<2. Both are past tense. But they indicate differing time scales. The former is immediate past time, the latter is further in the past. >
You do not understand tense and aspect at all.
You do not understand tense and aspect at all.
What are tenses of these two sentences? (Bomb)
"You do not understand tense and aspect at all."
Actually, I do - probably far better than you do.
I'm just trying to come to grips with what I think is actually happening to the verb here rather than attempting to hammer it into a convenient category.
Actually, I do - probably far better than you do.
I'm just trying to come to grips with what I think is actually happening to the verb here rather than attempting to hammer it into a convenient category.
With regard to British English usage the point is that the Present Perfect ('have you eaten') is a present tense. It either refers to a time scheme that includes the present ('have you eaten today?') or presumes the matter in question has some relevance to the present ('Have you eaten? There's some left-over lasagne in the fridge I can microwave for you.'). The Past Simple on the other hand is precisely that, past, and either refers to a time scheme that is not part of the present ('I had a snack an hour ago.') or does not have any importance in the present.
<<Hardly basic grammar; rather convoluted grammar.>>
It's pretty basic that "have" is a present-tense form and "had" is a past-tense form.
<<Both are past tense. But they indicate differing time scales. The former is immediate past time, the latter is further in the past.>>
The present perfect indicates time before the present, and the past perfect indicates time before the past. (And likewise, the future perfect indicates time before the future.) The present perfect is a present tense because it describes the state of having done something, which is a present state.
It's pretty basic that "have" is a present-tense form and "had" is a past-tense form.
<<Both are past tense. But they indicate differing time scales. The former is immediate past time, the latter is further in the past.>>
The present perfect indicates time before the present, and the past perfect indicates time before the past. (And likewise, the future perfect indicates time before the future.) The present perfect is a present tense because it describes the state of having done something, which is a present state.
Note, for example, the temporal adverbs that go with each tense:
PRESENT PERFECT:
"Now I've done it."
"Then I've done it." (wrong)
SIMPLE PAST
"Then I did it."
"Now I did it." (wrong)
PRESENT PERFECT:
"Now I've done it."
"Then I've done it." (wrong)
SIMPLE PAST
"Then I did it."
"Now I did it." (wrong)
It is pretty basic grammar. As for being corrected, I don't suppose that there are many of us who do enjoy it but it happens.
"Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
"The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
Yep, "has" is present tense and so is "have". Both of those sentences have perfect aspect. Thus their grammatical structure is present perfect.
Come to grips with what I think is actually happening to the verb rather than attempting to hammer it into a convenient category is fine. Just be sure you don't hammer it into the wrong convenient category in the process. Not all talk about the past is in past tense.
Lazar, Pos & Calliope are correct and fake Mxsmanic has ceased to be funny.
"Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
"The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
Yep, "has" is present tense and so is "have". Both of those sentences have perfect aspect. Thus their grammatical structure is present perfect.
Come to grips with what I think is actually happening to the verb rather than attempting to hammer it into a convenient category is fine. Just be sure you don't hammer it into the wrong convenient category in the process. Not all talk about the past is in past tense.
Lazar, Pos & Calliope are correct and fake Mxsmanic has ceased to be funny.
<I'm just trying to come to grips with what I think is actually happening to the verb here rather than attempting to hammer it into a convenient category. >
So what's happening to it?
So what's happening to it?
<It's pretty basic that "have" is a present-tense form and "had" is a past-tense form. >
Ah, but is have/has + past participle a past tense form?
Ah, but is have/has + past participle a past tense form?
<PRESENT PERFECT:
"Now I've done it."
"Then I've done it." (wrong)>
But now isn't temporal there, is it?
"Now I've done it."
"Then I've done it." (wrong)>
But now isn't temporal there, is it?
<<Ah, but is have/has + past participle a past tense form?>>
No, I think it's a present tense form, because it describes the state of having done something (which is a present state). Remember, as I said above, that the present perfect tense uses present adverbs, and not past adverbs.
No, I think it's a present tense form, because it describes the state of having done something (which is a present state). Remember, as I said above, that the present perfect tense uses present adverbs, and not past adverbs.
<<But now isn't temporal there, is it?>>
Well, it depends on the context of the sentence. "Now" and "then" can both have meanings that go beyond temporal, but for the sake of my argument, I was only referring to the temporal meanings. (Honestly, now that I think this over, I don't think this adverb thing is a very strong argument, considering the flexible meanings of "now" and "then".)
Let me put all that aside and take a different approach. You can use the Simple Past to describe a series of actions, but you cannot use the Present Perfect in this way.
"I got in my car, then I went to the store, then I bought some bread, then I returned home."
But you can't say:
"I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home."
This is because the Simple Past verbs describe events happened at different points in the past, whereas the Present Perfect verbs describe states that all exist at the same time (because they're all present states). That's why the Present Perfect verbs make no sense if they're put in a series.
Well, it depends on the context of the sentence. "Now" and "then" can both have meanings that go beyond temporal, but for the sake of my argument, I was only referring to the temporal meanings. (Honestly, now that I think this over, I don't think this adverb thing is a very strong argument, considering the flexible meanings of "now" and "then".)
Let me put all that aside and take a different approach. You can use the Simple Past to describe a series of actions, but you cannot use the Present Perfect in this way.
"I got in my car, then I went to the store, then I bought some bread, then I returned home."
But you can't say:
"I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home."
This is because the Simple Past verbs describe events happened at different points in the past, whereas the Present Perfect verbs describe states that all exist at the same time (because they're all present states). That's why the Present Perfect verbs make no sense if they're put in a series.
<You can use the Simple Past to describe a series of actions, but you cannot use the Present Perfect in this way.
..."I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home." >
I've prepared the meat joint, warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours a 180C.
..."I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home." >
I've prepared the meat joint, warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours a 180C.
"But you can't say:
'I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home.'"
Oh no? How about:
"Week after week, I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home."
'I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home.'"
Oh no? How about:
"Week after week, I've gotten in my car, then I've gone to the store, then I've bought some bread, then I've returned home."
<<I've prepared the meat joint, warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours a 180C.>>
But the present perfects in that sentence don't constitute a chronological series; they're just two things that you've done. You can say,
"I've prepared the meat joint and warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."
Or you can say,
"I've prepared the meat joint and I've warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."
But you can't say,
"I've prepared the meat joint, then I've warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."
But the present perfects in that sentence don't constitute a chronological series; they're just two things that you've done. You can say,
"I've prepared the meat joint and warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."
Or you can say,
"I've prepared the meat joint and I've warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."
But you can't say,
"I've prepared the meat joint, then I've warmed the oven, and now I'm going to pop it in for two hours at 180C."