A concept of time

I explained:
<<Ant_222, please do believe that, in news reports, yesterday's happening will be said in Simple Past -- even it has a result or consequence up to the present time.>>

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Not always. For example:
The famous artist John Cramp has died of cancer. He was 50 and had two children>>

My reply:
<<First, your example is not about yesterday. I am afraid you don't even know where is "yesterday" I was talking about.>>

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Why. What if he died the day before the news came?>>

My reply:
It then sounds like yesterday. But do you believe or not we use Simple Past to report yesterday's happening? I have suggested you to ask another readers. That may help you, or perhaps me. It is no use for two of us to spit to each other.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
3. Lewis Carrol's symbolic logic (forgot to include into the previous list)

«My reply:
<<First, your example is not about yesterday. I am afraid you don't even know where is "yesterday" I was talking about.>>»

So, where's the 'yesterday' you were talking about?

«It then sounds like yesterday.»
And yet is the Present Perfect that is used, right?

I wrote
«And yet is the Present Perfect that is used, right?»
Correction:
«And yet it is the Present Perfect that is used, right?»

I said:
<<Also, do you think his death is before or after "he was 50 [1] and had two children [2] "?>>

Ant_222 wrote:
<<What a stupid question? It was during them!>>

My reply:
Then you have already agreed it is in the Perfect Time between/during past and present. But didn't you want to prove Present Perfect happens before Simple Past? I may give such an example below.

I have been studying tenses by the paragraph, and therefore I am aware how tenses work together. I have noticed a simplicity of tenses:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
Three of them form a Past-Perfect-Present contrast. With such time contrast, even if we disturb the time sequence, we still know which action happens first:
Ex1a: "He lives in my house. He came to HK last month."
Ex1b: "He came to HK last month. He lives in my house."

Ex2a: "In 1997 Joe turned 40 and decided to devote in writing. He is a born writer. He has written many scientific novels."
Ex2b: "Joe is a born writer. In 1997 he turned 40 and decided to devote in writing. He has written many scientific novels."
Ex2c: "Joe has written many scientific novels. He is a born writer. He just decided to devote in writing in 1997 as he turned 40."
== The meanings from the these examples may be not exactly the same, but the time sequence is still Past-Perfect-Present, despite the disorderly arrangements.

In a commentary book, there are of course many such Past-Perfect-Present contrasts, sometimes in 1997, sometimes in 2000, some in last week, and so forth:
Ex3: "Joe is a born writer. In 1997 he turned 40 and decided to devote in writing. He has written many scientific novels and commentaries on environment. He and I still keep in touch and have seen each other. Last month his family came to HK. They live in my house. We have visited a few places in mainland China."
== Two Past-Perfect-Present contrasts are put here side by side. Construction like this paragraph is quite natural in commentaries.

The difficulty in realizing a Past-Perfect-Present contrast?
Here I have designed short sentences to display the time relations of Past-Perfect-Present. However, in real commentaries, there can be many Simple Past actions put together, and Present Perfect actions are interlaced with Simple Present actions. Therefore it is not easy for one to screen the Past-Perfect-Present contrast.

Moreover, if we cut up a paragraph randomly, it may mislead us to take a wrong conclusion, finding there is Present Perfect that excludes a Past-Perfect-Present contrast:
Ex4: "He has written many scientific novels and commentaries on environment. He and I still keep in touch and have seen each other. Last month his family came to HK. They live in my house."
== A bad cutting to illustrate the Past-Perfect-Present contrast.
Here one may argue that Has Written, or even Have Seen, happens before Last Month, so there seems to be no such Past-Perfect-Present contrast.

In news reports, yesterday's happenings are reported in Simple Past -- therefore SAID. Those Simple Present and Present Perfect actions are another Past-Perfect-Present contrast prior to yesterday -- therefore SAYS.

So I did post the live news report here, which testifies what I have explained here. Nevertheless, it is still as simple as:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
But there can be many Past-Perfect-Present contrasts put together, which cannot be a surprise at all. The longer a news report, the more such contrasts will be put in the context.

To think or suggest we have only one Past-Perfect-Present contrast, is really a surprise.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<The sentence you quoted establishes a relation between the terms of TIME, ACTION and SENTENCE.>>

My reply:
The way you agree that tense is used to express Time, is keep proving it is not Time that tense expresses. This is how you are "agreeing with it knowingly".

«Then you have already agreed it is in the Perfect Time between/during past and present.»

During past and present? It's nonsense. A moment can be located between to other moments of time, that is, in a time interval. Present is a moment of time. Ok. But Past is itself a time interval. Your phrase doesn't make much sense to me...

Your example:
«In 1997 Joe turned 40 and decided to devote in writing. He is a born writer. He has written many scientific novels.»

So you claim it's impossible that he had written a novel before he passed 40? You are not right.

«He and I still keep in touch and have seen each other»

I don't like it. I am afraid it's incorrect. «Have seen» must be changed to «see».

«Therefore it is not easy for one to screen the Past-Perfect-Present contrast.»

That's right, at least for me. I find it much easier to follow the clear explanations of normal grammar books.

«He has written many scientific novels and commentaries on environment. He and I still keep in touch and have seen each other. Last month his family came to HK. They live in my house."
== A bad cutting to illustrate the Past-Perfect-Present contrast.
Here one may argue that Has Written, or even Have Seen, happens before Last Month, so there seems to be no such Past-Perfect-Present contrast.»

It neither a bad cutting nor your conclusions are correct.

1. It's bad only from your approach's viewpoint, not on itself. So, that votes against you.

2. «Here one may argue that Has Written <...> happens before Last Month, so there seems to be no such Past-Perfect-Present contrast». And he will be right: it can happen before 'last month' and there's no Past-Perfect-Present contrast. Really.

I cut the "have seen" phrase because it's grammatically incorrect in there and therefore doesn't need any discussion.

«In news reports, yesterday's happenings are reported in Simple Past -- therefore SAID. Those Simple Present and Present Perfect actions are another Past-Perfect-Present contrast prior to yesterday -- therefore SAYS.»

Heck!

1. What do you mean by "yesterday's happenings"? Both "says" and "said" may refer to "today's" or "yesterday's" or "last week's" interviews! No correlatiob with the tense used. That proves you are on ta wrong way.

2. In the newsreport we have been discussing I see no mention of "yesterday"... Strange to you keep telling of "yesterday's actions"

2.1 By the way, do you know that "Yesterday" and "last week" are relative indicators of time whereas "in 1997" and "At 12:00" are absolute ones? To my regret, you seem to make no distiction between them...

3. You just "strained" your theory onto the news. With a similar succes you could explain a grammatically incorrect use of tenses.

4. Since native speakers understand the news differently than you, you have to change your approach instead of teaching English to native speakers!

«The way you agree that tense is used to express Time, is keep proving it is not Time that tense expresses. This is how you are "agreeing with it knowingly".»

Explain. You wrote to opposite statements here. Which one is correct?

«So I did post the live news report here, which testifies what I have explained here. Nevertheless, it is still as simple as
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.»

Could you please stop repeating this sh*t, I have a headache everytime I see it. As I have already told you, it gives no information that could help to choose which tense to use.

You better explain why you have examples in your book wherein tenses are used incorectly. And why are you teaching natives instead of learning from them? Why do you prefer keeping your theory unchanged and contradicting with the use of English instead of making it fit the way English is used?

My example for a Past-Perfect-Present contrast:
«In 1997 Joe turned 40 and decided to devote in writing. He is a born writer. He has written many scientific novels.»

Ant_222 wrote:
So you claim it's impossible that he had written a novel before he passed 40? You are not right.

My reply:
It is possible. I have already explained your point:
Ex: An illness WAS NOTICED by the Health Department last month. Many HAVE BEEN ill because of it and SENT to hospital.
<<It is often to use Perfect to count number like this. The situation may be some of them were ill last month. Since that time, some have also been ill and sent to hospital. Now because the number of patients has to include those who WERE ill last week and HAVE BEEN ILL outside last week, Perfect HAVE BEEN ILL is used to condense it. Should we use Past WAS ILL, it means they all happened last month.>>
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_1.htm#_3_3_2

My example:
«He and I still keep in touch and have seen each other»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<I don't like it. I am afraid it's incorrect. «Have seen» must be changed to «see».>>

My reply:
I am afraid Have Seen is more natural here, which throws a time contrast with Simple Present. I have searched for more example:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22keep+**+and+have+seen%22&lr=
The first five examples that come in sight:
Ex: We KEEP in touch and HAVE SEEN each other many times over the years.
Ex: well my observations of blokes who do not KEEP themselves clean and HAVE SEEN them scrape away the yellow gunk
Ex: I have a funny feeling, I KEEP hearing stuff and HAVE SEEN things: maybe they just don't want anybody honest.
Ex: I still try to KEEP an open mind, and HAVE SEEN some good contributions by this user.
Ex: I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic, and HAVE SEEN nothing out of line thus far

<Keep + See> is used to refer to the future:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22keep+**+and+see%22&lr=
The first five examples that come in sight:
Ex: KEEP in touch and SEE you guys around.
Ex: KEEP fingers crossed and SEE if this may be of any use.
Ex: Let's KEEP our fingers crossed and SEE what follows.
Ex: It is good to see what looks like a focused research blog, it will be interesting to KEEP an eye and SEE how it goes.
Ex: Maybe a spike will KEEP an eye and SEE if the traffic continues.

If on one-sentence basis, nevertheless, I will also use Simple Present to say our friendship:
Ex: He and I see each other.
== Our friendship is now not yet finished.

I want to point out, the tense on one-sentence basis is not the same tense being put in a time contrast. As I have always explained: "I eat dinner" will never end. But why will we sometimes say "I have eaten dinner"? It is because of a time contrast with another tense "Let's go to eat".

An oil-fire is still burning, but because of time relations, we have to use Simple Past to describe it:
<<Hemel Hempstead, England - Firefighters USED chemical foam to extinguish part of the inferno raging Monday after explosions at a fuel depot north of London, while a huge oily smoke cloud from the blaze DRIFTED OVER northern France and HEADED TOWARD Spain.>>

------------------------
In BBC discussion forum, one of the hosts (who in the following discussion suggested other hosts to keep me out of there) argued that it is nonsense for me to claim "the tense on one-sentence basis is not the same being put in a paragraph". The following recall is only a similarity, for I cannot locate the exact discussion right now.

I explained: we may say a lot of things in Present Perfect:
Ex: I have eaten dinner.
Ex: I have cleaned the dinner table.
Ex: I have gone out to see my friends.
But we cannot put them together:
Ex1: *"I have eaten dinner. I have cleaned the dinner table. I have gone out to see my friends."

He didn't believe me. His example was:
Ex2: "I have visited USA. I have been to Hong Kong. And I have also seen Rome."

As the discussion went on, he got irritated and said: "As a native speaker of English, I have told you a thousand times, tense in a single sentence remains the same as we put them in a paragraph. Why don't you believe me?"

I said, you say it once more time and I will believe you:
On one-sentence basis, it is quite natural for us to say the following two examples in separation:
Ex: I went to a new store department yesterday.
Ex: I have bought many things.
But we cannot put them together in a paragraph:
Ex: *"I went to a new store department yesterday. I have bought many things."

He backed down. Other readers joined in. I was still allowed to visit there.

-----------------------
What I want to prove is, the tense on one-sentence basis is not the same in a paragraph, where we have to rely on time relations between each other.

In my whole life I have been studying the time relations in a paragraph. How long have you studied that way? People have seen the Perfect Time I pointed out in between Last Week and Now. You can't even see it. As I said, you are the only one person who could not see it.

Sorry, the links above have been broken. It shall have been the whole line of it:

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22keep+**+and+have+seen%22&lr="

"http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=%22keep+**+and+see%22&lr=

Simply put, I search for exact match for "keep ** and have seen",
and then "keep ** and see".

I explained:
«Therefore it is not easy for one to screen the Past-Perfect-Present contrast.»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<That's right, at least for me. I find it much easier to follow the clear explanations of normal grammar books.>>

My reply:
Tense is easy to use, but hard to be analyzed. People are actually using tenses according to the names of the tense: Simple Present and Simple Past. They somehow know Present Perfect is in between them. It is indeed easy to use tenses in a paragraph. As for analysis, it is another story. Even deep learners have openly admitted they have difficulty.

I have found out the simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.

However, its complication and difficulty is how to explain to some persons who challenge it.

Using tense is like digesting food. How to digest food is easy. Even a baby can do that. But how to explain the digestion, is difficult. How to explain it to a baby, so that he or she can understand, is the most difficult.

<<1. What do you mean by "yesterday's happenings"? BOTH "SAYS" AND "SAID" MAY REFER TO "TODAY'S" OR "YESTERDAY'S" OR "LAST WEEK'S" INTERVIEWS! No correlatiob with the tense used. That proves you are on ta wrong way. >>

My reply:
Then where is the difference between SAYS and SAID? SAYS is "current opinion" and SAID is not?

--------------
<<2. In the newsreport we have been discussing I see no mention of "yesterday"... Strange to you keep telling of "yesterday's actions">>

My reply:
The news starts with the implication of Yesterday:
<<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.>>

However, I don't expect you understand this time notion. It is way beyond your understanding, because the term Yesterday is indeed not there.

-------------
<<2.1 By the way, do you know that "Yesterday" and "last week" are relative indicators of time whereas "in 1997" and "At 12:00" are absolute ones? To my regret, you seem to make no distiction between them...>>

My reply:
I am afraid you are wrong. Even "the year of 1997" is relative to "the year of A.D.1".

As for "At 12:00", does it mean the afternoon or midnight? If you say it in 8am, "At 12:00" will relatively mean afternoon. If you say it in 8pm, it relatively means midnight.

---------------
<<3. You just "strained" your theory onto the news. With a similar succes you could explain a grammatically incorrect use of tenses.>>

My reply:
Having that said, do you have an example that supports you?

---------------
<<4. Since native speakers understand the news differently than you, you have to change your approach instead of teaching English to native speakers!>>

My reply:
You have a bad time sequence in this. It is because in my youth I saw native speakers had admitted Present Perfect is difficult, so that I started to search for a new approach.

On the other hand, where is the difference you talk about? How do they explain the tense in newspapers? Can you quote anything from somewhere?

I wrote:
«The way you agree that tense is used to express Time, is keep proving it is not Time that tense expresses. This is how you are "agreeing with it knowingly".»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Explain. You wrote to opposite statements here. Which one is correct?>>

My reply:
You asked about two examples:
«1. This house is located at River st.
2. I read books sometimes
Are they of the same TIME?»

You only talked about the actions, rather than the tense:
<<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.>>

This shows you relate to TIME by Sentence and Action, not by the Tense.

At least, where are examples or reasons you put to prove tense is used to express time? I asked this before and you have brought no such proving.

I said:
«So I did post the live news report here, which testifies what I have explained here. Nevertheless, it is still as simple as
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Could you please stop repeating this sh*t, I have a headache everytime I see it. As I have already told you, it gives no information that could help to choose which tense to use.>>

My reply:
You have said this before:
<<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...>>

So it is only Perfect Time that gives you headache.