Hello,
When 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.
Thanks,
Shun Tang
Please send your comments to [email protected]
It should be noted that your comments will be treated and answered with respect, in this homepage.
Related message:
From a reader:
Nevertheless, it shows that what is called the "present tense" is not really a "tense", but has no time orientation by itself.
Shun replied:
Right. I am talking about this so-called "present tense", just as you do. In fact, many grammars are talking about this kind of present tense. I wonder why can't you see it yourself. By the way, what is your opinion or rules to use this kind of so-called "present tense" if you see some difference?
(No further reply yet.)
From a reader:
Like I said, the pedagogical grammar gives you some contexts of use and then with the confidence that gives you you go on to observe that the observations they make are incomplete, and sometimes even wrong. Something more precise meant by "express habits" is "express habits *that apply to the present*". If they apply to the past but NOT the present the form is "used to".
Indeed, how do the grammars explain the use of "used to"? And how do they distinguish it from the meaning of "would" used in such contexts? ("would" and "used to" are not always interchangeable in past habitual contexts).
Shun replied:
I do not aware from grammars of the denotation that:
Something more precise meant by "express habits" is "express habits *that apply to the present*".
Even so, I think they should say clearly that the main use of the simple present tense is to express PRESENT habitual actions. Don't you think so?
Of course, you want to say the present tense is used for the present habits, and that "used to" and "would" are used for the past habits.
I agree, both of "used to" and "would" may be used to express past habit. But please note that the two of them are not strictly present tense. That is to say, we still use the past tense to describe past habits.
If only two of them can express a past habit, grammars have already footnoted them within the theory of present habit, with a big welcoming smile. However, if you tell me about a smoking habit about John, and how John gave up his habit, shall you tell me in many sentences using only 'used to'? Or using 'would'? Shall you use no other verbs in the past tense?
The two auxiliaries may be used to start a past habit, but the rest and the details shall be expressed by the past tense simply -- unless we finish all the telling in one sentence with 'used to'.Consequently, we do use any past tense to tell about past habits, without the help of any other formal verbs. As can be seen from the Question, all kinds of tenses can express habit!! Whether it is a habit or not, depends on SENTENCE, not TENSE. We are literally missing the point in talking about tenses, in relation of habitual action.