«I have no respect for people who have no respect for logic.»
Well, now I feel ashamed and... with these words in mind and heaviness in heart I continue posting.
«It is no more than a <Present Perfect + before>, why it is not a correct structure?»
Grammatically, it's ok I guess. I just don't like it with "before". If you added before to make it explainable more easily by means of your approach, well ok. But that in no way means the original sentence was not as good. Furthermore, I think it is even much better.
«If it is not Okay, so too will your example with "IN A SPACE OF THREE WEEKS", which is also 'in the end'.»
It has nothing to deal with correct/incorrect srtuctures. Both our examples are structurlly correct. Rather it is a question of style.
«On the web, you will not find grammar sources that talk about such combinations:
<Present Perfect + before>
<Present Perfect +in the past>»
I will. My softawere dictionary, ABBY Lingo 8.0 has such example:
«I have done your best at your time»
Also, I am pretty sure grammarians discuss many sentences like:
«I have not see it before».
As to the "past family", it's just quite rare. By not mentioning it grammarians in no way try hide the truth.
«You are word-playing. If it doesn't indicate time, it indicates what? Money?»
I don't really like this way of argumentation. Though, I'll ignore it and try explain:
1. I wrote this book two years ago.
2. I wrote this book in two months.
Don't see the diference? The first indicates time and second — duration.
But is you want to continue discussion, you should be more polite. Why all this mimicing? Will it help?
«Because it is an action of "three weeks", we know the action is before yesterday, rather than between Yesterday and Now. You can never see the logic.»
No, it's you. If, in that sentence, I change "yesterday" to "a month ago"? What will you say with all yuor logic? That the book was written after 'a month ago'? Right?
«The firemen took a rest and had a cup of coffee, so it was finished for a while, and at this precious time the reporter uses Simple Past to say it.»
No need in this laughter. Iy _can_ be an interruptive process. If it's not, I gave another explanation. You didn't quotate it though.
«Would it be that yesterday's happening has a result or consequence up to the present time, so the reporter may use present perfect?»
Yes, including that. Another reason here:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t5965.htm
«1. This house is located at River st.
2. I read books sometimes
Are they of the same time?
My reply:
My answer will be the same.»
But where is YOUR logic? Don't you see the difference between those two actions? In terms of conventional grammar, second sentence expresses a habitual action while the first — how they call it? You should know. I'd call it a passive present action.
Passive — because the house isn't actually doing something. So, it's more like a statement about a property of the house than an action performed by the house. And in English we report objects to have properties in Past Simple.
Compare:
1. The ball is (not is being) red
2. The ball is jumping on the floor.
Got it?
«My reply:
Okay, I assume you have explained why there are SAID and SAYS in the same news. And you have also explained why sometimes Present Perfect, and sometimes Past Perfect. Right?»
Right. Didn't I post my explanation thereof? See this topic:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t5965.htm
Just let's show our regard toward the other forum dwellers and discuss everything in here so there is only one thread driving them mad instead of two. Ok?