A concept of time

Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 75 76 77 Next page

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

I've devoted some thought to this (eg, phrases like "I've been being..."), and I think I might have to expand my definition of the Completive Aspect. (Forgive me for having an evolving conception of tense; I've been formulating my model of tense in response to your arguments.)

First of all, I think Perfect would be a better name for this aspect. As for the definition of the Perfect Aspect, I think I would use one of the definitions given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_aspect : a previous action viewed from the perspective of a later time.

<>

Wikipedia's definition of aspect is nearly the same as mine, and the slightly more general Google search [aspect "temporal flow"] gets 24,900 hits. And regardless, the number of people who agree or disagree with my argument has nothing to do with whether it's right or not.

<<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?>>

Okay, I think I misunderstood your question. I don't define Aspect as an adjective; I just define it as "the temporal flow of the action". So tense expresses both the time and the temporal flow of the action. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier.

<<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!>>

Let my clarify here as well: "proximate future" is not a kind of action; it's a kind of temporal flow, which is expressed by the Simple Aspect when it's used in conjunction with the Present Time.

What I mean to say is, expressing the "proximate future" isn't one of the defined functions of the Simple Aspect; it's just the byproduct that you get from using the Simple Aspect together with the Present Time.

<<Can you tell what I have missed with such simplicity?>>

Hmm...you've said only that "Simple Present expresses present time." How do you explain the two distinct uses of the Simple Present (in other words, the proximate future version and the habitual version)?

Geez, you people pick confusing topics...

Guest wrote:
"Geez, you people pick confusing topics..."

My reply:
Now you also see the confusion! Aspect theory is most confusing, and doesn't go anywhere. It cannot explain why Time is not enough to explain tense, so they pick up Aspect.

But how about my own words? Are they confusing also:
<<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.>>

My point is, Time alone is enough to explain tense. If we know there is the Perfect Time for Present Perfect, we don't need to create most vague terms permeating the explanation of tense.

Lazar wrote:
<<the temporal flow of the action>>

My reply:
Time is flowing. Time is a flow. "Temporal" means something about time.
So, "the temporal flow of the action" is clearly 'Time of the action'.

If you must call Aspect "the temporal flow of the action",
will you call Time "the temporal what of the action"?

Will you say Time is "the temporal river of the action"?

Aspect is just word-play.

--------------------------
You wrote:
<<How do you explain the two distinct uses of the Simple Present (in other words, the proximate future version and the habitual version)?>>

My reply:
As for the names, I cannot explain a lot of vague terms: current relevancy, universal time, proximity, remoteness, aspect, etc.

But as for examples with a tense, please pick up any examples you want. I am afraid my simplicity can explain most, if not all, of them. I will start with the most frequently used tenses here:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.
But you may link to actually any tenses at all.

I promise this: if my simplicity cannot explain your examples, you will also fail to explain them yourself, with all your onerous terms.

As for habitual action, there are past/present/future habitual actions, what kind of action exactly you want to say? Do you mean you can locate a kind of Aspect that can explain or express the three kinds of habitual action at the same time?
I have repeated this for countless time: it is the sentence that expresses habitual action. The tense tells the time of the habitual action whether past, present, or future.

As for the proximate future, I have defined Time in P.43 of this thread, which says:
<<Present time and future time are overlapped, both contrasting with the past.>>
That is why Simple Present can express "proximate future".

I have defined the past, the present, and the future. I have located the Perfect Time. Theses basic necessities enables me to explain tense in a most simple way:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.

You don't need to defend Aspect. If you can find fault with my simplicity, I may have to depend on Aspect automatically.

engtense : « (...) Simple Past expresses past time (...) ».

Pas nécessairement.

Dans une phrase telle que :
« You know that the Vicomte de Noailles is known to repeat that traveling shapes young people’s character. ►Were◄ he to say it once mornings and nights, it would indeed not be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase. »,
le prétérite <were> n'exprime en aucune manière un passé révolu. L'action <repeat that (...)> est purement hypothétique et, si elle se réalisait, ce serait dans le *FUTUR*, et non dans le passé.

<<If you must call Aspect "the temporal flow of the action",
will you call Time "the temporal what of the action"?>>

Time is the temporal point of reference, and Aspect is the temporal flow. The difference between the sentences "I play tennis" and "I am playing tennis" is a difference purely of aspect; they both occur in the Present Time.

<<As for the names, I cannot explain a lot of vague terms: current relevancy, universal time, proximity, remoteness, aspect, etc.>>

Bla, bla, bla. You have failed to answer my question.

<>

a) Your simplicity does not explain my examples. Saying merely "Simple Present expresses present time" *does not* explain the two distinct uses of the Simple Present.

b) My "onerous terms" do explain my examples. My "onerous terms" will tell you, quite simply, that the difference between the two uses of the Simple Present is the difference between Simple Aspect and Habitual Aspect.

<>

<<Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.>>

But you see, my time+aspect model achieves this same result. In my model, the Present Perfect expresses actions that have been completed by the present; thus it refers to actions that are between the past and the present, just as in your model.

In your model, how do you explain the Future Perfect and the Past Perfect? Is there a new time which is "between future and present time", and another new time which is "before past time"? There wouldn't be one "Perfect Time" as you say, but rather, three!

I'm starting to lose patience with this neverending argument of ours.

Yeah...I'm still lost...

Greg had an example: "Were he to say it once mornings and nights, it would indeed not be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase..."

Greg wrote:
<<le prétérite <were> n'exprime en aucune manière un passé révolu. L'action <repeat that (...)> est purement hypothétique et, si elle se réalisait, ce serait dans le *FUTUR*, et non dans le passé.>>

My reply:
I am afraid you have a correct analysis and, if you look at your words closely, you have actually answered yourself.

It is as you say "hypothetical", so it is a hypothetical past. That is to say, it is "not really" in the past.

Or would you say it is a "hypothetical future"? If so, it is "not really" in the future, contradicting to what you have analyzed.

Thank you for your comment and I hope you may try some more.

Lazar wrote:
<<But you see, my time+aspect model achieves this SAME RESULT. In my model, the Present Perfect expresses actions that have been completed by the present; thus it refers to actions that are between the past and the present, just as in your model. >>

My reply: I am glad that we have arrived the SAME RESULT. I had better say, you have no objection whatsoever to my simplicity.

But may I ask, how did you demonstrate the time? As the time of the action is between past and present, I have to use at least three sentences to do that:
Ex: "Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
== Simple Past + Present Perfect + Simple Present.

Actually, I have always used more than one sentence to explain tenses. But did you do that? When have you used more than one sentence to demonstrate Present Perfect?

I am afraid you cannot explain Present Perfect solely by wordings, as you wrote:
<<In my model, the Present Perfect expresses actions that have been completed by the present.....>>
== I can see there are many misleading wordings in it:
-- What is "model"? Actually, a few posts before, you have wrongly claimed Aspect as adjective, so you now call it "version" or "model". I don't think you have pinpointed "the time between the past and the present", by calling it Aspect.
-- You still claim Present Perfect expresses some kind of ACTIONS. But I claim Present Perfect expresses some kind of TIME. There is actually a big difference.
-- Please be reminded that your wordings, "actions that have been completed by the present", can apply also to Simple Past actions.

Simply put, without a proper example that demonstrates the time between past and present, I don't think you can demonstrate the SAME RESULT.

<>

Wrong. I have already voiced two objections to your "simplicity".

a) Saying merely "Simple Present expresses present time" does not explain the two distinct uses of the Simple Present (proximate future and habitual).

b) You have said that there is a "Perfect Time" (between past and present) for the Present Perfect tense, but you have failed to explain what times are expressed by the Future Perfect and Past Perfect tenses. The fact is, your system would require three separate "Perfect Times", rather than just one.

<<But may I ask, how did you demonstrate the time? As the time of the action is between past and present, I have to use at least three sentences to do that:>>

<<Actually, I have always used more than one sentence to explain tenses. But did you do that? When have you used more than one sentence to demonstrate Present Perfect?>>

No, I have never use more than one sentence to demonstrate Present Perfect, because I don't think that's necessary. But if you're going to insist that I do, then the example that you have provided will suffice.

"Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."

1) Simple Past, expressing Simple Aspect: a specific action that you performed in the past.

2) Present Perfect, expressing Perfect Aspect: an action that you have completed by the present, after the past.

3) Simple Present, expressing Habitual Aspect: a repeated action carried out by Mrs. Lee in the present time.

<<What is "model"?>>

My model is the idea of tense that employs time and aspect. (And likewise, your model is your idea of tense.)

<<Actually, a few posts before, you have wrongly claimed Aspect as adjective>>

Aspect itself is not defined as an adjective, but the various Aspects use adjectives as names (Simple, Habitual, Continuous, Perfect).

In just the same way, Time is not defined as an adjective, but the various Times use adjectives as names (Present, Future, Past).

I misunderstood your question a few posts before, and I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused you.

<<Simply put, without a proper example that demonstrates the time between past and present, I don't think you can demonstrate the SAME RESULT.>>

I have now provided you with a "proper example" in this post. Now, could you please answer the two questions (a and b) that I have voiced in this post?

engtense : « It is as you say "hypothetical", so it is a hypothetical past. »
Non, en réalité le temps grammatical du prétérite — <were> — exprime une hypothèse qui, par définition, ne peut se situer dans le passé (ni même dans le présent). Si cette hypothèse perdait sa qualité de conjecture pour devenir un fait avéré, alors l'action serait nécessairement située dans un temps ultérieur au présent (c'est-à-dire le futur).

En d'autre termes :

HYPOTHÈSE
►Were◄ he to say it once mornings and nights, it would indeed not be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.

RÉALISATION — DÉCONDITIONNALISATION
He ►will◄ say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.
He ►is going to◄ say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.
He ►is resolved to◄ say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.

PS : désolé s'il y a une erreur de construction avec <can't>.

Salut Lazar !
« Time is the temporal point of reference, and Aspect is the temporal flow. The difference between the sentences "I play tennis" and "I am playing tennis" is a difference purely of aspect; they both occur in the Present Time. »
Je dirais que le temps chronologique peut être soit un ►point◄ de référence, soit un ►intervalle◄ de référence. Quant à l'aspect, même si la durée de l'action (ou le déroulement chronologique du procès) est un élément crucial, comme tu l'indiquais à juste titre, je distinguerais entre l'aspect propre aux concepts véhiculés (inchoatif, itératif, duratif, intensif, résultatif etc) et d'autres catégories aspectuelles (accompli, inaccompli, perfectif, imperfectif etc).
Dans l'exemple comparatif vs , est-il possible que le premier élément — — ne soit pas nécessairement du présent au sens strict (point chronologique) mais plutôt du passé *ET PEUT-ÊTRE* du présent (intervalle chronologique) ? Je pose la question car l'anglais n'est pas ma langue maternelle. Autrement dit, se peut-il qu'un anglophone dise sans pour autant jouer au tennis au moment où il parle ?

I might be wrong, but this is the logic I follow when I use tenses.

1- Simple past: a one time action which took place in the past.

ex: "I tried to fix that problem before".

2-Present perfect: the action started in the past, and still continuing until present

ex: "I have tried to fix that problem many times, but still not ok"... (and he might still be trying)

3-Past perfect: it refers to an action that took place over a period of time in the past.

ex: "till last week, I had tired to fix that problem, but with no hope"...( then he stoped trying)

To engtense. You said: “Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."

how do you explain the time in your example when you used present perfect here: “I have told Ms lee”

Guest wrote:
<<Yeah...I'm still lost...>>

My reply:
If you are not able to understand the following:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
I wish you good luck.

Lazar wrote:
<<b) You have said that there is a "Perfect Time" (between past and present) for the Present Perfect tense, but you have failed to explain what times are expressed by the Future Perfect and Past Perfect tenses. The fact is, your system would require three separate "Perfect Times", rather than just one.>>

My reply:
1. Exactly! The "Perfect Time" is just for Present Perfect. Future Perfect and Past Perfect do not express Perfect Time. Do you know why? It is because I explain tenses by Time. And every tense has its own time.

2. Did I hear you correctly? You said "the Future Perfect and Past Perfect TENSES".
Did you want to say "the Future Perfect and Past Perfect ASPECTS" instead?
Is Past Perfect a Tense or an Aspect?

3. The Aspect Theory cannot explain why there is Perfect Progressive Aspect, as you have admitted:
<<I've devoted some thought to this (eg, phrases like "I've been being..."), and I think I might have to expand my definition of the Completive Aspect. (Forgive me for having an evolving conception of tense; I've been formulating my model of tense in response to your arguments.)>>
== Is Perfect Progressive Aspect a Completive Aspect or a Continuous Aspect? It can't be both at the same time, can it?

4. Aspect Theory also fails to explain the following point:
When we tell the time with Since, such as "since 1987", etc., we use Present Perfect. How will you explain it?
Ex: He has lived in Japan since 1987.
Ex: We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks.
They express a Continuous Aspect, contradicting to usual Perfect Aspect.
In the past I liked Aspect Theory because it was vague enough to hide my confusion. I have finally dropped it because I cannot explain this kind of examples. What is your explanation now?

Greg wrote:
<<Non, en réalité le temps grammatical du prétérite — <were> — exprime une hypothèse qui, par définition, ne peut se situer dans le passé (ni même dans le présent). Si cette hypothèse perdait sa qualité de conjecture pour devenir un fait avéré, alors l'action serait nécessairement située dans un temps ultérieur au présent (c'est-à-dire le futur).>>

My reply:
According to your reasoning, would you insist hypothetical "were to" is used to indicate that the action MUST HAPPEN in the future? I don't think so.

If something you are sure to happen in the future, you will use "is going to/ is resolved to/etc." to say it. See also the following.

-------------------------
<<HYPOTHÈSE
"Were" he to say it once mornings and nights, it would indeed not be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.
RÉALISATION — DÉCONDITIONNALISATION
He "will" say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.
He "is going to" say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.
He "is resolved to" say it once mornings and nights. It can't indeed be too often for, more and more, I feel the accuracy of this phrase.>>

My reply:
Because we use auxiliary verbs (including "will") to signal an uncertainty, we mean to use "is going to/is resolved to/etc." to express something that is sure to happen, something certain, contrasting with auxiliaries. In this way, even there is a future time "tomorrow/next week" mentioned, someone may still know it is a certainty.

Use of "am going to/am to/are to/am resolved to":
If you have a scheduled meeting with your boss every Monday, then today (Sunday) you may say to someone, "I am going to see my boss tomorrow". It is a certainty.
In this case, using Simple Present expresses more certainty: "I see my boss tomorrow."

Use of auxiliaries:
But if you know your boss is ill today (Sunday), you are not sure if you may see him tomorrow (Monday), so you may say to someone, "I will see my boss tomorrow". It is an uncertainty.

Use of hypothetical past:
If you know your boss is VERY sick today (Sunday), it is only hypothetical that you would see him tomorrow (Monday), and you may use hypothetical past to say: "Were I to (=If I were to) see my boss tomorrow, I would tell him your opinion."
That is to say, Hypothetical Past expresses more UNCERTAINTY to the future, so the past is "hypothetical" and not really past. Past form is used with Tomorrow, so that one will see it is not a real past.

Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 75 76 77 Next page