Note: The following record is saved from an academic discussion center, and all the replying functions are not working here. I posted the idea that both the Past and the Perfect are of the same meaning. Some scholars thought otherwise and joined in the discussion. This page was far well read by many.
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (1 of 35), Read 1012 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Monday, December 21, 1998 07:00 AM
Subject: The same meaning in different forms
A comment on the Present Perfect and the Simple Past
I maintain that (1) and (2) are of the same meaning:
(1) I have bought a hat.
(2) I bought a hat.
Since they are in different tenses, I understand that my conclusion is rather controversial. Here I want to explain why I have this opinion.
Please see the following illustrating dialogue:
Mary said, "I have bought a hat."
John asked, "When?"
Mary replied, "I bought a hat last Saturday."
In this conversation, they are talking about the same thing. However, grammars permit or require that Mary use different tenses -- Present Perfect and Simple Past. It is true that the meanings of her sentences are not quite the same, but we shall agree Mary related the same thing, and most of all, the same thing of the same time, with different details. We can hardly imagine that one will say, "There are two happenings here. One is 'Mary has bought a hat'; another 'Mary bought a hat last Saturday'."
Since it is the same happening, we cannot say that it is sometimes just a past fact, and sometimes has something connected to the present. It has both of the meanings, or it has neither of the meanings.
Further, if 'last Saturday' is implied elsewhere, the fact that "Mary bought a hat" (in the Simple Past) returns to its original meaning: "Mary has bought a hat". The meaning of the fact doesn't change! It is difficult to accept that by asking about the time of a fact, the fact will change automatically.
Now we see clearly that the Present Perfect is another form of the Simple Past. They are different in forms, but not in meanings. They are describing the same action! If "I have bought a hat" has something -- anything at all -- concerned about the present, so shall "I bought a hat", in exactly the same way. I think this can explain why the old question (Present Perfect vs Simple Past) has puzzled us for so long. People have always wanted to define the difference! But the two tenses are of the same meaning. [See A question about tenses(6): The twin brothers]. The students are the jury: They will never truly understand the difference grammars tell them.
Also, since the time frame "last Saturday" is often implied elsewhere, we will get nothing clear just by discussing "I have bought a hat" and "I bought a hat". To locate the implied "last Saturday", we have to depend on elsewhere in a paragraph. That is why I always repeat that the difference between (1) and (2) can be seen only in a paragraph (more than a sentence). [See A question about tense(10): A clearer face of tense].
Compare further (3) and (4):
(3) Last Friday I bought a ball. I have painted it red.
(4) Last Friday I bought a ball. I painted it red.
In (4) we have detected the implied timing of "I painted it red", which is "last Friday". The painting was done right on that same day.
The Present Perfect in (3) says the action of painting happens and finishes behind last Friday and before now.
The two tenses can be differentiated only in this way -- in a paragraph. I have checked this for years. It is logical and practical.
As is showed here, tenses are used only to tell the timings (orders) between happenings (sentences) in a paragraph. Other communicative meanings such as habit, permanency, current relevancy, and many other possible meanings, can be loaded onto sentences. [See A question about tenses(12): Sentence vs tense]. Sentences, because of their infinite number, are much more capable than just a few tenses. Only endless sentences can handle endless meanings. We shall never confuse the use of sentences with that of tenses, as grammars usually do today, however.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (2 of 35), Read 959 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Edward Shaw Date:
Monday, December 21, 1998 04:43 PM Shun:
If someone returns from the market having purchased a hat, he or she need not say, "I have bought a hat," but instead,
"I bought a hat."
Even if asked, "What have you bought?"
the answer is, "I bought a hat."
The phrase, "have bought," as you know,
places the action in the present perfect tense. The implication is that of an action having continuity up to or through the present. Its use is reserved for those occasions.
The difference between saying
"I painted the ball red," and "I have painted the ball red," is the difference between a simple statement of a past fact and a statement which engages that past act with the living present.
If I tell you, "I have painted the ball red,"
you might expect to be able to go out to the workbench and see that the ball there, drying.
Mr. Shaw
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (3 of 35), Read 954 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Wednesday, December 23, 1998 04:32 AM Dear Mr. Shaw
Thank you for your reply.
What I want to say chiefly is, in a paragraph, when we have to use the Past, we cannot use the Perfect, and vice versa. We have objective, decisive factors to help students to choose between the two tenses.
I do not oppose using only one isolated sentence to explain tenses, as you do it well here. But this traditional way proves failure to help students. For example, there is no such decisive factor in your explanation. In other words, what you say to the Simple Past will fit to the Present Perfect like a glove. Your examples only prove once again there is no difference between them.
For example, you said:
========================
If someone returns from the market
having purchased a hat, he or she
need not say, "I have bought a
hat," but instead, "I bought a hat."
========================
I hope you would not go so far as to say that he or she can not say "I have bought a hat."
Both tenses are correct, aren't they?
You said:
========================
Even if asked, "What have you bought?"
the answer is, "I bought a hat."
========================
But I want to know, is it possible to answer "I've bought a hat"? Both tenses are correct, aren't they? Of course, for the time being we agree to put aside the straight answer: "A hat."
You said:
========================
If I tell you, "I have painted the ball red,"
you might expect to be able to go out to
the workbench and see that the ball
there, drying.
========================
But I like to inform you, even if you say "I painted the ball red", I still want to take a look at it there, drying. Both tenses will do the same thing. Whether drying or not, however, has nothing to do with tenses. Do you disagree?
You said:
========================
The difference between saying
"I painted the ball red," and
"I have painted the ball red," is
the difference between a simple
statement of a past fact and a
statement which engages that
past act with the living present.
========================
But the truth is, no matter what tense you use, the other side will get the same meaning. (I have explained that communicative meanings are expressed by sentences).
Isn't the Perfect "I have painted the ball red" a past fact also?
Doesn't the Past "I painted the ball red" engage the action with the living present also? Only does a murderer, for example, want to say, "According to grammars, what I did last year has nothing to do with the present". But it is what the other side has heard that counts.
You said:
========================
The phrase, "have bought," as you
know, places the action in the present
perfect tense. The implication is that
of an action having continuity up to
or through the present. Its use is
reserved for those occasions."
========================
I think here you have gone too far. What about the Simple Present tense?
Ex: He lives in Japan.
The action of his living there is actually not starting right now. It is also an action having continuity up to or through the present. Your definition for the Present Perfect fits perfectly to the Simple Present.
In order to tell the difference from the Past, you borrow the definition of the Present to describe the Perfect! This will make things more complicated. How then do you explain the Simple Present tense?
This time I invite you to join me to discuss these three examples. What is the difference between the three tenses:
(1) He lives in Japan.
(2) He has lived in Japan.
(3) He lived in Japan.
I want to repeat here it is not I who bring up the Simple Present tense. This time we may have a chance to well prepare our definition.
Meanwhile, I still maintain: Without a paragraph, there is no decisive factor to differentiate the Simple Past from the Present Perfect. The traditional way of explaining will bring up nothing but confusion.
Regards,
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (4 of 35), Read 954 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Peter Corey Date:
Monday, December 21, 1998 08:31 PM Shun,
(1)The perfective aspect of a verb -- which generates the perfect system of tenses -- is always compound: have bought, had bought. The simple past (which is generated by the imperfective aspect of the verb) is always simple; i.e. consists of a one word, called the preterit.
So just as a matter of form, the present perfect cannot be classed with the simple past.
(2)It's certainly true that in English, the tenses are not equally precise regarding time. For example, the simple past can indeed be used to signify something that is more fully "past" than it would otherwise be in the present perfect. But consider this sentence:
"last week, as I bought a hat, a woman started gossiping with me."
Clearly, "bought" (the preterit of "buy") signifies an action in the past that was not yet finished from the standpoint of the acting subject. "As I bought," is equivalent to "as I was buying," which is the textbook way of representing the tense known as the "imperfect."
Peter
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (5 of 35), Read 940 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Wednesday, December 23, 1998 04:56 AM Dear Peter,
Thank you very much for giving the correct callings for the tenses. We shall always keep in mind that there are varieties in calling them.
Regards,
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (6 of 35), Read 941 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Peter Corey Date:
Wednesday, December 23, 1998 03:20 PM Shun,
You're quite welcome.
I hope it was also clear that the imperfect tense and the perfect signify different things.
Peter
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (7 of 35), Read 926 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Edward Shaw Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 03:49 AM Dear Mr. Shun:
Point well taken, Shun Tang. You have a discerning eye for the English language and are plainly capable of original analysis of the field.
As frequently happens, the student becomes the teacher. This is the natural course and the preferred route to progress.
I infer that the aim is to send the present perfect tense down the road of the subjunctive mood. Has anyone heard, lately, "I that be concerned?"
So, then, the table has been turned.
The word, "have" which is associated with the present perfect, implies a "possession" of the action. This fine distinction causes its separation from the simple past.
Can you tell me, is there a difference between these following:
1) I have visited Thailand.
2) I visited Thailand.
Mr. Shaw
P.S. I am all for anything to make English
more easily learned, including re-learning
my own.
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (8 of 35), Read 929 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 09:57 AM Dear Mr. Shaw,
I think we have fallen into a vicious circle. I admit I cannot get out of it.
Personally, without the help of a paragraph, I fail to see the difference between (1) and (2):
1) I have visited Thailand.
2) I visited Thailand.
And I predict that what you can tell of (1), can be applied to (2). And I predict also that you will not speak of just one of the both sentences and end the whole dialogue. Where then is the rest? Where is the paragraph?
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (9 of 35), Read 933 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Edward Shaw Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 02:02 PM Shun:
All right, I will give it a try, keeping my fingers crossed that some kind soul will come to my aid once I have succeeded in painting myself into the corner. One thing, though. Please allow me the use of the present perfect progressive in my paragraph.
I have been planning a tour of S.E. Asia for some time. In preparation, I have been reading books and looking at maps. I have just returned from the library.
I cannot say that I have visited Thailand, yet. My tour is scheduled for departure next week. My neighbor will be envious when I tell her I have visited Thailand since she has always wanted to go there.
I took a trip to Hong Kong as a child and I have taken several trips to Manila. I was going back to Manila, but since I have been visiting cities frequently, I have grown tired of them.
Mr. Shaw
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (10 of 35), Read 944 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 05:12 PM Dear Mr. Shaw
I just 'predicted' that you have a paragraph. And I promised no more. Frankly, I am puzzled by the long message you have posed here. I expected both of your paragraph and your own explanation.
But after a brief examination of your paragraph, I want to say something about the sentences in question.
You describe: "I cannot say that I have visited Thailand, yet. My tour is scheduled for departure next week. My neighbor will be envious when I tell her I have visited Thailand since she has always wanted to go there." In the description I have located two times of "I have visited Thailand".
It is obvious that you haven't visited the place yet. And since I have explained that the Present Perfect tense denotes something already finished. How can you say "I have visited Thailand" when you have not finished it?
My humble idea is, your sentence "I cannot say that I have visited Thailand, yet" is valid. I mean, you really cannot say "I have visited Thailand" at this moment.
As for the second "I have visited Thailand", I am afraid it is invalid because the action is not finished yet. Again, since I have explained that the Simple Present tense is used to express unfinished action, I therefore suggest that you should use the Present, instead of the Perfect, in the second "I have visited Thailand". "I am going to visit Thailand" is also fine.
As you see, in a paragraph, we may tell whether "I have visited Thailand" is right or not. We know that this is not achievable if we discuss tenses in an isolated sentence.
Nevertheless, I am not surprised if you say I get the wrong idea from your message. I did expect discussion rather than a test.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (11 of 35), Read 931 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Steve Campsall Date:
Thursday, December 24, 1998 09:32 PM No corner, no paint! What I think you clearly show is the flexibility of our wonderful language to suggest nuances of meaning that are nearly impossible to teach.
Steve
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (12 of 35), Read 942 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, December 25, 1998 06:16 AM
At the level as they are studying the basic part of grammar -- tense, students accept anything we tell them. We may tell them the Present is used to express habitual action or permanency, for example. Usually they don't check up themselves. But if we look into a newspaper ourselves, how many habitual actions and permanency we can find? But the absurd explanation for habit goes on and is accepted by nearly all. There is no wonder whatsoever if they have to accept the complicated description for the Perfect.
But in the new explanation, definitions for the unfinished and the finished are in fact those of the present actions and the past actions. [See A question about tenses(7): How to define 'past'?] As for the basic usage, tenses are easy to explain:
The Simple Present tense is used to express a present action.
The Present Perfect tense is used to express a past action.
But when we are speaking of the time of the action with a Frame, tenses change:
The Present Perfect tense is used to express a present action.
The Simple Past tense is used to express a past action.
These definitions are much easier than describing habitual or permanent actions, or current relevancy. They call for the attention of using past time adjuncts. They tell the difference between the three tenses. But what is important is now they fit to reality. They explain nearly all kinds of sentences in newspaper. For example, I may use the Simple Present tense around here, just because I think what I say here (opinion only) is applicable (not finished) at present.
The paragraph stuff is used only for academic discussion: Tenses can do more.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (13 of 35), Read 931 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Edward Shaw Date:
Friday, December 25, 1998 01:23 PM Mr. Shun:
As Abe Lincoln might have put it, "You are free."
Mr. Shaw
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (14 of 35), Read 935 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Steve Campsall Date:
Friday, December 25, 1998 03:08 PM Ah-ha, but...
So free we seem, so fettered fast we are!
Robert Browning
Steve
PS A very Merry Christmas to all!
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (15 of 35), Read 938 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, December 25, 1998 06:43 PM Dear Mr. Shaw,
You may call me Shun, or Mr. Tang.
We understand Chinese names confuse many people.
Reply: I still stand very anxious. But I don't know how to express myself in quotation.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (16 of 35), Read 636 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 08:57 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (1): An elusive time adjunctIn English tenses, the time adjunct "in the past few/four/ten years" is very useful, and always combined with the present perfect tense, as in:
Ex: There have been great improvements in school teaching in the past ten years.
Ex: As a result, the number of multiple births in the U.S. has more than quadrupled in the past quarter-century.
Ex: At least in the past few years exitways from central Paris have been greatly improved.
Ex: This function has greatly increased in importance over the past hundred years.But this GROUP of time adjuncts are not reported in most of the grammar books as they explain the tenses. I wonder why? In my opinion, the adjunct is so common that we should not even neglect or turn a blind eye to.
Truly, however, I have never seen a grammar explaining this common adjunct in relation of tenses. Please let me know if you find one.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (17 of 35), Read 634 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:02 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (2): Tense in reported speechHello,
Now we have the Present Prefect tense and the Simple Past tense, and having learnt from grammar books, we make a remarkable effort to differentiate the two of them. My problem is, however, why then we waste such effort in indirect speech? In A Grammar of Contemporary English, Quirk et al. give us a clear formula of Back-shift:
"Back-shift takes place when any reported matter is introduced by a reporting verb in the past tense. In these circumstances, the shift from direct to reported speech is accompanied by a back-shift of verb as follows:
present ---------------------------------> past
past, present perfect, past perfect ------> past perfect"According to this formula, both "Mary bought a new hat" and "Mary has bought a new hat" are turned into the same form (the Past Perfect tense) in the reported speech, as in "John said Mary had bought a new hat." We can hardly tell whether the Past Perfect tense here could have come from the Present Perfect tense or the Simple Past tense. And usually we would not ask John exactly what tense did Mary use. Or, if to differentiate these two tenses is necessary and practical, should we ask?
It seems no trouble at all for grammarians to merge reportedly two different meanings (expressed by the Present Prefect tense and the Simple Past tense) into one (only expressed by the Past Perfect tense). But it always bothers me. If we tell students to set a line between the two tenses, why shouldn't we ever do so in indirect speech? What do you pals think about this?
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (18 of 35), Read 633 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:05 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (3) : A current habitWhen we explain the use of the present tense to students, we have to turn a blind eye to numerous examples proven otherwise, don't we? Well, if you don't, please tell me how not to.
It is well known in grammar that "The main use of the simple present tense is to express habitual actions, as in: He goes to school every day." But do grammarians see or not that other tenses can, so to speak, express habits also? as in:
Ex. He has gone to school every day.
Ex. He went to school every day.
Ex. He will go to school every day (in the coming year).
(These sentences denote various kinds of habits.)In fact, of all kinds of habits, present habits are the minority. A man may have more past noon habits than he can remember, but he has only one present habit practiced at noon. So, why do grammars care about the minority, and nothing but the minority?
It is much fair to say, to my understanding, that the main use of the simple present tense is to express PRESENT habitual actions. Does any one grammar book say so or say something like that? Please let me know if there is. The book will be a blessing to me.
If many tenses can also express habitual action, what is the point we say only "The present tense expresses habitual action"?
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
Re: About tense: The same meaning in different forms (19 of 35), Read 611 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Igor R. StempenDate:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:52 PM > From: "Shun Tang"
>
.... It is much fair to say, to my understanding, that the main use of
the simple present tense
> is to express PRESENT habitual actions. Does any one grammar book say so or say something like that? Please let
> me know if there is. The book will be a blessing to me.
> If many tenses can also express habitual action, what is the point we say only "The
> present tense expresses habitual action"?
>
>
> Shun Tang
>
Dear Shun,
I am not sure if I got you right, really. In my country (that is
Belarus, and former USSR) any grammar book will say "...habitual action
in the PRESENT." How can there be any doubt about that? If you care for
the names of Russian authors, I can quote a dozen right away. I do not
really see how it can be anything different from "... in the present".
All this problem looks like one huge misunderstanding to me. What do
others think?
Igor R. Stempen
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
Re: About tense: The same meaning in different forms (20 of 35), Read 614 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Saturday, January 30, 1999 05:44 AM Dear Igor,
I am afraid I cannot get you right this time. Your incomplete replying sentence "...habitual action in the PRESENT" makes further discussion unstable. Can you type up the whole statement?
Did you want to say that your grammar book clearly explains: "The simple present tense is used to express habitual actions in the PRESENT"? If so, I agree it is a big surprise to me. In this case, I really want to see the whole message.
Please do not just give me a lot of names of books. I once talked to a teacher who would give me a dozen of names of grammars, without quoting one single example. Would you type up a whole sentence explanation from one of your grammar books, as well as some examples? You are holding very important information!!
Thank you.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
Re: About tense: The same meaning in different forms (21 of 35), Read 606 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Igor R. Stempen Date:
Monday, February 01, 1999 08:10 AM > From: "Shun Tang"
>
> Dear Igor,
>
> I am afraid I cannot get you right this time. Your incomplete replying sentence "...habitual action in the PRESENT" makes further discussion unstable. Can you type up the whole sentence?
>
> Did you want to say that your grammar book clearly explains: "The simple present tense is used to express habitual actions in the PRESENT"? If so, I agree it is a big surprise to me. In this case, I really want to see it.
>
> Please do not just give me a lot of names of books. I once talked to a teacher who would give me a dozen of names of grammars, without quoting one single example. Would you type up one whole sentence explanation from one of your grammar books, as well as some examples? You are holding very important information!!
>
> Shun
Dear Shun,
I apologize for the delay. I was out of town and got your message only
today. Our libraries tend to be closed during weekends, so I had to use
the book from my bookshelf. The authors' names are K.A. Guzeeva and T.G.
Troshko. The book is in Russian, so what you read below is my
translation into English, I hope, however, that the idea is clearly
stated:
"Present Indefinite is used to denote an action which refers to the
present time in a broad sense of the word. Also, this form denotes
actions which refer to the moment of speech as well as to the present
period of time, thus being, so to say, beyond time. It does not indicate
duration, nor finality, nor precedence of action.
Present Indefinite is used:
1. To denote simple facts and general truths
a) The coffee beans grow well in Brazil
b) Brazil produces good coffee
c) Water boils at 100 degrees C
d) The early bird catches the worm
2. To express daily repeated actions, habitual and customary ones
a) I have a cup of coffee every morning
b) I usually come to school some time before the bell rings
c) We always see the new year in at home"
I shall cut the quotation here to save space. Your comments are welcome.
Igor
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
Re: About tense: The same meaning in different forms (22 of 35), Read 604 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Monday, February 01, 1999 06:25 PM Dear Igor,
Thank you for your 'translation'. I can tell that you handle very well both of the languages.
I carefully reviewed your message, and could not find what I expect from you, however.
In the initiative message you said:
==========================
any grammar book will say "...habitual
action in the PRESENT." How can
there be any doubt about that?
==========================
Now I miss "...habitual action in the PRESENT." Or I shall say, at least, the grammar book you quote does not clearly say this. The explanation of your grammar (in Russian) is quite similar to most of ours -- in Hong Kong or in the British.
The book you claim says in the first place that "the Present Indefinite is used to denote an action which refers to the present time in a broad sense of the word". This is perfectly right. I agree to this. There are really many things in the present: habit, general truth, suggestion, opinion, movement, denial, apology, negligence, trade, improvement, crime, traveling, contest, nature, reaction, economy, scandal, warfare, fire, earthquake, invention, and endless meanings.
But why does the same grammar suddenly restrict the tense "to denote general truths or habitual action"? It doesn't make sense. How can endless meanings be sorted into two categories: general truth or habitual action? This is not possible. For example, is the present tensed sentence "I apologize for the delay" a general truth or habitual action?
Therefore, we shall say more precisely "the present tensed sentence expresses a present habitual action". A word less is very inaccurate. Please see A question about tenses(12): Sentence vs tense.
The Present tense is NOT used to express "simple facts and general truths". Even without the tense, your example SENTENCES alone can do this:
a) The coffee beans grow well in Brazil
b) Brazil produces good coffee
c) Water boils at 100 degrees C
d) The early bird catches the worm
Again, the Present tense is NOT used to express "repeated actions, habitual and customary ones". Even without the tense, your example SENTENCES alone can do this:
a) I have a cup of coffee every morning
b) I usually come to school some time before the bell rings
c) We always see the new year in at homeOn the other hand, general truths, or habitual actions, all can be denoted by other tenses than the Simple Present [see A question about tense(9): Why jargon?]. That is to say, the tense does not have a fixed relation to the general truths, or habitual actions.
In short, tenses have something else to do, which is the main theme of my tense explanation.
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (23 of 35), Read 632 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:09 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (4): Is my computer permanent?Although I still use my old notebook computer to edit, I know it will not last long. It nearly breaks apart. And it dances noisily inside for a while every time the power is on. But the manual for the computer is written in the present tense. Let's figure out why the present tense?
"The main use of the simple present tense is to express habitual actions", as puts a grammar book. Another grammar agrees, "It (the present tense) doesn't really describe present action, but something permanent or habitual." In those examples the grammarians give for habitual actions, there is not a single sentence starting with a lifeless thing. I agree. Those things without life will hardly have habits.
But the truth also is: such lifeless things as my computer, are not permanent. And then my question is inevitable: what are those present tenses in the computer manual doing? Why do people use the tense throughout the book to describe something neither habitual nor permanent?
Perhaps, let us put away the manual for a while. We ourselves use the present tense frequently and amply all the day. Do you really think there are so many permanent things we can discover swiftly and continually, as long as we talk? Or are we just talking about someone's habits while he is not around? I don't think so. I just have an idea that grammars nowadays are not even close to the main theme of the simple present tense we are using.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (24 of 35), Read 632 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:12 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (5): Another elusive time adjunctThe other day I put to here an interesting phenomenon: you will for certain find the adjunct "in the past few/four/ten years" in readings, but you cannot find it in grammar books. Now we U-turn to another as spectacular amazement: you can find the following adjunct in most of grammar books, but you will not find it in readings, say, in the coming issue of Time magazine. It is the invisible "up to now".
See an example from a grammar book about this adjunct: This tense [the present perfect tense] is usual with already: "I have already explained that.", with the Adverbs of Frequency: "He has often/never/always done that.", and with the words: now, today, this week/month/year, etc., up to now, up to the present, so far, not yet, lately."
On the other hand, if you have difficulty to locate "up to now" in grammar books, please let me know.The reason why we rarely see "up to now" in readings is that writers use its synonym "still" instead. Please look up your dictionary if they are synonyms. It is quite all right that, in writing, we choose between synonymous words from time to time. But the trouble is, "still" is combined with the present tense as in "He still prefers to stay in hotel", or "He is still working in the yard", etc. Then the choice between "still" and "up to now" is difficult, and more probably there is no choice at all.
Every time when a writer uses "still" he breaks grammarians' heart. What then is your choice: "up to now" with the present perfect tense, or "still" with the simple present tense? I still prefer the latter.
If you are able to find one single appearance of "up to now" in any recent issue of the Time magazine, please tell me quick and I will get the first example outside grammar books after I have searched for it so many years. Thank you.
Issue to be discussed (if and only if we have the above situations): Why do grammars put away some common adjuncts and show us an adjunct so rarely used, in relation of the present perfect tense? Is it just a matter of carelessness?
On the other hand, if these adjuncts are proven to be vital to their tense theory, and grammarians play hide-and-seek with students, in order to keep it going, do you think that there is something wrong in tense explanation?Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (25 of 35), Read 630 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:16 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (6): The twin brothersIn those days when I studied on the subject of English tenses, there was no Internet, but I still managed to get a few free copies of language journals mailed from countries over the world. In an issue of ELT Journal, by Oxford University Press in association with The British Council, Vol. 38 No.4, a P.S. Tregidgo posted a serious, scholarly article titled "How far have we got with the present perfect?" And judging from the contents of the article, we have no doubt that the scholar THINKS he doesn't get much out of the tense. He ended the article by concluding, "Meanwhile, one thing seems to me to be pretty clear. Whatever the grammarians may say about it, the problem of the English present perfect remains very much alive and kicking!"
The present perfect tense would actually have no problems whatsoever if there were not its twin brother, the past tense. People get the same things whether you say "I have seen wolves in that forest" Or "I saw wolves in that forest." They also get enough information whether you say "I bought a hat" or "I have bought a hat." Anyway, even if we detect a slight difference between the two tenses, we would soon give it up, because we have to neutralize them in indirect speech as in "John said he had seen wolves in that forest." There is no room for you to tell whether the past perfect tense here could have come from the present perfect tense or the past tense. In other words, grammars will leave a door open to say, "Okay, sometimes we don't care about the difference too much."
Despite of the alive and kicking situation as above, grammars have to set a line between the twins and say something like "the present perfect is past with current relevance", indicating the past action, or its result, have some relation with the present time. In A Grammar of Contemporary English, Quirk et al. go so far as to say, "Peter has injured his ankle and it's still bad" is a logical sentence, whereas "Peter has injured his ankle but it's better" is not logical and should be avoided. The implication here may be that, since we use the present perfect tense to describe the injure, we indicate he still has the bad result, and the ankle shall not be better now. Will you go along with that? You have to because they are notable grammarians. (By the way, I fancy their grammars.) However, different to Peter, I have injured my wrist before and fortunately it's much better now.
The biggest fallacy of the above theory of current relevance is that they simply skip the past tense. Does the past which is expressed by the past tense have no current relevance at all? I doubt that. It is unfair to say, for example, that "John injured his leg badly last week and it was cut off in the hospital" has nothing to do with the present time. If you see result or current relevance in a present perfect sentence, why can't you see result or current relevance in a past tense sentence? Believe it or not, anything you say about the pastness of the present perfect tense will eventually fits to that of the simple past tense like a glove.
It is therefore small wonder that many students find the present perfect tense difficult to learn. Students are not really confused by the present perfect tense; they are confused when, suddenly, in his mind there comes the past tense. Don't blame the students. A scholar doesn't get much from the tense either.
Recently, a kind linguist, who is an American, returned the following (part of) message to me about the two tenses: "Let me know what you think of all this. The topic interests me a lot, because I teach English to German speakers, and they often have a hard time differentiating between these two tenses. My husband, who is German, has been trying to figure out the difference for many years!"
Many years!! Why don't we admit that it is beyond our young student's ability to see the difference? When will we see that the twins have the same meaning?You may well retort, "What about those past time adjuncts such as 'yesterday'? We cannot match the present perfect tense with a past time adjunct, right?" Yes, according to the rules of current English grammar, you are quite right, and it is also quite right that you are just giving the exact explanation why grammars put away many past time adjuncts, [see A question about tenses: An elusive time adjunct]. Yes, by hiding away many past time adjuncts for the present perfect, grammars can finally draw a clear line between the two tenses. Don't you think that grammarians are very helpful to us?
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (26 of 35), Read 627 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:19 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (7): How to define 'Past'?Recently I located a wonderful graphic like this:
past///////////////////now (17May98)///////////////////future
The teacher who designed this graphic explaining tense, apparently felt the need of definition of these three parts of timing. Suddenly a question came upon my mind. If without this graphic, how shall we define 'past', 'now' and 'future'? Are they definable?
The weak point of the graphic is that it is not suitable for today (when it is not 17May98), unfortunately. And I can not find the definitions in grammar books.Both the teacher and I feel the need of the definition.
I am not asking to define such philosophic terms as 'permanency', 'general truth', etc. I just seek information about such elementary terms for English tenses as PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE. Define them, and we will have a better understanding of English tenses.Eventually, we have to tell students about the past action, the present action, and the future action. But do we know exactly what they are? Do we have to know ourselves about their definitions?
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (27 of 35), Read 626 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:23 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (8): The "basic fact"A grammar, Current English Usage, by F.T.Wood, is noted for its aim at correcting students' errors in English usage. In explaining the Present Perfect, the book emphasizes a helping rule: "IT [the Present Perfect] MUST NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY ANY ADVERB OR ADVERBIAL EXPRESSION WHICH DENOTES PAST TIME. We cannot say 'I have seen him last Wednesday'." (Here the grammar itself chose to use capital letters to emphasize the formula.)
Actually, this is such a common rule that we need not give a further example.
Grammarians agree there is a 'basic fact' that in a sentence when we mention a past time, we shall use the Simple Past instead of the Present Perfect. Hoping to clear away all the confusions about the two tenses, they use this basic rule to put discussion to an end. So this is both a common rule and an important rule.But is this rule realistic? Everyone who has to write a grammar book knows the corrupted fact when gathering data from readings. Instead of telling the truth, however, they want to join in the hide-and-seek. In order to reinforcing the 'basic fact', grammarians agree to hide away many past time adjuncts for the Present Perfect such as 'in the PAST few/four/ten years' from their grammar books! Isn't this rather sneaky? Since we are not talking about just a few grammar books, the hiding problem can be bigger than we could imagine.
In ordinary readings like Time magazine, these past time adjuncts are frequently seen, and always combined with the Present Perfect:Ex: There have been great improvements in school teaching in the past ten years.
Ex: As a result, the number of multiple births in the U.S. has more than quadrupled in the past quarter-century.
Ex: At least in the past few years exitways from central Paris have been greatly improved.
Ex: This function has greatly increased in importance over the past hundred years.
Ex: During the past decade regional bodies and groups have prepared many valuable plans.
Ex: For much of the past year the service has engaged in a running -- and losing -- battle with spammers. (Time Magazine, Vol. 150 No.23, page 4 [December 8, 1977])
Ex: In the past two months, AOL has filed two lawsuits.....But have you ever seen a grammar book in which there are examples explaining these past time adjuncts (with the telltale word PAST), in relation to the tense? No, you would not. People have to learn it by themselves from readings other than grammars. A teacher even boosted this way of learning as a natural way. I have seen many students using the past tense with such adjuncts. If asked, they argue, "Because there is a past time adjunct in the sentence, I have to use the past tense!" Experienced writers would know, however, the only suitable choice is the Present Perfect.
***Again, to back up the 'basic fact', when explaining "We have lived here since 1920", grammars explain 'since' only, and keep silent about '1920'. The magic is that as long as they don't mention about '1920', they may still neglect the past tense. Every grammarian has to know the trick. However, do we see by ourselves a definite past time mentioned here in the sentence? Can't we see that THE PRESENT PERFECT TENSE CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADVERB OR ADVERBIAL EXPRESSION WHICH DENOTES PAST TIME?
The basic fact? Something is basically wrong here.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (28 of 35), Read 626 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:25 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (9): Why jargons?Nowadays there are so many jargons in the current English tense theory. In one single grammar book I have found such wordings as Universal time, Permanency, past in the past, Current relevance, and habit, etc. What are they? And believe this: grammarians will not explain them a step further.
At first I didn't really know the use of these jargons. It seems just reasonable that as you learn something, you inevitably learn some new terms. After all, we still have a vague conception about them. However, gradually I find these wordings are really very useful in explaining English tenses, especially when we don't know how to explain them. Now the whole of the tense theory is full of these words with empty meaning.
Let me explain to you how to use these jargons.
As a coin has mainly two sides, at present we can see clearly or vaguely the past and the future. We can only perceive three timings: the past, the present, and the future. But we have four frequently used tenses: Past, Present, Perfect, and Future tenses. There is clearly a trouble of distribution, which is the origin of all questions about English tenses. For example, we have yet known the difference between the past and the present perfect tenses [see A question about tenses(6): the twin brothers]. Eventually, we have to seek helps from jargons.
Try this. If we say only "The present tense expresses habit", the best a student can think of further by himself is past habit and future habit. You see, the student will now have no tense problem because he can perceive past, present, and future. He will not by himself think of 'perfect habit' (expressed by the present perfect tense). But the fact is, all tenses can express habit:Ex: He goes to school every day.
Ex: He has gone to school every day.
Ex: He went to school every day (last year).
Ex: He will go to school every day (in the coming year).Usage: the habit stuff makes the problem of the present perfect tense disappear. Therefore the term is very useful in explaining tenses. The trick is for us to mention just about the present tense, and let the nature do the rest.
Likewise, 'permanency' makes a student forget past things. It thus even takes away the problem of both the past and the present perfect. Therefore this jargon is much more powerful and welcoming. But how to define it? Nobody knows. The term is as vague as can be. Besides, as explained in "A question about tenses (4): is my computer permanent?", we actually seldom talk about permanency, in a day. But the term is so powerful that it has now become the major tool to deal with tenses. Again, the usage is very simple. The trick is for us to mention just about the present tense, and let the nature do the rest. How possibly can a student by himself see that other tenses may also express permanency as in "The earth has moved around the sun since the beginning of time"?
An even more powerful jargon is 'past in the past', which is used to describe the past perfect tense. A leading grammar simply says, "The past perfect has the meaning of past-in-the-past". But why don't we have 'present in the past', 'perfect in the past', and 'future in the past'? The jargon makes all these disappear. Even native English speakers by themselves will not think of these terms. By nature, we have a difficulty to comprehend 'past in the past'. With this difficulty at hand, how can we think further of the rest?
If an individual truly knows what is past-in-the-past, he will certainly see what is perfect-in-the-past, and the rest. And he will bring back the old, unwanted question: How to distinguish the past from the present perfect, this time in a past viewpoint? It's grammarian's nightmare.
Are they really jargons? Let's look at them this way: Grammars even fail to define past, present, and future [see A question about tenses(7): how to define 'past'?]. How can we expect they will describe more about these tricky terms? However, the current tense theory is now supported all by these terms, and by forgetting something undesirable [see A question about tense(1): An elusive time adjunct].
Lucky are native English speakers who may learn tenses 'naturally', and they may even believe there is a strong theory behind them to justify what they are using every minute. Poor thing are those foreign students who want to learn English tenses logically.
What shall we think about this?
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (29 of 35), Read 625 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:27 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (10): A clearer face of tenseDoes this idea ever occur to you that a tense would be more capable than we have thought? It not only tells the time of a single sentence, but actually also tells the time relation of a sequence of sentences, a paragraph. In this case, it is not a good idea to explain tense with a single, selected-out sentence as example illustrating a tense. A tense, even a single tense, shall be explained by sentences, so we can see the time relation between them. Try to find a grammar that explains tenses in paragraph, and you will see a clearer face of the tenses -- instantly.
We easily fall in the pattern grammarians have prepared for those who follow their tense system: arguing the meaning of the tense with one isolated sentence:
Ex: "If you want to say that something is always or generally true, you use the simple present, e.g. Near the equator, the sun evaporates greater quantities of water."Would somebody please tell me, in which meeting, you used just only one sentence and kept silent? Please tell me, in which book, you see just only one sentence?
Really, who has set the stipulation for us to explain the tenses in only one isolated sentence? Why on earth do we give up the freedom of using more than one sentence for discussion?
Please do us a favor, let us know if there is one of such grammars as viewing tenses in relation of the paragraph, rather than a selected sentence. You see, we collect rare books of this kind.I do not say there are less chances for the existence of one powerful standing-alone sentence, though.
Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (30 of 35), Read 631 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, January 29, 1999 09:30 AM (Simplified and reposted from the old website)
A question about tenses (12): Sentence vs tenseNow we strive to make clear a sentence from a tense. Needless to say, each of both has its own kind of duty to serve.
But one may be prompt to ask, what are you talking about? Difference between a sentence and a tense? Everyone knows that they are different!!
Or do we really so? In fact, we have seen frequently this confusion, and do not know or want to do anything about it.
Generally, without exception, when a sentence expresses a meaning, grammars say the tense expresses it. Take a look at some quotations from different sources:(1)"The basic meaning of the simple past tense is to denote definite past time..... It is found with adverbs referring to past time: I spoke to him last week."
(2)"The main use of the simple present tense is to express habitual actions. e.g. He smokes. Dogs bark. Cats drink milk. Birds fly."
(3)"If you want to say that something is always or generally true, you use the simple present, e.g. Near the equator, the sun evaporates greater quantities of water."
What do we see here? Grammars say that some tense denotes, or expresses, or says some meaning. Clear enough. But don't you think we should instead say 'simple past tensed sentence', or 'simple present tensed sentence', etc.?
Or perhaps they are explaining that, when the sentence expresses a habit, we use the present? If so, we use the present tense to do what?
Or are they telling us the right thing: It is the tense alone that does the expression?
We don't know. It is advisable that we shall consult our own grammars first. Grammarians should spend some time explaining between a tense and a sentence.
To tell the truth, when grammars say the present tense expresses a meaning, it is in fact the present tensed sentence expresses the meaning. And more precisely, to our concern, it is the sentence alone that expresses the meaning. The examples from grammars above will have the same meaning if rid of the tense, though it is hard for some people to see through a tenseless sentence. In contrast, if we try to communicate with a tense only, without the sentence, we will soon see how difficult it is. It is in fact impossible.
So we may see now, if we just say "the present tense expresses a permanency as in The earth moves around the sun", everything turns topsy-turvy. We don't know what a tense is, and we don't know what a sentence is.
Really, shall grammarians now start trying to define something, anything at all, about English tenses, for the sakes of students? To tell the truth, it is for their own sakes.Shun Tang
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (31 of 35), Read 556 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Steve Seegmiller Date:
Friday, February 05, 1999 06:33 AM While there are certainly cases where the past tense is interchangeable with the present perfect with no detectable difference in meaning, two forms are not equivalent unless they are always interchangeable. The past tense and the present perfect are clearly not equivalent by this criterion, since there are cases when replacement of one for the other changes the meaning. Consider the following:
(1) I lived in London for ten years.
(2) I have lived in London for ten years.
These two sentences have rather different meanings, and so the past/present perfect contrast (which is the only difference between them) is distinctive.
The relationship between these two constructions is thus somewhat like the difference between pairs like 'profound' and 'deep': in many contests, the two are interchangeable (when talking of thoughts and ideas, for example) but not always (e.g. when talking about wells).
Regards,
Steve Seegmiller
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (32 of 35), Read 552 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, February 05, 1999 06:28 PM Dear Steve,
I have posted a few messages here. In "About tense: My way of studying tense", I explain that Definite Past Time Adjuncts (Frames) will strongly affect the meaning of the tenses and we have this consequence:
The Perfect == Finished action
The Past == Finished action
{Frame + Perfect} == Unfinished action
{Frame + Past} == Finished action
You may even accuse me of overemphasizing the use of time adjuncts. In fact, if there is a Frame in the sentence, we should talk about the adjunct rather than the tense, in relation of the meaning of the sentence. A time adjunct is not just 'compatible with a tense', as grammars usually put. A Frame even controls and changes the meaning of the tense.
Clearly, in "Yesterday I bought a hat", the Past cannot be replaced by the Perfect.
In "I have talked with a few readers about tense in the past few weeks", the Perfect is the only suitable choice. The two tenses are no way interchangeable.
You have found one good comparison to support your idea: They are not interchangeable.
(1) I lived in London for ten years.
(2) I have lived in London for ten years.
As for me, however, I can only admit this is an exceptional case in which the same Frame can stay with both the Past and the Perfect. Nevertheless, as you have said, these two sentences have rather different meanings, which is not to my surprise.
What should I say now? If isolated and without Frame, the Past is equal to the Perfect, implying only finished action. This is when they are interchangeable. I should have footnoted this stipulation.
If we make use of (1) and (2) above, and prove that the contrast between the two tenses are distinctive, don't you think we shall say clearly that it is the job of the time adjunct? Or else, we may give a wrong idea to pupils that we can differentiate them -- even without Frames!! It is not fair.
Without time indicators, the two tenses are without difference. See some recent discussion also from a linguist:
================================
> Many analysts describe the Present Perfect
> as a "Present STATE" (resulting from a PAST
> action).
Shun replied: They just avoid to describe the Simple Past also as a "Present STATE" (resulting from a PAST action). It is not a good description to separate the two tenses.
>
> The Simple Past does not imply a present state.
Shun replied: But the Simple Past does imply a present state. Why "I broke my leg (last week)" is not a present state? To express the present state, do I have to say "I have broken my leg" only? I can't see a state for the Present Perfect which is not compatible with the Simple Past. Strictly, we use the Simple Present tense to imply correctly a present state. The Present Perfect tense or the Simple Past implies nothing clear for the present.
>
> "I bought a hat" does NOT necessarily
> imply that I still have it.
Shun replied: This statement declares nothing at all. It also does not necessarily imply that I don't have it now. On the other hand, does "I have bought a hat" necessarily imply that I still have it?
================================Anyway, thank you Steve, you have pointed out a weak point in my statement.
Regards,
Shun
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (33 of 35), Read 430 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Thursday, February 18, 1999 11:35 AM Message from "Brewer" ([email protected])
>>Hello. I don't know which grammar books you use, but In Oxford's Oxford Practice Grammar by John Eastwood, or in Cambridge's Essential Grammar in Use by Raymond Murphy or in the series of texts called Headway by Oxford Univ. Press, the idea of TIME Vs TENSE is explained, at least somewhat. I don't know if this problem is less for European speakers than for speakers of other languages to grasp, so perhaps the idea of perfect Vs past is not clear enough. I know nothing of tenses or time expressions in Eastern languages, so I cannot comment on a comparison, but to my Spanish students the perfect Vs the simple tenses do have some different uses.
>>I always say that first of all there is a difference between STATE verbs and ACTION verbs, and basically, (loosely) a STATE verb is a verb, action whatever that you cannot do for say, 10 minutes and then do something else. Like "have" meaning possession. You cannot "have" something for 10 minutes and then do something else and then "have" it again in any ordinary sense. "live, like, believe " etc fall into that category.
So, taking action verbs - thing you could do for 10 minutes, perfect tenses always have some link between 2 TIMES, past and present, or past perfect between 2 pasts, or future perfect between present and future TIME. The link can be of various types and I group them for my students in roughly 3 categories. (Remember, this is for learners of English, not linguists, who might make objections to this simplification.) (see the enclosed Word document)
Shun replied: It is a shame that grammars focus on the difference between STATE verb and ACTION verb, rather than TENSE and SENTENCE. I have spent longer time in studying these (static/dynamic) verbs than many other students. In fact, in my humble opinion, it is not necessary to differentiate the two kinds of verbs -- at least not in this subject. We decide to choose tense viewed according to the whole sentence, rather than a verb.
As for tense, what is the point or goodness after we have successfully explained that 'live' is a STATE verb? So that it can be uniformed only in the Present Perfect tense? Or in the Simple Past tense? Very unfortunately, it can be shown in all of the tenses:
Ex: He lives in Japan.
Ex: He has lived in Japan.
Ex: He lived in Japan.
Can't we see that STATE verb and ACTION verb are only jargons? By jargon I mean we will have a difficulty to understand it, and after we have learnt it, it doesn't help solve the problem. Please see "A question about tenses(9): Why jargons?" Even after we have succeeded in identifying these verbs, we still have the same amount of tense problems.
>>As far as STATE verbs, the present perfect tense indicates a clear link of the present state to the beginnings of that state in the past.
Shun replied: As we shall see, so does the Simple Past tense, with either STATE verb or ACTION verb.
>>My explanation is simplified and not intended as a linguistic analysis, only as a help to students who need help in knowing when to use which tense.
>>But it is useful to remember that sometimes it simply doesn't matter. Americans will use the past simple tense for many instances where only the present perfect would be considered correct in Britain. I think a rule of thumb is clarity of meaning. If it is clear the TIME you are talking about, probably (except for some exam purposes) the TENSE is acceptable, at least in most instances. Fine tuning of "correctness" can come with time and practice and what "sounds right".
Shun replied: I truly agree to this rule of thumb. It is this rule that fortifies my assumption there is no difference between the two tenses in topic. However, I fail to see "Americans will use the past simple tense for many instances where only the present perfect would be considered correct in Britain." I think this can be seen only from your wrongly acquired point of view.
(From the enclosed Word document:)
Shun noted: Please forgive me to have changed a Spanish name into English (Jaen). I hope this does not falsify our discussion in any way.
Use of the Present Perfect Tense
simple: has, have + participle
continuous: has, have been + _____ing
There is always some connection between the past and present in the use of the present perfect tense in English.
Three main uses:
* 1. present results of past action - this use is most easily confused with Spanish, because in Spanish the perfect is often used to indicate RECENT action, whereas in English it is not the TIME, but the FOCUS of the result. For example, "Mary has just gone." means Mary is not here now. "Mary went." is about Mary's action. It does not matter if it was two hours ago, two days ago, or two seconds ago.
Shun replied: To tell the truth, you are simply comparing a sentence with "just", with another without it. If, as you say, "Mary has just gone" means Mary is not here now, are you sure that "Mary went" means she is here now? Don't they tell us in clarity the same thing? Is it very hard to prove the Simple Past has a clear link to the present state also?
often with "yet" (for questions or negatives) or "already" for affirmatives or "just" which means justo ahora.
eg. I have already finished my work. ( the work is completed NOW.)
Shun: I already finished my work. (In Simple Past, the work is also completed NOW.)
eg. She left the office, then went to the bank. (past simple for completed action, focus on action)
Shun: But this Simple Past sentence also focuses on the state or result that she is not here.
eg. She has left the office. (present perfect, She is not here. focus on result.)
Shun: She left the office. (Simple Past tense. Also focus on result that she is not here.) I have given this example before: In "He killed a very very unimportant beggar", you may loudly focus on 'very' and 'unimportant beggar', and cheat yourself in thinking that with the past tense, there is not a present result, but you cannot control the focus of the jury. If you really want to focus a present state or result, I bet anything you will use the Simple Present tense: "She's not here". The failing focus theory is solely invented for the "twin brothers" [see A question about tenses(6): The twin brothers]. We don't use the focus in explaining the Simple Present and the Future tense.
* 2. experience of life or speaking about a past, but unspecified time of action. -
Shun replied: I agree only to this. Experience is a kind of pastness, which can be expressed by the Present Perfect or Simple Past. But when there is a Frame, things are quite different. Nevertheless, I mean anything, not just experience in the past.
often used with "ever" in questions.
eg. I have been to France twice. ( in my life, unspecified when)
eg. I went to France last year. (past simple because this is a concrete action in concrete time in past)
eg. Have you ever tried Japanese food? (in your experience)
eg. This is the first time she has ridden a horse. ( the first time is an indication of experience - first time)
* 3. state begun in past and continues to be true.e.g. I have lived in Jaen since 1989. (Started to live in Jaen in the past, now live in Jaen. Note, that in Spanish, you can use the present tense, "Vivo en Jaen desde 1989.", but in English, the present is only possible if there is no mention of the past. "I live in Jaen". If the past is included, "since 1989", the present perfect is necessary.)
eg. I have had a computer for three years.
eg. How long have you had your car?
Shun replied: As I make clear in the "About-tense" messages, we use the Present Perfect (with Frame) and the Simple Present to express just this. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Simple Present tense is also connected to STATE verb group. In stating this use, we shall give clear hint to the students about the influence of Definite Past Time Adjunct (Frame). It seems that in Spanish you people do it easily and correctly.* action began in past and still true uses the continuous.
eg. I have been waiting here for ten minutes.
eg. She has been studying English for four years.
eg. How long have you been working in your job?
Shun replied: I once asked myself: what if a STATE verb falls into a sentence that expresses ACTION? That is when I dropped the STATE/ACTION verb theory. When you stipulate:
*state begun in past and continues to be true.
*action began in past and still true uses the continuous. you are clearly referring to the sentence. It is from the sentence that you see STATE or ACTION. Am I right? If I mistake not, you too are confused between VERB and SENTENCE. I have walked through the maze, and therefore know it is a maze.
However, since I did drop this kind of verb study, I am eager to hear further opinion from you.
Regards,
ShunP.S. Brewer you may also write to me via e-mail.
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (34 of 35), Read 409 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Jorge Freire Date:
Friday, February 19, 1999 03:53 AM Hello Mr. Tang:
I accepted your invitation and here I am.
There is a tremendous difference between both tenses, "I bought a hat" has a definite time frame within its concept, for example it could mean that I bought a hat yesterday, or last year, it denotes that the action took place somewhere in the past and that its finished, over with.
On the other hand "I have bought a hat" has a sense of ambiguity, even Continuity, for it could mean: I have bought a hat every tuesday for the last five years, or I have bought a hat twice before. That could mean that the action started in the past, that it probably continues in the present and it may even continue in the future.
Hope it helps you a bit.
Jorge E. Freire III
http://members.tripod.com/~Translations_3/index.html
http://pw1.netcom.com/~jpfreire/languages.html
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/translators/index.html
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/barclay/193/index.html
http://www.linkstar.com/home/partners/jorge-e-freire-ph-d-linguistics
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
About tense: The same meaning in different forms (35 of 35), Read 411 times Conf:
ACADEMIC DISCUSSION From:
Shun Tang Date:
Friday, February 19, 1999 11:49 AM Dear Jorge,
Thank you for your attention.
Most learners would rather say there is only a slight difference between them, not 'tremendous' as you said. Since in reported speech both tenses back-shift into one: the Pluperfect, they have to do some preparation for the concordance.
If you look around here to see why I conclude both of them are of the same meaning, you will notice we have four situations:
(1) Present Perfect = Finished action
(2) Simple Past = Finished action
(3) {Frame + Perfect} = Unfinished action
(4) {Frame + Past} = Finished action
(P.S. Frame stands for definite past time adjunct)
This may explain why we have the idea that "I have bought a hat every tuesday for the last five years", an example of (3), continues in the present.
Without Frame, they all are just finished actions. What you say to one tense shall be applied to the other without a slight hindrance.
You wrote:
>"I bought a hat" has a definite time frame within
>its concept, for example it could mean that I bought
>a hat yesterday, or last year, it denotes that the
>action took place somewhere in the past and that
>its finished, over with.
Shun replied: Everything happened shall have at first a definite time frame. Can we say there is something on earth happening or happened without time? The question is, grammars permit us not to mention the time in every sentence. If this is true, we shall say "I have bought a hat" also has a definite time frame which is permitted to be unmentioned. It really could mean that I bought a hat yesterday, or last year -- as long as I do not specify the time in the sentence. It thus also denotes "the action took place somewhere in the past and that it's finished, over with".
You wrote:
>"I have bought a hat" has a sense of ambiguity,
>even Continuity, for it could mean .....I have bought
>a hat twice before. That could mean that the action
>started in the past, that it probably continues in the
>present and it may even continue in the future.
Shun replied: The Present Perfect sentence, as the one you put here, clearly states a finished action. As you say, it could mean just that. I wholly agree with you. If I have bought a hat twice before, it is absurd to say that I will not buy again in the future.
But please look closely at "I bought a hat". Again, it denotes exactly the same thing!! Yes, it is finished, over with. However, it is absurd to say here the possibility that I will buy again in the future is ruled out.
Any slight difference between the two tenses?
I therefore conclude that the "twin brothers" are of the same meaning. Nevertheless, clearly, I am the last one to declare their usages are also the same [please see the top of this page].
Regards,
Shun