A concept of time

<< I thought I am the first who claims Present Perfect is for Perfect Time Span. I was wrong. It had been claimed by some other learners. Search for Perfect Time and you know. What a disappointment. >>

Again - What about other languages such as Spanish? If you did not include Spanish and other relevant languages in your search to see who (which learner) had been first, then your search is incomplete.

«I am non-native speaker and here is my simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.»

This simplicity is nothing more than an illusion for the three statements give no useful information. You have mixed the natural classification of time as Past, Present or Future with this perfect time of your invention, screwing it up.

For example, what's the difference between perfect time and past time? Can you tell me?

«One more word is one more mistake" – this is my promise.»

Of course! It cannot be otherwise because by adding a word you risk to say something having a real sence, not a tautology carrying no information.

«I thought I am the first who claims Present Perfect is for Perfect Time Span.»

There's nothing new to it. Ok, you may call it as you wish, think out a new term and then say you've made a major discovery whereas what you actually have done is just rename a well-known thing.

I hope you won't say the events expressed by verbs in the Present Perfect in the hereunder sentences are both referring to Perfect Time Span

1. I have seen this movie
2. I have lived here for ages

«Come on, Geoff_One, Simple Present expresses present time, Simple Past expresses past time, and Present Perfect expresses Perfect Time. That's all.»

1. I breath.
2. I read.

Are these actions of the same time, which you call Present Time?

«Would you give examples to explain how to exercise the speaker's intention?»

Do you have troubles with logic or what? It's not a skill. It's just what one wants to express, how one wants to put facts and what attitude towadrs them one wants to express. Language as a means to express thougths. So, the skill in question is the capability of expressing thoughts as precisely as possible.

Gepff_One:
«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?»

Yes, but such connections can be of different degrees or of different types, and a tense is chosen basing thereon.


«But without evidence, how can you point out "many non-native speakers of English"? How do you know they are non-native speakers?
What do you mean by "other tenses"?
What do you mean by "these same tenses"?
How possibly one uses "other tenses to describe these same tenses"?»

By means of renaming, or, in other words, substitution of terms. How? Just like you!

«What on earth is the use of Simple Present? Habitual action? Routine? Permanency? Repeated action?»

There are several uses. Habitual and Permanent are two of them. Why should it be so primitive and strict that only one usage be possible?

In general, your mistakes are the following:

1. Confusion between the time of a moment (which is a point on time axis) and the time of an action (which is a compact on time axis).

2. Conviction of the possibility to build a one-one mapping between time
(keeping the confusion of (1)) and tense, without attracting the speaker's/writer's subjective attitude towards the actions expressed.

3. Refusal to explain everything in commonplace terms such as 'past', 'future' and 'present'.

4. Critics of grammar books and other posters by dint of finding smallest possibilities to misinterpret them, instead of trying hard as you can to understand what they mean.

«Some people read books only for the purpose of finding mistakes of the authors» (c)

You'll write some bla-bla-bla about this last part instead of having a five-minute look into wikipedia to understand what I mean — this is my promise.

P.S.: Please, don't accuse me of answering questions addressed to Geoff_One.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<This simplicity is nothing more than an illusion for the three statements give no useful information. You have mixed the natural classification of time as Past, Present or Future with this perfect time of your invention, screwing it up.
For example, what's the difference between perfect time and past time? Can you tell me?>>

My reply: I am afraid you have gone away for a long time. There is a clear difference between perfect time and past time.

I have been explaining the Perfect Time with examples consisted of many sentences:
Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
== Perfect Time for Present Perfect is realized by its Simple Past and Simple Present. It is in between Last Week and Now. It doesn't need a time adverb. The Perfect Time is only "realized" in the example.

Between Last Week and Now (Now is Thursday for example), there is really a time span you cannot deny. Also in some other forums, they would not deny there is clearly a time span there. If something happens and FINISHES within this time span, it is not logical for English to express it in Simple Past because it is not within past time.

Now I hope the example has answered your question: What is the difference between Perfect Time and Past time? Last Week is past time. Perfect Time is the time in between Last Week and Now, so it can be as specific as you can define Last Week and Now. Present Perfect cannot be explained on one-sentence basis.

Coincidentally, I have just posted here I am not the only one who claims of the Perfect Time. Can't you see that? Other learners have noticed the same time span like mine!! They call it Perfect Time Span (PTS):
== http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Perfect+Time+Span%22

Then will you accuse them of "mixing the natural classification of time"?

Ant_222 wrote:
<<There's nothing new to it. Ok, you may call it as you wish, think out a new term and then say you've made a major discovery whereas what you actually have done is just rename a well-known thing.>>

My reply:
So, if I claim Perfect Time Span, you will accuse me of having "mixed the natural classification of time".
But if other learners claim the same, you will agree and it is "a well-known thing".
What a strange standard you use to measure me.

I have studies their links of Perfect Time Span (PTS), their explanation is different from mine. So, it is not fair for you to say I just "think out a new term" for their discovery. For one thing, I have happened to use their term, but our approaches are totally different.

In the following I will introduce to you their opinions to Perfect Time Span (PTS).

As they will not explain tense by using a group of sentences, they cannot realize PTS as my approach does. All they do is talk of Since alone, on one-sentence basis:
Ex1: I have lived in Cambridge since last November. [Their own example]
== http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/24/24.979/www/perfect.pdf
The living encompasses Last November (Left Boundary) and Now (Right Boundary).

If you study their web pages long enough, these university learners actually offer a doubt at PTS, rather than agreeing with it. They are puzzled by some examples in which the action is not encompassing the two boundaries:
Ex2: I have sold my TV since "The Weakest Link" came on. [Their own example]
== The same page above.
Now the selling doesn't encompass The Weakest Link and Now. The trade is finished within the PTS. Therefore, they suspect, the Right Boundary of PTS is not always Now, and hence PTS is hard to define.

Put it simply, they are not really supporting PTS. Comparing Ex1 with Ex2, they find there are two different meanings in the time adverb Since:
<<Mittwoch 1988 (p. 207): 'Since' itself is ambiguous. 'Since 7.00' can mean from 7.00 till now or at some time between 7.00 and now. … These two meanings are clearly distinguished in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.>>
== The same page above.

Ant_222, I hope you may see now. They learners only regard Since as the Perfect Time Span token – with a doubt. They explain PTS on one-sentence basis (with one sentence and one tense). And most of all, they have never taken PTS as the sole explanation for Present Perfect tense. They have noted there are other uses for it:
<<Excursus
(7) He has just graduated from college. "Perfect of Recent Past"
(8) I have lost my glasses. "Perfect of Result">>
== The same page above.

However, I have promised you the simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.

My approach to Present Perfect and theirs are totally different. So how can you think I have taken their discovery and "think out a new term" for it? It is nonsense.

They doubt of PTS while I am proving PTS. I will point out their errors later on.

<< I have been explaining the Perfect Time with examples consisted of many sentences:
Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there." >>

I have been explaining Perfect Time with examples consisting of many sentences:

Eg: "Last week, I had a good meal at a new restaurant. I told Ms Lee, who now lunches there." >>

Geoff_One,

What is your point?

For I have to repeat the example repeatedly, I have to use simple and short sentences to realize the use of Present Perfect. At least, my example contains Present Perfect. But where is the point of your example? It is good expression, but can it bring out the use of Present Perfect? Your solution to Present Perfect is not to use it at all?

«My reply: I am afraid you have gone away for a long time. There is a clear difference between perfect time and past time...»

That's your confusion between the notions of time and tense, which I mentioned above.

«Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."»

Apart from the example's being not very good, if not very bad, you describe Pefect Time as follows:

«== Perfect Time for Present Perfect is realized by its Simple Past and Simple Present.»

If I got you right, you mean Perfect Time is expressed by the Present Perfect Tense relatively to two actions whereof one is in Past Simple and the other in Present Simple. Right? What it we don't have the two latter actions?

«It is in between Last Week and Now.»

Is yesterday Perfect Time or what? You see, I am acting just like you trying to find mistakes not to understand...

If you mean an open time interval whereof rightmost boundary is NOW, then it's Past+Present (if includes NOW) and Past (if it doesn't).

«Between Last Week and Now (Now is Thursday for example), there is really a time span you cannot deny.»

Of course there is one! It's the whole last week, which is Past!

«So, if I claim Perfect Time Span, you will accuse me of having "mixed the natural classification of time".
But if other learners claim the same, you will agree and it is "a well-known thing".
What a strange standard you use to measure me.
<...>
I have studies their links of Perfect Time Span (PTS), their explanation is different from mine
<...>
If you study their web pages long enough, these university learners actually offer a doubt at PTS, rather than agreeing with it.
<...>
Put it simply, they are not really supporting PTS»

If so, I do agree with them. I do not really support PTS too. No double standards...

Furthermore, if we a take a closer look at what they say...

«The living encompasses Last November (Left Boundary) and Now (Right Boundary).»

Very good. They do not confuse time with tense and define the latter in terms of the former.

«They are puzzled by some examples in which the action is not encompassing the two boundaries:
Ex2: I have sold my TV since "The Weakest Link" came on. [Their own example]
Now the selling doesn't encompass The Weakest Link and Now. The trade is finished within the PTS. Therefore, they suspect, the Right Boundary of PTS is not always Now, and hence PTS is hard to define.»

They are right here except for the latest conclusion. The time interval in question is still from the moment when "The Weakest Link" started to Now. The only difference from the previous example is that the action does not occupy the whole period. But it's still located therein!

So, how can I disagree with them when their viewpoint in many ways concurs with mine? I apply the same "measure" to you and to the others.

«My approach to Present Perfect and theirs are totally different. So how can you think I have taken their discovery and "think out a new term" for it? It is nonsense.»

First, I never said you use their "invention". I said your "theory" features no innovations or inventions at all!

Second, I wasn't fully right as to the last conclusion anyway. You seem to have a unique approach, which I (personally) find (to tell the truth) totally useless.

«At least, my example contains Present Perfect.»
But it's unnatural and bad sounding.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<If I got you right, you mean Perfect Time is expressed by the Present Perfect Tense relatively to two actions whereof one is in Past Simple and the other in Present Simple. Right? What it we don't have the two latter actions?>>

My reply:
You have got me right. I have some examples in which I have stuffed the three tenses, namely Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present together. Such examples come from condensing a paragraph into a few sentences, and that is why you regard them as awkward and not good examples. But my point is to illustrate the time relations of the three tenses. I have live examples in my web:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm

Now you ask, "What if we don't have the two latter actions (Simple Past and Simple Present)?" Then you have to make up your examples. Let's see how good your examples are. And most important, say you have condensed the whole writing that "doesn't have the two latter actions".

I have analyzed numerous writings that display the interactions of the three tenses, together with other tenses, of course. I have never seen a writing is consisted of only one sentence, and therefore I assume tense is used to tell the time relations between sentences.
Also, I have not seen a writing that is totally rid of Simple Past and Simple Present, and there is only Present Perfect. You have to invent one by yourself.

My made-up illustrating examples have a lot of similar live examples:
Ex: He said he went to war to find weapons of mass destruction. There were none. 655,000 Iraqis have died in that war. Now he wants to spend around £27 billion on weapons of mass destruction with the potential to slaughter 40 million people.
== Present Perfect is in the Perfect Time between SAID and WANTS.

May I ask where is your examples that "don't have the two latter actions"?

I asked another person:
<<But without evidence, how can you point out "many non-native speakers of English"? How do you know they are non-native speakers?>>

Ant_222 answered for him:
<<How? Just like you!>>

My reply:
I have admitted I am one. But how does the speaker who said "many non-native speakers of English" know others? Can you also answer in place of him?

I wrote:
«It is in between Last Week and Now.»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Is yesterday Perfect Time or what? You see, I am acting just like you trying to find mistakes not to understand...>>

My reply:
Please do that.

However, I am afraid you have not quoted my whole saying that has answered your question.

I have said Perfect Time doesn't need a time adverb:
<<Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I have told Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."
== Perfect Time for Present Perfect is realized by its Simple Past and Simple Present. It is in between Last Week and Now. IT DOESN'T NEED A TIME ADVERB. The Perfect Time is only "realized" in the example.>>

Please be fair. In a writing there can't be only one Past-Perfect-Present contrast. There can be many such contrasts. If you introduce Yesterday, it will initiate another Past-Perfect-Present contrast.

While you accuse of my example as bad one, why don't you make up your own, even in asking?

You didn't act like me at all. I always make up example for discussion.

I explained:
«Between Last Week and Now (Now is Thursday for example), there is really a time span you cannot deny.»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Of course there is one! It's the whole last week, which is Past!>>

My reply:
Then I have nothing to say. Actually, you are the first one who cannot see there is a time span between Last Week and Now. If now is Thursday, in between Last Week and Now there is a time span from Monday to Wednesday. But you pretend you don't know.

Furthermore, Last Week is NOT in between Last Week and Now!!

The Perfect Time can only be realized in between a past time and present time:
Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I HAVE TOLD Ms Lee. Now she takes her lunches there."

But if we specify the time, we have to use Simple Past:
Ex: "Last week I went to a new restaurant. The meal was good. I TOLD Ms Lee on Monday. Now she takes her lunches there."

According to my tense-changing process in the following page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
WE ARE PERMITTED to say a finished action in Present Perfect:
Ex: "I have told Ms Lee about a new restaurant."

But if we specify the time, WE ARE REQUIRED to say it in Simple Past:
Ex: "I told Ms Lee about a new restaurant on Monday."

«...you regard them as awkward and not good examples. But my point is to illustrate the time relations of the three tenses. I have live examples in my web:»

Ok, live examples are better. Let's see. Words maked as cursive at your site I have [embraced].

«Ex: When they [hurled] their insults at him, he [did not retaliate]; when he [suffered], he [made] no threats. Instead, he [entrusted] himself to him who [judges] justly. He himself [bore] our sins in his body on the tree (note: not "on the cross"...), so that we [might die] to sins and [live] for righteousness; by his wounds you [have been healed]. For you [were] like sheep going astray, but now you [have returned] to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:23-25)»

Hereunder I'll explain this excerpt from Bible on the one-sentence basis.

1. When they [hurled] their insults at him, he [did not retaliate];
It's in Past Simple because the speaker tell about Past events.

2. when he [suffered], he [made] no threats
The same reason.

3. Instead, he [entrusted] himself to him who [judges] justly.
[entrusted] in Past Simpple for the same reason.
[judges] in Present Simple. Yes, that's right: from the speaker's viewpoint, God is eternal.

4. He himself [bore] our sins in his body on the tree, so that we [might die] to sins and [live] for righteousness
See explanation of #1.
Note, [live] is actually [might live], so it's adverbial clause of purpose in past time.

5. by his wounds you [have been healed]
The (probably recent) result is emphasized.

6. For you [were] like sheep going astray, but now you [have returned] to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Again, the people's past (and now non-actual) state is expressed in Past Simple whereas the new (and actual by the moment of speech) state is written in Present Perfect.

«I have never seen a writing is consisted of only one sentence»

You gave repeated the same grammar mistake, so let me correct you:
«I have never seen a writing consisting of only one sentence»

Furthermore, it should be "I never saw...". A similar example:
"Have you been to Paris"
"Yes I have been to there but I didn't see [not "haven't seen] the Eifel tower."

«Also, I have not seen a writing that is totally rid of Simple Past and Simple Present, and there is only Present Perfect. You have to invent one by yourself.»

My example: «A lot of people told me it was impossible to write cd's on so old computers but read: I have recorded an audio-cd on a 386-machine!»
This example is lacking sentences is Present Simple.

«Ex: He said he went to war to find weapons of mass destruction. There were none. 655,000 Iraqis have died in that war. Now he wants to spend around ?27 billion on weapons of mass destruction with the potential to slaughter 40 million people.
== Present Perfect is in the Perfect Time between SAID and WANTS.»

Ha-ha-ha! Even if to follow your course, you are wrong here! You should have said: «Present Perfect is in the Perfect Time between THE MOMENT THE WAR BEGAN and WANTS (=The moment's of speech NOW).

I wrote: «You see, I am acting just like you trying to find mistakes not to understand...»
You asked: «Please do that.»
I refused: No, thanks!

«However, I am afraid you have not quoted my whole saying that has answered your question.
<...>
== Perfect Time for Present Perfect is realized by its Simple Past and Simple Present. It is in between Last Week and Now. IT DOESN'T NEED A TIME ADVERB.»

I din't mean Yesterday as time adverb! I meant the real yesterday, not the word "yesterday".

«In a writing there can't be only one Past-Perfect-Present contrast. There can be many such contrasts. If you introduce Yesterday, it will initiate another Past-Perfect-Present contrast.»

Ok, I see. My opinion is that these connections between tenses are not definitive, many sentences are not tense-wise connected at all, so using thereof is irrelevant and won't give correct results. As a proof, I explained one of your site's examples on the one-sentence basis.

«You didn't act like me at all. I always make up example for discussion.»

Ok, let's discuss live examples from your site of from WWW.

«Then I have nothing to say. Actually, you are the first one who cannot see there is a time span between Last Week and Now. If now is Thursday, in between Last Week and Now there is a time span from Monday to Wednesday. But you pretend you don't know.»

I wrote I do see that time span! You quoted that yourself.

«Furthermore, Last Week is NOT in between Last Week and Now!!»

Last week as a real weak, a seven day interval, is between the time moment defined by the adverb "last week" and the momend defined by "Now".

«But if we specify the time, we have to use Simple Past:»

Hey, isn't that the "golden rule" you are so eagerly lashing?

«Combining two uses of Present Perfect like this will confuse students. Present Perfect will then be a nightmare to any serious learner who wants to make it straight.»

Yes, there are two (or, maybe, more) uses of the Present Perfect, though I don't think it will confuse "any serious learner". And I am pretty sure a majority serious learners have the same opinion.

792

It's going to exceed 1000!

"It's going to exceed 1000!"

Alas, there seems no way to stop it either. Even the spam postings seem to have more appeal now. Tiffany glass, anyone?

Anyway, this makes 794.