A concept of time

Ant_222:

"22BC" is a fake of course.

"Can't you do this by content equally well?

Or is this system aimed at a possible need to proof, by publishing the algorithm, a post's being authentic or fake?"

I can certainly do this by content for recent postings but my system allows me to ensure a degree of "archival authenticity" over the longer term.

Also, because no one else can predict my nickname, it does discourage a lot of mimicry, "22BC" notwithstanding. Indeed, "22BC" is the first fake I've encountered.

«Now a reason has come up. Spanish does use "recommended" in this way.»

What the heck? You "arguments" are disgusting to reason! No normal discussion can withstand them.

«BOUGHT means closely happened to WENT, while HAVE RECOMMENDED doesn't.»

Anyway, the Past Simple is better IMHO. Can you provide a wider context wherein your example would sound natural? Part of a dialogue, or something...

«But if it is outside Last Week, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in Last Week.»

Wrong. If you mistakenly undersatand it that way, don't extrapolate it onto the others.

« Ex: "Henry DIVORCED his wife and LEFT the country in 1999. He HAS LIVED in Somerville. Now he WORKS in Hong Kong."
<...>
But if it is outside 1999, it should not be said in Simple Past, or else it will be understood as happening in 1999. Also, it should not be understood as living before 1999, or it will take Past Perfect.»

You ingnore my posts to no purpose. This example seems incorrect, or, at least, you interpretation of it is incorrect. I have poined that already.

And isn't "divorce" intransitive?

21EB: «"22BC" is a fake of course.»

Yeah, I _suspected_ that...

"And isn't 'divorce' intransitive?"

No.

21EL,

I was not fake. I was another user of the forum and 22BC is my nickname.

Hello,

I posted here a while back under the name of "Guest", giving some examples like "I went to Paris" vs. "I have been to Paris." I'd like to reply to the responses that my posts generated.

To recap, the point of those posts was to show that to understand the Present Perfect we need two concepts: not just Tense, but Aspect as well.

In particular, I pointed out that if someone asks me "What did you do yesterday?" you must answer "I went to Paris" NOT "I have gone to Paris," and explained this distinction in terms of aspect: the second sentence indicates that the trip to Paris has "present relevance" whereas the first does not.

It was not entirely understood what I meant by this distinction. Engtense pointed out, quite rightly, that ANY expression of time will relate to the present moment, since the present moment serves as the point of reference in relation to which concepts such as "past" and "future" take their meaning.

This observation is correct and illustrates exactly what is meant by "tense": we relate the time of the action to the time of some point of reference.

But "present relevance" is to be understood in a different sense. When I say "I went to Paris" my purpose is to refer to an action in the past: of course by "past" I mean "before the present", but beyond the present moment does not otherwise feature in the analysis. On the other hand, when I say "I have gone to Paris" my purpose is to evaluate my PRESENT STATE: I am CURRENTLY in the state of having-gone-to-Paris. That might mean a number of things, according to context. In particular, it is likely to mean that I am still in Paris. In any case, it is appropriate to use the perfect form only in cases in which my PRESENT STATE (as opposed to some past action) is the topic of discussion.

The other objection to this analysis was that the data were inaccurate. I claimed that the question "What did you do yesterday?" could ONLY be answered "I went to Paris," and that the answer "I have gone to Paris" would instantly mark you out as a foreigner. It was objected that this claim was an "assumption", and that it was incorrect. In fact, it is not an assumption: it is a piece of data. I am a native English speaker (from New York City) and I can swear to you that that is how people speak here, and that do make the error I described above would CERTAINLY mark you out as foreign. Of course, it is possible that in other dialects of English, the perfect is used in a different way: but it is also likely that non-native speakers of English in this forum have fallen into the same mistake as most other non-native speakers.

Similarly, the answer to "Did you kill him with a hammer?" ought to be "I did not kill him with a hammer" or else "But I didn't kill him AT ALL!" To answer "I haven't killed him" is slightly peculiar. (In the classic scenario, a man is dragged off to jail screaming "I didn't do it!", not "I haven't done it!")

To sum up, Past Tense and Perfect Aspect both "relate a past action to the present moment" in some way: but the expression means something different in each case. "Past Tense" relates the time of the action to the present moment in order to say "it came before": perfect aspect makes the claim that whatever happened in the past has PRESENT RELEVANCE in the sense that the state or result from that action CONTINUES into the present.

It is, of course, possible to have both past tense and perfect aspect as when we say, "At that time, I had never heard of Charlie Brown."

I hope this makes clear the distinction between Tense and Aspect. The "present perfect" cannot be understood purely in terms of Tense.

-Graecus

Graecus wrote:
<<In particular, I pointed out that if someone asks me "What did you do yesterday?" you must answer "I went to Paris" NOT "I have gone to Paris," and explained this distinction in terms of aspect: the second sentence indicates that the trip to Paris has "present relevance" whereas the first does not.>>

My reply:
I am afraid you allow two standards here to measure the tenses: Yesterday and "current relevance", a so-call double standard.

You have explained "present relevance", which as you say favors Present Perfect. But do you know that with Yesterday, we need to use Simple Past?

What then is something that fits in with two standards, Like a "current relevance of yesterday"? That is to say, what if a yesterday's action coincidentally has "present relevance"? Will you use Simple Past, or Present Perfect? That is why some people feel the need to use "have arrived yesterday". Please see a similar topic in "2.6 The erroneous pattern of 'have arrived yesterday'":
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_6.htm

These people are the victims of the double standards.

Graecus wrote:
<<When I say "I went to Paris" my purpose is to refer to an action in the past: of course by "past" I mean "before the present", but beyond the present moment does not otherwise feature in the analysis.>>

My reply:
I am afraid the point is here: what is "...beyond the present moment does not otherwise feature in the analysis"? I don't know. It is Greek to me. But I do know "I broke my leg yesterday" has current relevance. It has more current relevance in "My left leg was amputated yesterday". If Present Perfect is designed to imply "current relevance", I would like to say "My left leg HAS BEEN AMPUTATED YESTERDAY". Of course I do focus on the current relevance!! I lost my leg just yesterday, what will you expect from me? Don't yell at its current relevance? Either Simple Past can say a current relevance, or I have to say "My left leg HAS BEEN AMPUTATED YESTERDAY".

On the other hand, in the example like this:
Ex: "Henry DIVORCED his wife and LEFT the country in 1999. (He HAS LIVED in Somerville.) Now he WORKS in Hong Kong."
there is a time span in between 1999 and Now. Now English has a problem in expressing this time span. What will you suggest? I think Present Perfect is designed for expressing this time span, like "He HAS LIVED in Somerville". That is to say, I am not just blindly pointing out your explanation for Present Perfect is invalid, but also introducing the correct time span for the tense.

Graecus wrote:
<<perfect aspect makes the claim that whatever happened in the past has PRESENT RELEVANCE in the sense that the state or result from that action CONTINUES into the present.>>

My reply:
While some of you still mistake Present Perfect expresses Aspect or Relevance, some university documents have correctly noticed the tense expresses Time, namely Perfect Time Span (PTS). They go back to the agreement that tense is used to express time, contradicting your sense of "state or result".

A document has explained the Perfect Time Span (PTS):
<<(3) Henry has lived in Somerville.
has a PTS which ranges from some point in the past to now, and
(4) Henry has lived in Somerville since 1999.
has a PTS which ranges from 1999 to now.>>
== http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TNmNDYzN/Nathan.Temporal-Existentials.pdf
There are many similar documents on the web referring to PTS.

But Perfect Aspect still tells people to turn a blind eye to the time notion in "Henry has lived in Somerville since 1999". Like magicians, Perfect Aspect tells us to focus on the Result and Relevancy.

Graecus:

«"I went to Paris" NOT "I have gone to Paris," and explained this distinction in terms of aspect»

Heatly agree. The very name of the Present Perfect tense hints about the Perfective aspect.

«Engtense pointed out, quite rightly, that ANY expression of time will relate to the present moment, since the present moment serves as the point of reference in relation to which concepts such as "past" and "future" take their meaning.»

Well, yes. It's just that Engtense doesn't accept that time can be divided into the past and the future, and Now (=Present) is just a boundary between the two. However, that's a commonplace and English tenses can be (and are) effectively explained in terms of this representation of time. Only wrong logic and sophistic reasoning save him from assuming the right viewpoint.

Engtense:

«Graecus wrote:
<<In particular, I pointed out that if someone asks me "What did you do yesterday?" you must answer "I went to Paris" NOT "I have gone to Paris," and explained this distinction in terms of aspect: the second sentence indicates that the trip to Paris has "present relevance" whereas the first does not.>>

My reply:
I am afraid you allow two standards here to measure the tenses: Yesterday and "current relevance", a so-call double standard.»

Nope. Yesterday tells about time whereas "present relevance" — about the "actuality" and present importance of the action. No conflict here, hence no double standards. Tense depends on BOTH time and actuality of the action (or the result thereof), not only on time, as you keep persisting.

«You have explained "present relevance", which as you say favors Present Perfect. But do you know that with Yesterday, we need to use Simple Past?»

In 99,999% cases, yes. But when we use "Yesterday" we put more emphasis on the time of the action, in the expense of it's actuality, thus making "present relevance" less/not important.

I remember a native speaker mention an exclusion like this:
— It's time for you to visit a dentist.
— But I have visited him last week!
Though they warned learners about this use being quite rare and non-standard.

«What then is something that fits in with two standards, Like a "current relevance of yesterday"? That is to say, what if a yesterday's action coincidentally has "present relevance"? Will you use Simple Past, or Present Perfect?»

I see no problem here.

Imagine a student shining with joy and happiness saying:
— Ooh! I have past the last exam! (1)
— When? I didn't know it!
— Yesterday. It was Quantum Physics.
— How did you pass it? (2) You know nothing about that matters.
— I was lucky to have drawn the only question card I knew!
— Wow! You have to go to church and thank God for that!

Here you see a past (yesterday's) action refered with Present Perfect and Past Simple, depending on which is emphasized — the action itself (2) or its result and actuality (1).

Judge: Do you admit the crime?

Burglar: No, Sir. I only admit I broke in the house last weekend.

Judge: What are you saying? You have admitted the crime, then?

Burglar: No. <<When I say "I broke in the house" my purpose is to refer to an action in the past: of course by "past" I mean "before the present", but beyond the present moment does not otherwise feature in the analysis. (Graecus's theory)>>

Judge: What did you say actually? If you broke in the house, it is a crime.

Burglar: No, it is not possible. If I admit in Present Perfect tense, it has current relevance, then it is a crime. <<But when we use "Last Weekend" we put more emphasis on the time of the action, in the expense of it's actuality, thus making "present relevance" less/not important. (Ant_222 theory)>>

Judge: My goodness. What happens here? Let me ask you again, you did break in the house last weekend, didn't you?

Burglar: Yes, but it has no current relevancy. Don't you hear me?

Judge: I don't believe this!! So you did commit the crime, didn't you?

Burglar: Yes, I did say that to you, didn't I? But I did it "Last Weekend"!! <<But when we use "Last Weekend" we put more emphasis on the time of the action, in the expense of it's actuality, thus making "present relevance" less/not important. (Ant_222 theory)>>

Judge: I don't believe what I have heard!!! What I have understood is, you broke in the house, and you committed a crime.

Burglar: Yes, but in Simple Past, it is past and has no current relevance! Don't you know the basic grammar at all?

Judge: I give up. I need a report on you from doctor. See you next time.

<< Judge: I don't believe what I have heard!!! >>

Judge: Can I believe my ears.

There are too many awkward/nonnative mistakes in the dialogue for the respective arguments to have any credibility.

<< Burglar: No, Sir. I only admit I broke in the house last weekend. >>

Engtense - See the thread on "put it in/into your portfolio".

I think you are interpreting the expression "current relevance" in too broad a sense. Obviously, whenever we say anything, we try to make our remarks relevant to the conversation -- so in that sense ANY sentence has "current relevance", but this is not the sense in which I was using the expression. Still less did I mean to refer to legal relevance (as, relevant to the case), or to personal relevance (an amputation is always relevant to a person's day-to-day life). Rather, I meant the expression to be understood in its grammatical sense.

There are four kinds of perfect aspect corresponding to four different ways in which "present relevance" is understood: the experiential perfect, the resultative perfect, the perfect of persistent situation, and the perfect of recent past (or "hot news" perfect). Examples of each:

Experiential perfect: I have been to Paris -- at some point in the past, at least once, I went. (But I make no mention of any specific occurrence.)

Resultative perfect: I have gone to Paris -- and am still there.

Perfect of persistent situation: I have lived in Paris since 1964. -- I started living there in 1964 and still do.

Perfect of recent past: I've just been fired -- recently.

For more information on the different types of perfect, see http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticterms/WhatIsAPerfectOfPersistentSitu.htm. They are also mentioned in the theoretical paper you directed me to.

The other difference between Present Perfect and Simple Past is that the present perfect is used to refer to my present state, while the simple past is used to refer to a past action, as I have reiterated several times. This is why you have to answer "I went to Paris" to "What did you do yesterday?" . "I've just gone to Paris" might, on the other hand, answer the question "Where are you now?"

I am interested in your example, but I am not sure what it is meant to show. The example was: "Henry DIVORCED his wife and LEFT the country in 1999. (He HAS LIVED in Somerville.) Now he WORKS in Hong Kong." I don't quite understand what this is supposed to mean. (It is not quite correct as it stands.)

If you want it to mean that after his divorce he started living in Somerville, and still lives there, then the second sentence must be: "Since then, he has lived in Somerville." (Without the "since then" the sentence seems irrelevant since it takes an "experiential" reading -- that is, it seems like a piece of information about Henry's history in general that has nothing to do with the thread of the passage.)

If you want it to mean that after his divorce he started living in Somerville, but does not live there any more, then the second sentence must be: "Then he lived in Somerville (for a while)." The simple past is needed in this case because it refers to a discrete state in the past that does NOT continue into the present (does not have "present relevance" in the necessary sense).

Again, I'm not quite sure what the example was supposed to show, but I think you were trying to show that, when used in a series of sentences, the present perfect always locates an action after the action indicated by the verb in the simple past, but before the action indicated by the verb in the present. This is not, in fact, the way the perfect works: if it were, your original sentence would have had the first interpretation I offered. But it does not.

Additionally, there are often times when a perfect in that position seems to have the exact OPPOSITE interpretation. For example, if I say:

"A few days ago, President Bush decided to send more troops to Iraq. Never in the history of America has any president made a more questionable decision."

I am using the present perfect ("has...made") to refer to all time before the present moment: in particular, I mean to compare President Bush's decision with all the decisions that ever PRECEDED it. If the present perfect were limited to the time span FOLLOWING the verb in the simple past (here, "decided"), this reading would not be possible, and the sentence would be nonsense. But the sentence is not nonsense.