What are tenses of these two sentences? (Bomb)

Lazar   Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:55 am GMT
<<"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.">>

Ah, now this is a challenge, 12BL. ;-) I suppose I'd have to say that the Present Perfect is used here because it refers to multiple repetitive actions that the speaker has completed by the present time. And those repetitive actions happen to have been carried out in sequential order each time. (You'll probably say this sounds convoluted.)

But the fact remains, you can't use the present perfect for a sequence of events that happened only one time.
Pos   Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:17 am GMT
<"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 it's not only "then" which can show chronological action.
Calliope   Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:48 am GMT
<<"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.">>

"Week after week" doesn't answer the "when?" question. It just shows repetition. In fact, that particular sentence implies that week after week I have been [doing all that] and I am still doing it.

I would go so far as to suggest it might look better in present perfect continuous, but I'll let the native speakers decide that.
12BR   Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:56 am GMT
"I would go so far as to suggest it might look better in present perfect continuous, but I'll let the native speakers decide that."

Well, this native speaker has decided (past tense) it looks fine (present tense).
M56   Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:25 pm GMT
<Well, this native speaker has decided (past tense) it looks fine (present tense). >>

Correction:

Well, this native speaker has decided (present perfect aspect/present tense) it looks fine (present tense).
12LB   Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:59 pm GMT
"Correction:

Well, this native speaker has decided (present perfect aspect/present tense) it looks fine (present tense)."

To paraphrase my remarks to your chum "Pos" in another post, you could only correct me if the "rules" of grammar were as fixed and immutable as those of mathematics.

They're not.

So - my opinion on "tense" is as valid as yours.
Calliope   Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:30 pm GMT
I'm afraid you can only make up your own rules as far as you yourself are concerned; when it comes to presenting them as universal truths, the linguistic community (and I don't mean forums on the web) are the ones to decide what's valid and what's not.

Kind reminder: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html
12LA   Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:33 pm GMT
"I'm afraid you can only make up your own rules as far as you yourself are concerned; when it comes to presenting them as universal truths, the linguistic community (and I don't mean forums on the web) are the ones to decide what's valid and what's not.

Kind reminder: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html"

How very condescending.

As if questions about language and grammar were open and shut.
Calliope   Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:45 pm GMT
No intention to condescend. I am fully aware that native speakers can use their own language as they see fit. However, when a non-native asks a question on grammar, I know from experience they are interested in the established grammar, and not the personal view of each and every native speaker on it. Learning a new language can be a confusing pain as it is, there's no need for misleadings.
12LC   Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:42 pm GMT
"Learning a new language can be a confusing pain as it is, there's no need for misleadings."

Perhaps not. But we certainly do mislead them with the "established grammar."
Calliope   Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:06 pm GMT
@ 12XX

Have you learned any foreign languages? You need well defined rules, at least at first. That is not always the case in real life; rules are to be broken, but you need to know the rules before you break them. You need a frame of reference while you are learning - a generally accepted "truth", that might or might not apply in everyday's life. Once you understand and know that, you can improvise or play it by ear or whatever. But if you start by improvising, chances are you won't end up making sense to anyone.

Obviously I am not referring to native speakers - they do have a frame of reference, they don't learn their language just now.

Not to mention that "established grammar" does apply in many occasions. You might consider simple past and simple present perfect one and the same in your everyday's speech, but if you did so at a grammar test at school or college, for instance, you'd fail.
M56   Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:35 pm GMT
More help for poor deluded 12Xtreme:

This has been the main explanation of the the present perfect since its arrival in the English language many centuries ago.

"The difference between the present perfect and the preterite is seen as resting on the different kinds of temporal reference they express and the different ways in which they combine with adverbial and other temporal specifiers. The present perfect refers to moments which either extend from the past up to the moment of utterance, i.e. the deictic zero-point, or at least are regarded as located within a time span not clearly separate from the deictic zero-point; hence the present perfect does not as a rule allow any specification of distinct time located wholly in the past, and a sentence like "John has been drunk yesterday" will usually be deemed unacceptable."

From: The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English By Johan Elsness
Pos   Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:38 pm GMT
So 12EGG, tell us why, if the present perfect is a past tense, we cannot say such as "John has been drunk yesterday".
poor deluded 12LH   Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:56 pm GMT
The gist of your argument would seem to be that, because this particular verb construction encompasses events from past time up to present time, it should be considered present tense.

However, it's no less valid to argue it should be considered past tense: it encompasses events from past time up to present time, so it should be considered past tense.

So we're still talking opinion here not "truth."
M56   Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:58 pm GMT
What does this mean to you, All?

"the use of the present perfect amounts to an "appropriation" of a past event for current communicative purposes."