A concept of time

Ant_222   Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:38 pm GMT
«Non sequitur»

Engtense has produced many _non_sequitur_ statements before...
engtense   Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:31 pm GMT
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Since 2000 — past-present time period.>>

My reply:
There is no such thing, but you may keep it as you will.

Why don't you call it Perfect Time Span, as many university documents do?
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:40 am GMT
<<<< Ant_222 wrote:
<<Since 2000 — past-present time period.>>

My reply:
There is no such thing, but you may keep it as you will.

Why don't you call it Perfect Time Span, as many university documents do? >>>>


Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
engtense   Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:10 am GMT
It is well known that 'since 2000' favors the Present Perfect tense. Now the question is, we even cannot tell what kind of time 'since 2000' is, how can we explain what Present Perfect tense is all about? It is difficult, but this is why the old grammars have avoided the Past Family, and now Aspect Theory avoids even the pattern of 'since 2000', as is seen as web page quoted by Josh Lalonde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_in_English

Also, the following page has talked about aspect, so there is no 'since 2000':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', or should we find a solution for it?

Why don't we call it Perfect Time Span, as many university documents do? Do you really think "past-present time period" is a better calling?
Bing Lee   Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:37 am GMT
Oh hi engtense
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:22 am GMT
<< It is implicit as to what the boundary conditions on "MIGHT" are.

Explain this and explain how I could say that "He left the door unlocked". >>

And your explanations are:
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:45 am GMT
<< It is well known that 'since 2000' favors the Present Perfect tense. Now the question is, we even cannot tell what kind of time 'since 2000' is, how can we explain what Present Perfect tense is all about? It is difficult, but this is why the old grammars have avoided the Past Family, and now Aspect Theory avoids even the pattern of 'since 2000', as is seen as web page quoted by Josh Lalonde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect#Aspect_in_English

Also, the following page has talked about aspect, so there is no 'since 2000':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', or should we find a solution for it?

Why don't we call it Perfect Time Span, as many university documents do? Do you really think "past-present time period" is a better calling? >>

Are you trying to teach us or do you want ourselves to teach you?
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:49 am GMT
<< The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', or should we find a solution for it? >>

The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', since we havn't found a solution for it?
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:03 am GMT
<< The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', or should we find a solution for it? >>

Since these questions on since have been asked by the person who is preoccupied by since, should we agree to hide since 2000, since we have not found a solution for since 2000?
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:32 am GMT
<< The question is, should we in forums agree to hide 'since 2000', or should we find a solution for it? >>

Since these questions on since have been asked by the person who has since become preoccupied by since, should we agree to hide since 2000, since we have not found a solution for since 2000?
engtense   Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:49 am GMT
Which one is valid?
engtense   Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:20 pm GMT
We do have answer to defining 'since 2000'. At least, some university documents call it Perfect Time Span. But some grammars prefer to hide. This is the problem.

Readers here cannot produce any objection to Perfect Time Span, but insist not to call it anything. This is the problem.

I remember a similarity in another forum. I asked readers there to define 'Aspect' for Present Perfect. All the time they were just making gags, fooling around, and avoiding to define it.
Geoff_One   Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:34 pm GMT
Are you writing or planning to write another book? Are you undertaking research at a univeristy? You have already put a book out - didn't you cover the present perfect in great detail in your book? What has been the feedback from your customers?

<< All the time they were just making gags, fooling around, and avoiding to define it. >>

What action did the moderators take against them?
engtense   Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:37 pm GMT
I don't know, but I can fool around too.
Ant_222   Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:10 pm GMT
«I don't know, but I can fool around too.»

Which has proven many times...