|
|
A concept of time
<<Which has been proven many times>>
You stand corrected. hmm.. Although it could be interoperated as a question of course (my correction that is, your input made no sense). hmm, what about: This has been proven many times (as a fact, or as a personal opinion) ?
<<Obviously it's: which you have done many times.>>
I believe I was corrected this time...ouch! Nice one...very nice. :D
That's what I intended to say:
«Which you have proven (that you can "gag and fool around") many times» I wanted to sleep...
A theory of Present Perfect tense
Different from some other languages, English uses different tenses to express two kinds of past time in "Last Week". One is Last Week itself, another is the time between Last Week and Now. The latter is also a kind of past time, as any time before now is past time. It has no official name, and is expressed solely by Present Perfect, so we may call it Perfect Time. Perfect Time exists because it is compared with a nearby past time, namely Last Week. With the names of Past Time and Perfect Time, we may refer to two kinds of past time with a discrimination. See 3.2.2 A theory of Present Perfect tense: http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_2_2.htm ----------------------- What kind of time 'since 2000' is? 'Since 2000' is called Perfect Time ONLY because there is a nearby past time (expressed by Simple Past). When 'since 2000' is isolated, as there is no nearby past time, it is not regarded as Perfect Time, but only as Past Time. On the other hand, as the Perfect Time is also throwing a contrast with Present Time, the former cannot come to and mix with the latter. That is to say, 'since 2000' doesn't go "up to the present". The problem here is, why there is a notion "up to the present" linked to Since 2000? Actually, it is linked only to its action. It is the action that starts in the past time and goes "up to the present". Grammars have long confused Action with Time as one and the same. As the action "I have lived here since 2000" is normally described as "up to the present", people mistake that the time 'since 2000' is also "up to the present". This confusion is common and devastating. As any time before now is regarded as past time, how can 'since 2000' continue up to the present time? As grammars cannot explain such connection, they first hide the Past Family, and then also the pattern of 'since 2000'. The concealment is protected by a jargon 'Aspect'. Their logic is, as you cannot see what an Aspect is, you cannot see through their concealment. Search for grammar documents about Aspect, and you will notice they hide both the Past Family and the pattern of Since 2000.
<<Check the archives.>>
If there is something you want to say, you have already said it.
Geoff_One wrote:
<<Putting Tenses Together. 13 November 2004 Check the archives. ...... they are the same tactics.>> My reply: You are wasting my time to locate the archives. Why didn't you post the link? "Putting tense together" is posted by me in my real name Shun that also appears in the front page of my website. Shun and engtense of course "are the same tactics". Hope you see engtense is only a pen name.
Usually, names and tactics are not the same thing - well this is my opinion.
I was referring to the following as a tactic or rather a very subtle tactic: << If there is something you want to say, you have already said it. >> Debates in forums can be hard and everyone is entitled to their tactics. Speaking generally, if a tactic is used too many times, someone may eventually realize what is going on. OK - I will be very generous once again and help you out. Someone, on seeing this : << If there is something you want to say, you have already said it. >> Might be inclined to react this way: "What gives you the right to presume that I have got nothing new and original to contribute to this discussion. I am capable of writing new things here that I have not already said." To be clear, note that the above is not and was not my reaction. |