Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations.
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations.
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations.
What are tenses of these two sentences? (Bomb)
The first sentence is 'continuous', and the second sentence is in the past tense.
Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterent, (and continue to do so).
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterent, (in the past).
Whether the first sentence is present continuous, or past continuous, I would not like to say. I would suggest 'past continuous'.
The second sentence is 'simple past'.
Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterent, (and continue to do so).
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterent, (in the past).
Whether the first sentence is present continuous, or past continuous, I would not like to say. I would suggest 'past continuous'.
The second sentence is 'simple past'.
"Have provided" and "has provided" are both in simple present perfect, grammatically speaking - not simple past (provided), neither present continuous (are/is providing), nor past continuous (were/was providing) nor whatever else.
The continuality that you talk about is not related to tense, but rather to the article "the": "atomic bombs" (in general) have provided [...] - it doesn't say they still do, but it doesn't say they stopped doing so either, so a first conclusion is that they still provide [whatever]. If we knew atomic bombs no longer existed, there would be nothing about this sentence to show continuality to the present, though.
"The atomic bomb" kind of implies the invention of the atomic bomb (so basically, the first atomic bomb), which is one point in time and that's why that sentence sounds static.
The continuality that you talk about is not related to tense, but rather to the article "the": "atomic bombs" (in general) have provided [...] - it doesn't say they still do, but it doesn't say they stopped doing so either, so a first conclusion is that they still provide [whatever]. If we knew atomic bombs no longer existed, there would be nothing about this sentence to show continuality to the present, though.
"The atomic bomb" kind of implies the invention of the atomic bomb (so basically, the first atomic bomb), which is one point in time and that's why that sentence sounds static.
Thank you for your explanation.
So, really the difference is between 'atomic bombs' i.e. all the bombs held by all the different nations.
And, "The Atomic Bomb" i.e. the invention of the atomic bomb.
I don't really enjoy being corrected.
My friend who went on to teach English as a Foreign Language was also interested in 'Logic' as in, the philosophy of Logic.
He seemed to find 'Latin' invaluable.
Bye for now
So, really the difference is between 'atomic bombs' i.e. all the bombs held by all the different nations.
And, "The Atomic Bomb" i.e. the invention of the atomic bomb.
I don't really enjoy being corrected.
My friend who went on to teach English as a Foreign Language was also interested in 'Logic' as in, the philosophy of Logic.
He seemed to find 'Latin' invaluable.
Bye for now
<Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations.
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations. >
Both are the present perfect simple. The first is "third person present perfect simple" and the second is "second person present perfect simple".
They are technically not tenses, but aspects.
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations. >
Both are the present perfect simple. The first is "third person present perfect simple" and the second is "second person present perfect simple".
They are technically not tenses, but aspects.
<Whether the first sentence is present continuous, or past continuous, I would not like to say. I would suggest 'past continuous'.
The second sentence is 'simple past'. >
You're wrong, Robin.
The second sentence is 'simple past'. >
You're wrong, Robin.
>> Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations.
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations. <<
1) having/using atomic bombs...
2) the invention of the atomic bomb has provided a clear...
The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations. <<
1) having/using atomic bombs...
2) the invention of the atomic bomb has provided a clear...
Don't think so, User.
This is also OK:
Having the atomic bomb has...
The invention of atomic bombs has...
M56's explanation is correct.
This is also OK:
Having the atomic bomb has...
The invention of atomic bombs has...
M56's explanation is correct.
Past tense is "provided". To have + verb is present perfect simple. Basic grammar.
"Past tense is 'provided'. To have + verb is present perfect simple. Basic grammar."
Not basic grammar at all. The presence of the past participle makes this construction past tense.
Are you suggesting that, if I say "I've eaten my dinner" it's present tense?
Not basic grammar at all. The presence of the past participle makes this construction past tense.
Are you suggesting that, if I say "I've eaten my dinner" it's present tense?
Calliope is right; it is basic grammar.
<<Are you suggesting that, if I say "I've eaten my dinner" it's present tense?>>
It's present perfect, which is a kind of present tense.
~~~
For example, what's the difference between the following sentences?
"I have eaten my dinner."
"I had eaten my dinner."
The difference is that the first sentence is present perfect, while the second sentence is past perfect.
<<Are you suggesting that, if I say "I've eaten my dinner" it's present tense?>>
It's present perfect, which is a kind of present tense.
~~~
For example, what's the difference between the following sentences?
"I have eaten my dinner."
"I had eaten my dinner."
The difference is that the first sentence is present perfect, while the second sentence is past perfect.
<"Past tense is 'provided'. To have + verb is present perfect simple. Basic grammar."
Not basic grammar at all. The presence of the past participle makes this construction past tense. >
Are participles tensed?
Not basic grammar at all. The presence of the past participle makes this construction past tense. >
Are participles tensed?
"Calliope is right; it is basic grammar."
1. Hardly basic grammar; rather convoluted grammar.
"I have eaten my dinner."
"I had eaten my dinner."
2. Both are past tense. But they indicate differing time scales. The former is immediate past time, the latter is further in the past.
1. Hardly basic grammar; rather convoluted grammar.
"I have eaten my dinner."
"I had eaten my dinner."
2. Both are past tense. But they indicate differing time scales. The former is immediate past time, the latter is further in the past.