A concept of time
«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)>>»
Yes, you are interested what happened at that time in that house, not what the result was. And, irregardless of the result, he broke into the house. We are interested of the very fact of the attempt at bulagry because, whatever result it had, it is a crime.
So, what is really actuial to the judge is whether this acton happened or not, not what effect had. Therefore — Past Simple.
Judge: you are accused of crimes against Truth, Reason and Logic. Taking into accound your misuse of Sophism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' words, you are sentenced to 1 year in a clinic for the insane and, thereafter, to 2 years of imprisonment.
Yes, you are interested what happened at that time in that house, not what the result was. And, irregardless of the result, he broke into the house. We are interested of the very fact of the attempt at bulagry because, whatever result it had, it is a crime.
So, what is really actuial to the judge is whether this acton happened or not, not what effect had. Therefore — Past Simple.
Judge: you are accused of crimes against Truth, Reason and Logic. Taking into accound your misuse of Sophism and deliberate misinterpretation of others' words, you are sentenced to 1 year in a clinic for the insane and, thereafter, to 2 years of imprisonment.
Graecus wrote:
<<Rather, I meant the expression to be understood in its grammatical sense.>>
My reply:
I agree. As long as there is English, however, there is grammar. As long as there is an English sentence, there is a tense. As long as there is tense, English has to take into the consideration the Present Perfect, or any tense. Unless there is a person using English without grammar, s/he has to think of the Perfect Time, or your "current relevance". It therefore applies to a judge or a burglar, who uses tense, sentence, and grammar.
-------------------------------
Graecus wrote:
<<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....>>
My reply:
I guess you may help the following victims. They wrongly use the pattern of "have arrived yesterday" to imply different aspects of relevance. To find the exact web page for the example, copy and search it with a searching engine:
Ex: Five hundred HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and another 100 are expected today.
== NATO Spokesman Maj. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army, during a briefing in Skopje.
Please tell the author not to refer to ARMY RELEVANCE. You are quite correct, they should have stayed within "current relevance" only.
Ex: My parents HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY!! They'll stay here until monday and then will go to Minas Gerais, visiting Raul and Lulude.
== Please tell the author don't refer it to PERSONAL RELEVANCE. Advice him to use "current relevance" only.
Ex: I HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and first of all sleeped thru the day as i didn'get much sleep on the plane.
== They shouldn't have referred Present Perfect to TRAVEL RELEVANCE.
Ex: "We, and the transport HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY here in the evening and we will hurry as possible".
== Don't use it in TRANSPORT RELEVANCE.
The following may be from a literate:
Ex: I do not have immediate access to the unabridged Webster's Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary. Those who do may want to do us a favor by looking them up for the word "decopyright".
Several examples of the usage on the word:
e.g. (A librarian speaking to a patron.) Several decopyrighted books HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and you may want to borrow them today.
== http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/9903/msg00025.html
Please tell them not to refer it to LINGUISTIC RELEVANCE. You may help if you will.
Say, if I could collect a lot of examples illustrating the pattern of "have arrived yesterday" (or many other verbs for this pattern), may I point out people are allowed to use Present Perfect with past time adverbials like Yesterday? Isn't it so cruel for us to conclude that people have been using Present Perfect wrongly? If these examples are wrong structures, what shall we do about this tricky grammar that claims so many victims? To tell the truth, however, as long as grammars insist the theory of "current relevance", people have to make use of the "HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY" pattern. I have explained the reason why people have no alternative but use Present Perfect with past time in "2.6 The erroneous pattern of 'have arrived yesterday'":
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_6.htm
I have suggested a solution. The tense-changing process reminds them to play attention to the use of past time adverbials like Yesterday. In meeting such a past time, Present Perfect will turn Simple Past.
Then what is your remedy? By repeating the theory of current relevancy much more frequently, until they stop using "have arrived yesterday"? I don't think it useful. The more you emphasize the current relevance, the more they will have to use the pattern of "have arrived yesterday", and it is a fact. While you keep reminding people of the importance of "current relevancy", I keep reminding them of the importance of past time adverbials. We have different approaches and will walk separate ways.
At the frontpage of my humble website:
http://www.englishtense.com/index.htm
I deliberate the following point:
Grammars have first shifted Simple Present from time to meaning, expressing a habitual action, and then stolen its time definition to define Present Perfect, so it seems only Present Perfect has current relevance, and forms a difference from Simple Past. What kind of a trick is this? That is to say, Simple Present is the true owner of "current relevance", and Present Perfect is a faked owner of it. Your Present living, learning, discussion, work, and sports -- they in Simple Present are past actions that have current relevance or continues up to the present. Isn't the time definition for Simple Present habitual action a past action starting in the past that has current relevance or continues up to the present? They in Simple Present fit in with your definition of Present Perfect. Are you aware of that? That is to say, even you can differentiate Present Perfect from Simple Past, it is only by stealing the definition of Simple Present. Can you compare the three of them, by their time definitions, at the same time? By then, you will know the real problem is to differentiate three of them at once.
Using the tense-changing process, I define the three tenses at the same time:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Can your approach do it at all?
To tell the truth, if the old approach is good enough, I don't need to think up a new one.
<<Rather, I meant the expression to be understood in its grammatical sense.>>
My reply:
I agree. As long as there is English, however, there is grammar. As long as there is an English sentence, there is a tense. As long as there is tense, English has to take into the consideration the Present Perfect, or any tense. Unless there is a person using English without grammar, s/he has to think of the Perfect Time, or your "current relevance". It therefore applies to a judge or a burglar, who uses tense, sentence, and grammar.
-------------------------------
Graecus wrote:
<<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....>>
My reply:
I guess you may help the following victims. They wrongly use the pattern of "have arrived yesterday" to imply different aspects of relevance. To find the exact web page for the example, copy and search it with a searching engine:
Ex: Five hundred HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and another 100 are expected today.
== NATO Spokesman Maj. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army, during a briefing in Skopje.
Please tell the author not to refer to ARMY RELEVANCE. You are quite correct, they should have stayed within "current relevance" only.
Ex: My parents HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY!! They'll stay here until monday and then will go to Minas Gerais, visiting Raul and Lulude.
== Please tell the author don't refer it to PERSONAL RELEVANCE. Advice him to use "current relevance" only.
Ex: I HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and first of all sleeped thru the day as i didn'get much sleep on the plane.
== They shouldn't have referred Present Perfect to TRAVEL RELEVANCE.
Ex: "We, and the transport HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY here in the evening and we will hurry as possible".
== Don't use it in TRANSPORT RELEVANCE.
The following may be from a literate:
Ex: I do not have immediate access to the unabridged Webster's Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary. Those who do may want to do us a favor by looking them up for the word "decopyright".
Several examples of the usage on the word:
e.g. (A librarian speaking to a patron.) Several decopyrighted books HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY and you may want to borrow them today.
== http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/9903/msg00025.html
Please tell them not to refer it to LINGUISTIC RELEVANCE. You may help if you will.
Say, if I could collect a lot of examples illustrating the pattern of "have arrived yesterday" (or many other verbs for this pattern), may I point out people are allowed to use Present Perfect with past time adverbials like Yesterday? Isn't it so cruel for us to conclude that people have been using Present Perfect wrongly? If these examples are wrong structures, what shall we do about this tricky grammar that claims so many victims? To tell the truth, however, as long as grammars insist the theory of "current relevance", people have to make use of the "HAVE ARRIVED YESTERDAY" pattern. I have explained the reason why people have no alternative but use Present Perfect with past time in "2.6 The erroneous pattern of 'have arrived yesterday'":
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_6.htm
I have suggested a solution. The tense-changing process reminds them to play attention to the use of past time adverbials like Yesterday. In meeting such a past time, Present Perfect will turn Simple Past.
Then what is your remedy? By repeating the theory of current relevancy much more frequently, until they stop using "have arrived yesterday"? I don't think it useful. The more you emphasize the current relevance, the more they will have to use the pattern of "have arrived yesterday", and it is a fact. While you keep reminding people of the importance of "current relevancy", I keep reminding them of the importance of past time adverbials. We have different approaches and will walk separate ways.
At the frontpage of my humble website:
http://www.englishtense.com/index.htm
I deliberate the following point:
Grammars have first shifted Simple Present from time to meaning, expressing a habitual action, and then stolen its time definition to define Present Perfect, so it seems only Present Perfect has current relevance, and forms a difference from Simple Past. What kind of a trick is this? That is to say, Simple Present is the true owner of "current relevance", and Present Perfect is a faked owner of it. Your Present living, learning, discussion, work, and sports -- they in Simple Present are past actions that have current relevance or continues up to the present. Isn't the time definition for Simple Present habitual action a past action starting in the past that has current relevance or continues up to the present? They in Simple Present fit in with your definition of Present Perfect. Are you aware of that? That is to say, even you can differentiate Present Perfect from Simple Past, it is only by stealing the definition of Simple Present. Can you compare the three of them, by their time definitions, at the same time? By then, you will know the real problem is to differentiate three of them at once.
Using the tense-changing process, I define the three tenses at the same time:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Can your approach do it at all?
To tell the truth, if the old approach is good enough, I don't need to think up a new one.
«Graecus wrote:
<<Rather, I meant the expression to be understood in its grammatical sense.>>
My reply:
I agree. As long as there is English, however, there is grammar. As long as there is an English sentence, there is a tense. As long as there is tense, English has to take into the consideration the Present Perfect, or any tense. Unless there is a person using English without grammar, s/he has to think of the Perfect Time, or your "current relevance". It therefore applies to a judge or a burglar, who uses tense, sentence, and grammar.»
With what you agree? What did you want to say by that? Grammatical sense, as I get it, is the following:
1.1 The action's result is actual (has not been undone).
1.2 The action's result is of most importance, not the action itself.
Example: «Will you go to picnic with us tomorrow? — No, I have broken my leg.»
2 The experience obtained in course of the action is important.
Example: «The evolution theory fails to explain the incompleteness of the chronicle of fossils. — Nope. I have read Darwin's "Origin of Speacies..." and I know how he parries this objection!»
<<Rather, I meant the expression to be understood in its grammatical sense.>>
My reply:
I agree. As long as there is English, however, there is grammar. As long as there is an English sentence, there is a tense. As long as there is tense, English has to take into the consideration the Present Perfect, or any tense. Unless there is a person using English without grammar, s/he has to think of the Perfect Time, or your "current relevance". It therefore applies to a judge or a burglar, who uses tense, sentence, and grammar.»
With what you agree? What did you want to say by that? Grammatical sense, as I get it, is the following:
1.1 The action's result is actual (has not been undone).
1.2 The action's result is of most importance, not the action itself.
Example: «Will you go to picnic with us tomorrow? — No, I have broken my leg.»
2 The experience obtained in course of the action is important.
Example: «The evolution theory fails to explain the incompleteness of the chronicle of fossils. — Nope. I have read Darwin's "Origin of Speacies..." and I know how he parries this objection!»
Using the tense-changing process, I define the three tenses at the same time:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Can your approach do it at all?
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm
Can your approach do it at all?
«BUT: if we mention a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=a):
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong since 2000.»
So what about this:
«I haven't seen him since 2000»
And didn't say anything as to my previous comments...
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=a):
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong since 2000.»
So what about this:
«I haven't seen him since 2000»
And didn't say anything as to my previous comments...
«What exactly is the problem you think there is?»
Where? Do you mean a special place or the whole "approach" of yours?
Where? Do you mean a special place or the whole "approach" of yours?
Have to say that I am a little suprised that you two are still at it.
While you are undoubtedly helping each other correct all points of standard English usage, I am wondering how much you have helped anyone improve their English as a second language.
Anyone who is just looking for ideas on how to improve their English conversation can try looking at this article:
http://www.helium.com/tm/109907/choosing-right-method-improving
Please let me know whether you find it to be valuable or not...
R.D.
While you are undoubtedly helping each other correct all points of standard English usage, I am wondering how much you have helped anyone improve their English as a second language.
Anyone who is just looking for ideas on how to improve their English conversation can try looking at this article:
http://www.helium.com/tm/109907/choosing-right-method-improving
Please let me know whether you find it to be valuable or not...
R.D.
Hi, Russel!
Your suggestions as to the ways of learning ESL are of course correct, but most of them are self-evident:
1. Read more,
2. Listen (TV/Radio) more,
3. Communicate with natives as much as possible (both orally and in wrioting),
4. Write down your questions to keep them not forgotten and leave no one unanswered.
Except for labelling things (which is good only at the early stage) and having a mentor. By the way, do you think a mentor, if one communicates with them only by e-mail/chats, is much better than an English forum like Antimoon?
Your suggestions as to the ways of learning ESL are of course correct, but most of them are self-evident:
1. Read more,
2. Listen (TV/Radio) more,
3. Communicate with natives as much as possible (both orally and in wrioting),
4. Write down your questions to keep them not forgotten and leave no one unanswered.
Except for labelling things (which is good only at the early stage) and having a mentor. By the way, do you think a mentor, if one communicates with them only by e-mail/chats, is much better than an English forum like Antimoon?
<<I would be more inclined to say:
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
I am still waiting for your explanation in using "recommended", rather than my original "have recommended. It may help me to understand if you give some explanation.
I recommended it to Ms Lee ...>>
I am still waiting for your explanation in using "recommended", rather than my original "have recommended. It may help me to understand if you give some explanation.
Ant_222
Thanks for your feedback. I actually wrote that article because I felt that I could do better than most of the common tips my students were able to uncover in their pursuit of more perfect English. So I asked myself what else I could add to the store of common wisdom and drew on some of my own experience learning Japanese.
I would suggest that there are a number of fairly original ideas to be found, such as the value of learning from and practicing a second language with young children. I get numerous requests from ESL students for ideas about how to improve their conversational English and it has been helpful to be able to refer them to that article.
R.D.
Thanks for your feedback. I actually wrote that article because I felt that I could do better than most of the common tips my students were able to uncover in their pursuit of more perfect English. So I asked myself what else I could add to the store of common wisdom and drew on some of my own experience learning Japanese.
I would suggest that there are a number of fairly original ideas to be found, such as the value of learning from and practicing a second language with young children. I get numerous requests from ESL students for ideas about how to improve their conversational English and it has been helpful to be able to refer them to that article.
R.D.