If the meanings of the simple and progressive are interchangeable, why do these two verb forms exist then?
A concept of time
No, they are not.
As has been said before, they MAY be interchangeable (or almost interchangeable) in a few types of sentences (see examples) while in most cases they mean different things.
As has been said before, they MAY be interchangeable (or almost interchangeable) in a few types of sentences (see examples) while in most cases they mean different things.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<As I wrote above, "If we want to determine the time of an action described in a sentence we should look at the tense and at the context. In general case only the both can clearly determine the time.">>
Would you give us some examples? Or do you mean those you have already given:
1. "The earth revolves about the Sun".
2. "I see you."
3. In text adventures I often meet sentences like this: "As you turn the board copmputer on, it writes the following message on it's display..."
4. "The above examples describe different types of non-habitual actions by means of the Present Simple tense."
<<As I wrote above, "If we want to determine the time of an action described in a sentence we should look at the tense and at the context. In general case only the both can clearly determine the time.">>
Would you give us some examples? Or do you mean those you have already given:
1. "The earth revolves about the Sun".
2. "I see you."
3. In text adventures I often meet sentences like this: "As you turn the board copmputer on, it writes the following message on it's display..."
4. "The above examples describe different types of non-habitual actions by means of the Present Simple tense."
«They mean different things in all cases.» (JJM)
Well, what about the examples given above? I mean:
Ex.: He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly.
You wrote that there is a little difference in the meaning. I, as a non-native speaker, do not feel it. What is it?
«Would you give us some examples?» (engtense)
Any English sentence with a predicate could serve as an example. I do not know any other way of determining the time of an action described in a sentence. You judge either by the tense or by the context, or by both.
But still your example about visiting the uncle, whoose corectness you proved so industriously, have turned to be incorrect. I was right about it from the outset.
See http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t590.htm
If your views fail to explain that they are incorrect, then they are wrong themselves.
Well, what about the examples given above? I mean:
Ex.: He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly.
You wrote that there is a little difference in the meaning. I, as a non-native speaker, do not feel it. What is it?
«Would you give us some examples?» (engtense)
Any English sentence with a predicate could serve as an example. I do not know any other way of determining the time of an action described in a sentence. You judge either by the tense or by the context, or by both.
But still your example about visiting the uncle, whoose corectness you proved so industriously, have turned to be incorrect. I was right about it from the outset.
See http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t590.htm
If your views fail to explain that they are incorrect, then they are wrong themselves.
I have made fun mistake:
«If your views fail to explain that they are incorrect, then they are wrong themselves.»
The first 'they' stands for 'the examples', not for the views as it seems to me when I am reading the sentence...
«If your views fail to explain that they are incorrect, then they are wrong themselves.»
The first 'they' stands for 'the examples', not for the views as it seems to me when I am reading the sentence...
Ant_222,
As for the visit, you should invite them here to see the time flow. But it is OK. They will be more objective there.
The gentleman, american nic, says:
<<They should be:
1 - He doubts that they'll visit their uncle tomorrow.
2 - He doubted if they had visited their uncle the next day.>>
== See http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t590.htm
I of course agree to the first one, before the visit.
But in the second, I mean weeks later as we review the visit, if you also agree Past Perfect is correct, then I admit I was wrong. OK?
As we know VISIT happens later than DOUBT, and you agree VISIT uses Past Perfect, then I was proven wrong. Actually, I even admit I am wrong in the whole explanation of Past Perfect in my book. I don't know Past Perfect is used to describe a later action.
Please don't miss this question: Do you agree with the Past Perfect in the second example or not?
As for the visit, you should invite them here to see the time flow. But it is OK. They will be more objective there.
The gentleman, american nic, says:
<<They should be:
1 - He doubts that they'll visit their uncle tomorrow.
2 - He doubted if they had visited their uncle the next day.>>
== See http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t590.htm
I of course agree to the first one, before the visit.
But in the second, I mean weeks later as we review the visit, if you also agree Past Perfect is correct, then I admit I was wrong. OK?
As we know VISIT happens later than DOUBT, and you agree VISIT uses Past Perfect, then I was proven wrong. Actually, I even admit I am wrong in the whole explanation of Past Perfect in my book. I don't know Past Perfect is used to describe a later action.
Please don't miss this question: Do you agree with the Past Perfect in the second example or not?
It is not very usual to check up one's past opinion on a past case. Doing so is nearly checking against his inappropriate doubt, as we now know the certainty. But this does happen and you have admitted google embraces examples of not using WOULD behind DOUBTED IF. This is further supported, actually, by american nic. However, it is not right for a later action to use Past Perfect. So, the correct example will be in Simple Past:
Ex: He doubted if they visited their uncle the next day.
Ex: "He doubted if they visited their uncle, but Mary was quite sure about it."
Prior to the visit, however, we are not checking against one's doubt:
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
== I just report to you he had the doubt. Using modal auxiliary is appropriate.
Ex: He doubted if they visited their uncle the next day.
Ex: "He doubted if they visited their uncle, but Mary was quite sure about it."
Prior to the visit, however, we are not checking against one's doubt:
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
== I just report to you he had the doubt. Using modal auxiliary is appropriate.
«>>1 - He doubts that they'll visit their uncle tomorrow.
I of course agree to the first one, before the visit.»
But american nic doesn't agree with the both of your examples, consideridering them to be incorrect...
«Do you agree with the Past Perfect in the second example or not?»
No. And I wrote it in that thread. You should have read it entirely. American nic used Past Perfect because he thought the doubt was after the visit. Then I wrote my variant:
"... doubted if ['that' is more correct here] they would visit..." and it was accepted by both american nic and English Speaking Girl, while your example had been rejected by american nic and (as she hadn't corrected him) by English Speaking Girl.
«...you have admitted google embraces examples of not using WOULD behind DOUBTED IF.» But not for the case when the doubt and the action are not simultaneous. As I wrote above, all such examples described an action simultaneous with the doubt. So, they support your opinion in no way.
I of course agree to the first one, before the visit.»
But american nic doesn't agree with the both of your examples, consideridering them to be incorrect...
«Do you agree with the Past Perfect in the second example or not?»
No. And I wrote it in that thread. You should have read it entirely. American nic used Past Perfect because he thought the doubt was after the visit. Then I wrote my variant:
"... doubted if ['that' is more correct here] they would visit..." and it was accepted by both american nic and English Speaking Girl, while your example had been rejected by american nic and (as she hadn't corrected him) by English Speaking Girl.
«...you have admitted google embraces examples of not using WOULD behind DOUBTED IF.» But not for the case when the doubt and the action are not simultaneous. As I wrote above, all such examples described an action simultaneous with the doubt. So, they support your opinion in no way.
At the beginning I just wanted to prove that DOUBT has it past tense. I didn't expect we may come to such a side detail. I see the eagerness in you to prove me wrong.
So, did you tell them the time flow? Did you tell them that we are now looking back and know the visit did happen? You didn't. All I see is that you want to prove the sentence is correct:
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
But did I say that it is incorrect?
Ask them how about AFTER the visit and we know FOR CERTAIN they did visit? Will they keep the modal verb? Ask them if they will say the same thing before and after the visit.
Or perhaps I should ask you instead. WILL YOU KEEP THE SAME TENSE BEFORE THE ALLEGED VISIT AND AFTER THE CERTAINTY? Say yes and you win the whole case, is this fair? Say yes and you are correct and I am wrong, is this easy enough for you?
So, did you tell them the time flow? Did you tell them that we are now looking back and know the visit did happen? You didn't. All I see is that you want to prove the sentence is correct:
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
But did I say that it is incorrect?
Ask them how about AFTER the visit and we know FOR CERTAIN they did visit? Will they keep the modal verb? Ask them if they will say the same thing before and after the visit.
Or perhaps I should ask you instead. WILL YOU KEEP THE SAME TENSE BEFORE THE ALLEGED VISIT AND AFTER THE CERTAINTY? Say yes and you win the whole case, is this fair? Say yes and you are correct and I am wrong, is this easy enough for you?
I saw people are discussing Present Progressive:
Ex.: He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly.
Some will agree, and some don't.
In my book I have asked about Present Progressive: What does <is doing + since> say? If in google we search exact match for "is doing since", today we see in the first screen these examples:
Ex: We just wanted to let everyone know how well Jessica is doing since surgery.
Ex: I wonder what Michael More is doing since Bush won.
Ex: Dogs Rescued, Need Home -- Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing since his car accident.
I regard this pattern is also a mystery, beside the patter of 'is always walking' or "is walking every day".
What I mean is, with ALWAYS and EVERY DAY, we are advised to take Simple Present. With SINCE, we usually talk Present Perfect. But Present Progressive violates these rules. Is there a logical explanation?
Ex.: He tires when he walks quickly = he tires when he is walking quickly.
Some will agree, and some don't.
In my book I have asked about Present Progressive: What does <is doing + since> say? If in google we search exact match for "is doing since", today we see in the first screen these examples:
Ex: We just wanted to let everyone know how well Jessica is doing since surgery.
Ex: I wonder what Michael More is doing since Bush won.
Ex: Dogs Rescued, Need Home -- Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing since his car accident.
I regard this pattern is also a mystery, beside the patter of 'is always walking' or "is walking every day".
What I mean is, with ALWAYS and EVERY DAY, we are advised to take Simple Present. With SINCE, we usually talk Present Perfect. But Present Progressive violates these rules. Is there a logical explanation?
«So, did you tell them the time flow? Did you tell them that we are now looking back and know the visit did happen? You didn't.
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
But did I say that it is incorrect?»
They said your sentences were incorrect. Irregardless of the time flow and of our certainity whether the action happened.
«All I see is that you want to prove the sentence [mine] is correct:»
It's correctness is clear.
«But did I say that it is incorrect?»
No, but you mean that in the situation when the speaker knows the action happened my example is incorrect and your is correct.
«Ask them how about AFTER the visit and we know FOR CERTAIN they did visit? Will they keep the modal verb? Ask them if they will say the same thing before and after the visit.»
Ask them yourself in that thread, if you are not sure. I am sure they meant your example was incorrect in any situation.
«WILL YOU KEEP THE SAME TENSE BEFORE THE ALLEGED VISIT AND AFTER THE CERTAINTY?»
Before the visit: "...doubts that they will..."
After the visit: "...doubted that they would...", irregardless of the speakers certainity whether the visit happened or not, provided the day, the visit was to happen, is in the past.
Ex: He doubted if they would visit their uncle tomorrow.
But did I say that it is incorrect?»
They said your sentences were incorrect. Irregardless of the time flow and of our certainity whether the action happened.
«All I see is that you want to prove the sentence [mine] is correct:»
It's correctness is clear.
«But did I say that it is incorrect?»
No, but you mean that in the situation when the speaker knows the action happened my example is incorrect and your is correct.
«Ask them how about AFTER the visit and we know FOR CERTAIN they did visit? Will they keep the modal verb? Ask them if they will say the same thing before and after the visit.»
Ask them yourself in that thread, if you are not sure. I am sure they meant your example was incorrect in any situation.
«WILL YOU KEEP THE SAME TENSE BEFORE THE ALLEGED VISIT AND AFTER THE CERTAINTY?»
Before the visit: "...doubts that they will..."
After the visit: "...doubted that they would...", irregardless of the speakers certainity whether the visit happened or not, provided the day, the visit was to happen, is in the past.
«...Ask them if they will say the same thing before and after the visit.»
Of course, before and after the day of the visit they would say different things because:
- before that day the [hypothetical] visit lies in the future.
- after that day the visit is located in the past.
- and because past and future actions are expressed in different ways. If it were not so, how would you determine the time of actions?
Of course, before and after the day of the visit they would say different things because:
- before that day the [hypothetical] visit lies in the future.
- after that day the visit is located in the past.
- and because past and future actions are expressed in different ways. If it were not so, how would you determine the time of actions?
<<No, but you mean that in the situation when the speaker knows the action happened my example is incorrect and your is correct. >>
I didn't say your example is incorrect. Please check. I said there can be no WOULD after DOUBTED IF. But you said we must have WOULD.
I didn't say your example is incorrect. Please check. I said there can be no WOULD after DOUBTED IF. But you said we must have WOULD.