A concept of time

Ant_222 wrote:
<<5. by his wounds you [have been healed]
The (probably recent) result is emphasized.>>

My reply:
If you still explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis, you will never succeed in telling the difference between the two tenses.

Here is a sure example of use of "Perfect of Result":
<<Excursus
(7) He has just graduated from college. "Perfect of Recent Past"
(8) I have lost my glasses. "Perfect of Result">>
== http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/24/24.979/www/perfect.pdf

Are you sure one cannot say "I lost my glasses"? Any difference between the two tenses?

Ant_222 wrote:
<<I wrote I do see that time span! You quoted that yourself.>>

My reply:
What do you mean? When I explained "Between Last Week and Now (Now is Thursday for example), there is really a time span you cannot deny." You said you didn't see the Perfect Time but the whole last week. This is what I quoted from you:
<<Of course there is one! It's the whole last week, which is Past!>>

Ant_222 wrote:
<<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".>>

My reply:
Again, this proves you can see no time span between Last Week and Now.

Today is 19, January 2007. "Last Week" is not 12-18, January 2007. The seven day interval (12-18) before 19Jan is called "the past week".

"Last Week" is 7-13 January 2007, another seven day interval. Check the calendar!!

Ant_222 wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
You must have been drinking. There is "but READ", which is a Simple-Present structure!! You have presented yourself a wrong example, and you are calling my example bad one!!

What you wanted to say is this:
Ex: "A lot of people TOLD me it was impossible to write cd's on so old computers. But I HAVE RECORDED an audio-cd on a 386-machine!" (lacking Simple Present)
However, such example has been analyzed as "<DPTA + Past> + Perfect", in my web page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_1.htm#_3_3_2

In my book I have analyzed first simple combinations, and then put them all in a paragraph, in the page you have visited:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm

This is how I explain tense, taking chance of your example:
Now HAVE RECORDED throws a time contrast with TOLD. In this way, because we know of Past-Perfect-Present contrast, we know HAVE RECORDED happens later than TOLD. Then even if we re-arrange -- as we often do -- the time sequence of the example, we still know which action happens first:
Ex: "I HAVE RECORDED an audio-cd on a 386-machine! A lot of people TOLD me it was impossible to write cd's on so old computers."
== Again, because we know of the Past-Perfect-Present contrast, we still know HAVE RECORDED happens later than TOLD.
In this way, tense is effective in telling of time. This is why we subconsciously agree tense is used to express time.

Observe your own analysis of "Perfect of Result". No matter how you say, it can never lead us to believe tense is used to express time. Result is not Time. However, I am afraid you will never get the point. You can't even get where is Perfect Time everyone is aware of!

All this time, all this footnoting, all the quibbling... you must be an expert on the English language by now

http://cunnane.net/rolleyes.png

Ant_222 wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
This is most uninformed message I have never seen. Inexperienced students know Present Perfect is difficult to learn, but they don't even know how to ask. Would-be teachers know how to ask, so serious learners have to admit, openly in renowned publication or on the web, they can't get anywhere more than just the name of Present Perfect.

Check the following page:
<<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

Why? There are no serious learners in the above country anymore? Or is the tense simply beyond the reach of serious learners?

According to my tense-changing process, Present Perfect has dual functions that are contradictory:
Ex1: He has worked in that company before. (a finished action)
Ex2: He has worked in that company since last month. (an unfinished action)

Grammars without tense-changing process couldn't even admit openly THE TWO FUNCTIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY. Majority serious learners can only word-play seriously.

Do you really can tell the difference between the following two tenses, once and for all?
Ex3: I have lost my glasses.
Ex4: I lost my glasses.

I did discuss about this pair of examples. A serious learner had to finally conclude that, in Ex4, Simple Past means "I recovered the glasses", because the 'losing' is finished and over. Do you agree? Do you have any better serious-learner idea?

------------------------
Without tense-changing process, Present Perfect is not explainable.
On one-sentence basis, Present Perfect is not explainable.
If one fails to see the Perfect Time, Present Perfect is not explainable.
These are my words.

However, if we know where is Perfect Time, we may just take it for granted that English owns the three time spans and there is a serious simplicity:
-- Simple Present indicates present time.
-- Present Perfect indicates Perfect Time.
-- Simple Past indicates past time.

I explained:
«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.»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<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).>>

My reply:
You may laugh first, but we don't do time that way. If according to your precision, we have to say the Perfect Time is in between the moment the first Iraqis died and the present time. This is not practical.

If we say "He stumbled on the staircase Yesterday ", we don't mean he did it the whole yesterday. Such interpretation is not practical.

Similarly, we take the Perfect Time as in between past and pesent, ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT. This is enough.

Geoff_One wrote,
<<Again - What about other languages such as Spanish?>>

I don't know Spanish.

"English authorities",

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, you are joke-making English authorities.

Did you say something?

«Are you sure one cannot say "I lost my glasses"? Any difference between the two tenses?»

I can say it in both Simple and Pefrect Past. But the latter is more suitable as soon as you haven't found them and therefore have troubles.

«Last Week" is 7-13 January 2007, another seven day interval. Check the calendar!!»

Ok. Provided today is 19th the time span in quesion is 14th-18th. But why should one treat this "time span" in a special way?

«You must have been drinking. There is "but READ", which is a Simple-Present structure!! You have presented yourself a wrong example, and you are calling my example bad one!!»

In my exmple "read" is not in Present Simple, it's in Imerative Mode.

«However, such example has been analyzed as "<DPTA + Past> + Perfect", in my web page:»

If you have a whole written book on the English teses wherein you have analyzed so many different patterns how dare you to call your approach simple and easy to understand compared to the standard view on teses?

Ok, now can you analyze the two following examples:

1. «Yesterday, at the IT-exhibition, a lot of people told me it was impossible to write cd's on so old computers. But I HAVE RECORDED an audio-cd on a 386-machine!»

2. A lot of people have told me it is impossible to write cd's on so old computers. But I HAVE RECORDED an audio-cd on a 386-machine!

«This is why we subconsciously agree tense is used to express time.»

Subconsciously? I agree with that knowingly! However, choice of tense is sometimes affeted by the writer's attitude towards the actions/events expressed.

«However, I am afraid you will never get the point. You can't even get where is Perfect Time everyone is aware of!»

This time do not exist as such. You define it in terms a language's grammar thus causing it to be secondary to the structure of the language.

«Why? There are no serious learners in the above country anymore? Or is the tense simply beyond the reach of serious learners?»

That's an exaggeration. One particular women Marisa R. Constantinides has troubles explaining Present Perfect to her students. Also, there are a lot of "serious leaners" an Antimoon that have mastered English excellently.

«Grammars without tense-changing process couldn't even admit openly THE TWO FUNCTIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY.»

But they are not. They do not conflict woth each other because every time only one function is assumed.

«I did discuss about this pair of examples.»
At Antimoon? If not, try asking it here.

«A serious learner had to finally conclude that, in Ex4, Simple Past means "I recovered the glasses", because the 'losing' is finished and over. Do you agree?»

No. The difference is... finer.

«If according to your precision, we have to say the Perfect Time is in between the moment the first Iraqis died and the present time. This is not practical.»

But "655,000 Iraqis HAVE DIED" since the war began! And you call it Perfect Time. If I am not right than what happens in Perfect Time accoring to your definition?

«Grammars without tense-changing process couldn't even admit openly THE TWO FUNCTIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY»

Different, not "contradictory".

808!

This is getting exciting!

OK, I lied. It's not.

Nothing so loooong can be exciting...