|
|
A concept of time
Josh Lalonde wrote:
<<I don't know where you get the idea..... that there is some sort of conspiracy among grammar publications to deny this.>>
My reply:
I take great care not to use the word "conspiracy". Where did I say it? What are you pointing at exactly? May you please quote?
But I have said the following idea, which some have called conspiracy:
On one-sentence basis, the tense doesn't function. Such a basis thwarts any attempts to explain tense, and every tense poses a problem. It is well known that it is difficult to explain Present Perfect, and more difficult to differentiate it from Simple Past. Embarrassed grammarians can wait on longer and have to tell the difference between them, for their own sake. Therefore, they boldly fabricate a rule that Simple Past can, and Present Perfect cannot, stay with past time:
Ex: They worked there last week.
Ex: *They have worked there last week.
To make the fabrication look real, they hide away those 'naughty' past time adverbials that can stay with Present Perfect. Now with the makeshift rule, they may claim they see a difference between the two tenses.
When grammars cannot explain any tense, they will try any makeshifts, and then wait for the true answer. It is pardonable. But it is unpardonable to defend for the makeshifts for long.
Really, on one-sentence basis, what tense can you explain?
Josh Lalonde wrote:
<<Notice that the first is a single continuous action extending up to now, so it is in the present, whereas the second is a serious of actions occuring before now so it is in the past.>>
My reply:
I guess what you have compared – the first and the second – is the following two examples:
Ex: "I've worked here since 2000"
Ex: "I've bought two cars since 2000"
However, I am afraid you have analyzed only the actions, rather than the time. Within the time "since 2000", there may be different kinds of actions, but the actions cannot change the time in any way, can they? It is the same "since 2000".
I am asking about the time "since 2000", but you were describing different actions. Does it occur to you that Time is not Action?
When grammars explain English tense, it is a very common phenomenon for them to confuse Time with Action. Ant_222 is one of such victims, as he says upstairs:
<<Past is everything before Now.>>
As we can see, Past is time, not "thing" nor "everything". He should have said "Past is (all) the time before now."
As for the difference between Time and Action, please see the following link:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_10
See more of such time-action confusion percolated in some university documents:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_2_3.htm
My web page says that university learners are overwhelmed by such time-action confusions, and thus fail to locate "Perfect Time Span", which is part of their famous "Present Perfect Puzzle". Because of different kinds of actions, they even think "`Since' itself is ambiguous".
You and Ant_222, as well as these university learners, have displayed the same confusion, mistaking action as time itself.
«Do you know what he wanted to say? Did he want to say past, present, or future? Or did he want to say 'since 2000' doesn't fit into the English tense system?»
Every moment of time can be classified as past present of future. But a period of time can be located in the past, present and future simultaneously. For example: 1959-2011. So, your question is itself incorrect.
<<I am asking about the time "since 2000", but you were describing different actions. Does it occur to you that Time is not Action?
When grammars explain English tense, it is a very common phenomenon for them to confuse Time with Action.>>
I think the problem here is that you don't recognize that English tenses are not "pure"; they are in fact a combination of tense and aspect. "Past perfect" and "Simple past" do not necessarily refer to different periods of time, but to different ways of looking at that period. When we talk about "past" in the context of English grammar, we are *NOT* referring to a specific period of time, but to a certain form of verb that usually refers to actions that occurred before the time of the utterance.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, asking where "since 2000" fits in the English tense system is foolish. It is not a tense, so it doesn't have to fit. Nevertheless, as has been explained many a time above, it is most often expressed with the "present perfect" tense, eg. "I have driven to California three times since 2000".
An easy way to go into the past tense in Spanish:
Cojugate the verb to finish, "acabar", add "de" (of) and the infinitive ... .
Eg: Acabo de verlo. (lo = it)
I have just seen it. (I finish of to see it.)
Acabar like the English "achieved".
Ver like the English "verify".
Can the same sought of formula be applied in French?
There is an analogous construction in French, but it uses a different verb. The formula is 'venir' + 'de' + infinitive
"Je viens de le voir"
I have just seen it, or literally "I am coming from seeing it."
French also has a similar construction for the future, using the same verb 'venir', but in the the present tense, and without 'de'.
'Je va le voir'
I will see it, or literally "I'm going to see it"
Sorry, should be "Je vais le voir."
Josh Lalonde wrote:
<<Basically, what I'm trying to say is, asking where "since 2000" fits in the English tense system is foolish. It is not a tense, so it doesn't have to fit. Nevertheless, as has been explained many a time above, it is most often expressed with the "present perfect" tense, eg. "I have driven to California three times since 2000".>>
My reply:
Then you have found yourself a very precious toy that is without time: "since 2000".
As far as I know, many university documents call Since a Perfect Time Span. And I call it a DPTA:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_7
I just want to know your opinion or choice. I didn't expect the answer would be "asking where 'since 2000' fits in..... is foolish".
-----------------
<<It is not a tense, so it doesn't have to fit.>>
My reply:
But it is a kind of time span, isn't it? The fact that you cannot tell whether it is past, present or future, doesn't mean it is not a time span. Then it has to fit in with either past, present, or future, if you know how.
--------------------
<<When we talk about "past" in the context of English grammar, we are *NOT* referring to a specific period of time, but to a certain form of verb that usually refers to actions that occurred before the time of the utterance.>>
My reply:
Teachers and students have been wailing at such vagueness as yours, and you enjoy such vagueness.
The trouble is, there are two kinds of actions that "occurred before the time of the utterance":
Ex: He has locked the door.
Ex: He locked the door.
Can you give a little empathy to those teachers and students? Can your argument give any slight help to differentiate the two tenses?
For The Umpteenth Time - In One Fashion Or Another
Eg 1: He has locked the door.
Eg 2: He locked the door.
Possibly in Eg 1, the "He" suffers from compulsive behaviour disorder.
This "He" goes back into the house a number of times to check things (eg the gas stove) and each time "He" comes out, "He" locks the door.
etc etc etc
<< I am not creating time, but old grammars have missed a concept of time. "Last Week" is a past time, and "Now" is a present time. But what about the time between last week and now? It has no name, and Present Perfect is used to indicate things FINISHED in this time zone.>>
It has no name??
How about "The Near Past Time".
Also - "The Recent Past Time".
And even closer to "Now" - "The Immediate Past Time".
On another aspect of this thread:
A single word in English for "The past tense" - preterit.
Spanish - preterito
<< But what about the time between last week and now? It has no name, and Present Perfect is used to indicate things FINISHED in this time zone. >>
What happens if one uses the present perfect to describe some operations that occur within a micro-processor?
Geoff_One wrote:
<<For The Umpteenth Time - In One Fashion Or Another
Eg 1: He has locked the door.
Eg 2: He locked the door.
Possibly in Eg 1, the "He" suffers from compulsive behaviour disorder.
This "He" goes back into the house a number of times to check things (eg the gas stove) and each time "He" comes out, "He" locks the door.>>
My reply:
I am sorry but I don't know what you are talking about, especially on "a number of times". If this is the best you can say among umpteenth times, the only place I can understand is your "possibly". Should you be suspicious of your own definition, remind students of it. It helps.
I said:
<< I am not creating time, but old grammars have missed a concept of time. "Last Week" is a past time, and "Now" is a present time. But what about the time between last week and now? It has no name, and Present Perfect is used to indicate things FINISHED in this time zone.>>
Geoff_One wrote:
<<It has no name??
How about "The Near Past Time".
Also - "The Recent Past Time".
And even closer to "Now" - "The Immediate Past Time".>>
My reply:
I have first pointed out the time span here, and it is realized only by putting sentences together.
I didn't expect you had got the name from somewhere else. Really, from where?
Since you can call the so-called Perfect Time so many names, it has no ORIGINAL name. This is what I meant.
Geoff_One wrote:
<<What happens if one uses the present perfect to describe some operations that occur within a micro-processor?>>
My reply:
I guess you meant how I can do it with only one sentence and one tense. Do I guess correctly?
I don't know, but people may use any tenses to describe "some operations that occur within a microprocessor":
<<Microprocessors made possible the advent of the microcomputer in the mid-1970s. Before this period, electronic CPUs were typically made from bulky discrete switching devices (and later small-scale integrated circuits) containing the equivalent of only a few transistors. By integrating the processor onto one or a very few large-scale integrated circuit packages (containing the equivalent of thousands or millions of discrete transistors), the cost of processor power was greatly reduced. Since the advent of the IC in the mid-1970s, the microprocessor has become the most prevalent implementation of the CPU, nearly completely replacing all other forms. See History of computing hardware for pre-electronic and early electronic computers.>>
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor
Inside the paragraph there are Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present.
|