A concept of time
Ant_222 wrote:
<<1. I live in Hong Kong.
2. I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.
Meanings
1. This just denotes that currently you live in Hong-Kong.
2. Here some result of your living there is meant: the action of living in Hong-Kong for three years has finished. >>
I don't think #2 means a finished action.
«I don't think #2 means a finished action.»
If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech.
Of course, the action of [living in Honk-Kong] is not finished.
...You asked what was wrong with that sentences. Travis answered and you said he was incorrect. It seems that you know the 'correct' answer or you know why he is wrong...
"I have been living in Hong Kong for the past three years" implies I still live there.
But,
"2. I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years" is a little odd as it's not clear whether I still live there or not. "I have" makes us consider continuation up to the present, until we encounter "lived", which suggests it's a completed time frame.
And what? Does it clash with what I have said?
The only change will be:
«Of course, the action of [living in Honk-Kong] MAY BE not finished.»
Anyway, I overanalyzed... keeping things simple, as Ant_222 said, it is a finished action.
Is it you, engtense, hiding behind the mask of Guest again?
>>Travis wrote: <<It is because what is syntactically perfect or not does not necessarily directly map to the actual semantic tense and aspect, and hence its actual usage does not necessarily go along with what it "should" be. >>
It is not.<<
If you were the one asking the question here, what position are you to try to correct anyone about the answer to the very question which you had asked, especially without giving any very good reasons for such and when one is not a native speaker of the language in question?
Travis,
I used "It is not" to meet your negative statements. Actually, I don't know what you were saying in <<It is because what is syntactically perfect or not does not necessarily directly map to the actual semantic tense and aspect, and hence its actual usage does not necessarily go along with what it "should" be. >>
I didn't know the point you wanted to deliver. I still remember you had suggested there is no future tense, using all negative statements. With respect, I wanted to remind you of overuse of negative statements.
You wrote: << what position are you to try to correct anyone about the answer to the very question>>
My reply: No one corrects no ones here. We discuss. Actually, I think "I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years" implies an unfinished action, but Ant_222 have 'corrected' me, and I am speechless. You and I are speechless because we have no proofs at all from grammar books. Would you then ask about his or her position? As for me, I don't, because I know here is a discussion forum. We only express our opinion.
Ant_222 even thought I used Guest to express myself. Do I need to prove I didn't do it? I don't think so. I am speechless. This is my position.
I have dubbed the pattern "in the past xx years" the Past Family, which is ignored by grammar books. I have discussed about the use of them for decades. In discussions, English native speakers agree these time adverbials indicate an unfinished action -- this is why we use Present Perfect, instead of Simple Past. We discussed the Past Family based on this agreement. It reveals that the golden rule ("Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials") is only partially correct. My tense-changing process can be a supplement to the golden rule, rather than a contradiction against the golden rule.
However, I didn't expect all readers here, native speakers or non-native, agree that "I have lived in HK in the past few years" implies a finished action. I kept silent because I believed some English native speakers would speak up. If they don't, then we nearly accept that a finished action, even with a past time adverbial expressed, can use Present Perfect. Then the golden rule is not only partially incorrect, but totally incorrect. I don't know for sure whether it is devastating to my new approach, or to the conventional agreement.
«I didn't know the point you wanted to deliver. I still remember you had suggested there is no future tense, using all negative statements. With respect, I wanted to remind you of overuse of negative statements.»
If I say: «This box is not black», I give some positive information.
If you call negative statements ones of the type "x is NOT P(x)", then I do not know why you don't like them.
Travis said that the names of tenses (i.e. 'Present Perfect') do not necessarily correspond to the time these tenses express. And furthermore, in different cases the same tense may express different times. This does deliver positive information for those who thought it was not so.
"You are not right" is a negative statement. And what? Will you forbid me saying this?
«I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years" implies an unfinished action, but Ant_222 have 'corrected' me, and I am speechless.»
Here you seem to have expressly mangled my words. Without the context it seems that I state that the action of living in Hong-Kong has finished, according to this sentence. But I wrote that about another action: living in Hong-Kong in the past three years. It is this action which is finished.
«You and I are speechless because we have no proofs at all from grammar books.»
LOL. This is the criteria of the ability to conversate...
«I know here is a discussion forum. We only express our opinion.»
Nope. We discuss our opinions, and at least one discussion of 100 helps to find the truth.
«I am speechless. This is my position.»
That is the best position. It lets you always feel yourself right and correct, irregardless of whether it is really so.
«I didn't expect all readers here, native speakers or non-native, agree that "I have lived in HK in the past few years" implies a finished action.»
That is a deliberate distortion of my words. I wrote:
«Here some result of your living there is meant: the action of living in Hong-Kong for three years has finished.»
And below:
«If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech.
Of course, the action of (just) [living in Honk-Kong] is not finished».
Ant_222 wrote:
«If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech.
Of course, the action of (just) [living in Honk-Kong] is not finished».
Imagine a student will have to learn this magical explanation, when we are actually considering "I have lived in HK in the past five years". No wonder grammars have to avoid the Past Family. I can't see such firework will post an iota of threat to my tense-changing process.
I didn't make any distortion of your latest post, which contains no trace of the Past Family.
Because Present Perfect can denote both a past action and a present one:
Ex: I have lived in Japan before.
Ex: I have lived in HK since 1987.
grammarians will use vagueness such as this to mystify young students:
<<If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished BY THE MOMENT OF SPEECH.
Of course, the action of (JUST) [living in Honk-Kong] is not finished>>.
You can get whatever you want from it.
You want a finish? It is there.
You want an unfinish? It is there.
I think this will satisfy the need of any students. Should a student ask further, they will measure the time span between BY THE MOMENT OF SPEECH and JUST. And I don't think a young student will discuss further with a good English teacher.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<If we consider the action of [living in Hong-Kong for three years] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech.>>
My reply: With Present Perfect, grammars will not consider "for xx years" as implying a finished action. Here are two web pages about the time phrase:
---------------
1. Actions started in the past and continuing in the present.
a. They haven't lived here for years.
b. She has worked in the bank for five years.
c. We have had the same car for ten years.
==
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses4.cfm
---------------
1. Betty taught for ten years. (simple past)
2. Betty has taught for ten years. (present perfect)
The implication in (1) is that Betty has retired; in (2), that she is still teaching.
==
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_seqtense.html
---------------
I don't think they will funnily suggest the continuing action is finished for a while "by the moment of speech", and then continues again after the moment of speech.
«Imagine a student will have to learn this magical explanation, when we are actually considering "I have lived in HK in the past five years".»
I don't find it magical.
«I can't see such firework will post an iota of threat to my tense-changing process.»
You asked what was wrong with your tense-changing process. The examples are correct. But the explanation is not very good.
For example, Past Simple may be happily used without "mentioning a definite past time".
And the most important thing: you didn't fully explain the difference between the meanings of various tenses. Or, maybe, you didn't pretend to it...
And I do not understand what do you want to show by your tense-changing process. Do you propose to use it as a rule for determining which tense to use?
«I didn't make any distortion of your latest post, which contains no trace of the Past Family.»
You did. If someone reads your text he may think that I consider the action of living in Hong-Kong as finished, which is not so, of course.
«My reply: With Present Perfect, grammars will not consider "for xx years" as implying a finished action. Here are two web pages about the time phrase...»
That examples and their explanations are fully correct. And my explanation do not clash with them:
Ex: Betty has taught for ten years.
Of course, Betty is still teaching, and this action is not finished. But the action of teaching for ten years is finished because ten years have passed since she began to teach. Here you again confuse the two actions.
«I don't think they will funnily suggest the continuing action is finished for a while "by the moment of speech", and then continues again after the moment of speech.»
The action of teaching is not interrupted.
The action of teaching for ten years is finished and won't continue.