A concept of time
<<Where is the Mittwoch's definition time?>>
My reply:
What do you mean? In the previous page I asked:
I am curious, do you believe in the following saying?
<<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.>>
==
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/24/24.979/www/perfect.pdf
«Is it your own definition or your guess at their definition?»
Not a guess at all. It;s my view on their definition.
«They don't say the same thing as yours:»
You missed onr thing: I said "PAST positional adverbials". If you look furher through that PDF you'll find how the define the PAST positional adverbial.
«Then you have to agree you don't know how to prove tense is used to express time. Do you agree?»
No. Then I HAVE to agree I KNOW how tense is used to express time. I wrote down the 5 statements for the very purpose to show the real relation between time and tense.
«What do you mean?»
You said Mittwoch had defined Time. I asked you to post this definition. By mistake, I omitted a word in my qyestion. It shoul be: "Where is the Mittwoch's definition _of_ time?"
I am sorry fot the multiplicity of typos I have made...
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Not a guess at all. It;s my view on their definition.>>
My reply:
Then I don't care for your definition, which is without examples and supports. I just want to know what these university documents are saying by 'positional adverbials'.
-----------------------
<<If you look furher through that PDF you'll find how the define the PAST positional adverbial.>>
My reply:
By looking at "today, next week, on Monday" in the words YOU QUOTED for me? I didn't quote these words, did I? You quoted your evidence, and concluded they have been "closed intervals", and now "Past positional adverbial". What's next?
I guess you tell me to look through the PDF file again and get some meanings that support your own terms.
I asked:
«Then you have to agree you don't know how to prove tense is used to express time. Do you agree?»
Ant_222 wrote:
<<No. Then I HAVE to agree I KNOW how tense is used to express time. I wrote down the 5 statements for the very purpose to show the real relation between time and tense.>>
My reply:
Then it is the best you can PROVE that tense is used to express time: without proving, you AGREE and KNOW.
-----------------------
<<I wrote down the 5 statements for the very purpose to show the real relation between time and tense.>>
My reply:
The world is not enough:
1. Actions are expressed by Verbs.
2. Verbs are parts of Sentences.
2a: Sentences are Prepositions, Time Adverbials, Clauses, and Meanings where you can put the whole world in it.
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, AND MOST OF ALL, ON THE MEANINGS THAT CONTAIN THE WHOLE WORLD.
Simply put, if you don't know what should be linked to Tense, the world is not enough.
«Then I don't care for your definition, which is without examples and supports. I just want to know what these university documents are saying by 'positional adverbials'.»
I didn't give my definition. I explained theirs so as you to understand it better.
«By looking at "today, next week, on Monday" in the words YOU QUOTED for me? I didn't quote these words, did I? You quoted your evidence, and concluded they have been "closed intervals", and now "Past positional adverbial". What's next?
I guess you tell me to look through the PDF file again and get some meanings that support your own terms.»
Past Positional Adverbial is also a term introdused in the PDF, it's not mine!
«Then it is the best you can PROVE that tense is used to express time: without proving, you AGREE and KNOW.»
What do you mean? I have given a proof below!
And even without proving I have the full right not to agree. That's my opinion and noone is allowed to command wherewith I agree. Not everything can be proven, by the way!
«2a: Sentences are Prepositions, Time Adverbials, Clauses, and Meanings where you can put the whole world in it.»
Wrong! Sentences are just sequences words! Yes, they can have a lot of meanings. The expressive power of sentences in no way creates any obstacles for my proof.
It was very childish of you to write: «Sentences are Prepositions, Time Adverbials, Clauses, and Meanings where you can put the whole world in it.»
«AND MOST OF ALL, ON THE MEANINGS THAT CONTAIN THE WHOLE WORLD.»
First, not "most of all". The dependance on the tense is stronger.
Second, depends or not depends on the meaning, it anyway depends on the tense. It's proven by the fact that changing a verb's tense can change (and changes in most cases) the time of the action expressed by the verb.
«Simply put, if you don't know what should be linked to Tense...»
I know "what should be linked to Tense".
«...the world is not enough.»
For any given sentence, the knowledge of the meaning of all words of the sentence _is_ enough.
Concluding, I see nothing more than pure sophism in your "reasoning".
<<Not everything can be proven, by the way!>>
That is your way of discussion.
«<<Not everything can be proven, by the way!>>
That is your way of discussion.»
As to the things discussed, I they CAN be proven. So, my manner of discussion implies prooving and explaining as necessary elements. When I think something is not provable or it's just that I can't prove it, I won't insint on it!
Hi, just took a look at your website. You should read Bernard Comrie's two slim books "Tense" and "Aspect" to help you clarify some of these distinctions. The empty "meanings" you refer to are different ways of thinking about "Aspect".
<<Hi, just took a look at your website. You should read Bernard Comrie's two slim books "Tense" and "Aspect" to help you clarify some of these distinctions. The empty "meanings" you refer to are different ways of thinking about "Aspect".>>
Can you quote something and discuss?
<<Hi, just took a look at your website. You should read Bernard Comrie's two slim books "Tense" and "Aspect" to help you clarify some of these distinctions. The empty "meanings" you refer to are different ways of thinking about "Aspect".>>
Can you define Aspect at all?
<<As to the things discussed, I they CAN be proven. So, my manner of discussion implies prooving and explaining as necessary elements. When I think something is not provable or it's just that I can't prove it, I won't insint on it!>>
My reply:
I hope you pay attention to your typing.
«I hope you pay attention to your typing.»
Here it is:
As to the things discussed, they CAN be proven. So, my manner of discussion implies proving and explaining as necessary elements. When I think something is not provable or I just can't prove it, I won't insist on that!
<<As to the things discussed, they CAN be proven.>>
My reply:
If they have found out a way at all to prove tense is used to express time, I will use their proof to destroy the myth that Simple Present is used to express habitual action, where neither habitual nor action is time.
I will also use their proof to disprove the ridicule of Aspect, which is not time at all, obviously.
But there is no proof, and this is the problem.
If you really agree tense is used to express time, why you have suggested Present Perfect expresses Result? Is Result a kind of time?
Guest wrote:
<<Hi, just took a look at your website. You should read Bernard Comrie's two slim books "Tense" and "Aspect" to help you clarify some of these distinctions. The empty "meanings" you refer to are different ways of thinking about "Aspect".>>
My reply:
My approach is different from other grammars. I insist tense is used to express time, and have arrived a simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
I have used this simplicity to explain many points conventional grammars cannot explain. It fits with our explicit agreement that tense is used to express time.
My website is proving tense has nothing to do with meanings like Aspect. I don't even know what is Aspect, how can I use tense to express Aspect? Aspect is not time, isn't it? It is a new way to break our agreement that tense is used to express time.
Now how far they have got from tense? Only lately I have found out "Present Perfect Puzzle" that is still puzzling many university learners. Why? Because they don't know how to locate the Perfect Time Span. This is why some of them prefer to hide under Aspect, a vagueness that nobody can see through, so they are safe.
I don't need the safety net of Aspect.