A concept of time
«At first, you clearly said you agree with Mittwoch»
I agree on the point that since-sentences (not since-clauses) may have different meanings. But I don't agree that that's due to "since" having two meanings. I clearly wrote in that post:
«But I'm sure it's not "since" that has two possible meanings but rather it's the Present Perfect tense. In both cases the period in question is from some moment in the past till now but:
— the action of the first sentnce occupies all that period.
— the action(s) of the second sentence are just located therein.
<...>
Only the different meanings of the verbs "to meet" and "to own" help us understand which kind action is meant in each sentence.»
«I think it is not true that Present Perfect cannot stay with "positional time adverbials"»
You are wrong here. Don't substitute positional time adverbials with any time adverbials. "In the past..." is not positional.
«How to define "positional adverbials"?»
No problem here. They indicate a closed interval of time. A more correct and very precise definition is here:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Pancheva(2004)AnotherPerfectPuzzle.pdf
Broken link.
"http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Pancheva(2004)AnotherPerfectPuzzle.pdf"
«So, it is not a Present Perfect Puzzle. Rather, it is a puzzle of "positional adverbials".»
Wrщng conclusion. Your not understanding "positional adverbials" doesn't let you understand the whole puzzle.»
I said:
«How to define "positional adverbials"?»
Ant_222 wrote:
<< No problem here. They indicate a CLOSED INTERVAL of time. A more correct and very precise definition is here:
"http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Pancheva(2004)AnotherPerfectPuzzle.pdf">>
My reply:
In that pdf I searched "closed", and I found nothing. Where did your "closed interval" come from?
On one hand, I thank you for talking to me. On the other hand, your vagueness has given me a lot of trouble. I have reminded you not to point to a web page and suggested the answer is there. It is not a good way of discussion, but you keep creating vagueness in this way. Why wouldn't you quote from the page what you want to say, if you have really looked into it? I am afraid that "They indicate a closed interval of time" is your own comprehension. Am I correct?
I search "close" and I found the following statements in it:
<<The next section looks more closely at the interval-inclusion part of the puzzle,>>
<<Let us now look more closely at the class of referential adverbials.>>
Is this what you mean "closed interval"?
I asked of Mittwoch's opinion:
<<Mittwoch 1988 (p. 207): 'Since' itself is ambiguous. 'Since 7.00' can mean from 7.00 till now or at some time between 7.00 and now. … These two meanings are clearly distinguished in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.>>
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I agree on the point that since-sentences (not since-clauses) may have different meanings. But I don't agree that that's due to "since" having two meanings. I clearly wrote in that post:>>
My reply:
Where did Mittwoch talk about since-sentences at all? He had defined Time, and I asked of the Time, why must you shift to Sentence and Action he didn't mention?
I just asked whether 'Since 7.00' has two meanings or not, why must you put so many things unrelated to it, to complicate the simple question?
-------------------------------
You wrote:
<<But I don't agree that that's due to "since" having two meanings.>>
My reply:
Are you aware that such saying is agreeing Since has two meanings?
«In that pdf I searched "closed", and I found nothing. Where did your "closed interval" come from?»
In the PDF it's said in different words than mine.
«They indicate a closed interval of time" is your own comprehension. Am I correct?»
Not at all. That's how I understand the definition in the PDF.
«Where did Mittwoch talk about since-sentences at all? He had defined Time, and I asked of the Time, why must you shift to Sentence and Action he didn't mention?»
«I just asked whether 'Since 7.00' has two meanings or not, why must you put so many things unrelated to it, to complicate the simple question?»
The fragment you quoted is about the meaning of the word "since". I just wrote what I think as to his claim about since having two meanings. I disagree with it and have given my view on it.
I HAD to use the terms Sentence and Action in my explanation because:
1. Actions are expressed by Verbs.
2. Verbs are parts of Sentences.
3. Verbs have Tense.
4. Action has Time.
5. The Time of an Action expressed in a Sentence depends (including but not confined to) on the Tense.
You see, they are all related. I am sure these terms are pretty much familliar to you, so the use thereof should cause no problems.
«I search "close" and I found the following statements in it:»
You better find the definition of "positional adverbial" rather than the entries of 'close'...
«You wrote:
<<But I don't agree that that's due to "since" having two meanings.>>
My reply:
Are you aware that such saying is agreeing Since has two meanings?»
No that's not. Since has one meaning: starting point of a time interval.
P.S.: By the way, have you noted that Roumyana Pancheva uses lambda-calculus in her explanations?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<In the PDF it's said in different words than mine.>>
My reply:
Then why did you tell me to look at a page that is totally unrelated to YOUR WORDS?
I have studied the page again and I still don't know what you wanted me to see. May you now quote the exact words from the page now?
«Then why did you tell me to look at a page that is totally unrelated to YOUR WORDS?»
How can it be unrelated when I just told how I understand that page? My words concern the page, they are about the page and strongly related to the page.
«May you now quote the exact words from the page now?»
If you really want it:
«Adverbials such as yesterday, today, next week, on Monday, on
December 31, in 2003 are often called ‘positional’ because they make
reference to a specific time interval (i.e., an interval with a specified position on our imaginary time line). The interval may be constant, as in the case of in 2003, or its location on the time line may vary, as with the remaining examples of adverbials. But regardless of this difference, the positional adverbials play essentially the same role – when modifying time intervals, they attribute to them the property of being contained in a particular time. Thus, in 2003 places time intervals as subsets of the interval with the name of “2003”; yesterday is a predicate of intervals contained in the day preceding the day of the speech time.»
Then why did you tell me to look at a page that is totally DIFFERENT from your words?
It is not very much diferent.
«Where did Mittwoch talk about since-sentences at all? He had defined Time...»
I a pretty sure Mittwoch is neither sufficiently insane nor wise enough to define Time.
If you want do retain you opinion, post his definition of Time here.
Why "a closed interval of time"?
«Why "a closed interval of time"?»
Past positional adverbials refer to such period of time that has both its ends in the past.
Where is the Mittwoch's definition time?
<<Past positional adverbials refer to such period of time that has both its ends in the past.>>
Is it your own definition or your guess at their definition?
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Past positional adverbials refer to such period of time that has both its ends in the past.>>
My reply:
They don't say the same thing as yours:
<<Adverbials such as yesterday, today, next week, on Monday, on December 31, in 2003 are often called ‘positional’ because they make reference to a specific time interval (i.e., an interval with a specified position on our imaginary time line).>>
Ant_222 wrote:
<<I HAD to use the terms Sentence and Action in my explanation because:
1. Actions are expressed by Verbs.
2. Verbs are parts of Sentences.
3. Verbs have Tense.
4. Action has Time.
5. The Time of an Action expressed in a Sentence depends (including but not confined to) on the Tense.>>
My reply:
Then you have to agree you don't know how to prove tense is used to express time. Do you agree?