PLEASE, READ the WHOLE POST BELOW AND COMMENT ON IT THEREAFTER
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.>>
This explanation resembles me the normal English grammar. Only resembles. Anyway, I don't see your approach to work here.
«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.»
Well, it's more or less correct explanation from the conventional grammar's point of view. Also, Present Perfect puts emphisis upon the result of the illness. Quite a conventional explanation. It does not "condense" anything, it just applies to a wider time interval than the Past Simple.
«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:...»
No, you are not quite right. Those examples are really correct but they are not fully anological with your sentence.
Below I will tell explain you each of the examles you found:
Ex: We KEEP in touch and HAVE SEEN each other many times over the years.
Here "have seen many times" is used. Your example doesn't have such an addition. The meaning is different.
Ex: well my observations of blokes who do not KEEP themselves clean and HAVE SEEN them scrape away the yellow gunk
Here "have seen" refers to a single past action (and experiance thereof), not to a regular action like your seeing a friend.
Ex: I have a funny feeling, I KEEP hearing stuff and HAVE SEEN things: maybe they just don't want anybody honest.
The same: present result/experiance of past actions.
Ex: I still try to KEEP an open mind, and HAVE SEEN some good contributions by this user.
The same.
Ex: I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic, and HAVE SEEN nothing out of line thus far
The same. He have seen nothing by now, that is, in a time period ending Now.
You can see you are not right. Furthermore, to claim the existance of connections between tenses is often a mistake. I can show it by the last example.
«I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic, and HAVE SEEN nothing out of line thus far»
It can be split into two sentences wherein tenses are not connected:
1. I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic
2. [I] have seen nothing out of line thus far
Since there's no connection they must be explained on one-sentense basis.
«Keep + See> is used to refer to the future:»
Again, you are incorrect here. Your mistake is to consider so many patterns separately and as having only one meaning. You should never do this.
Inthe examples you cited the verb "see" (often as long as "keep") was in the imperative mood whereas I had corrected your sentence by changing only time, not mood. Again, you are wrong.
«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.»
Point! That's right! And, as I have shown, that particular sentense («He and I still keep in touch and [(have seen)->see] each other») cannot be considered as having all tenses connected. Thus, you have to analyse it on one-sentence basis and, yes, you'll get the right result: "see", not "have seen".
«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".»
I find far from being evident. Here a more natural explanation:
"Let's go eat something!"
"Thanks, I have eaten already."
(I chaged them a bit to sound better)
Here the Present Perfect is used to:
1. Express a past action (an action whose time is past)
2. Emphasize the present result rather than the acton itself: you have eaten so you don't want to eat now.
That's it. As you see, I didnt use any connections between tenses thus hlding fast to the one-sentence basis.
«An oil-fire is still burning, but because of time relations, we have to use Simple Past to describe it...»
1. See my explanation a the Linguist forum (you know where, right?)
2. It two words, they don't actually put the fire as a past action. Though the fact that they resorted to foam is a past. It became true when they began to use chemical foam, no matter whether thay still se it or not. The other Past Simple verbs are due to the "while". Therefore, they don't imply fire has ended.
For exmaple.
Ex.: Two years ago I had ash-grey hair.
But my hair is still of that color! The same goes to the fire.
Here some tense-wise connections are present. But there's more than only tense connections. We have a whlie-clause subordinated to the main clause giving a connection between clauses. Tenses, being parts of clauses, are interconnected too. But wait! the conventional grammar neber denied connection between tenses in subordinate clauses! Remember Sequense of Tenses, for example. Hereby I have shown you a working conventional explanation.
«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:
[1]Ex: I went to a new store department yesterday.
[2]Ex: I have bought many things.
But we cannot put them together in a paragraph:
[12]Ex: *"I went to a new store department yesterday. I have bought many things."»
Your are correct here. Taken in isolation, both [1] and [2] are ok. Bud did you ever thought what this isolation mean? Let me try to tell you.
This isolation means: if we have one single sentence and say: "It is ok on one-sentence basis" we (you and I) mean that there exists such a context in which this sentence is correct.
Now, we have two sentences, both correct on one-sentence basis. According to the above definition (I hope you agree with it) let's say [1] is correct if usd in context C1 and [2] is correct in cntext C2. The definition states the existance of C1 and C2.
Upon that, we put them together. But putting together means "immersing" them in a common context (let's call it C12). But wait! Can we be sure that C1=C2=C3? That's a necessary and sufficient requirement for [12] being correct. But we may not guarantee it is satisfied thus risking to get a grammatically incorrect result.
Thats it. After this analysis I would't say "the tense on one-sentence basis is not the same being put in a paragraph". I'd rather say that any sentence can be correct or incorrect depending on the context it is put into! Simple as that. And more general.
«He backed down»
Well, he wasn't as smart as I am ;)
«In my whole life I have been studying the time relations in a paragraph. How long have you studied that way?»
What matters is the result. I think you have been going a wrong way all your life and it took me only several hours to indicate your major mistakes. You think it was just for fun that I gave you a link to Argumantation Theory on Wikipedia? Nope! Neither was I joking when posting links to the greatest works devoted to logic. Though I am not treating you as a stupid little child: those articles and books are interestiong to me in the first place. I find them useful. And that's why I suggest you might take a look at them too!
«Sorry, the links above have been broken. It shall have been the whole line of it:...»
I don't have neither time nor need to check whether you lied. I prefer to believe you about that. I know if you say they are real examples they indeed are. But the way you use them I criticize intesively.
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.>>
This explanation resembles me the normal English grammar. Only resembles. Anyway, I don't see your approach to work here.
«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.»
Well, it's more or less correct explanation from the conventional grammar's point of view. Also, Present Perfect puts emphisis upon the result of the illness. Quite a conventional explanation. It does not "condense" anything, it just applies to a wider time interval than the Past Simple.
«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:...»
No, you are not quite right. Those examples are really correct but they are not fully anological with your sentence.
Below I will tell explain you each of the examles you found:
Ex: We KEEP in touch and HAVE SEEN each other many times over the years.
Here "have seen many times" is used. Your example doesn't have such an addition. The meaning is different.
Ex: well my observations of blokes who do not KEEP themselves clean and HAVE SEEN them scrape away the yellow gunk
Here "have seen" refers to a single past action (and experiance thereof), not to a regular action like your seeing a friend.
Ex: I have a funny feeling, I KEEP hearing stuff and HAVE SEEN things: maybe they just don't want anybody honest.
The same: present result/experiance of past actions.
Ex: I still try to KEEP an open mind, and HAVE SEEN some good contributions by this user.
The same.
Ex: I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic, and HAVE SEEN nothing out of line thus far
The same. He have seen nothing by now, that is, in a time period ending Now.
You can see you are not right. Furthermore, to claim the existance of connections between tenses is often a mistake. I can show it by the last example.
«I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic, and HAVE SEEN nothing out of line thus far»
It can be split into two sentences wherein tenses are not connected:
1. I do sometimes run DCS Port Explorer, to KEEP an eye on traffic
2. [I] have seen nothing out of line thus far
Since there's no connection they must be explained on one-sentense basis.
«Keep + See> is used to refer to the future:»
Again, you are incorrect here. Your mistake is to consider so many patterns separately and as having only one meaning. You should never do this.
Inthe examples you cited the verb "see" (often as long as "keep") was in the imperative mood whereas I had corrected your sentence by changing only time, not mood. Again, you are wrong.
«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.»
Point! That's right! And, as I have shown, that particular sentense («He and I still keep in touch and [(have seen)->see] each other») cannot be considered as having all tenses connected. Thus, you have to analyse it on one-sentence basis and, yes, you'll get the right result: "see", not "have seen".
«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".»
I find far from being evident. Here a more natural explanation:
"Let's go eat something!"
"Thanks, I have eaten already."
(I chaged them a bit to sound better)
Here the Present Perfect is used to:
1. Express a past action (an action whose time is past)
2. Emphasize the present result rather than the acton itself: you have eaten so you don't want to eat now.
That's it. As you see, I didnt use any connections between tenses thus hlding fast to the one-sentence basis.
«An oil-fire is still burning, but because of time relations, we have to use Simple Past to describe it...»
1. See my explanation a the Linguist forum (you know where, right?)
2. It two words, they don't actually put the fire as a past action. Though the fact that they resorted to foam is a past. It became true when they began to use chemical foam, no matter whether thay still se it or not. The other Past Simple verbs are due to the "while". Therefore, they don't imply fire has ended.
For exmaple.
Ex.: Two years ago I had ash-grey hair.
But my hair is still of that color! The same goes to the fire.
Here some tense-wise connections are present. But there's more than only tense connections. We have a whlie-clause subordinated to the main clause giving a connection between clauses. Tenses, being parts of clauses, are interconnected too. But wait! the conventional grammar neber denied connection between tenses in subordinate clauses! Remember Sequense of Tenses, for example. Hereby I have shown you a working conventional explanation.
«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:
[1]Ex: I went to a new store department yesterday.
[2]Ex: I have bought many things.
But we cannot put them together in a paragraph:
[12]Ex: *"I went to a new store department yesterday. I have bought many things."»
Your are correct here. Taken in isolation, both [1] and [2] are ok. Bud did you ever thought what this isolation mean? Let me try to tell you.
This isolation means: if we have one single sentence and say: "It is ok on one-sentence basis" we (you and I) mean that there exists such a context in which this sentence is correct.
Now, we have two sentences, both correct on one-sentence basis. According to the above definition (I hope you agree with it) let's say [1] is correct if usd in context C1 and [2] is correct in cntext C2. The definition states the existance of C1 and C2.
Upon that, we put them together. But putting together means "immersing" them in a common context (let's call it C12). But wait! Can we be sure that C1=C2=C3? That's a necessary and sufficient requirement for [12] being correct. But we may not guarantee it is satisfied thus risking to get a grammatically incorrect result.
Thats it. After this analysis I would't say "the tense on one-sentence basis is not the same being put in a paragraph". I'd rather say that any sentence can be correct or incorrect depending on the context it is put into! Simple as that. And more general.
«He backed down»
Well, he wasn't as smart as I am ;)
«In my whole life I have been studying the time relations in a paragraph. How long have you studied that way?»
What matters is the result. I think you have been going a wrong way all your life and it took me only several hours to indicate your major mistakes. You think it was just for fun that I gave you a link to Argumantation Theory on Wikipedia? Nope! Neither was I joking when posting links to the greatest works devoted to logic. Though I am not treating you as a stupid little child: those articles and books are interestiong to me in the first place. I find them useful. And that's why I suggest you might take a look at them too!
«Sorry, the links above have been broken. It shall have been the whole line of it:...»
I don't have neither time nor need to check whether you lied. I prefer to believe you about that. I know if you say they are real examples they indeed are. But the way you use them I criticize intesively.