>>I have rarely read so much nonsense as on this thread.<<
Steve K,
I guess nonsensical questions will give birth to nonsensical answers. :-) To each their own... Maybe you're right. Language is an elusive thing that will defy any definitions, and whenever you want to restrict it with such, it will stick its tongue out at you and run away with the exceptions...
Maybe it is nonsensical, but Present Perfect really can express sometimes a finish, and sometimes an unfinish:
Ex: I have lived in Japan in the past. (a completion)
Ex: I have lived in Japan since 1987. (not a completion)
Would anyone tell us how to see between the two situations?
You dogmatically want the verb to follow some rule of yours that simply does not conform to usage in the language as you prove with your example. That is your problem.
The modifiers "in the past" and "since 1987" define the meaning. In some languages like Chinese, for example, the verbs do not change and the remaining words define the tense. Why do you want the verb to do all the work. Take the language as it is and get used to it. Stop trying to fit it into rules that you either cannot remember or understand imperfectly anyway. You will be further ahead.
Steve K,
You cannot explain it, can't you? :-)
Robertson
Are you deliberately trying to drive people mad with your stubborn silliness? What is your problem?
"I have lived" covers the past but does not limit when the action stops. You need a further modifier for that. If you modify this statement with "in the past" or "before" that defines the time of the action.
If I you modify with the phrase "since 1987" it defines the time duration differently. In English usage "since" implies "up to the present". That is the language. Period.
Meanwhile work on more important aspects of your poor English. For example you should have written "you cannot explain it can you, (not can't you)."
>>"I have lived" covers the past but does not limit when the action stops. You need a further modifier for that. If you modify this statement with "in the past" or "before" that defines the time of the action.<<
My reply: Everyone knows that uses between Simple Past and Present Perfect are inseparable. The same amount of words above can be said again to Simple Past. Or do you think that "I lived in Japan", for example, limits when the action stops? Do you know that "in the past" and "before" can modify also "I lived in Japan"?
>>If I you modify with the phrase "since 1987" it defines the time duration differently. In English usage "since" implies "up to the present". That is the language. Period.<<
My reply: That is the point. And "in the past" doesn't imply "up to the present", it goes without saying.
How possible can you ever imagine one doesn't know the difference between "in the past" and "since 1987"? Just because they are clearly different, and they both can stay with Present Perfect, the tense is therefore difficult to explainable.
I strongly suggest you work more on the basic use of English tense and simple logic. Furthermore, you should have said "I have lived in XX", not just "I have lived".
Robertson
I give up. I am cuirious though. Where are you from?
Curious. My guess is that you are from China.
Stop trying, Steve. If he wants, he can teach himself his own brand of English. He's obviously doesn't want to be corrected - he thinks he IS correct.
Look at his latest response:
"My reply: Everyone knows that uses between Simple Past and Present Perfect are inseparable. The same amount of words above can be said again to Simple Past. Or do you think that "I lived in Japan", for example, limits when the action stops? Do you know that "in the past" and "before" can modify also "I lived in Japan"? "
Everyone must equal himself since he is wrong. You cannot say "I lived in Japan in the past." You have to use Present Perfect. You can however use Simple Past if you define the time period, thus "I lived in Japan in 1928" is correct. Perhaps the difference is time - whether it is definite or indefinite, but he'd have you believe it's all the same.
Tiffany,
Do not get caught in the trap of over-analyzing the language. I have learned to speak nine languages. I never get involved in discussions of which tense to use when, nor why. I just enjoy the language, read it, listen to it, absorb it and try to use it and enjoy it. I make mistakes, often I struggle, but eventually I improve, when the time is ripe. That is the only way to learn the language, and, in my view, the only reason to get into foreign languages, TO COMMUNICATE!
All the rest is pseudo-sophisticated fiddling of no consequence or importance. In places like China they spend 10 years studying grammar and can debate fine points of grammar that they often misunderstand, without any real desire to communicate.
But I could be wrong about Robertson. I am often wrong you see. It is glorious to make mistakes. It is glorious to have wrong opinions as long as one is prepared to be persuaded by good arguments and new facts.
<<I never get involved in discussions of which tense to use when, nor why.>>
How many posts on a topic do you have to make before you consider yourself to be 'involved' in a discussion? I count six on this particular one.
Not to be critical or anything, but. . .
Make it normally rather than never.....
>>Everyone must equal himself since he is wrong. You cannot say "I lived in Japan in the past." You have to use Present Perfect.<<
IN THE PAST demonstrates its ability to stay with Present Perfect, but it can stay with Simple Past alright: "In the past I lived in Japan, now I live in USA."
If we search in google, we may find IN THE PAST has even more matches with Simple Past:
"In the past I lived in" has 127 possible matches.
"In the past I have lived in" has 102 possible matches.
>>Perhaps the difference is time - whether it is definite or indefinite, but he'd have you believe it's all the same.<<
Please be reminded that no English grammars will remind you of the standard of definite past time or indefinite past time. This avoidance troubles everyone, though.
Isn't "in the past three years" more specific than "in the past"? We still use Present Perfect with "in the past three years", don't we?
The pattern of "in the past three years" can be as specific as down to months, weeks, days, hours, or even minutes. They are specific and, most certainly, past. However, as they can stay mainly with Present Perfect, grammar books will not dare to define what is definite or indefinite.
To tell the truth, no grammar books or websites will talk about the pattern of "in the past xx years", or they will have a difficulty to preach "Don't put Present Perfect together with past time adverbials:
Ex: *I have lived in Japan in 1928."