|
|
A concept of time
I pointed out a use for Simple Present known to many grammars:
<<Simple Present can be used to say as long time as an eternity:
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.>>
Guest wrote:
<<Contrarily: But it won't in a billion years.
Eg: The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't.>>
My reply:
When I report I failed in my youth in defining Simple Present, I was referring to such contradictory examples of yours. Grammar books give examples on one-sentence basis, but we do thinking and reasoning in time contrasts like your examples. Therefore, in the long run, grammars fail.
The insurmountable difficulty is, time is flowing. What we call Eternity or Habit will be not so in the future. So how can one define tense at all, in term of the time flow? I tried hundreds of testing definitions, like "present eternity", etc. but all failed. That is to say, the definitions for the examples I have listed above, from grammar books, will fail in close scrutiny like yours.
As for now, however, I know I can use past and present to indicate the time flow. Such time contrasts happen in any languages in the world. My definition for Present Time is "not-past", a negative term. A Simple Present action is "Now Not Yet Finished". Let's see if it passes your scrutiny or not.
In the time contrast like this:
Ex: "The earth revolves around the sun. But it won't in a billion years."
by Simple Present, I just say the action that The earth revolves around the sun is Now Not Yet Finished – even with your future information in proximity. That is to say, your contradictory information can deny the conventional explanation, but not mine.
Again, your another example is another time contrast:
Eg: "The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't."
By Simple Present I say the action that The milkman stops by every day is again Now Not Yet Finished. That is to say, today the milkman still stops by. His yesterday's failure may allow you to deny the saying in grammar books that it is a habitual action, but not my definition Now Not Yet Finished.
Simple Present can be used to say ANYTHING present. If so, the multi-definitions from the web page of www_arts.uottawa.ca are still highly insufficient, though it has listed more definitions than many other grammar websites.
---------------------
You asked:
<<How short is a piece of roasting string?>>
My reply:
You may please tell me about it. At any rate, the best you can do is to deny what conventional grammars say. I am afraid you cannot deny my simple definition that Simple Present expresses present time.
Then why don't grammars just say Simple Present is used to say something present?
Again, it is because of the nuisance of Present Perfect. The same web page says:
<<The present perfect tense is used to describe action that began in the past and continues INTO THE PRESENT or has just been completed at the moment of utterance. The present perfect is often used to suggest that a past action still has an effect upon something happening IN THE PRESENT.>>
== http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html
A very typical definition. As you can see, however, since the definition for Present Perfect has mentioned repeatedly the present time, grammars have to save some present time for Present Perfect. It follows that present time is not all allocated to Simple Present alone.
Ultimately, as I have said, the trouble of explaining tense is how to share TWO kinds of time – present and past – to the THREE kinds of tenses, namely Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present. Therefore, they cannot say in a simple way:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
But we can. After we have located where is the Perfect Time, I may simply say:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
"One more word is one more mistake" – this is my promise.
P.S. When we put sentences together, there are other advanced rules.
So far, no one has broken my promise.
>>Guest wrote:
<<Contrarily: But it won't in a billion years.
Eg: The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't.>>
My reply:
When I report I failed in my youth in defining Simple Present, I was referring to such contradictory examples of yours. Grammar books give examples on one-sentence basis, but we do thinking and reasoning in time contrasts like your examples. Therefore, in the long run, grammars fail.
...
By Simple Present I say the action that The milkman stops by every day is again Now Not Yet Finished. That is to say, today the milkman still stops by. His yesterday's failure may allow you to deny the saying in grammar books that it is a habitual action, but not my definition Now Not Yet Finished.
...
<<
Nope, the "grammar book" style works just fine in the first sentence. The second sentence modifies the happenings extraordinarily but the habitual action continues.
>>You asked:
<<How short is a piece of roasting string?>>
My reply:
You may please tell me about it.<<
Short enough.
>> At any rate, the best you can do is to deny what conventional grammars say. <<
What for? Everything's fine.
Guest wrote:
<<Nope, the "grammar book" style works just fine in the first sentence. The second sentence modifies the happenings extraordinarily but the habitual action continues.>>
My reply:
Which one is "the first sentence"? And which one is "the second sentence"? Please be reminded that the author of the web page and I are talking about the tense, rather than the sentence.
In "The second sentence modifies the happenings extraordinarily...", do you say one sentence modifies another sentence?
What is "modifies.....extraordinarily"? I am afraid your terms and explanations are rather extraordinary.
Guest wrote:
<<What for? Everything's fine.>>
My reply:
I am afraid not everything is fine. On one-sentence basis, you cannot tell the difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect.
The www_arts.uottawa.ca's web page has this example and its explanation:
<<Eg: The health department has decided that all high school students should be immunised against meningitis.
== The writer of this sentence uses the present perfect in order to suggest that the decision made in the past is still of importance in the present. >>
Please be reminded that, even if the example is in Simple Past, the decision is of the same importance in the present. But if you think Simple Past means less importance or no importance at all, please say it clearly. Say it and I will believe you.
Those developing teachers who have a duty to know the clear difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect, are deeply preplexed by such rough explanation above. It is not fine at all. I am referring to the developing teacher in the following page:
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/pp4_sarn.htm
where the author confesses:
<<Several years ago I received a call from a friend. She was hoping for a place on a TEFL Certificate course, and she had a problem. 'Help me' she said. 'I can't get my head round the present perfect.' Easy, I thought. I was wrong. 'But everything has current relevance' she protested. 'Otherwise we wouldn't bother saying it.....'>>
Tense is used to express time, not importance. Yesterday's news expressed in Simple Past is because of Time. Will you argue all of yesterday's news in Simple Past are of no importance in the present?
Guest wrote:
<<What for? Everything's fine.>>
My reply:
Maybe you are new here. As I have pointed out before, the common definition for Present Perfect, such as the one in the web page, is actually for Simple Present:
<<The present perfect tense is used to describe action that began in the past and continues into the present.....>>
== http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html
If Simple Present expresses a habitual action, don't you notice that the habitual action is also "action that began in the past and continues into the present"?
Or will you claim the habitual action is suddenly here today without its beginning in the past?
What a mess! The web page has defined Present Perfect to be confused with both Simple Past and Simple Present. And you claim "Everything's fine"?
>>Which one is "the first sentence"? And which one is "the second sentence"?<<
quote: <<The milkman stops by everyday. But yesterday he didn't.>>
>>I am afraid not everything is fine.<<
It is; you're just very confused but that's okay.
Guest wrote:
<<you're just very confused but that's okay.>>
My reply:
If what I have pointed out is a confusion, then you want to say yesterday's news in Simple Past is not of importance in the present, don't you?
I am not afraid if I admit Present Perfect is difficult and confusing. Sincere teachers have to admit it when facing a deeply troubled student. I have quoted Sarn Rich of www_developingteachers.com, who has wrongly thought the tense is easy. I would like to quote two more teachers on-line who find Present Perfect a nuisance:
Case1
<<One of these 'difficult' grammatical areas that have caused Greek language learners and teachers quite a few headaches is the Present Perfect. Generations have sweated over it and yet, it still looms over the horizon like an ugly monster – a monster, moreover, not with one, but with quite a few heads!
FOCUS ON TEACHING GRAMMAR*
by Marisa R. Constantinides, Dip. RSA, MA App Ling
Teacher trainer-Author – CELT Athens
* This article was first published in ELT Review in 1985 >>
== http://www.celt.edu.gr/focus_on_teaching_grammar.htm
Case2
<<Teaching tips
Of all the English tenses, the present perfect is undoubtedly the most difficult one for students to learn and, for that reason, the most difficult one to teach.>>
== http://www.csuchico.edu/~gt18/232/PresPerfInfoGap.html
I could list more teachers who are asking on-line how to explain to students the Present Perfect tense more easily.
As for you, I am afraid your comment will be of course: Students are just very confused but that's okay.
Why do students find Present Perfect difficult? It is because they have met something like this in www_arts.uottawa.ca:
<<The present perfect tense is used to describe action that began in the past and continues INTO THE PRESENT or has just been completed at the moment of utterance. The present perfect is often used to suggest that a past action still has an effect upon something happening IN THE PRESENT.>>
== http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html
The author would defend himself safely: "You say Present Perfect is a past action? You're right, I do say it, don't I? You say Present Perfect is an unfinished action up to the present? You're right, I do say it, don't I?"
The interesting theory is that Present Perfect suggests a past action has current relevancy. What then about a past action in Simple Past? Well, the author will not say it very clearly, but you students may take a guess. If you guess wrong, you are confused. So, take a correct guess!!
Ultimately, as I have pointed out, the trouble of explaining tense is how to share TWO kinds of time – present and past – to the THREE kinds of tenses, namely Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present.
If you can make it clear that Present Perfect is different from Simple Past, then it is same as Simple Present.
If you can make it clear that Present Perfect is different from Simple Present, then it is same as Simple Past.
There is no way for you and your students to avoid the confusion.
The only thing you can do is call students 'confused' before he calls you.
A teacher is quite aware that Present Perfect is hard to teach:
<<Teaching tips
Of all the English tenses, the present perfect is undoubtedly the most difficult one for students to learn and, for that reason, the most difficult one to teach.>>
== http://www.csuchico.edu/~gt18/232/PresPerfInfoGap.html
However, the same teacher in the same page still can't see his or her definition for Present Perfect is actually one for Simple Present:
<<As you fill in the chart, point out that, as the chart shows, the present perfect is used for things that started in the past and are still true now. Using the tense chart, you can literally show the students that SOMETHING STARTED IN THE PAST AND IS STILL HAPPENING NOW!
By the time the whole chart has been filled in, the students will have practised three different tenses: the present tense - for discussing what the people in the chart are doing now, the past tense for discussing what was done in the past, and the present perfect for discussing WHAT WAS BEGAN IN THE PAST AND IS STILL HAPPENING NOW.>>
This is the trouble. Word for word, Simple Present actions are also "SOMETHING STARTED IN THE PAST AND IS STILL HAPPENING NOW!":
Ex: He walks to work.
Ex: She goes to school every day.
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
So, by repeating "SOMETHING STARTED IN THE PAST AND IS STILL HAPPENING NOW", is the teacher teaching whether Simple Present or Present Perfect? Students wouldn't know. Neither would the teacher.
Can we see now? The teachers themselves are unknowingly confused by Present Perfect, so how can they explain Present Perfect clearly to students?
Conventional grammars have always borrowed the definition of Simple Present to define Present Perfect, so that one can see there is a difference from Simple Past. What kind of explanation is this?
I do believe sincere teachers want to help confused students. But how?
"I do believe sincere teachers want to help confused students. But how?"
Well, I'm not sure they can.
English tense methodology is hopelessly bound up in fairly arbitrary terminology; terminology far more suited to Latin than English.
Then you should try my simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
"One more word is one more mistake" – this is my promise.
The use of the present perfect is largely constrained not so much by the facts of the real world, but instead by the speaker's intention to show a connection between an event in a past time and the present. Naturally, at times this description will apply to a range of different situations; this is not surprising as, except in a broad sense, connecting the past to the present occurs in a broad range of situations. The key to even a preliminary understanding however lies in recognizing that it is the speaker's intention to characterize an event as relevant to the present, not the situation itself, that is primarily what is being charcterized by the use of the present perfect tense.
Interestingly, many, many non-native speakers of English use other tenses to describe these same tenses. And, why not? The use of other tenses loses very little aside from the explicit connection of the past event to the present time and even here the mere mention of a past event implicitly implies a present connection, or why would it even be mentioned?
|