990!
The countdown is on.
Things are bound to get "tense" now.
Ha ha!
The countdown is on.
Things are bound to get "tense" now.
Ha ha!
A concept of time
<<What is perfect time?>>
My reply:
A special time span is introduced by the new approach in explaining tense. It can be located by putting sentences together. In a paragraph of sentences, if Last Week is past and Now (now is Thursday for example) is present, there is a time span between Last Week and Now, strictly from Monday to Thursday. It is neither Last Week nor Now. Handicapped by one-sentence basis, old grammars have failed to locate it. I have dubbed the time span Perfect Time, because Present Perfect is used to express it:
Ex: "Last week I WENT to a new department store. I BOUGHT many things. I HAVE RECOMMENDED it to Ms Lee. Now she BUYS her things there."
Simple Past BOUGHT indicates the buy happens in the same time frame of Last Week (which stands for any past time). Present Perfect says the recommendation is in the Perfect Time between Last Week and Now. The underlying reason is very simple: if the recommendation is also in Last Week, why is it not in Simple Past also? But if it is outside Last Week, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in Last Week. English has designed Present Perfect to report things in the Perfect Time.
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_8
My reply:
A special time span is introduced by the new approach in explaining tense. It can be located by putting sentences together. In a paragraph of sentences, if Last Week is past and Now (now is Thursday for example) is present, there is a time span between Last Week and Now, strictly from Monday to Thursday. It is neither Last Week nor Now. Handicapped by one-sentence basis, old grammars have failed to locate it. I have dubbed the time span Perfect Time, because Present Perfect is used to express it:
Ex: "Last week I WENT to a new department store. I BOUGHT many things. I HAVE RECOMMENDED it to Ms Lee. Now she BUYS her things there."
Simple Past BOUGHT indicates the buy happens in the same time frame of Last Week (which stands for any past time). Present Perfect says the recommendation is in the Perfect Time between Last Week and Now. The underlying reason is very simple: if the recommendation is also in Last Week, why is it not in Simple Past also? But if it is outside Last Week, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in Last Week. English has designed Present Perfect to report things in the Perfect Time.
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_8
e=mc2 posted a timeline:
http://www.cw.bc.ca/Epidcourse/lecture/lec0671/img005.GIF
My reply:
I don't mind if one uses Retrospective and Prospective, or any terms at all, to explain Present Perfect.
But according to tense-changing process:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Present Perfect has dual functions, expressing same as either Simple Present or Simple Past:
Ex: They have worked there in the past. (a past action)
Ex: They have worked there since April. (a present action)
Therefore, on one-sentence basis, you cannot tell the difference between the three tenses.
The tense-changing process thwarts any attempt to explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis.
However, if we use put sentences together and reveal the Perfect Time, we don't need any terms at all to explain Present Perfect.
http://www.cw.bc.ca/Epidcourse/lecture/lec0671/img005.GIF
My reply:
I don't mind if one uses Retrospective and Prospective, or any terms at all, to explain Present Perfect.
But according to tense-changing process:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Present Perfect has dual functions, expressing same as either Simple Present or Simple Past:
Ex: They have worked there in the past. (a past action)
Ex: They have worked there since April. (a present action)
Therefore, on one-sentence basis, you cannot tell the difference between the three tenses.
The tense-changing process thwarts any attempt to explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis.
However, if we use put sentences together and reveal the Perfect Time, we don't need any terms at all to explain Present Perfect.
<< Ex: "Last week I WENT to a new department store. I BOUGHT many things. I HAVE RECOMMENDED it to Ms Lee. Now she BUYS her things there." >>
I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...
On the other hand:
Every so often, that department store has sales. I have recommended it to Ms Lee, who buys things there from time to time.
I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...
On the other hand:
Every so often, that department store has sales. I have recommended it to Ms Lee, who buys things there from time to time.
Geoff_One wrote:
<<I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
My reply:
Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.
I have my explanation for the example:
<<The underlying reason is very simple: if the recommendation is also in Last Week, why is it not in Simple Past also? But if it is outside Last Week, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in Last Week.>>
What is your explanation for your example?
<<I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
My reply:
Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.
I have my explanation for the example:
<<The underlying reason is very simple: if the recommendation is also in Last Week, why is it not in Simple Past also? But if it is outside Last Week, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in Last Week.>>
What is your explanation for your example?
Mr. Curious:
«Engtense has a valid point. Pointing out to a web page aint gonna answer my query»
I posted that link just to show several view on what time is. Of course, it in no way relates to your question about Perfect Time.
As I have said above in this endless thread, engtense has endowed this term with a meaning so fuzzy and obscure that I so far haven't got it.
I don't speak against the term itself but rather against engtense's definition and understaing thereof.
He says that Perfect Time is between last week and now. But — yeah! — it's past. If he had said Pefect Time was a part of Past time defined by some properties that'd have been better, but yet he'd have had to clearly indicate those properties.
The major problem of engtense in the confusion beween time and tense and a wrong assurance that the latter's only function is to express the former. Furthermore, he seems not to distinguish between the time of an action (which is an interval, or a set of intervals) and the time of a moment (whish is a point on the time axis).
Engtense:
«I don't mind if one uses Retrospective and Prospective, or any terms at all, to explain Present Perfect.»
Hey, that picture posted by e=mc2 is very simple and ultimately correct. That you mistook the terms "Retrospective" and "Prospective" as ones related to time itself shows your not wanting to get things as they are. Actually, those terms are just a time-based classification of was of study.
«Present Perfect has dual functions...»
It may have even a triple function — all depends on one's classificartion of functions of this tense.
«...expressing same as either Simple Present or Simple Past:»
What? In the two sentences Present Perfect cannot be substituted by neither Past Simple nor Present Simple without loss/change of meaning!
«Ex: They have worked there in the past. (a past action)
Ex: They have worked there since April. (a present action)
Therefore, on one-sentence basis, you cannot tell the difference between the three tenses.»
I pretty easily can. Those sentences don't need any context to be easily distinguishable. The first one expresses a past actin while the second — a present one.
«The tense-changing process thwarts any attempt to explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis.»
I'd rather say it supresses any attempts to understand English tenses ;)
«Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.»
A correct answer, even without explanation, is always better than an wrong one, be it supported by a false explanation or not!
«Engtense has a valid point. Pointing out to a web page aint gonna answer my query»
I posted that link just to show several view on what time is. Of course, it in no way relates to your question about Perfect Time.
As I have said above in this endless thread, engtense has endowed this term with a meaning so fuzzy and obscure that I so far haven't got it.
I don't speak against the term itself but rather against engtense's definition and understaing thereof.
He says that Perfect Time is between last week and now. But — yeah! — it's past. If he had said Pefect Time was a part of Past time defined by some properties that'd have been better, but yet he'd have had to clearly indicate those properties.
The major problem of engtense in the confusion beween time and tense and a wrong assurance that the latter's only function is to express the former. Furthermore, he seems not to distinguish between the time of an action (which is an interval, or a set of intervals) and the time of a moment (whish is a point on the time axis).
Engtense:
«I don't mind if one uses Retrospective and Prospective, or any terms at all, to explain Present Perfect.»
Hey, that picture posted by e=mc2 is very simple and ultimately correct. That you mistook the terms "Retrospective" and "Prospective" as ones related to time itself shows your not wanting to get things as they are. Actually, those terms are just a time-based classification of was of study.
«Present Perfect has dual functions...»
It may have even a triple function — all depends on one's classificartion of functions of this tense.
«...expressing same as either Simple Present or Simple Past:»
What? In the two sentences Present Perfect cannot be substituted by neither Past Simple nor Present Simple without loss/change of meaning!
«Ex: They have worked there in the past. (a past action)
Ex: They have worked there since April. (a present action)
Therefore, on one-sentence basis, you cannot tell the difference between the three tenses.»
I pretty easily can. Those sentences don't need any context to be easily distinguishable. The first one expresses a past actin while the second — a present one.
«The tense-changing process thwarts any attempt to explain Present Perfect on one-sentence basis.»
I'd rather say it supresses any attempts to understand English tenses ;)
«Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.»
A correct answer, even without explanation, is always better than an wrong one, be it supported by a false explanation or not!
Those who fail to understand Perfect Time should read some documents about "Perfect Time Span":
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22perfect+time+span%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22perfect+time+span%22
«Those who fail to understand Perfect Time should read some documents about "Perfect Time Span":»
Well, which of those documents accords with your understanding of PTS?
Well, which of those documents accords with your understanding of PTS?
<<Well, which of those documents accords with your understanding of PTS?>>
I expected you to ask this. I have explained Perfect Time for so many times, so I have enough reason to advice you to read more. Perfect Time Span is discussed in many of such documents. These documents and my explanations here support each other. If you still fail to locate the time span, good luck.
You are the only person who claims doesn't know how to locate the Perfect Time. If another agrees with you, the number is expanding. Ask them to support you.
I expected you to ask this. I have explained Perfect Time for so many times, so I have enough reason to advice you to read more. Perfect Time Span is discussed in many of such documents. These documents and my explanations here support each other. If you still fail to locate the time span, good luck.
You are the only person who claims doesn't know how to locate the Perfect Time. If another agrees with you, the number is expanding. Ask them to support you.
<< Geoff_One wrote:
<<I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
My reply:
Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.
>>
I didn't put it forward on a one sentence basis and it should be self-explanatory.
I would actually prefer to speak the world language, Spanish, with you rather than English.
<<I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
My reply:
Yes, on one-sentence basis, and without explanation.
>>
I didn't put it forward on a one sentence basis and it should be self-explanatory.
I would actually prefer to speak the world language, Spanish, with you rather than English.
<<I would actually prefer to speak the world language, Spanish, with you rather than English. >>
But that a lame excuse for running away from the discussion, nothing personal, just a thought.
But that a lame excuse for running away from the discussion, nothing personal, just a thought.
A document has explained the Perfect Time Span (PTS):
<<(3) Henry has lived in Somerville.
has a PTS which ranges from SOME POINT IN THE PAST to now, and
(4) Henry has lived in Somerville since 1999.
has a PTS which ranges from 1999 to now.>>
== http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TNmNDYzN/Nathan.Temporal-Existentials.pdf
Is there any difficulty to notice the time span? I don't think so. However, the quote has only demonstrated the catastrophe of one-sentence basis, which fails to tell where is "SOME POINT IN THE PAST" in (3).
By putting sentences together, however, my new approach points out exactly where is "SOME POINT IN THE PAST" like this:
Ex: "Henry divorced his wife and left the country in 1999. He has lived in Somerville."
So why is there any difficulty in understanding the Perfect Time Span for Present Perfect tense?
----------------------------
Actually, in (3), "Henry has lived in Somerville" doesn't imply 'to now'. It is their academic wish to explain Perfect Time Span with one sentence. I understand "I have lived in Japan" doesn't mean I still live there up to now.
Therefore, a more correct example will appear like this:
Ex: "Henry divorced his wife and left the country in 1999. He has lived in Somerville. Now he works in Hong Kong."
== In my terms, HAS LIVED happens in the Perfect Time between 1999 and Now.
So why is there any difficulty in understanding the Perfect Time?
The old approach clinches on the one-sentence basis. My new approach exercises more than one sentence, so that it may picture a more vivid time relation between sentences. If those university documents claim Perfect Time Span, my new approach may certainly do a lot better.
<<(3) Henry has lived in Somerville.
has a PTS which ranges from SOME POINT IN THE PAST to now, and
(4) Henry has lived in Somerville since 1999.
has a PTS which ranges from 1999 to now.>>
== http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TNmNDYzN/Nathan.Temporal-Existentials.pdf
Is there any difficulty to notice the time span? I don't think so. However, the quote has only demonstrated the catastrophe of one-sentence basis, which fails to tell where is "SOME POINT IN THE PAST" in (3).
By putting sentences together, however, my new approach points out exactly where is "SOME POINT IN THE PAST" like this:
Ex: "Henry divorced his wife and left the country in 1999. He has lived in Somerville."
So why is there any difficulty in understanding the Perfect Time Span for Present Perfect tense?
----------------------------
Actually, in (3), "Henry has lived in Somerville" doesn't imply 'to now'. It is their academic wish to explain Perfect Time Span with one sentence. I understand "I have lived in Japan" doesn't mean I still live there up to now.
Therefore, a more correct example will appear like this:
Ex: "Henry divorced his wife and left the country in 1999. He has lived in Somerville. Now he works in Hong Kong."
== In my terms, HAS LIVED happens in the Perfect Time between 1999 and Now.
So why is there any difficulty in understanding the Perfect Time?
The old approach clinches on the one-sentence basis. My new approach exercises more than one sentence, so that it may picture a more vivid time relation between sentences. If those university documents claim Perfect Time Span, my new approach may certainly do a lot better.
Congrats!
You've topped a 1000 postings.
But please, don't tell me you're going for 2000 now!
You've topped a 1000 postings.
But please, don't tell me you're going for 2000 now!