|
|
A concept of time
Mike wrote:
<<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)>>
My reply:
Mike, I hope you pardon me, but your logic is insufficient. Actually, in your own example, you have hidden the Simple Present tense:
<<Ex: "I have tried to fix that problem many times, but still not ok"... (and he might still be trying)>>
== The example should have been in Simple Present:
Ex: "I have tried to fix that problem many times, but IT IS still not ok."
How to explain Present Perfect?
As you see, we have only past and present time, and we have to share the TWO kinds of time for the THREE tenses, namely Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present. Between TWO and THREE, We lack of a kind of time span.
With an example containing only one single sentence, you cannot explain Present Perfect in a way so that one can see there is a special kind of time for Present Perfect. For example, your definition for Present Perfect is also suitable for a Simple Present action:
Ex: He lives in Japan.
== In your own wording, the living is "action started in the past, and still continuing until present". That is to say, you have to confuse Simple Present with Present Perfect.
As for me, I use an example that contains more than one sentence, so I may point out a special kind of time span for Present Perfect:
Ex: "Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
== Present Perfect indicates the time in between the past (Last Week) and the present (Now). The Present Perfect action here happens within this time span.
I have located a kind of time (see the starting post of this thread, i.e. page 1) that is between the past and the present. I have dubbed it Perfect Time because Present Perfect is used to express this time span.
<<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?>>
You heard me correctly. Past Perfect is a tense, not an aspect. (The Past Perfect tense expresses the Past Time and the Perfect Aspect. Likewise, the Future Perfect tense expresses the Future Time and the Perfect Aspect.)
<<Is Perfect Progressive Aspect a Completive Aspect or a Continuous Aspect? It can't be both at the same time, can it?>>
I think it's both at the same time.
<<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?>>
My explanation is that the Perfect Aspect is used to express actions that have been completed by the present, after the past. In a sentence like, "He has lived in Japan since 1987", the action that he has completed is [living in Japan from 1987 to the present]. This is a specific action with a specific duration.
The sentence "He has lived in Japan since 1987" says nothing about what he will do beyond the present time. You could use that sentence to describe someone who intends to live in Japan for the rest of his life, or you could use that sentence to describe someone who is presently at the airport, preparing to leave Japan.
Lazar wrote:
<<In a sentence like, "He has lived in Japan since 1987", the action that he has completed is [living in Japan from 1987 to the present]. This is a specific action with a specific duration.>>
My reply:
I am afraid you are word-playing. But it is well within my expectation. Aspect has to word-play like this, so one may call anything in Present Perfect a finish.
But the fact is, the action is simply not completed. Do I have to quote web pages that declare Since and For, working with Present Perfect, are used to say an unfinished action up to the present time? Try to search with key words: "since and for, Present Perfect", and you will see many educational pages like this:
<<Present Perfect Tense - For and Since
We use Present Perfect tense to talk about action which started in the past and continues up to the present.
Examples:
I have had this computer for about a year.
How long have you been at this school?
I haven't seen Julia since September.>>
== http://www.eclecticenglish.com/grammar/PresentPerfect1D.html
Actually, grammars have little disagreement as to the use of Since and For here.
While grammars have agreed that it is a continuous action, and you can describe it as a completed action. You must claim the action can be both continuous and completed, mustn't you?
What about another example of mine:
Ex: We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks.
Is it also as you say an "action that we have completed", a specific action with a specific duration"? I will be damned if we, you and I, don't know whether the thread is completed or not.
Our discussion is NOT completed, so that I may use Present Perfect:
Ex: We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks.
If it were "action that we have completed" with a specific time, I would have to use Simple Past instead, wouldn't I?
-----------------------
I asked:<<Is Perfect Progressive Aspect a Completive Aspect or a Continuous Aspect? It can't be both at the same time, can it?>>
Lazar wrote:
<<I think it's both at the same time.>>
My reply:
As a whole, you are quite consistent. You think that something completed can be at the same time uncompleted, just as you have explained Since and For above.
I still can't believe you have not seen the illogic in your argument. It seems that you are even proud of your confusion.
You know what? I could not word-play as good as you. That is why I have dropped Aspect Theory. We use tenses to trouble students so much, and at last we have to tell them, or not to tell them, we can't even tell whether an action is completed or continuous. How nonsensical!!
We tell the time with Since, we even use one tense only (Present Perfect), and yet we cannot tell whether it is a past or present action. Is this the way we use tense?
In two ways, examples with Since and For have demolished Aspect Theory.
1. Aspect Theory claims that Aspect doesn't talk about Time. But as we talk about time with Since and For, why do we use Present Aspect at all? Why don't we call it a Tense?
2. As Aspect Theory claims Perfect Aspect signals a completion, why have grammars agreed that in examples with Since and For, Perfect Aspect signals a continuous action?
That is why in web pages about Aspect Theory, you cannot see examples with Since and For.
Where and how did Aspect Theory come from?
In supporting the false or half-true rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials:
Ex: *They have done it yesterday. (wrong structure)
Ex: They did it yesterday. (correct structure)
grammars have hidden those naughty past time adverbials that can stay with Present Perfect, like "in the past three years, during the past few decades, etc."
See "2.4 Forbidden grammar: the Past Family":
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_4.htm
Knowing this secret, Aspect Theory thinks: why don't we hide also Since and For, and make an easy explanation of Present Perfect? They do.
Aspect Theory says clearly to you: We hide more. Basically, therefore, it is not a theory. It is a concealment scheme. No one knows exactly what Aspect is. Lazar posits that Aspect is some adjectives. The selling point of Aspect Theory is its vagueness, which encourages participants to create as many vague terms as possible, so they may shift the discussions of Present Perfect to the discussion of definitions such as Aspect, Version, Model, Habitual, Proximate..... As I ignored "Version", Lazar created "Model" to attract discussion about it. This is Aspect Theory.
Time is flowing. Therefore, various tenses are cooperating, so that they may relate the time flow:
Ex: "Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee about it. Now she takes her lunches there."
The tenses depend on each other. If we fail to explain Present Perfect, the others will collapse in a domino effect.
Tenses are actually very simple, as I have put it:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.
== There is a time span, the Perfect Time, for Present Perfect.
But if we fail to locate the Perfect Time, we have to create a lot of vague terms to hide our confusion. These vague terms are in fact useless, if we have missed the point.
Lazar you have exercised a lot of terms, as you will not deny. At last, you still have to admit an action can be both Completive Aspect and Continuous Aspect:
<<I think it's both at the same time.>>
In the terrible mess of Aspect, you wanted to say Aspect has somehow implied the Perfect Time – using my example indicating the time flow. It is time you shake up your Aspect Theory.
The Perfect Time with Since and For
Since and For, working with Present Perfect, are related to actions of the Perfect Time. They encompass the Perfect Time.
According to common usages we understand, though in the same Present Perfect, they are of different kinds of actions:
Ex1: I have worked in this company. (a finished action)
Ex2: I have worked in this company since 1999. (an unfinished action)
I have found out the tense-changing process, which can explain why there is the difference, see my web page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
It may be said that in Ex1, the action falls within the Perfect Time, and in Ex2, the action encompasses the Perfect Time. However, they are still actions related to the Perfect Time. Therefore, I still can keep my remarkable simplicity:
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses a time between past time and present time.
I understand that some people will challenge Ex2 with the following kind of examples:
Ex3: I have bought a new car since you went away.
They claim it is a finished action, so it contradicts Ex2. Even so, however, they will not deny, whether Ex2 or Ex3, they are actions of the Perfect Time.
www.englishtense.com
"Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
"Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
what is the difference between the two? which one is more correct?
Mike wrote:
<<Ex1: "Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
Ex2: "Last week I found a new restaurant and the meal was good. I told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
what is the difference between the two? which one is more correct?>>
My reply:
Two examples are both correct, but of different kinds of time.
As I explained, in Ex1, Present Perfect "have told" indicates the time is neither Last Week nor Now. The action happens in between Last Week and Now.
But in Ex2, Simple Past "told" has to be understood as within the same time frame of the former Simple Past action. That is to say, it is also within Last Week.
My logic for the time of telling is:
1. If the telling is within Last Week, why not Simple Past?
2. But if it is not within Last Week, why would we use Simple Past at all?
3. What then is the tense for indicating the time between Last Week and Now?
Ex1 and Ex2 have answered these three critical questions.
<<Is it also as you say an "action that we have completed", a specific action with a specific duration"? I will be damned if we, you and I, don't know whether the thread is completed or not.>>
Obviously we both know that this thread is not completed! What I'm trying to say is that you can know something, while nonetheless leaving it unspecified in a sentence. Take the sentence,
"We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks."
This sentence uses the Present Perfect because we have completed the very narrowly defined action of [discussing "A concept of time" from many weeks ago to the present]. This sentence does not specify whether we're going to continue to discuss the topic (even though we both *know* that we're going to continue to discuss it).
Please note, as I said in my last post, that sentences like this can be used in situations where the action continues beyond the present (e.g. the man who intends to live in Japan for the rest of his life) and in situations where the action ends at the present (e.g. the man at the airport).
Or in other words,
"Bob has [X]ed since [Y]."
- Bob has completed the very narrowly defined action of "[X]ing from [Y] to the present"
- Bob may or may not continue to [X] beyond the present; the sentence doesn't specify
<<If it were "action that we have completed" with a specific time, I would have to use Simple Past instead, wouldn't I?>>
Only if we had stopped discussing this topic at some point in the past.
"We discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks." = we stopped discussing it in the past
"We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks." = we may stop discussing it right now, or we may continue discussing it into the future
<<You think that something completed can be at the same time uncompleted, just as you have explained Since and For above.>>
Mock me all you want, my explanation for a Perfect Progressive sentence is the same as my explanation for "since/for" above. Take, for example,
"Bob has been eating."
Bob has completed the action of [being engaged in the act of eating from some point in the past to the present time]. He may or may not continue eating into the future; the sentence doesn't specify.
<<At last, you still have to admit an action can be both Completive Aspect and Continuous Aspect.>>
Considering that the tense in question is both a Perfect Tense and a Progressive Tense, I think this "admission" of mine is very logical.
(Note that I've decided to use "Perfect" instead of "Completive".)
Lazar wrote:
<<Take the sentence,
"We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks."
This sentence uses the Present Perfect because we have completed the very narrowly defined action of [discussing "A concept of time" from many weeks ago to the present].>>
My reply:
What is that if not word-play? I really don't know what you mean by "the very narrowly defined action".
I searched for "the very narrowly defined action", and I can't find anything. Absolutely nothing.
I didn't understand what is "the very narrowly defined action" and, please, I didn't talk about it.
If I say "We have discussed 'A concept of time' for many weeks", I mean we are still discussing it. It is well documented by grammars and I have shown you the way to search for it with key words: "since and for, Present Perfect".
If I want to say it is a completed action, I will use Simple Past:
Ex: "We discussed 'A concept of time' for many weeks."
<<I really don't know what you mean by "the very narrowly defined action".>>
It means an action, which happens to be VERY NARROWLY DEFINED. What else would it mean?
<<I searched for "the very narrowly defined action", and I can't find anything. Absolutely nothing.>>
I'm not putting it forth as a grammatical term, it's just a phrase that I used in conversation! It's an original series of words that I spontaneously thought up in the course of discussion!
My God, arguing with you is like pulling teeth!
<<I didn't understand what is "the very narrowly defined action" and, please, I didn't talk about it.>>
I know that you didn't talk about it, *I* talked about it.
Let me attempt, one more time, to make you understand this concept.
ex: "Bob has lived in Japan since 1987."
Bob intends to live in Japan for the rest of his life. Therefore, he is going to continue the action of [living in Japan] for many years.
But the action that Bob has completed in this sentence is MORE NARROWLY DEFINED. The action that he has completed is the action of [living in Japan from 1987 to the present]. All the words in brackets are taken together as one action.
The action of [living in Japan from 1987 to the present] is more narrowly defined than the action of [living in Japan], because it has a time constraint.
The action of [living in Japan from 1987 to the present] is a part (a chunk, as it were) of the broader action of [living in Japan].
Bob has completed the action of [living in Japan from 1987 to the present], even though for many years into the future he will continue the action of [living in Japan].
<<If I say "We have discussed 'A concept of time' for many weeks", I mean we are still discussing it.>>
It means that the discussion extends to the present time, but it says nothing about the future. This sentence could be used if the discussion is ending at this very moment, or if the discussion will continue for weeks into the future. Let me provide you with an example:
"We have discussed "A concept of time" for many weeks, but I have grown tired of arguing, and I'm not going to discuss it anymore."
"I've been in jail for 5 years" (said by a man as he walks out the prison gates)
In these example sentences, the action ends *at the present*.
I cannot define it:
<<I really don't know what you mean by "the very narrowly defined action".>>
Lazar wrote:
<<It means an action, which happens to be VERY NARROWLY DEFINED. What else would it mean?>>
My reply:
Do you believe in what grammars say below?
<<Present Perfect Tense - For and Since
We use Present Perfect tense to talk about action which started in the past and continues up to the present.
Examples:
I have had this computer for about a year.
How long have you been at this school?
I haven't seen Julia since September.>>
== http://www.eclecticenglish.com/grammar/PresentPerfect1D.html
<<"I've been in jail for 5 years" (said by a man as he walks out the prison gates)
In these example sentences, the action ends *at the present*. >>
My reply:
This is how Aspect Theory works.
Do you mean this criminal grammarian is still within the last gate or outside the last gate?
It is really hard to believe!
Upstairs, I have specifically warned against Aspect Theory:
<<The selling point of Aspect Theory is its vagueness, which encourages participants to create as many vague terms as possible, so they may shift the discussions of Present Perfect to the discussion of definitions such as Aspect, Version, Model, Habitual, Proximate..... As I ignored "Version", Lazar created "Model" to attract discussion about it. This is Aspect Theory.>>
Within a few hours, now we are already talking about "the very narrowly defined action", another new vague term Lazar is creating!!
We are staring at the vagueness of someone's walking out of the jail:
<<"I've been in jail for 5 years" (said by a man as he walks out the prison gates)>>
The criminal is so near to the prison gate that Lazar claims the jailing is already a past, so <Present Perfect + For> stands for what he wants – a completed action.
This is Aspect Theory, never ending new terms and vagueness. And Lazar says YES loudly.
|