ummm...im in accounting class and i was wondering what an example of the time period concept was.....as in a GAAP! goooosh! ugh! you people are SO annoying! i just wanna.....i dont know! ughhhhhhccchhhhh! GO TO JAYO!
A concept of time
Yomotha wrote:
<<i just wanna.....i dont know!>>
My reply:
You are correct. Young students are deeply annoyed by English tense.
A famous economist in HK once revealed his secret of using Present Perfect: he doesn't use it at all. He even teaches young students: as Chinese people don't have the notion of Present Perfect that English people have, we may simply skip the tense. He was proud that his peers have found his English excellent.
Personally, I don't think skipping Present Perfect tense is a correct way of teaching English. English uses Present Perfect tremendously.
The other day I visited the following page:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/tense/tense.htm#perfect
In the page the author, perhaps Dick Hudson, raises a good question:
<<What is the tense of "He has taken the test" - past or present?
Has Taken is called the 'present perfect' because its first verb, Has, is in the present tense. It counts as a basic present tense, not a past tense, although it describes an event in the past.
If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the present perfect:
e.g. He took the test last week.
e.g. *He has taken the test last week.
If you want to say that the event is relevant to the present, you use the present perfect, rather than the simple present:
e.g. He has already taken the test, so he is qualified.
e.g. *He already took the test, so he is qualified. >>
== By asterisk, we mean an erroneous structure. Obviously, between Current Relevancy Theory and Aspect Theory, he has chosen the former.
My comment:
It is wrong for the author to claim merely "If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the Present Perfect". The rule is simply too loose. We may say the event happened TODAY, and both tenses are correct:
e.g. He took the test today.
e.g. He has taken the test today.
The author's loose comparison between Simple Past and Present Perfect will of course annoy students.
The author wants also to link vaguely Present Perfect to the present, by inserting, once again, a Simple Present action in the example:
<<If you want to say that the event is relevant to the present, you use the present perfect, rather than the simple present:
e.g. He has already taken the test, so he is qualified.>>
Does this example show to students that he hasn't used Simple Present here at all?
In term of Current Relevancy Theory, how desperately a grammarian wants to prove Present Perfect has SOME reference to the present. Students are much annoyed but cannot speak up where is wrong. However, a developing teacher has correctly pointed out the confusion: anything in any tense must have SOME reference to the present. I am talking of the developing teacher who is wailing, "I'll never understand the present perfect!" in the following page:
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/pp1_sarn.htm
<<i just wanna.....i dont know!>>
My reply:
You are correct. Young students are deeply annoyed by English tense.
A famous economist in HK once revealed his secret of using Present Perfect: he doesn't use it at all. He even teaches young students: as Chinese people don't have the notion of Present Perfect that English people have, we may simply skip the tense. He was proud that his peers have found his English excellent.
Personally, I don't think skipping Present Perfect tense is a correct way of teaching English. English uses Present Perfect tremendously.
The other day I visited the following page:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/tense/tense.htm#perfect
In the page the author, perhaps Dick Hudson, raises a good question:
<<What is the tense of "He has taken the test" - past or present?
Has Taken is called the 'present perfect' because its first verb, Has, is in the present tense. It counts as a basic present tense, not a past tense, although it describes an event in the past.
If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the present perfect:
e.g. He took the test last week.
e.g. *He has taken the test last week.
If you want to say that the event is relevant to the present, you use the present perfect, rather than the simple present:
e.g. He has already taken the test, so he is qualified.
e.g. *He already took the test, so he is qualified. >>
== By asterisk, we mean an erroneous structure. Obviously, between Current Relevancy Theory and Aspect Theory, he has chosen the former.
My comment:
It is wrong for the author to claim merely "If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the Present Perfect". The rule is simply too loose. We may say the event happened TODAY, and both tenses are correct:
e.g. He took the test today.
e.g. He has taken the test today.
The author's loose comparison between Simple Past and Present Perfect will of course annoy students.
The author wants also to link vaguely Present Perfect to the present, by inserting, once again, a Simple Present action in the example:
<<If you want to say that the event is relevant to the present, you use the present perfect, rather than the simple present:
e.g. He has already taken the test, so he is qualified.>>
Does this example show to students that he hasn't used Simple Present here at all?
In term of Current Relevancy Theory, how desperately a grammarian wants to prove Present Perfect has SOME reference to the present. Students are much annoyed but cannot speak up where is wrong. However, a developing teacher has correctly pointed out the confusion: anything in any tense must have SOME reference to the present. I am talking of the developing teacher who is wailing, "I'll never understand the present perfect!" in the following page:
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/pp1_sarn.htm
In the post above I have mentioned this link:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/tense/tense.htm#perfect
I also emailed to the author, Dick Hudson, about this link:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/p77647.htm#77647
and promised I will post for him if he wants to reply but cannot locate the forum.
Very soon, Dick Hudson gave me a short reply:
<<Are you saying that "He has taken the test today/this week" is ok? If so, I disagree. If not, I'm afraid I don't understand your point.>>
My reply:
I do say "He has taken the test today/this week" is Ok. It is perfectly OK.
If we search for "has * today", where asterisk stands for any word, we may have 1,490,000 results like this:
Ex: The Government has said today it will develop funding mechanisms that will enable local and regional councils to raise.....
Ex: HP has launched today the first notebook PC based on the latest AMD Turion 64 mobile technology.
== Please understand I haven't yet included those examples where Present Perfect stays a few words away from "today".
If we search "has taken * this week", we may have a lot examples like this:
Ex: The drug market in North East Leeds has taken another hit this week as West Yorkshire Police Officers flood the streets and arrest 27 suspected drug dealers.
Ex: Denmark has taken steps this week to implement debt forgiveness for a significant proportion of outstanding development loans totalling close to 1 billion Danish kroner.
There are even examples if you search exact match for "taken the test today".
Just think about how often we say the time of a Present Perfect action:
Ex: I have just seen him.
Ex: She has taken the test today.
Ex: The Beta release has been launched this week.
Ex: He has worked in this company since 1999.
Ex: He has worked in this company for five years.
Ex: Within the past three years I've lived with type 1 diabetes.
Ex: In the past, he has served as president of the Association of Neuroscience Departments.
Having known the common examples, we may see how loose it is for the author to pronounce merely:
<<If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the present perfect.>>
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/tense/tense.htm#perfect
I also emailed to the author, Dick Hudson, about this link:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/p77647.htm#77647
and promised I will post for him if he wants to reply but cannot locate the forum.
Very soon, Dick Hudson gave me a short reply:
<<Are you saying that "He has taken the test today/this week" is ok? If so, I disagree. If not, I'm afraid I don't understand your point.>>
My reply:
I do say "He has taken the test today/this week" is Ok. It is perfectly OK.
If we search for "has * today", where asterisk stands for any word, we may have 1,490,000 results like this:
Ex: The Government has said today it will develop funding mechanisms that will enable local and regional councils to raise.....
Ex: HP has launched today the first notebook PC based on the latest AMD Turion 64 mobile technology.
== Please understand I haven't yet included those examples where Present Perfect stays a few words away from "today".
If we search "has taken * this week", we may have a lot examples like this:
Ex: The drug market in North East Leeds has taken another hit this week as West Yorkshire Police Officers flood the streets and arrest 27 suspected drug dealers.
Ex: Denmark has taken steps this week to implement debt forgiveness for a significant proportion of outstanding development loans totalling close to 1 billion Danish kroner.
There are even examples if you search exact match for "taken the test today".
Just think about how often we say the time of a Present Perfect action:
Ex: I have just seen him.
Ex: She has taken the test today.
Ex: The Beta release has been launched this week.
Ex: He has worked in this company since 1999.
Ex: He has worked in this company for five years.
Ex: Within the past three years I've lived with type 1 diabetes.
Ex: In the past, he has served as president of the Association of Neuroscience Departments.
Having known the common examples, we may see how loose it is for the author to pronounce merely:
<<If you want to say when the event happened, you use the simple past, not the present perfect.>>
<< My reply:
You are correct. Young students are deeply annoyed by English tense.
A famous economist in HK once revealed his secret of using Present Perfect: he doesn't use it at all. He even teaches young students: as Chinese people don't have the notion of Present Perfect that English people have, we may simply skip the tense. >>
And what about the Spanish speaking world? Without writing a book on the subject; I will just say for the time being that Spanish is the chief language in more countries in the world than any other language. As I understand it, Spanish has what can be described as the present perfect.
The formation of the present perfect in Spanish is a little different to English and may even be considered clearer.
Why not take a fresh approach to the present perfect by studying its use in Spanish? (Why is the preceeding question not as silly as it sounds?)
You are correct. Young students are deeply annoyed by English tense.
A famous economist in HK once revealed his secret of using Present Perfect: he doesn't use it at all. He even teaches young students: as Chinese people don't have the notion of Present Perfect that English people have, we may simply skip the tense. >>
And what about the Spanish speaking world? Without writing a book on the subject; I will just say for the time being that Spanish is the chief language in more countries in the world than any other language. As I understand it, Spanish has what can be described as the present perfect.
The formation of the present perfect in Spanish is a little different to English and may even be considered clearer.
Why not take a fresh approach to the present perfect by studying its use in Spanish? (Why is the preceeding question not as silly as it sounds?)
Geoff_One wrote:
<<And what about the Spanish speaking world? Without writing a book on the subject; I will just say for the time being that Spanish is the chief language in more countries in the world than any other language. As I understand it, Spanish has what can be described as the present perfect.>>
My reply:
What do they say about tense? Why do they use tense at all?
English tense is used to explain time. This may be fundamentally agreed by all grammars. However, it has never been carried out by anyone. If a grammar says "Simple Present expresses an action that is habitual", it breaks apart our fundamental agreement. It has unknowingly and wrongly claimed tense is used to express some kind of action, rather than some kind of time. Actually, tenses are cooperating to tell the time flow of actions. If one tense is wrong, the rest will be down in a domino effect. Now grammars claim Simple Present expresses a habitual action, Present Perfect a current relevancy, Simple Past a past habitual action, and furthermore, they don't think there is Future Tense. Ridiculously, English is distorted by grammars to be the only language in the world that doesn't express time, and to express a lot of things other languages don't need to express. Do they say in what way English tense expresses time at all?
My theory to tense is to go back to our agreement. Tenses cooperate to express the time relations between sentences. Therefore, I make use of many sentences, in different tenses, to illustrate the time flow.
Let the meaning be expressed by the sentence. Tense is used to express time.
<<And what about the Spanish speaking world? Without writing a book on the subject; I will just say for the time being that Spanish is the chief language in more countries in the world than any other language. As I understand it, Spanish has what can be described as the present perfect.>>
My reply:
What do they say about tense? Why do they use tense at all?
English tense is used to explain time. This may be fundamentally agreed by all grammars. However, it has never been carried out by anyone. If a grammar says "Simple Present expresses an action that is habitual", it breaks apart our fundamental agreement. It has unknowingly and wrongly claimed tense is used to express some kind of action, rather than some kind of time. Actually, tenses are cooperating to tell the time flow of actions. If one tense is wrong, the rest will be down in a domino effect. Now grammars claim Simple Present expresses a habitual action, Present Perfect a current relevancy, Simple Past a past habitual action, and furthermore, they don't think there is Future Tense. Ridiculously, English is distorted by grammars to be the only language in the world that doesn't express time, and to express a lot of things other languages don't need to express. Do they say in what way English tense expresses time at all?
My theory to tense is to go back to our agreement. Tenses cooperate to express the time relations between sentences. Therefore, I make use of many sentences, in different tenses, to illustrate the time flow.
Let the meaning be expressed by the sentence. Tense is used to express time.
<< This may be fundamentally agreed by all grammars. >>
This may be fundamentally agreed by all schools of grammar.
OR
This may be fundamentally agreed by all schools of English grammar.
This may be fundamentally agreed by all schools of grammar.
OR
This may be fundamentally agreed by all schools of English grammar.
You may please go to search "by all grammars", and you know. Or you may just search "grammars" (in plural).
Geoff_One, as I say Present Perfect expresses the time between Last Week and Now, what about the time before Last Week? Do you have some opinion?
Geoff_One, as I say Present Perfect expresses the time between Last Week and Now, what about the time before Last Week? Do you have some opinion?
>>You may please go to search "by all grammars",<<
Gee, thanks but wow, a whole 52 hits on Google. A potential neologism?
>> and you know<<
And what, rack off?
Gee, thanks but wow, a whole 52 hits on Google. A potential neologism?
>> and you know<<
And what, rack off?
A negative concept of time
I have succeeded in defining present time, with a negative term.
In my youth, I spent a long period of time in studying what is the common point of all Simple Present actions? In deep frustration, I failed. Simple Present seemed to be able to express anything, so how could I use some meanings to restrict its use? Fundamentally, I didn't even know what the present time is. It sounded easy but it was extremely difficult to define it. However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past. The present time has to be defined negatively. Indeed, all actions in Simple Present do have a point in common: they are "now not yet finished", again in negativity. I found out that time is realized only by contrast. Without past, there is no present. Without present, there is no past. The two kinds of time have to be explained at the same time. I deemed it a breakthrough to define present time in a negative way, though I could say nothing positive about it.
If we don't use negativity to define present actions, people will be puzzled by Simple Present actions that can literally express anything in the world. One cannot restrict Simple Present to say something habitual or routine, for instance. No positive terms are collected enough to define the use of Simple Present.
Some even argue Simple Present doesn't express time at all, partly because they don't know how to define present time, and partly because the rumor "Simple Present expresses habitual action" doesn't speak of any time.
I have succeeded in defining present time, with a negative term.
In my youth, I spent a long period of time in studying what is the common point of all Simple Present actions? In deep frustration, I failed. Simple Present seemed to be able to express anything, so how could I use some meanings to restrict its use? Fundamentally, I didn't even know what the present time is. It sounded easy but it was extremely difficult to define it. However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past. The present time has to be defined negatively. Indeed, all actions in Simple Present do have a point in common: they are "now not yet finished", again in negativity. I found out that time is realized only by contrast. Without past, there is no present. Without present, there is no past. The two kinds of time have to be explained at the same time. I deemed it a breakthrough to define present time in a negative way, though I could say nothing positive about it.
If we don't use negativity to define present actions, people will be puzzled by Simple Present actions that can literally express anything in the world. One cannot restrict Simple Present to say something habitual or routine, for instance. No positive terms are collected enough to define the use of Simple Present.
Some even argue Simple Present doesn't express time at all, partly because they don't know how to define present time, and partly because the rumor "Simple Present expresses habitual action" doesn't speak of any time.
<< I didn't even know what the present time is. >>
Now.
<< However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: >>
How many solutions are there?
However, when I had arrived at the solution, it turned out to be really easy:
However, when I have shown the solution, students and others really like it.
Now.
<< However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: >>
How many solutions are there?
However, when I had arrived at the solution, it turned out to be really easy:
However, when I have shown the solution, students and others really like it.
Geoff_One wrote:
<<How many solutions are there?>>
My reply:
You have not quoted the whole sentence of mine:
"However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past."
The only solution is that present is not-past.
--------------------
You wrote:
<<However, when I had arrived at the solution, it turned out to be really easy:>>
My reply:
I guess you must have accused of my 'wrong' use of tense.
By that time, I spent more than half a year to figure out what is the proper definition for Simple Present actions and what is present time. I failed. Then I had to drop the study, with deep disappointment. It is much later that I have noticed the solution is very easy. Therefore, I may use Present Perfect to add the confession:
".....It sounded easy but it was extremely difficult to define it. However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past."
The Present Perfect tense is perfectly alright. As I say, Present Perfect indicates the solution is in between the Past Study and Now. It is not within the past study.
If I thought up the solution within that half year of hard working, I would not say "In deep frustration, I failed", would I?
<<How many solutions are there?>>
My reply:
You have not quoted the whole sentence of mine:
"However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past."
The only solution is that present is not-past.
--------------------
You wrote:
<<However, when I had arrived at the solution, it turned out to be really easy:>>
My reply:
I guess you must have accused of my 'wrong' use of tense.
By that time, I spent more than half a year to figure out what is the proper definition for Simple Present actions and what is present time. I failed. Then I had to drop the study, with deep disappointment. It is much later that I have noticed the solution is very easy. Therefore, I may use Present Perfect to add the confession:
".....It sounded easy but it was extremely difficult to define it. However, when I have arrived the solution, it turns out really easy: If there is past, present is not-past."
The Present Perfect tense is perfectly alright. As I say, Present Perfect indicates the solution is in between the Past Study and Now. It is not within the past study.
If I thought up the solution within that half year of hard working, I would not say "In deep frustration, I failed", would I?
Simple Present can be used to say as long time as an eternity:
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
The tense can also be used to say as short time as "instantaneous present":
Ex: I now put the turkey into the oven.
Between eternity and instantaneous present, there are countless various present time spans, each with its own description: habit, routine, love, exercise, examination, discussion.... and all meanings in a dictionary. How possibly can one find descriptions enough to include all such countless terms?
The bad thing is, foolish as it sounds, in my youth I didn't compare Simple Past and Simple Present, because grammars have always compared Simple Past with Present Perfect only. Misled by grammars, I really thought that Simple Present expresses some kind of meaning. How could one think of meaning in the negative sense? Even today, grammars use only positive terms to define Simple Present. In the following web page the author has noticed how capable Simple Present can be:
-- The simple present is used to describe an action, an event, or condition that is occurring in the present, at the moment of speaking or writing.
-- The simple present is used when the precise beginning or ending of a present action, event, or condition is unknown or is unimportant to the meaning of the sentence.
-- The simple present is used to express general truths such as scientific fact, as in the following sentences:
-- The simple present is used to indicate a habitual action, event, or condition, as in the following sentences:
-- The simple present is also used when writing about works of art, as in the following sentences.
-- The simple present can also be used to refer to a future event when used in conjunction with an adverb or adverbial phrase, as in the following sentences.
== http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html
Does the author say he has included all the use of Simple Present here? I don't think so. He forgets to say Simple Present can express ANYTHING.
Do you agree or not that Simple Present can say anything present?
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
The tense can also be used to say as short time as "instantaneous present":
Ex: I now put the turkey into the oven.
Between eternity and instantaneous present, there are countless various present time spans, each with its own description: habit, routine, love, exercise, examination, discussion.... and all meanings in a dictionary. How possibly can one find descriptions enough to include all such countless terms?
The bad thing is, foolish as it sounds, in my youth I didn't compare Simple Past and Simple Present, because grammars have always compared Simple Past with Present Perfect only. Misled by grammars, I really thought that Simple Present expresses some kind of meaning. How could one think of meaning in the negative sense? Even today, grammars use only positive terms to define Simple Present. In the following web page the author has noticed how capable Simple Present can be:
-- The simple present is used to describe an action, an event, or condition that is occurring in the present, at the moment of speaking or writing.
-- The simple present is used when the precise beginning or ending of a present action, event, or condition is unknown or is unimportant to the meaning of the sentence.
-- The simple present is used to express general truths such as scientific fact, as in the following sentences:
-- The simple present is used to indicate a habitual action, event, or condition, as in the following sentences:
-- The simple present is also used when writing about works of art, as in the following sentences.
-- The simple present can also be used to refer to a future event when used in conjunction with an adverb or adverbial phrase, as in the following sentences.
== http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html
Does the author say he has included all the use of Simple Present here? I don't think so. He forgets to say Simple Present can express ANYTHING.
Do you agree or not that Simple Present can say anything present?
<<Simple Present can be used to say as long time as an eternity:
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.>>
Contrarily: But it won't in a billion years.
Eg: The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't.
<<The tense can also be used to say as short time as "instantaneous present":
Ex: I now put the turkey into the oven>>
How short is a piece of roasting string?
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.>>
Contrarily: But it won't in a billion years.
Eg: The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't.
<<The tense can also be used to say as short time as "instantaneous present":
Ex: I now put the turkey into the oven>>
How short is a piece of roasting string?