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 and 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]. The only thing they are proud of themselves is that they have finally detected the invisible adjunct [see A question about tense (5): Another 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
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: