wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
Some confusion. I am glad this thread is regarded as not sensible by someone with such a confusion.

But you are not exceptional. Few can explain tense in a clear way. However, I am afraid you did talk about Action, rather than Aspect:
<<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.>>
And I don't think Aspect can justify what you have been discussing.

I have asked many people exactly what "aspect" means, in respect of tense, they could not define the word. Once I insisted to ask, an erudite professor said, "Well, what it is, is hard to say. I tell you what it is not..... It is not tense." Therefore, I suspect the validity of your statement "tense expresses both time and aspect".

Can you define Aspect? Can something in this world, like Aspect, do without time? I can hardly think so. If you can define it and give example, I predict I can tell of its time. Then you will return from Action to Aspect.

Actually, other than Time, Action, and Tense, you have just here introduced one more confusion: Aspect.

---------------------
<<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 .)>>

My reply:
Please be fair, in that page there are thousands of statements there. Would you quote something that matches your awakening idea? Please give some examples also.

In that page when I searched for the word "time", it went as far as to "Aspect in Finnic languages". Then what exactly you want to say about Tense? In English or in Finnic languages?

---------------------
To put it simply, you can't make any sense in English tense. Can you make one correct statement about English tense, any one tense, with examples?

Engtense, in order to satisfy your questions and show you the essence of my argument (using definitions and examples), I am going to outline *my* proposed system of English tense.

1) Tense expresses the time and aspect of an action.

2) Time is the temporal point of reference for the action. The times are present, future, and past.

3) Aspect describes the temporal flow of the action. The aspects are simple, habitual, continuous, and completive.

In English, the Simple Tenses express either Simple Aspect or Habitual Aspect.

The Progressive Tenses express Continuous Aspect.

The Perfect Tenses express Completive Aspect.

PRESENT TIME:

Simple Present expressing Simple Aspect: "I play tennis." This is the so-called "proximate future", and it describes a specific action that the speaker is about to perform.

Simple Present expressing Habitual Aspect: "I play tennis." This refers to habitual action by the speaker. The speaker plays tennis on a recurring basis; in other words, as a habit.

Present Progressive expressing Continuous Aspect: "I am playing tennis." This refers to action that is occurring at the moment. In other words, the speaker is, at this very moment, engaged in the act of playing tennis.

Present Perfect expressing Completive Aspect: "I have played tennis." This refers to a specific completed action (or series of actions) that has occurred in the past.

FUTURE TIME:

Simple Future expressing Simple Aspect: "I will play tennis." The speaker intends to play tennis at a specific time in the future.

Simple Future expressing Habitual Aspect: "I will play tennis." The speaker intends to play tennis as a habitual, recurring activity in the future.

Future Progressive expressing Continuous Aspect: "I will be playing tennis." At a specific time in the future, the speaker will be engaged in the act of playing tennis.

Future Perfect expressing Completive Aspect: "I will have played tennis." By a certain time in the future, the speaker intends to complete a specific action or series of actions.

PAST TIME:

Simple Past expressing Simple Aspect: "I played tennis." The speaker carried out a specific action at a specific time in the past.

Simple Past expressing Habitual Aspect: "I played tennis." The speaker used to play tennis on a habitual, recurring basis in the past.

Past Progressive expressing Continuous Aspect: "I was playing tennis." At a specific time in the past, the speaker was engaged in the act of playing tennis.

Past Perfect expressing Completive Aspect: "I had played tennis." By a certain time in the past, the speaker had completed a specific action or series of actions.

~~~

*That* is my idea of English tense.

I asked:
<<You will regard this – (such as "wanting", "opposing", "believing") – as specific enough? Why are these verbs with "ing" so special"? Why not all the verbs? Do you mean they are Actions, or Verbs, or now Aspects?>>

Lazar wrote:
<<Those verbs are special because they refer to thought processes, rather than physical actions. They can take either Simple Past or Simple Present because of their continuous, "stative" nature. In other words, if you "wanted", "OPPOSED", or "believed" something yesterday or a week ago, you probably are going to want*/OPPOSE/believe it today or two days from now. This isn't a peculiarity of tense, it's a peculiarity of these specific verbs.>>

My reply:
At first I was asking about the use between Simple Present and Simple Past, OPPOSES and OPPOSED, in the news, as in the following:
==========
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.
==========

Please be reminded that OPPOSE and OBJECT here are not "stative" nature. They are in your terms "physical actions". I am afraid one nation cannot OPPOSE or OBJECT economic sanctions by merely "thought processes". It has to be done by displaying "physical actions".

Or will you claim, in news reports, any verb in Simple Present is "stative" nature? Is that your standard of "static nature"?

In news reports, actually, any kind of verbs can have the chance of taking Simple Present. Don't you agree?

-----------------------------------
I asked:
<<As I have repeated to you, however, we don't use Simple Present if we refer to yesterday:
Ex: "I asked him what he would think. *Mr. Smith says it is a bad idea. Therefore I didn't go there.">>

You wrote:
<<And I agree with you here! The example that you give refers to a specific utterance: you asked Mr. Smith, and he *uttered* a response. Therefore it needs to use the Simple Past. But the verb "say" is often used in a broader sense, synonymous with "think" or "believe", in which case its meaning becomes STATIVE and NON-TIME-SPECIFIC.>>

My reply:
So, in that example, if I am using "think" or "believe", I may use Simple Present, because they are STATIVE and NON-TIME-SPECIFIC. Is this what you meant?

<<Please be reminded that OPPOSE and OBJECT here are not "stative" nature.>>

Yes they are. Those verbs refer to states of mind, not to specific physical actions.

<<They are in your terms "physical actions".>>

No they are not. There was not a specific instance (for example, 12:37 PM) in which China and Russia carried out the act of opposing something. Rather, China and Russia are *in a state of opposition* to various things.

<<I am afraid one nation cannot OPPOSE or OBJECT economic sanctions by merely "thought processes".>>

The opposition and objection are viewpoints on the part of Russia and China. It doesn't matter whether they carry out any physical actions to express their opposition.

In other words, to use an example on a 1-person level, I can be opposed to something simply by saying that I am opposed to it. The opposition is my viewpoint; it is a thought process that I am carrying out. It doesn't matter whether or not I carry out any physical actions (for example, going to a protest or writing a letter to the editor).

If you're having a political discussion with someone, and they say "I am opposed to X" or "I am opposed to Y", this doesn't imply any physical action on the part of that person. It merely describes their thoughts and viewpoints.

<<Or will you claim, in news reports, any verb in Simple Present is "stative" nature?>>

No I will not. If a verb describes a specific action that can occur at a specific time, then the verb is not stative.

<<So, in that example, if I am using "think" or "believe", I may use Simple Present, because they are STATIVE and NON-TIME-SPECIFIC. Is this what you meant?>>

Yes, you could. For example:

"I asked him what he thinks. Mr. Smith thinks it is a bad idea. Therefore I didn't go there."

I should add, concerning my "political discussion" example, that a person in a debate could also say "I oppose X" or "I oppose Y"; my argument would still apply.

Lazar wrote:
<<1) Tense expresses the time and aspect of an action.
2) Time is the temporal point of reference for the action. The times are present, future, and past.
3) Aspect describes the temporal flow of the action. The aspects are simple, habitual, continuous, and completive.>>

My reply:
But what on earth is Aspect? This was my question prior to your answer. I expressly asked you to define it. You could not define it, unfortunately.

As you see, if HE describes YOU as a gentleman, HE is not YOU. So, if aspect describes the temporal flow of the action, aspect is not the temporal flow of the action, which you have admitted is Time, according to #2. But what IS Aspect?

As for #3, I hope you will not claim that Aspect can be defined as adjectives like "simple, habitual, continuous, and completive".

Then what is Aspect? Why is Aspect, which cannot be defined, so important that a language has to express it at all?

Because there are too many confusions in English tense, grammarians are prone to hire a vague term to hide their confusion when they meet one. They use Habitual Action, Universal Time, Current Relevancy, Permanency, Aspect, etc. These terms are as vague as can be. Aspect is the most vague. However, grammars take it for granted that young students will understand these terms by nature. In fact, students don't. None of these terms has an objective standard to measure.

Now, may I ask with respect once again: What is Aspect? Can you define it at all?

Lazar wrote:
<<PRESENT TIME:
Simple Present expressing Simple Aspect: "I play tennis.">>

My reply:
Did you or did you not deliberately hide the important word "present" in "Simple Present expressing Simple (Present) Aspect"?

Or do you mean there is no Simple Past Aspect nor Simple Future Aspect, so you may use Simple Present to express Simple Aspect, regardless of time? Are you suggesting Aspect can escape from time? Then I really and desperately want to know what it is. Personally, I don't believe there is something that is without time.

As I have predicted, if you can define Aspect, I promise it has past, present, and future. So, your tactic is, you don't define Aspect, but loosely imply Aspects to be timeless? It is double avoidance.

I am afraid you will not deny we have Aspects of different kinds of time, will you?
Simple Present Aspect
Simple Past Aspect

Actually, the ritual grammarians dub them Aspect stems from "Perfect Aspect". Will you elaborate on "Perfect Aspect", the most important Aspect? I am surprised that one may disregard Perfect Aspect in talking of Aspect.

----------------------
You wrote:
<<PRESENT TIME:
Simple Present expressing Simple Aspect: "I play tennis." This is the so-called "proximate future", and it describes a specific action that the speaker is about to perform.>>

As for "I play tennis", you call it "proximate future", but do you know that grammars usually call it "habitual action"?

By introducing "proximate future", you have admitted the four adjectives you mentioned are not enough:
<<The aspects are simple, habitual, continuous, and completive.>>
I am afraid you have to agree Aspects are at least five adjectives: simple, habitual, continuous, completive, and proximate. Nevertheless, will you say five adjectives are enough for describing endless actions? How many adjectives are enough for Aspects, according to your estimation? Five?

---------------------
How can Aspect help explain the following three actions:
1. I play tennis.
2. I have played tennis.
3. I played tennis.
I am afraid when we come to the details, we will find Aspect a mess.

A reader who despises Aspect Theory once pointed out an interesting question: with Present Perfect Progressive, do we have both perfect aspect and progressive aspect? Can you patch this loophole?

<<But what on earth is Aspect? This was my question prior to your answer. I expressly asked you to define it. You could not define it, unfortunately.>>

I have already defined aspect.

<<As you see, if HE describes YOU as a gentleman, HE is not YOU. So, if aspect describes the temporal flow of the action, aspect is not the temporal flow of the action, which you have admitted is Time, according to #2.>>

You're quibbling over semantics. Let me make myself more clear and say, simply, that aspect *is* the temporal flow of the action.

<<As for #3, I hope you will not claim that Aspect can be defined as adjectives like "simple, habitual, continuous, and completive".>>

Well too bad, because I do so claim. Taking present, future, or past as the time of reference,

"Simple" means that the action occurs at one specific instance, at (or in the case of present, near) the time of reference.

"Habitual" means that you carry out the action on a repetitive or habitual basis.

"Continuous" means that at the time of reference, you are engaged in the action.

"Completive" means that by the time of reference, you have completed the action.

<<As for "I play tennis", you call it "proximate future", but do you know that grammars usually call it "habitual action"?>>

You're confusing two different uses of the Simple Present. "I play tennis" can express *two* distinct meanings: if it expresses the Simple Aspect, then it describes proximate future action. If it expresses the Habitual Aspect, then (of course) it describes habitual action.

<<Did you or did you not deliberately hide the important word "present" in "Simple Present expressing Simple (Present) Aspect"?>>

I didn't hide anything. "Present" describes the time, not the aspect.

<<Or do you mean there is no Simple Past Aspect nor Simple Future Aspect, so you may use Simple Present to express Simple Aspect, regardless of time?>>

No I am not. I've already shown you examples of Simple Past Aspect and Simple Future Aspect.

<<Are you suggesting Aspect can escape from time?>>

No I am not. In the specific case of the Present time, the Simple Aspect expresses proximate future action, but this doesn't mean that Aspect can "escape" from time. I think you should note that in English, the use of Simple Present for proximate future action is not especially common; it's much more common to use Simple Future for all future action.

<<As I have predicted, if you can define Aspect, I promise it has past, present, and future. So, your tactic is, you don't define Aspect, but loosely imply Aspects to be timeless? It is double avoidance.>>

Aspect is the temporal flow of the action relative to the time of reference. If you're saying that Aspect can't exist without time, then I agree with you. Aspect needs time in the same way that an adjective needs a noun. I'm not avoiding anything, doubly or singly.

<<Actually, the ritual grammarians dub them Aspect stems from "Perfect Aspect". Will you elaborate on "Perfect Aspect", the most important Aspect? I am surprised that one may disregard Perfect Aspect in talking of Aspect.>>

I am using "Completive Aspect" as a synonym of "Perfect Aspect".

<<A reader who despises Aspect Theory once pointed out an interesting question: with Present Perfect Progressive, do we have both perfect aspect and progressive aspect? Can you patch this loophole?>>

I think that more than one aspect can be expressed at the same time. The Present Perfect Progressive tense express both the Perfect/Completive Aspect and the Progressive Aspect, in the present time. I see no loophole here.

I said:
<<A reader who despises Aspect Theory once pointed out an interesting question: with Present Perfect Progressive, do we have both perfect aspect and progressive aspect? Can you patch this loophole?>>

You wrote:
<<The Present Perfect Progressive tense express both the Perfect/Completive Aspect and the Progressive Aspect, in the present time. I see no loophole here.>>

My reply:
You have just fallen into his loophole! How can an action be both in progression and in continuity at the same time? Or in your words, if "you are engaged in the action", how can it be at the same time "you have completed the action"?

If you have completed the action, you don't need to be engaged in the action anymore.

What I mean is, if the event is Completive, it can't be Continuous at the same time.

Lazar wrote:
<<Let me make myself more clear and say, simply, that aspect *is* the temporal flow of the action.>>

My reply:
I have searched the exact match "the temporal flow of the action" and I get nothing. That is to say, no one really understand what is the temporal flow of the action. If it is Time, then Aspect is Time, as simple as that.

I asked:
<<As for #3, I hope you will not claim that Aspect can be defined as adjectives like "simple, habitual, continuous, and completive".>>

You wrote:
<<Well too bad, because I do so claim.>>

My reply:
I just don't believe it. How can Aspect is an adjective? It doesn't make any sense. By that time you said "I meant to say that tense expresses both time and aspect", do you mean tense expresses both time and a kind of adjective?

---------------------
I asked:
<<Are you suggesting Aspect can escape from time?>>

You wrote:
<<No I am not. In the specific case of the Present time, the Simple Aspect expresses proximate future action, but.....>>

My reply:
Got you! You have said here "the Simple Aspect expresses proximate future action", so Aspect is not an adjective. It is a kind of action!

Would you want to make yourself more clear? Does Aspect express some adjective like "proximate"? Or some kind of action like "proximate action"?

The Perfect Time

We have examined your way of explaining tenses (or aspect). I suggest you look at my way of explaining tenses:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.

Most problems in English tense have come from a negligence, failing to see there is a time span (which I have dubbed Perfect Time) between past time and present time. I have talked about this time concept at the very beginning of our present thread. The Prefect Time is the time concept for Present Perfect. Without defining and locating the Perfect Time, no one can tell the function of Present Perfect.

Can you tell what I have missed with such simplicity?