|
|
A concept of time
I asked:
«Are you sure one cannot say "I lost my glasses"? Any difference between the two tenses?»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<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.>>
My reply:
You are correct, you can say it in both Simple Past and Present Perfect. Now you may see why it is a headache for serious teachers and students who want to see the difference.
If you think your explanation is good enough, they don't.
As for the suitability, it is in your imagination and good hope. People use Simple Past in speech most of the time, as readers in this forum say and as I hear movies say. In a forum a teacher once reported he had tried to watch carefully for one day how often people use Present Perfect in speech. He posted the result: in speech, Present Perfect is extinct.
"As soon as" and "just" is not the reason to use Present Perfect:
Ex: "I have looked for my key, and found out it is not in my pocket. I have had trouble. Immediately I have called my wife. She has told me the key is on the table at home."
Will you prefer Simple Past or Present Perfect for this as-soon-as case?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<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?>>
My reply:
How dare you see my conclusion is not a simple solution:
-- Simple Present indicates present time.
-- Present Perfect indicates Perfect Time.
-- Simple Past indicates past time.
My book is just like this thread. Most of the time I have to refute the complication and the vagueness people have imposed on tense.
They will throw a doubt on me and I keep on explaining myself with a past-perfect-present contrast. Some person will claim he cannot see the Perfect Time and I have to prove its existence. Some people claim they can explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis, and I have to prove they can't, or else my simplicity is a waste.
why are you people fighting over some stupid grammar issues... just speak the way you want, and it all will be fine!!
Lina,
We are speaking. Not fighting. Take it easy.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Ok, now can you analyze the two following examples:
Ex1. "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!"
Ex2. "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!">>
My reply:
As for Ex1, I have to take it for granted that you HAVE RECORDED it today. It is no more than a "<DPTA + Past> + Perfect" combination:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_1.htm#_3_3_2
Where is the difficulty?
Please note that Ex1 is not same as the following example:
Ex3: "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 BEFORE!"
== With BEFORE, the recording is BEFORE yesterday.
--------------------
As for Ex2, the two Present Perfect actions are both in the Perfect Time. Where is the difficulty? They are finished actions, but not finished in a past time nor finishing at the present time.
Because I know the past-perfect-present contrast, I know where these Present Perfect actions are. The fact that you haven't quoted another tense for contrast, doesn't mean there will never be another tense around Ex2, does it?
Your trick is to form a time contrast in Ex2, in a way so that it is close to "one sentence and ONE TENSE", the one-sentence basis. What is the point? To prove that I still can't explain ONE tense by putting TWO sentences together?
I said:
«This is why we subconsciously agree tense is used to express time.»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Subconsciously? I agree with that knowingly! However, choice of tense is sometimes affeted by the writer's attitude towards the actions/events expressed.>>
My reply:
I can't see in any way you agree with that knowingly. But you have already knowingly explained why tense is not used to express time – "However, choice of tense is sometimes affeted by the writer's attitude towards the actions/events expressed."
Say, can you quote any past statement of yours that has shown you agree tense is used to express time? Would it be this one: "However, choice of tense is sometimes affeted by the writer's attitude towards the actions/events expressed."?
«"As soon as" and "just" is not the reason to use Present Perfect:»
Did I tell the opposite?
«How dare you see my conclusion is not a simple solution...»
The three statements tell nothing new to me except for the so-called Perfect Time, which you have explain futher in the book because this type of time is far from being intuitively understood or a commonplace...
«My book is just like this thread. Most of the time I have to refute the complication and the vagueness people have imposed on tense.»
I believe your book is not actually a record of a any kind of discussion, rather it's a monologue of yours. So, I can't attribute it's great volume to anything else than to the need to write that much about your approach, risking not to be understood otherwise.
Also think a learner would prefer to get a basic understanding of the English tenses from a classic grammar book and, then, draw a deeper comprehension from practice: reading and writing, talking, discussing at forums and so on, than to write a while book about tenses.
Can I ask, have you ever got a review of your book from native speakers or linguists or advanced (those whereof we may be sure their English is good) learners? Is your book sold outside China? I mean, are there serious people supporting your approach to the English teses?
About the example
«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!»
You said:
«As for Ex1, I have to take it for granted that you HAVE RECORDED it today.»
But no! I can have recorded it 6 years ago and still say so.
If you don't believe me here is what native speakers say about a similar sentence:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectTheUseOf/dnjqb/Post.htm
«They are finished actions, but not finished in a past time nor finishing at the present time.»
Again, you are not right. The first action: "I have been told" is analogous to "I have lived here since..." — it still lasting. Am I not right?
«I can't see in any way you agree with that knowingly. But you have already knowingly explained why tense is not used to express time – "However, choice of tense is sometimes affeted by the writer's attitude towards the actions/events expressed."»
No, it's just that tesnse expresses both time and the speaker's attitude and, therefore, depends on both.
«Say, can you quote any past statement of yours that has shown you agree tense is used to express time?»
Yes: «I agree with that knowingly» — from my previos post.
Ant_222 gave an example:
Ex1. "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!"
I commented:
<<As for Ex1, I have to take it for granted that you HAVE RECORDED it today.>>
Ant_222 wrote:
<<But no! I can have recorded it 6 years ago and still say so.
If you don't believe me here is what native speakers say about a similar sentence:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentPerfectTheUseOf/dnjqb/Post.htm
>>
My reply:
You should have posted your example here too.
First at all, not only did I answer your Ex1, I also followed it with a supplement:
<<Please note that Ex1 is not same as the following example:
Ex3: "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 BEFORE!"
== With BEFORE, the recording is BEFORE yesterday.>>
I did recommend you to add 'BEFORE' so as to imply HAVE RECORDED is prior to yesterday.
Now, as for your example in other forum, there is a time token working like my BEFORE. It rationalizes that Present Perfect happens prior to Yesterday. Here is your example:
Ex: «Yesterday, at the exhibition, a lot of people told me it was impossible to write a 1000-page book in a month but I have written my "Brief Introduction to Arithmetics", which has 1280 pages in a small font, IN A SPACE OF THREE WEEKS»
== In between Yesterday and Now, there will not be a time span of 'IN A SPACE OF THREE WEEKS', so the time adverbial explains you would not have written it in between Yesterday and Now. The only and easy alternative is, you have written it before Yesterday.
More correctly, in your example of writing, there are two time adverbs. One is for Simple Past, and one for Present Perfect. It is not same as your Ex1 here, which has only one time adverb in Yesterday.
According to my tense-changing process, time adverb plays a major role not only in Simple Past, but also in Present Perfect. Yes, you have ridiculed my tense-changing process:
<<Hey, isn't that the "golden rule" you are so eagerly lashing?>>
But do you have a better one? Any one? Do you know of any one rule in English tense?
Ant-222 wanted to find examples showing there is Present Perfect that is not in Perfect Time between Yesterday and Now. His example was undesirable, unfortunately.
Ironically, however, a few days ago I did point out here that there is really such Present Perfect use! There are examples and very often.
In a printed newspaper, they use Simple Past to report yesterday's happenings. But why is there Present Perfect at all? This may be what Ant_222 wants.
Newspapers are printed at night. Therefore, logically, the news would not say things that happen between Yesterday and Today. If there is something happening in between Yesterday Night and Now, there will be no chance to update the printed newspapers. So, why there is Present Perfect or Simple Present appearing in newspapers at all? My question can be reviewed in the following page:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t494-765.htm
Ant_222, may I know what do you think?
Such present-perfect-news question has halted a 'linguistic' discussion in some forum and they could not explain or continue. However, at that time we didn't discuss Perfect Time. I asked them why in the same news there are both SAID and SAYS being used, sometimes Present Perfect and sometimes Past Perfect. This is actually not a rare phenomenon, and I would like to point out another example of today, for today:
Ex: Maliki HAS BEEN CRITICIZED by Washington and leaders of the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority for failing to disarm his Mehdi Army..... Abdul Mahdi Mtiri, a member of the Sadrists' political committee, SAID Iraqi officials HAD PROMISED Darraji would be released..... The United Nations SAYS more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006.
== HAS BEEN CRITICIZED + SAID + HAD PROMISED + SAYS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iraq_dc
Why does the reporter sometimes use SAID, and sometimes SAYS?
Why there is Present Perfect appearing in news at all? If it happens prior to yesterday's Simple Past actions, why don't they use Past Perfect?
Try to ask about this in your forums. It will be interesting. We'll wait for the answer.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<The three statements tell nothing new to me except for the so-called Perfect Time, which you have explain futher in the book because this type of time is far from being intuitively understood or a commonplace...>>
My reply:
Far from commonplace?
It depends on what you want. If you need, you may claim the Perfect Time is "nothing new" and "well-known thing":
<<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.>>
Either the past criticism is true or the present comment is true. It can't be both.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<1. I breath.
2. I read.
Are these actions of the same time, which you call Present Time?>>
My reply: Yes and yes. What is the point you really want to ask?
"The sentence expresses the meaning, and the tense expresses the time." -- I guess I have repeated this more than 50 times here in this thread.
I am sorry. The following link has been changed to another news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iraq_dc
In order to talk about the phenomenon of:
== HAS BEEN CRITICIZED + SAID + HAD PROMISED + SAYS
I may have to post the whole news below:
==============
Iraqi cleric's group says U.S. wants confrontation
By Mariam Karouny
6 minutes ago
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's political movement accused Washington on Saturday of trying to provoke a confrontation by arresting of one of its key figures.
Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, a spokesman for Sadr, was among at least three people arrested by U.S. and Iraqi troops in a midnight raid on Sadr City, a stronghold of Sadr's Mehdi Army militia in northeast Baghdad where U.S. forces rarely venture.
Sadr's movement is a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite bloc in the government, but Maliki HAS BEEN CRITICIZED by Washington and leaders of the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority for failing to disarm his Mehdi Army.
Abdul Mahdi Mtiri, a member of the Sadrists' political committee, SAID Iraqi officials HAD PROMISED Darraji would be released. "We don't know how serious this promise is because so far he has not been released," Mtiri told Reuters.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, who said on Friday the operation had Maliki's full backing, told Iraqiya state television he did not expect Darraji to be released on Saturday.
"The matter is not in the hands of the Iraqi government. The Americans arrested him and they're investigating him and when they're finished they will release him," said Dabbagh.
Dealing with Sadr and the Mehdi Army militia is a burning issue for U.S. forces and Maliki as they prepare what many see as a last-ditch effort to curb the sectarian violence that is pushing Iraq toward civil war.
Sadr, a young populist cleric, enjoys a mass following in Iraq and some backing from Shi'ite Iran.
"We know the truth behind this arrest is the Americans want to target the Sadrists and they want to draw the Sadrists into a confrontation with the American troops," Mtiri said.
Both Shi'ite militias and Sunni insurgent groups are blamed for thousands of killings in the past year. The United Nations SAYS more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006. Dozens of people are found tortured and shot in Baghdad every day.
Dabbagh said on Friday Darraji's arrest was "not against the Sadrists" as a political movement, but motivated by security concerns about Darraji. The U.S. military did not confirm he was among those arrested.
After criticism from Washington, Maliki has announced that the coming crackdown in Baghdad, backed by most of the 21,500 American reinforcements being sent by President George W. Bush, will tackle Shi'ite militias as well as Sunni insurgents.
The mayor of Sadr City, Rahim al-Darraji, said there were no armed groups in the area except for official government forces.
I copied part of the news above and searched for its EXACT MATCH, and the news is still there, in a different web page.
What I want to say is, I would not make up tenses for discussion.
It is very common for Simple Past and Simple Present to be used in the same news. Also, Present Perfect and Past Perfect may also appear in the same news. Conventional grammars will have a hard time to explain this phenomenon.
«First at all, not only did I answer your Ex1, I also followed it with a supplement:»
You answer was incorrect: you said the disc was recorded "today", which is not right.
As to your supplement, a "before" in the end, I am not sure it ok.
«I did recommend you to add 'BEFORE' so as to imply HAVE RECORDED is prior to yesterday»
Yes, but no native speaker would consider this a useful recommendation.
«More correctly, in your example of writing, there are two time adverbs. One is for Simple Past, and one for Present Perfect. It is not same as your Ex1 here, which has only one time adverb in Yesterday.»
Nope, they both have only one adverb indicating time: yesterday. the other phrase — "in a time span of three weeks" - which you mistook as indicatin time, actually indicates duration.
«Yes, you have ridiculed my tense-changing process:
<<Hey, isn't that the "golden rule" you are so eagerly lashing?>>»
I was serious saying that. So would please give a serious answer?
«But do you have a better one? Any one? Do you know of any one rule in English tense?»
I know. Just open one of the classic grammar books. Although their approach to the tense doesn;t appeal to me, it way much better and clear than yours.
«Ant-222 wanted to find examples showing there is Present Perfect that is not in Perfect Time between Yesterday and Now. His example was undesirable, unfortunately.»
Neither I was trying to find such examples - because all you say about "Perfect time which between Yesterday and Now" is a nonsence to me - nor my example is bad.
«In a printed newspaper, they use Simple Past to report yesterday's happenings. But why is there Present Perfect at all? This may be what Ant_222 wants.
<...>
Ant_222, may I know what do you think?»
I commented on a similar question of yours here:
http://www.proz.com/topic/39405?start=15&float=
Newspapers' use of the Present Perfect is in a good accordance with the rules you'll find in any conventional grammar book. Also see my comments at the link above.
«Such present-perfect-news question has halted a 'linguistic' discussion in some forum and they could not explain or continue.»
I have been at that discussion and have posted a reply thereto. After reading it, I came to the conclusion that the discussion had stopped for another reason: people found you were just picking on every phrase that, out of the context, allowed for an ambigous interpretation instead of really discussing the subject.
A lot of them are professional linguists loving their science and I am pretty sure, if their inability to answer had been the real reason they would have admitted it, as they do in other threads. Instead, they had just stopped replying without a word. They had considered it a waste of time.
«Ex: Maliki HAS BEEN CRITICIZED by Washington and leaders of the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority for failing to disarm his Mehdi Army..... Abdul Mahdi Mtiri, a member of the Sadrists' political committee, SAID Iraqi officials HAD PROMISED Darraji would be released..... The United Nations SAYS more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006.
== HAS BEEN CRITICIZED + SAID + HAD PROMISED + SAYS»
This very good and grammatically correct. And it's not only the newspaper English. If your system fail to explain such use of tenses then it's useless.
If you find my explanations at the link I have given insufficient, I'll explain this example as well and then ask Antimooners to check whether my explanation is correct. I do not fear of being corrected because I know I understand it and they will probably support my explanation.
«Try to ask about this in your forums. It will be interesting. We'll wait for the answer.»
Ok, but let's discuss it here at Antimoon (I'll create a thread)... I don't wnat to show my stupidity at other forums. However, you may try it yourself.
«Far from commonplace?»
It shoul be: "and is not a commonplace".
«Either the past criticism is true or the present comment is true. It can't be both.»
Yes. As I said above, this particular part of the "past criticism" in false.
«My reply: Yes and yes. What is the point you really want to ask?»
Ok, I'll modify the question:
1. This house is located at River st.
2. I read books sometimes
Are they of the same time?
«What I want to say is, I would not make up tenses for discussion.»
If you post a quotation, you should always give a link. If you just saiy it's a quotation from the news I will believe you...
«Conventional grammars will have a hard time to explain this phenomenon.»
"...a hard time explaining..." — should has been said.
Actually, it's your approach that has fateful difficultis in explaining such examples. The conventional grammar explains it easily!
I said:
«I did recommend you to add 'BEFORE' so as to imply HAVE RECORDED is prior to yesterday»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<As to your supplement, a "before" in the end, I am not sure it ok.
Yes, but no native speaker would consider this a useful recommendation.>>
My reply:
It is no more than a <Present Perfect + before>, why it is not a correct structure?
If it is not Okay, so too will your example with "IN A SPACE OF THREE WEEKS", which is also 'in the end'.
Because English grammars teach students to use Present Perfect to work with "just, already, recently", they even hide "in the past, before" that can stay with Present Perfect. On the web, you will not find grammar sources that talk about such combinations:
<Present Perfect + before>
<Present Perfect +in the past>
But their examples are abundant:
Ex: I have written many times before. <Present Perfect + before>
Ex: I have been there in the past. <Present Perfect +in the past>
|