A concept of time

And how about these sentences, how do you explain using past or present perfect tense?

" A new branch is opened now in NY City, I told everybody about it"

"A new branch is opened now in NY City , I have told everybody about it."

Or

"They are opening a new branch now in NY City, I told eveybody about that"

"They are opening a new branch now in NY City, I have told everybody about that"

Or

"They open a new branch every year in NY City, I told everybod about that"

"They open a new branch every year in NY City, I have told everybody about that"

<<Do you believe in what grammars say below?>>

Yes, I do.

<<Do you mean this criminal grammarian is still within the last gate or outside the last gate?>>

Even if he left the last gate a few hours ago, he could still use the Present Perfect. For instance, if he met with a friend a few hours after he got out of prison, he could explain his absence by saying, "I've been in prison for 5 years." You fail to understand that tenses are very flexible.

<<Within a few hours, now we are already talking about "the very narrowly defined action", another new vague term Lazar is creating!!>>

I have created no new term, goddamit! I was trying to explain the difference between [living in Japan from 1987 to the present] and [living in Japan]. The former is more narrowly defined, and the latter is more broadly defined.

<<As I ignored "Version", Lazar created "Model" to attract discussion about it.>>

These are normal words that pop up in the course of spontaneous conversation, you imbecile. I have a "model", or "version", or "concept", or "theory", just as you have your "model", or "version", or "concept", or "theory". My "model" uses time and aspect, whereas your "model" uses only time. All of these words are simple, synonymous, and unremarkable.

Engtense, you are playing childish games, and you are really starting to piss me off. You quibble over the most simple words and phrases, and you misinterpret basic sentences and idioms, in a manner that demonstrates either consummate stupidity, or a lack of competence in English.

Let me point out that you used the word "concept" (a word which is no less vague than "model") in the very title of this thread! Now I will reflect your games back upon you:

"Engtense created 'concept' to attract discussion about his ideas."

~~~

The fact is that in page after page of discussion, you have failed to disprove my theory; and you have failed to provide me with one good reason to accept yours. You cry "vagueness" when there is clarity; you claim obfuscation when the most bleedingly obvious language is used. You insert meanings that were not there, and yet you fail to understand words that are plain as day. You demonstrate a puerile rigidity, and a lack of common sense, that saps my faith in humanity.

I have demonstrated exceptional patience with you. I have argued back and forth with you; I've argued in circles and loopdeloops with you. I have tolerated your dumb arguments and your misinterpretations. I have shown you a level of patience and respect that you do not deserve. But you've tried my patience one too many times, Engtense, and now my patience is gone. I will not waste any more of my time participating in this infernal thread. You have lost this argument, and you can go to hell.

Lazar wrote:
<<These are normal words that pop up in the course of spontaneous conversation, you imbecile.>>

My reply:
If you look carefully, I have carefully avoided personal matter. I have been joking only at the Aspect Theory, a theory that deceived me for so long.

It is as careful as I use "Simple Present" to speak of time, and use "Simple Present action" to speak of action. But I am afraid you can't see the difference.

I asked:
<<Do you believe in what grammars say below?>>

you wrote:
<<Yes, I do.>>

My reply:
Then my simplicity can only deal with what grammars say. I can't cope with "the very narrowly defined action".

By the way, speaking of action, does Aspect also speak of action, an action that is "very narrowly defined"? Or in what way an Aspect is linked to action?

This thread indicates that Engtense wrote:

<< Many Asian languages don't have tense at all, so Asians have only a vague concept of past time. But if English agrees to use tense to tell of time, why haven't English users spent time in defining past time at all? >>

Which Asian languages is the above based on?

How many Asian languages are there?

Geoff_One,

As you know, how many Asian languages have tense?

Mike wrote:
<<And how about these sentences, how do you explain using past or present perfect tense?
"A new branch is opened now in NY City, I told everybody about it"
"A new branch is opened now in NY City ,I have told everybody about it.">>

My reply:
If we don't have Simple Past, and the example is as simple as yours, we can only tell the time relation between the two actions: one action is before another.

In your examples, Simple Present action happens after Simple Past or Present Perfect actions. Or you may say, of course, Simple Past and Present Perfect actions happen before Simple Present action.

--------------------------
How can we experience time? Because time is flowing, you cannot point to a time and call it a past time, or call it a present time. We can only experience time by contrast. Without past, there is no present. Likewise, without present, there is no past.

On one-sentence basis, therefore, one cannot see the time relation:
Ex1: I am full.
Ex2: I have eaten dinner.

Because one cannot see the time, one can only theorize wrongly the tense expresses the Meaning of the action.
As the action displays a state, they say the tense expresses a state:
Ex1: I am full.
As the action displays a result, they say Present Perfect expresses a result:
Ex2: I have eaten dinner.
== Using one sentence and one tense is a wrong way to explain tense.

If we use tense to signal time, we also have to use at least two sentences to imitate time, forming a contrast:
Ex3: "I have eaten dinner. I am full."
Ex4: "I am full. I have eaten dinner."
== Simple Present expresses present time, while Present Perfect expresses past time.
You didn't hear me wrong. As in this example, Present Perfect expresses only a past time. The purpose of the two tenses here is to form a time relation. One present, one past.

Only when Simple Past sets in, we can see Present Perfect expresses a time between past and present:
Ex5: "My friend invited me to see a movie. I took my dinner early. I am full. I have eaten dinner."

--------------------------
As for Present Progressive, I have explained it for many times here. It has to be explained together with Present Perfect Progressive:
Ex1: I walk three miles every day.
Ex2: I am walking three miles every day.
Ex3: I have been walking three miles every day.
Three of them are so-called habitual actions, actually a present habitual.

Mike, I haven't seen how you will explain Simple Present, would you tell me about it?

See also the characteristic of Simple Present and Present Perfect. If actions are of the same tense, they still cannot express time:
Ex: *"I have eaten dinner. I have been full."
Ex: *"I am full. I eat dinner."
As they cannot form a contrast, the tense doesn't function.

The longer a series of actions, the more erroneous they are if in the same tense:
Ex: *"I have eaten dinner. I have been full. I have helped clean the dinner table."

However, only can Simple Past link up a series of actions:
Ex: "I took dinner. I was full. I helped clean the dinner table."
== This is a prominent function of Simple Past.
Moreover, the actions has to keep in smooth order: Took-Was-Helped. Therefore, if we use a paragraph of sentences, it is very easy to differentiate Simple Past from Present Perfect.

If the order of a series of actions is changed, one has to use Past Perfect to remind readers:
Ex: "I was full. I had taken dinner. I helped clean the dinner table."
== Past Perfect signals that the smooth order of Took-Was-Helped has been changed.
This is the only function for Past Perfect, indicating the time order is changed.

www.englishtense.com

<<Ex: *"I have eaten dinner. I have been full. I have helped clean the dinner table." >>

I have eaten dinner. I am full.

I helped tidy up/clear the dinner table

<< Ex: *"I have eaten dinner. I have been full." >>

I have eaten dinner. I am full. If I eat any more food I will be bloated.

<< However, only can Simple Past link up a series of actions: >>

However, only Simple Past can link up a series of actions:

I have eaten dinner. I have had enough food. If I am forced to eat any more food, I will be bloated.

>>We can only experience time by contrast<<

And with what you will contrast the action in this one:

Do you want to eat? No thanks, I have eaten dinner.

I am trying to use your theory to explain using the present perfect here. Neither could I relate the action of “eating” to that it happened somewhere between the past and now, because the action took place only once in the past, nor could I contrast it with another action.

Furthermore, to apply your theory by finding contrasts of actions and times, then your earlier sentence “I am full, I have eaten dinner” can be logically interpreted by that being “Full” is something happens AFTER having eaten dinner, and therefore, it will be more suitable to say:

I ate dinner, I have been full.

That is “being full” is something happened between the past (when I ate dinner) and now.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

"A new branch is opened now in NY City, I told everybody about it"
"A new branch is opened now in NY City ,I have told everybody about it.">>

for this example, you said:

>>In your examples, Simple Present action happens after Simple Past or Present Perfect actions. Or you may say, of course, Simple Past and Present Perfect actions happen before Simple Present action. <<

Were you awake when you wrote this??

I see it the other way round. In this example, even though the first part of the sentence is indicating a simple present, yet the present perfect action of the other part of the sentence virtually happened after the first action.

Mike wrote:
<<And with what you will contrast the action in this one:
Ex: "Do you want to eat? No thanks, I have eaten dinner."
I am trying to use your theory to explain using the present perfect here. Neither could I relate the action of “eating” to that it happened somewhere between the past and now, because the action took place only once in the past, nor could I contrast it with another action.>>

My reply:
I am rather surprised you say that.
What is the tense of "Do you want to eat?" Is it Simple Past or Present Perfect? I don't think so. What do you think actually?

If it is Simple Present, which it is, isn't your example a contrast of time between Simple Present and Present Perfect?

I have said Present Perfect can be seen as simply a past time, if there is no Simple Past:
<<You didn't hear me wrong. As in this example, Present Perfect expresses only a past time. The purpose of the two tenses here is to form a time relation. One present, one past.
Only when Simple Past sets in, we can see Present Perfect expresses a time between past and present>>.
== I have said this and it is not a supplement I am adding now. This can explain your example perfectly.

Mike wrote:
<<Furthermore, to apply your theory by finding contrasts of actions and times, then your earlier sentence “I am full, I have eaten dinner” can be logically interpreted by that being “Full” is something happens AFTER having eaten dinner, and therefore, it will be more suitable to say:
Ex: "I ate dinner, I have been full."
That is “being full” is something happened between the past (when I ate dinner) and now.>>

My reply:
I am afraid it has been answered above. When there is no Simple Past, my example "I am full. I have eaten dinner." can be regarded as a contrast between a present time and a past time.

My example "I am full. I have eaten dinner." is a pair of contrast that can express time.

Your example "I ate dinner, I have been full." is another pair of contrast that can express time. That is, the time of eating is before the time of being full.

Mike wrote:
<<Were you awake when you wrote this??

I see it the other way round.>>

My reply:
You are correct. I have put the cart before the horse. I have described the contrast wrongly. But what I meant is there is the contrast. I hope you understand that.

I have an example:
<<Ex: *"I have eaten dinner. I have been full. I have helped clean the dinner table." >>

Geoff_One wrote:
<<I have eaten dinner. I am full.>>

My reply:
You are correct. My example preceded by an asterisk indicates it is a wrong structure. It should have been in different tenses, as you put it correctly.

Such indication of using asterisk is known to grammars to illustrate a wrong example. And I have put it correctly.

By the way, is my sentence "I have helped clean the dinner table" a wrong one?

Thank you in advance.

Geoff_One wrote about me:
<<This thread indicates that Engtense wrote:
Many Asian languages don't have tense at all, so Asians have only a vague concept of PAST time. But if English agrees to use tense to tell of time, why haven't English users spent time in defining PAST time at all? >>

My reply:
I am afraid I would not say that. I would mean simply TIME: past, present, and future, rather than only "PAST time".

I didn't say Asians have only a vague concept of time. Rather, they don't have a problem in expressing time. Even without tense, Asian language is able to and have to express time, and people understand each other. They may have a difficulty in explaining English tense, but it is not just their problem. It is English's own problem.

English is troubled deeply by Present Perfect. Because uninformed students will of course want to understand the tense correctly and reasonably, Present Perfect puts tremendous stress to these students. How can a developing English teacher, for example, skip Present Perfect that English people use so often? She has to face the difficulty and feel the stress. Being aware of this, in order to ease the stress, English scholars have to openly admit even scholars themselves cannot explain the tense. I have quoted for many times the evidence that they do admit so.

My tense-changing process points out that Present Perfect itself contains dual functions that are CONTRADICTORY, expressing either a present or a past:
Ex1: I have worked in this company in the past. (past time)
Ex2: I have worked in this company since April. (up to the present)

Without knowing the tense-changing process, the sharp contradiction is hard to cope with. It is difficult for one to accept that a tense will have two functions that are contradictory. In confusion, grammarians would borrow the definition of Simple Present to explain Present Perfect, as Mike has made it very well:
<< 2-Present perfect: the action started in the past, and still continuing until present>>
Because this is actually the definition for Simple Present, grammars will have no trouble to explain Ex2 above. Actually, in a famous grammar "A GRAMMAR OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH", all their examples explaining Present Perfect contains something like Since and For. Here is the grammar I am talking about:
http://mizian.com.ne.kr/englishwiz/library/goce/goce.htm

As for the troubling Ex1, however, it depends on one's eloquence and wit. It is quite difficult to describe a past action as not past, but to them it is a must. Mike has learnt the essence of the eloquence and given a good illustrating example:
ex: "I have tried to fix that problem many times, but still not ok"... (and he might still be trying)
== The point is to describe the past action as "still continuing until present". But how can a student understand it?
I have seen thousands of times of such examples, in grammar books or in forums. This is where students have seen the stress. This is why scholars had to asked themselves, "How far have we got about the Present Perfect tense?" Here is the article I am talking about:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/sitemap/html_0900000b80050b84.html
There are web pages that also admit the difficulty:
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/pp1_sarn.htm

Interesting, while half the grammars are theorizing Present Perfect simply expresses something "still continuing until present", another half are using Aspect Theory to prove Present Perfect simply denotes a completion. Can't we see their theories are contradictory? To them, there is no in-between, and people have to choose only one of the two theories, assuming that Present Perfect itself naturally should not contain dual functions that are contradictory.

As I have pointed out, the above is not simply a failure in Present Perfect alone. With a tense failing, many tenses will collapse in a domino effect. As grammars have borrowed the definition of Simple Present to explain Present Perfect, they have to put a substitute definition for Simple Present, and this is why they call it "habitual action", or something like that.

Simply put, English tense is not merely a problem for Asian students. It is no use to accuse of their low ability in understanding tense. Even English native scholars have no alternative but to admit the tense cannot be explained by themselves.