A concept of time

Guest wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
Why would you skip "I am going to Paris"? If it is here, why are there two tenses, Present Progressive and Present Perfect, relating the scenario to the present moment? Can I say that Present Progressive relates that scenario to the present moment, therefore Present Perfect doesn't? I don't think so. The fact is, all tenses relate the scenario to the present.

We judge time at the present time. No matter it is a past action, a present action, an action in Present Perfect tense, or a future action, all are judged at the present time. Since every action is judged by now, how can some be related to the present time, and some aren't?

Then the question goes to what is "relate to"? Why is a Present Perfect action related to now, but a Simple Past action isn't? Nearly every student is puzzled by this. In order to use Simple Past, they have to find something that is not related to the speaking moment!! There is no such thing. They don't know how to ask, but would you please tell me, why Simple Past "you went to Paris last week" has no relation to the present, but Present Perfect "you have been to Paris in the past" has relation or relevancy to the present? Does it make any sense?

Why "I have broken my leg before" has more relation to the present than "I broke my leg yesterday"? It doesn't make any sense. Either both tenses are related to the present, or only Simple Past is related to the present. It can't be said only Present Perfect is related to the present.

Guest wrote:
<<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.>>

My reply:
Your assumption is incorrect. However, even it is correct, it only supports my argument that the tense of one sentence is controlled by that of another sentence. In this case, we shall openly state two actions for the students.

It is a bad lawyer's question: "Did you kill him with a hammer?" It attracts one to answer "I didn't kill him with that." Then he did nearly admit he did kill him, though not with a hammer. Legally, one can actually use any tense to answer:
-- "I haven't killed him."
-- "I am innocent."

There is no such rule one has to answer with the same tense in the question. We all know that, with Since, we use Present Perfect, though the reason why we use it is a Present Perfect Puzzle. But when we ask question, we may use any tense with Since:
-- Since when did you see them?
-- Since when it is here?
Now will you insist we have to use the same tense of the question to respond as follows?
-- ?I saw them since last month.
-- ?It is here since last week.

--------------
Guest wrote:
<<If I ask you "What did you do today?" it would be ABSOLUTEY WRONG to answer "I have gone to Paris.">>
<<But in this example, I am asking somebody what he did TODAY -- nevertheless, he must answer in the PAST.>>

My reply:
The question has been answered. I still repeat: First, I don't think there is such a regulation. Secondly, even there is such a regulation, it only supports my argument that we shall use more than one sentence to explain tense.

Guest wrote:
<<Here, the adverbs "already" and "yet" SEEM TO obviate the need or an (explicit) perfect form.>>

My reply:
Yes, SEEM TO. But actually there is no such rule.

Just wanting to support such SEEM-TO, grammars even don't record "before / in the past" in grammars. What will you say?
Likewise, in supporting their SEEM-TO, grammars have avoided to mention a lot time adverbials (2.4 Forbidden grammar: the Past Family):
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_4.htm

Do you believe this? After all these years, grammars have only found one rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time. This rule is agreed and recorded in most grammars. And even so, this rule entails hiding a lot of past time adverbials. Can't you see the old approach doesn't work?

Engtense: «I have had it. I will not talk to you again.»

What's the matter? Run out of your sophistic arguments?

Russel Dawson: «It may be time to go back and strengthen your language skills independently until you two can play nice.»

Point!

I thought that the 'Guest' was you in disguise.

engtense: «I thought that the 'Guest' was you in disguise.»

No. Guest's English is way batter than mine!

There!

966 postings!

Come on, don't give up now. You're almost at 1000.

15XX,

Would you throw a party if this thread got passed over a 1000 posts limit.

Without help from engtense, it would be cheating to make the resting 33 posts by ourselves!

resting = remaining

The Ant_222 above wasn't me!!! Name yourself Ant_2222 if you want...

There's no such thing as time. Try to disprove my statement.

The engtense above is a false one.

«There's no such thing as time. Try to disprove my statement.»

You think so?

«The engtense above is a false one.»

Really?

<< There's no such thing as time. Try to disprove my statement. >>

Prove it.