|
|
A concept of time
«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.»
This is a word-play.
1. Habitual — is related to time. I had defined tha habitual action in terms of time periods on the time axis before (I'll repeat it if you have forgotten, just ask me).
2. Action is not time, of course. But Time is a property of Action, so they are related. When we speak about Time, we almost always mean the Time of Action, not some abstract time!
«I will also use their proof to disprove the ridicule of Aspect, which is not time at all, obviously.»
Aspects: perfective and imperfective.
Perfective means the action expressed is complete (=perfect) whereas imperfective denotes an incomplete (=imperfect) action, at some moment of time, be it in the past, present or future. Thus, aspect hold information about whether the action is/was/will be comlete or incomplete at a certain moment of time. Therefore, it is closely related to the time of the action.
«If you really agree tense is used to express time, why you have suggested Present Perfect expresses Result? Is Result a kind of time?»
I have told you that several times! Tense not only expresses time but also (sometimes) the speaker's attitude toward the action in question. What you wrongly call Result, is in fact either (1) a special attention paid by the speaker to the action or (2) the actuality of the action (it's main result is still actual).
<<This is a word-play.
1. Habitual — is related to time. I had defined tha habitual action in terms of time periods on THE TIME AXIS BEFORE (I'll repeat it if you have forgotten, just ask me). >>
My reply:
I agree yours is a word-play. You always create term that finds no support: THE TIME AXIS BEFORE. You don't give examples. Will you define it and give examples?
"Habitual is related to time" is rubbish. Anything is related to time. Because habitual action is related to time, so we have past, present, and future habitual actions. What tense is used to express past habitual action?
----------------------------
<<(I'll repeat it if you have forgotten, just ask me)>>
My reply:
You type badly. And you sound like a child.
<<Perfective means the action expressed is complete (=perfect) whereas imperfective denotes an incomplete (=imperfect) action, at some moment of time, be it in the past, present or future.>>
Where is your examples?
<<This is a word-play.
1. Habitual — is related to time. I had defined tha habitual action in terms of time periods on THE TIME AXIS BEFORE (I'll repeat it if you have forgotten, just ask me). >>
«My reply:
I agree yours is a word-play.»
Don't you distort my words for that's impolite and shows your incompetence. I mean that it is you who does word-play. It's quite clear from the text.
«You always create term that finds no support: THE TIME AXIS BEFORE.»
The real term is: "the time axis". Don't you know what time axis is?! What a shame... And you should have been more careful with phrases like "term that finds no support"... "Time axis" is used very widely!
«You don't give examples. Will you define it and give examples?»
There's only one time axis. The definition (which is constuctive) is also an example. If still don't get it, ask me and I'll try to explain you what the time axis is.
«"Habitual is related to time" is rubbish. Anything is related to time.»
I mean that "habitual" imposes certain limitations on how such an action is be represented on the time axis. I have explained it before in the beginning of this thread. I'll repeat the explanation, should you ask.
«Because habitual action is related to time, so we have past, present, and future habitual actions.»
See no logic here. Since eternity is related to time, we have past, present and future eternities... Reductio ad absurdum! Why is your thinking so narrow as to comprehend Time as only three words: "past", "present" and "future"???
«What tense is used to express past habitual action?»
Past Simple, for example...
Ex.: I often listened to Lennie Tristano's recordigns.
«You type badly. And you sound like a child.»
And you type perfectly, but then you sound like a mentally ill person, my friend! Thouh I am pretty sure you are ok and are just *pretending* to seem like that for this releases you from the need to think, reason, deduct and induct correctly.
«<<Perfective means the action expressed is complete (=perfect) whereas imperfective denotes an incomplete (=imperfect) action, at some moment of time, be it in the past, present or future.>>
Where is your examples?»
Imperfective:
1. I _was reading_ when he came.
2. I _knew_ it during my being a student.
Perfective:
1. I _had read_ it when he came.
2. I _learned_ it during my being a student.
Ant_222,
<<If still don't get it, ask me and I'll try to explain you what the time axis is.>>
My reply:
I have had it. I will not talk to you again.
You may keep your examples and explanation to yourself.
Whoa!
Sounds like things are getting a little heated here.
It may be time to go back and strengthen your language skills independently until you two can play nice.
You're welcome to any ideas that you may find in my article that I wrote below:
http://www.helium.com/tm/109907/choosing-right-method-improving
Good luck to you both!
R.D.
I haven't read Comrie's books in a while, but I will try to summarize what I remember.
"Tense" is the way different languages incorporate "time reference" into their grammar. "Time reference" is easy to explain; there are only three kinds: before, at the same time, and after -- each of these being understood with respect to some point of reference (which is by default the moment of speaking).
"Aspect" is a blanket term referring to the grammar of other kinds of relationships in time. In this particular case we have to discuss "perfect aspect". "Perfect aspect" indicates that the STATE indicated by the verb has "present relevance."
If the verb itself indicates an inherently durative state, then "present relevance" means the state is seen as still continuing at the moment of speaking "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" means I now live in Berlin.
If the verb indicates some kind of a momentary action, then "present relevance" means the RESULT of the action is seen as still continuing at the moment of speaking. "I have already learned about aspect" means that the result ("knowing about aspect") is still continuing into the present time.
Sometimes we may describe the same scenario either using perfect aspect or not in order to throw a different emphasis onto it. "I have been to Paris" (= a statement about my current state, that is, I am a person familiar with Paris), vs. "I went to Paris last summer" (= a statement about a particular accent undertaken in the past, without reference to my current state). Obviously, the two phrases might refer to the same action, but seen differently.
Guest wrote:
<<If the verb itself indicates an inherently durative state, then "present relevance" means the state is seen as still continuing at the moment of speaking "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" means I now live in Berlin.>>
My reply:
Thank you for your introduction of Comrie's idea. I am afraid it is ordinary argument, not aspect theory.
You say very well and correctly: "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" means I now live in Berlin. But can't you see the confusion? The two tenses, HAVE LIVED and LIVE, mean the same thing:
"I HAVE LIVED in Berlin for 3 years" = "I now LIVE in Berlin"
Did Comrie tell you why the two tenses mean the same thing?
Why the same thing can be said in two kinds of tenses?
===========
Guest wrote:
<<"I have already learned about aspect" means that the result ("knowing about aspect") is still continuing into the present time.>>
My reply:
This has been discussed by us in this thread. We agreed that, other than Present Perfect, Simple Past can say the same result:
Ex: I already learned about aspect.
== In your words, we are "knowing about aspect".
Then again, why the same thing can be said by two kinds of tenses? This confusion has been noticed by many students and would-be teachers, so they find the tense confusing.
===========
Upstairs, the same thing can be said by Present Perfect and Simple Present, as you agree.
And then, the same thing can be said by Present Perfect and Simple Past, as you can't deny.
Can't you see the confusion?
Recently I have read a lot of those university documents talking about Present Perfect Puzzle. They have read Comrie's grammars, but why do they still call Present Perfect a puzzle? Do you know why? It is very simple. Comrie doesn't help.
Please note that these university documents focus on Present Perfect alone. If they compare it with Simple Present and Simple Past, all will be puzzles. And this is what they have got from the old approach.
Guest wrote:
<<Sometimes we may describe the same scenario either using perfect aspect or not in order to throw a different emphasis onto it. "I have been to Paris" (= a statement about my current state, that is, I am a person familiar with Paris), vs. "I went to Paris last summer" (= a statement about a particular accent undertaken in the past, without reference to my current state). Obviously, the two phrases might refer to the same action, but seen differently.>>
My reply:
They are two completely different structures, so two tenses can hardly be compared. You may claim one is with Last Summer and another is without it, so they are different. But what is the point?
We always compare the same structure, but with different tenses, as I do above, so we may see the difference if there is any.
Hi engtense,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My best suggestion would be again to refer you to these two books, which I suggest you read through thoroughly, not because they are correct in all points, but because they are very clearly written and I think they would help you think through some confused ideas.
You observe, quite rightly, that the same situation can be described with a variety of aspects. But that does not mean that the aspects are the same -- they indicate a different point of view.
For example, I might say: "Yesterday, I darned my socks. While I was darning my socks, Bob walked in. I told him to go away and finished darning my socks."
In the first sentence, I use the simple past "darned"; in the second, the imperfective "darning". These two verbs refer to the same action, but seen differently: in the first case, I considered the total action of darning my socks "from outside", so to speak; in the second, I considered it a process with internal temporal make-up, that lasted for a while and could be interrupted, etc.
In language, we can often express related thoughts in subtly different ways. The uses of the present perfect are just another example of this.
In the case of the pair of sentences about living in Berlin, you are right to say that "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" entails "I now live in Berlin". But that is not to say that they "mean the same". "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" relates a past action (moving to Berlin 3 years ago) to a present state: "I now live in Berlin" makes no relevance to the past action.
The difference between "I went to Paris" and "I have gone to Paris" is equally tricky. You are right that they can both refer to the same scenario, but the second sentence relates that scenario to the present moment, while the first doesn't. So if I asked you, "What did you do while you were in Europe?" you could answer "I went to Paris", NOT "I have gone to Paris." But if I were popping off without much notice, I might leave a note saying "I have gone to Paris", letting people know both 1. that I left for Paris and 2. that I am still in Paris.
You were very insightful to notice that "I already learned about aspect" means the same thing as "I have already learned about aspect". Similarly, "Did you eat yet?" is (by me, almost always) used instead of "Have you eaten yet?". But the purpose of the example was to illustrate what perfect aspect is -- not to say that the perfect aspect forms are always obligatory in the cases where they might be expected. Here, the adverbs "already" and "yet" seem to obviate the need or an (explicit) perfect form. In other cases, however, the perfect forms are obligatory: "It is the biggest tree I have ever seen" NOT "It is the biggest tree I ever saw."
I hope you can now better understand the distinction I am making between aspect and tense.
Sorry to post twice in a row, but I just realized that I hit upon a really good example there. A lot of this business about differences in aspect is quite fuzzy, and there are often many different ways of expressing the same thing. But in the case I mentioned, there is a CLEAR prohibition AGAINST the present perfect.
If I ask you "What did you do today?" it would be ABSOLUTEY WRONG to answer "I have gone to Paris." To do so would mark you out instantly as a foreigner. In fact, one of the most common errors I noticed in people's English when I was (actually) in Paris was to overuse the present perfect in just these cases. The only possibly answer here is "I went to Paris."
I am not sure I understood your proposal properly, but you seemed to suggest that the present perfect was used for "time between last week and today." But in this example, I am asking somebody what he did TODAY -- nevertheless, he must answer in the PAST. This would be true NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO the time is that the question refers to. "What did you do five years ago today?", "What did you do last week?" "What did you do yesterday?" "What did you do today?" all of these must be answered "I went to Paris" not "I have gone to Paris."
This is because the question is about an action in the past -- the present perfect is not used to refer to actions in the past, but rather to refer to the linking of an action in the past with its resultant present state. Since this linking would be irrelevant to answering this particular question, it is not used.
The present perfect is forbidden even if the speaker IS CURRENTLY IN PARIS. "What did you today?" - "I flew here." (Not "I have flown here".)
This example really does seem like a clincher. I hope you see what I mean by it.
Guest wrote:
<<I think they would help you think through some confused ideas.>>
My reply:
I thank you again for your generous suggestion. However, I am afraid you have got the wrong idea. It is rather inappropriate for you to persuade me to read the grammar that brings you to such a confusion. However, when I point out your confusions, it doesn't mean that they are also my own confusion.
Those confusions of yours are very common and unsolvable in the old approach, so I suggest a new approach. I have come to a simplicity:
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses perfect time.
-- Simple Present expresses present time.
"One more word is one more mistake" – this is my promise.
You may challenge the simplicity if you think these few rules too simple to explain something you bring up. Put it simply, the problem in English tense stays mainly in Present Perfect, because they cannot locate Perfect Time in the way I do.
Guest wrote:
<<For example, I might say: "Yesterday, I darned my socks. While I was darning my socks, Bob walked in. I told him to go away and finished darning my socks."
In the first sentence, I use the simple past "darned"; in the second, the imperfective "darning". These two verbs refer to the same action, but seen differently: in the first case, I considered the total action of darning my socks "from outside", so to speak; in the second, I considered it a process with internal temporal make-up, that lasted for a while and could be interrupted, etc.>>
My reply:
How correctly one can analyze tense if we put sentences together as you do above. What you have analyzed here is what I mean in using tense. Different tenses can say the same thing because of different time relations in different situations.
As I repeatedly explained, "I eat dinner" is never ended. But we can sometimes say "I have eaten dinner"? It is because of a time relation with some present question like "We go to eat?"
But I would not use your time-unrelated terms <<aspects... a different point of view>>. These terms don't help one to realize tense is used to express time. Your further explanation displays they are only "different kinds of time relations".
Guest wrote:
<<In the case of the pair of sentences about living in Berlin, you are right to say that "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" entails "I now live in Berlin". But that is not to say that they "mean the same". "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" relates a past action (moving to Berlin 3 years ago) to a present state: "I now live in Berlin" makes no relevance to the past action.>>
My reply:
Please be fair, "I have lived in Berlin for 3 years" relates to a past time, rather than as you now say a past action. It doesn't talk about moving nor traveling nor jumping nor hiding nor swimming here. Even with Simple Present "I now live in Berlin", I can assume you have moved here at some past time.
As I explain in the tense-changing process:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
specifying the time of the action will not change the action in any way, only its tense.
If you specify the time of your car, it is not the same car anymore? Of course not. It is the same car.
If you specify the time of your home, it is not the same home anymore? Of course not. It is the same home.
If you specify the time of your job, it is not the same job anymore? Of course not. It is the same job.
If you specify the time of an action, it is not the same action anymore? Of course not. It is the same action. However, specifying the time of an action will change its tense. This is why people had a hard time to notice the tense-changing process.
|