"Steve has left at five"

Pos   Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:35 pm GMT
Hello

Why is "Steve has left at five" not good, but "Steve must have left at five" is?
Claude   Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:29 pm GMT
Hi

and what about ?

"Steve left at five"
Guest   Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:30 pm GMT
I'm guessing that "Steve must left [must have left] at five" is bad for the same reason that "Steve leave [leaves] at five" or "Steve seed [saw] two deers [deer] today" are bad.

Grammatical conventions are just arbitrary.
Pos   Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:10 pm GMT
<I'm guessing that "Steve must left [must have left] at five" is bad for the same reason that "Steve leave [leaves] at five" or "Steve seed [saw] two deers [deer] today" are bad. >

I think you missed the point. "Steve must have left at five" IS correct grammar and "Steve has left at five" IS NOT. I wanted to know why that is.
Guest   Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:33 pm GMT
In the past tense, "Steve left at five" becomes "Steve must have left at five". The "must have" gets added (not just "must") -- I still think it's arbitrary. In the present, though, you just add "must".
Pos   Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:55 pm GMT
<In the past tense, "Steve left at five" becomes "Steve must have left at five". The "must have" gets added (not just "must") -- >

I see. So the "must have" is nothing to do with the present perfect?
Boy   Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:12 pm GMT
1. Steve has left at five.

This sentence shows that Stave has left at five for sure. ( you don't have to draw any logical conclusions or guesses.) It was a certain case. There was no element of doubt about his timing.

2. Steve must have left at five

This sentence shows that there is an element of doubt maybe he didn't leave at five or more probably he did. It was not a certain case. And we have to draw a logical conclusion about his timing on the basis of current evidence. That's why we used the structure of 'must have'. 'left at five' is an approximate timing (it is something which is calculated on the basis of whatever evidence we have about his timing) but we are not really sure about it.


Native speakers, please correct me if my explanation is incorrect to the above query.
Uriel   Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:22 pm GMT
"Must have" is not equivalent to "has" in the two examples.
M56   Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:28 pm GMT
<1. Steve has left at five.

This sentence shows that Stave has left at five for sure. ( you don't have to draw any logical conclusions or guesses.) It was a certain case. There was no element of doubt about his timing. >

No, Boy, that adverb phrase ("at five") is not compatible with the present perfect.
Mxsmanic   Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:56 am GMT
"Steve has left at five" is possible, but it implies that Steve has done this more than once, or that he will do it more than once.

"We can't have our meetings at six o'clock, because Steve has (already) left at five."
M56   Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:51 am GMT
<"We can't have our meetings at six o'clock, because Steve has (already) left at five." >

That's a rather contrived example.

Better:

In the past, Steve has left at five, so we shouldn't arrange our meetings for six.

The Government have been known to cave in on such as this.
Good K   Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:50 am GMT
I guess 'Steve has left at five' is bad because it's talking about a past in present tense.
And, 'Steve must have left at five' is good since it's talking about a past in past tense.

Of course, I know 'have left' is named 'present perfect', but I think it's present basically.


FYI.. I'm not a native.
Ant_222   Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:45 pm GMT
Good K,

«Of course, I know 'have left' is named 'present perfect', but I think it's present basically.»

Actually, Present Perfect can denote both present and past actions. As for the example about Steve, the latter is the case.
Guest   Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:30 pm GMT
<Of course, I know 'have left' is named 'present perfect', but I think it's present basically. >

You're right, present perfect is a present "tense".