A concept of time

I said: «...you have admitted google embraces examples of not using WOULD behind DOUBTED IF.»

You said: 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.

Can you post some examples?

Dear Ant_222,

I have checked most of examples. You are correct. I was wrong.

So, in "Be Going To vs Modal Auxiliaries ", I had better say this instead:

<<One may argue that Simple Present and Present Progressive can say a future:
Ex: They are going to visit their uncle tomorrow.
Ex: They visit their uncle tomorrow.
and that some verbs can express a present doubt:
Ex: He doubts if they WILL visit their uncle tomorrow.

But they all have their past tenses. If next week, for example, we look back to these actions, they are certainty and expressed in past tenses:
Ex: They were going to visit their uncle.
Ex: They visited their uncle.
Ex: He doubted if they WOULD visit their uncle the next day. >>

It seems that the overall explanation is still valid, if you allow. Your opinion is welcome.

On solving mysteries

«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?»

It seems to me there are two explanations.

I. A majority of your examples may be explained by means of the following rule:

We use <Present Progressive> + 'since' when we can substitute our sentence by another (shown below) without loss (or change) of the meaning:

Ex.: I wonder what Michael More is doing since Bush won.
Ex.: (changed): I wonder what Michael More is doing now, when/after Bush has won.

Ex.: Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing since his car accident.
Ex.: (changed): Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing now, after his car accident (or when he has suffered in a car accident).

Ex.: We just wanted to let everyone know how well Jessica is doing since surgery.
Ex. (changed): ... how well Jessica is doing now, after surgery.

II. Have you noticed a regularity? Do you now feel the difference between

1.: He is doing well since his accident.
2.: He has been my friend since 1992.

The first sentence can be changed in the way indicated above, while the second can not. That is how my rule works.

Now let's use a less formal approach and determine the difference in the meanings of the two examples above.

The second sentence (and all ones of this type) tells us that a certain action on the time axis lies between some specified moment in the past (determined by the words after 'since') and 'now'. And it tells nothing about whether 'now' is the end point of this action or it prolongs into the future. The action is still active (including 'now') and we are interested in a period of time between some moment and 'now' -- not separated from 'now' by a period of time. Therefore, we use Present Perfect here.

The first sentence (along with all sentences of this type) has a totally different meaning. Here the speaker/writer reports some present state of an object. And if you understand the grammar of "How is he doing now?" you should understand why Present Progressive is used in this example: because "He is doing well" in the example has exactly the same meaning as in the quoted phrase. But then we meet 'since <some accident>'. Note, this is not 'since <some moment>'. Here the moment is necessarily determined by an action which (could) have seriously affect(ed) the present state of the object we are interested in.

For example: ...how well Jessica is doing since surgery.
She has been operated and that could have an effect on her health. And we are interested in her current health: how is she now? We are worried about her health since the operation might have gone wrong.

Thus, I clearly see the differennce and understand that "this pattern" is not "a mystery", as you wrote.

«I have checked most of examples. You are correct. I was wrong.»
...
«It seems that the overall explanation is still valid, if you allow. Your opinion is welcome.»

Again, I have to stop typing, or I miss my train ;)

Time is too slow for those who wait
Too swift for those who fear
Too long for those who grieve
Too short for those who rejoice

For those who love....time is an eternity.

Time doesn't actually exist...at last the present doesn't, does it? How soon does the present become the past? In a blink of an eyelash? The future is a second away and the past a second gone by......what is the dividing line? A nano second?

Read the topic «How to define the future and the past?», see my posts for an explanation.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<II. Have you noticed a regularity? Do you now feel the difference between
1.: He is doing well since his accident.
2.: He has been my friend since 1992.
The first sentence can be changed in the way indicated above, while the second can not. That is how my rule works.>>

My reply: "He has visited Ocean Park for three times since 1987" can be changed, according to your way of handling Present Progressive, to "He has visited Ocean Park for three times, after 1987". However, in my humble opinion, in all the examples, changing Since to After has lost the original meaning.

Please note that, in order to make the time recognizable, all your examples have to insert NOW to allow two timings that are pressed into one sentence:
Ex.: (changed): I wonder what Michael More is doing NOW, when/after Bush has won.
Ex.: (changed): Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing NOW, after his car accident (or when he has suffered in a car accident).
Ex. (changed): ... how well Jessica is doing NOW, after surgery.
== Obviously, NOW is here used to make Present Progressive possible -- it is in progression. But is Progression really the only reason to use Present Progressive? The patters I have pointed out, "is always walking" and "is doing since", say there is actually another reason.

"since yesterday" includes 'yesterday'.
"after yesterday" doesn't.

«My reply: "He has visited Ocean Park for three times since 1987" can be changed, according to your way of handling Present Progressive, to "He has visited Ocean Park for three times, after 1987". However, in my humble opinion, in all the examples, changing Since to After has lost the original meaning.»

In my rule I propose to try to change any doubtful sentence (of the form "something since something") to the form:

"<Present Progressive> + now after [the moment indicated by the words after 'since']".

If the translation to this form changes the meaning of the sentence then Pesent Perfect should be used. Otherwise - Present Progressive.

Try to convert your example about Ocean Park into this form and you'll fail.

But sentences where Present Progressive is correct can be easily converted as I have shown above. So my rule successfully separates the forms "<Present Perfect> since" and "<Present Progressive> since".

If you really have arguments against my explanation you better refer to the second part of my explanation which is less fomal and, hence, more easy to operate with. The rule just uses what has been said in that part. You asked about a rule and I created it. But I had been based on the reasoning shown in section II.

«Please note that, in order to make the time recognizable, all your examples have to insert NOW to allow two timings that are pressed into one sentence...»

I propose to insert 'now' not for that purpose. I am doing this in order to preserve the meaning of sentences where Present Progressive should be used, so that from the possibility of such a substitute follows the need to use Present Progressive.

«Obviously, NOW is here used to make Present Progressive possible -- it is in progression.»

In your example "Come find out how Golden Skooby is doing since his car accident" Present Progressive is possible without 'now', isn't it?

«But is Progression really the only reason to use Present Progressive? The patters I have pointed out, "is always walking" and "is doing since", say there is actually another reason.»

'<somebody> is doing since...' is really a progression as I have shown. It is the same progression as in "He is doing well", for example.

'Is always + Present Progressive'. Well, sometimes it is used here instead of Simple Past in order to strengthen the expressiveness (in the case of a habitual action), sometimes - in order to express a constant uninterruptable action.

But anyway, I said nothing about the reason(s) of using Present Progressive. What do you think they are?

Ant_222 wrote:
In my rule I propose to try to change any doubtful sentence (of the form "something since something") to the form:

"<Present Progressive> + now after [the moment indicated by the words after 'since']".

My reply: The sentences are not doubtful and I don't know why there is the change. I repeat: Since is not After.

Actually you have mentioned the correct reason:
<<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. >>

What is wrong with the tense-changing process:

(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (= incompletion):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (= completion):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we mention a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=incompletion =a):
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=completion =b):
Ex: I lived in Japan five years ago.
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm

Your opinion is welcome.

It is because what is syntactically perfect or not does not necessarily directly map to the actual semantic tense and aspect, and hence its actual usage does not necessarily go along with what it "should" be.

«My reply: The sentences are not doubtful...»

By doubtful sentences I meant ones about which we were not sure whether to use Present Perfect or Present Progressive before 'since'.

«...and I don't know why there is the change.»

It is explained in my post at Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:30 am GMT, section II. From that section it follows that if the sentence doesn't lose it's meaning when rewritten in the indicated manner, Present Progressive should be used.

This rule is mnemonic - intended for you to determine which tense to use, not to know why. 'Why' was explained in section II.

«I repeat: Since is not After»
It is true for any pair of different words. But I never said the opposite.
Yes, 'since' is not 'after'. But I am not changing 'since' to 'after'. I am changing the whole sentence.

«BUT: If we mention a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:»

Tenses change because indicating a certain time changes their meanings:

1. I live in Hong Kong.
2. I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.

Meanings
1. This just denotes that currently you live in Hong-Kong.
2. Here some result of your living there is meant: the action of living in Hong-Kong for three years has finished.

1. I have lived in Japan.
2. I lived in Japan five years ago.

Meanings
1. This means that at least one time in your life you have lived there. This action can be considered as having an important present result.
2. This one just reports some your state (where you lived) at some point in time.

Travis wrote: <<It is because what is syntactically perfect or not does not necessarily directly map to the actual semantic tense and aspect, and hence its actual usage does not necessarily go along with what it "should" be. >>

It is not.