Present Perfect is difficult because it can express sometimes a finish and sometimes an unfinish:
Ex: He has worked in the factory in the past. (= a finish)
Ex: He has worked in the factory in the past three years. (= an unfinish)
Do you have a way to tell when or how it expresses a finish or an unfinish?
Both sentences above seem like finishes to me.
For an unfinish, instead modify the second sentence to say:
He has worked in the factory for the past three years.
And I'd have to say the "for" is what symbolizes that the action is not finished.
You can replace IN with any preposition: within, during, for, over, on, etc. I wonder anyone can tell all the differences.
I will take in your preposition, that is For. Even so, Present Perfect still have two different and contradictory functions, doesn’t it?
Um, the meaning DOES change. In my mind, these two sentences:
Ex: He has worked in the factory in the past.
Ex: He has worked in the factory in the past three years.
Are both describing finished actions. You just added three years to the second one. I think the preposition "for" will differentiate it.
Anyway, I'm not an English teacher. My only claim to this is that my mother tongue is English and that is how it sounds to me. Contradictory? Maybe. Although you asked: "Do you have a way to tell when or how it expresses a finish or an unfinish? "
My answer: yes. If the preposition "for" were present, I'd take it to mean the action has not ended.
used with :
within - finished
during - finished
over - sounds awkward. But I guess unfinished
on - you can't use it
Even so, Present Perfect still has two different and contradictory functions, doesn’t it?
What are you trying to achieve by arguing this? It's not going to help anyone learn English and we're certainly not going to banish this tense from the English language.
I was not arguing. I was asking. A forum is designed to do this kind of work.
Present Perfect has two different and contradictory functions, doesn’t it?
Robertson,
Finnish is an interesting language. The question, however, is how useful would it be to a person, unless they lived in Finland or an area of Sweden or Russia where the locals are predominantly Finnish speaking. I vote for learning it under certain circumstances unless you just want to learn it for the enjoyment of it. I hope this helps.
I want to learn it under the circumstance of English.
The tense is difficult. But do both the initiate examples look finishes to you?
Robertson,
The first sentence you gave as an example implies that the guy no longer works at the factory, but did so for some indefinite time in the past. The second implies the same if used with "in the past three years", but with "for the past three years" (as Tiffany suggested), it implies that he still works there, so, if you wish, it is an "unfinish", while the first two are "finishes". However, this does not mean that these two functions are contradictory, it only means that the Present Perfect can be used in a flexible way to refer to either an indefinite time in the past (which is now finished) or a period of time stretching up to the present.
> The second implies the same if used
> with "in the past three years",
>
I don't think so.
Do you really believe that IN is so different from FOR?
If, with IN, it is finish, why don't we use Past Simple?
As far as I know, with any preposition, as long as we use Present Perfect, the action means an unfinish:
Ex: He has worked in that factory IN/FOR/WITHIN/OVER/DURING the past three years.
If you don't want to take our advice, you shouldn't have asked the question.
Yes, "in" and "for" supply very different meanings. Easterner and I have both told you that with "in" the sentence symbolizes a finish and with "for" it symbolizes an unfinish. It is not interchangeable - which is why we told you they symbolize different things.
I also supplied you with the other prepositions you posed and told you if they symbolize a finish or not.
If you want to continue insisting you are right, keep talking to yourself. But don't ask a question if you don't want an answer because it's obvious you believe you are infallible.
All of this discussion illustrates why the study and discussion of grammar has little to do with fluency or even accuracy of expression. Read, listen and learn the words and phrases of the language, and most of all enjoy yourself.
I have rarely read so much nonsense as on this thread.
I was asking why a definite past time can stay with Present Perfect, if it expresses a finish.
Ex: He has worked in the factory in the past three years.
Why they don't use Simple Past? Is this a nonsense?
Now as you said it is completed, you wanted to say that it should have been in Simple Past:
Ex: He worked in the factory in the past three years.
Have I understood you correctly?
After all, Present Perfect cannot express a completed action, even with the past time expressed.