bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
A concept of time
Ant_222 wrote:
<<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?>>
My reply: These are very good questions indeed. This is why I claim we have to explain tenses by the paragraph -- this is the whole point of my book, as demonstrated in the following page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm
Indeed, in the first page of this our thread I have explained how Simple Past uses without a past time adverbial:
Ex: "Last week we went to a new department store. We bought many things. We have recommended it to Ms B."
== Simple Past BOUGHT indicates the buy happens in the same time frame of 'last week'. Present Perfect says the recommendation is outside 'last week'.
But you were not here by that time.
However, before we can analyze a paragraph, we have to know beforehand the basic expressions of the three tenses, so the tense-changing process is introduced. Conventionally, by instinct, grammarians want to prove Present Perfect is neither Simple Present nor Simple Past. This attempt looks natural, but wrong. Consequently, even deep learners admitted they cannot explain the tense, as is mentioned in the following page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_7.htm
According to my tense-changing process, conversely, Present Perfect can be either Simple Present or Simple Past. Then two simple notions of time, past and present, can explain the three tenses. Definite past time adverbials decide the interactions between them. In my book, the notes under the tense-changing process emphasize the process cannot explain the three tenses actually, because tenses have to be explained by the paragraph.
<<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?>>
My reply: These are very good questions indeed. This is why I claim we have to explain tenses by the paragraph -- this is the whole point of my book, as demonstrated in the following page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_3_9.htm
Indeed, in the first page of this our thread I have explained how Simple Past uses without a past time adverbial:
Ex: "Last week we went to a new department store. We bought many things. We have recommended it to Ms B."
== Simple Past BOUGHT indicates the buy happens in the same time frame of 'last week'. Present Perfect says the recommendation is outside 'last week'.
But you were not here by that time.
However, before we can analyze a paragraph, we have to know beforehand the basic expressions of the three tenses, so the tense-changing process is introduced. Conventionally, by instinct, grammarians want to prove Present Perfect is neither Simple Present nor Simple Past. This attempt looks natural, but wrong. Consequently, even deep learners admitted they cannot explain the tense, as is mentioned in the following page:
http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_7.htm
According to my tense-changing process, conversely, Present Perfect can be either Simple Present or Simple Past. Then two simple notions of time, past and present, can explain the three tenses. Definite past time adverbials decide the interactions between them. In my book, the notes under the tense-changing process emphasize the process cannot explain the three tenses actually, because tenses have to be explained by the paragraph.
Ant-222 wrote:
<<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.>>
My reply: I have met similar argument in discussion before, but never in books. I want to point out that there is only one action here, rather than two. Every unfinished, present action must have some part happened in the past, but we cannot say "it is a past action; of course, it continues." For example, if we say in Simple Present "Betty teaches English in that school", I can also reason that, by the moment of speech, she has also taught there in the past. So according to your analysis, I am also able to say there are two actions: "Betty has taught English there in the past. Of course, she is till teaching." But personally, I cannot see the point why we split an action into two parts of time.
You added:
<<The action of TEACHING FOR TEN YEARS IS FINISHED and won't continue.>>
My reply: Then you must guess when people mention "ten years", it must be 365x10=3,650 days, not a day less (and not a day more). Therefore, "ten years" must be a finish by the moment of speech, according to your precision. If not, you will point your finger to the speaker, "You liar, you have taught there only for nine years and 314 days, and you call it Ten Years!"
But if we accept that "ten years" can be a little (more or) less than ten years, then the action of TEACHING FOR TEN YEARS IS NOT YET FINISHED, by the moment of speech, and will continue.
Nevertheless, we usually take "Betty has taught English for ten years" as one action, rather than two. It is an unfinished action, as is recorded in grammar books.
<<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.>>
My reply: I have met similar argument in discussion before, but never in books. I want to point out that there is only one action here, rather than two. Every unfinished, present action must have some part happened in the past, but we cannot say "it is a past action; of course, it continues." For example, if we say in Simple Present "Betty teaches English in that school", I can also reason that, by the moment of speech, she has also taught there in the past. So according to your analysis, I am also able to say there are two actions: "Betty has taught English there in the past. Of course, she is till teaching." But personally, I cannot see the point why we split an action into two parts of time.
You added:
<<The action of TEACHING FOR TEN YEARS IS FINISHED and won't continue.>>
My reply: Then you must guess when people mention "ten years", it must be 365x10=3,650 days, not a day less (and not a day more). Therefore, "ten years" must be a finish by the moment of speech, according to your precision. If not, you will point your finger to the speaker, "You liar, you have taught there only for nine years and 314 days, and you call it Ten Years!"
But if we accept that "ten years" can be a little (more or) less than ten years, then the action of TEACHING FOR TEN YEARS IS NOT YET FINISHED, by the moment of speech, and will continue.
Nevertheless, we usually take "Betty has taught English for ten years" as one action, rather than two. It is an unfinished action, as is recorded in grammar books.
«This is why I claim we have to explain tenses by the paragraph -- this is the whole point of my book, as demonstrated in the following page...»
You better say: "to explain tenses paying attantion to the context". Is it what you mean? Of course, sometimes a tense can not be explained without the context.
«Present Perfect can be either Simple Present or Simple Past.» Maybe you meant it could denote either a Present or a Past action? How can you say that Present Perfect tense can be Present Simple tense. Tenses are determined by certain grammatical constructions, and different constructions have different names...
Well, it'll take a while to read your book and find out how you explain tenses. The organization of the html version of your book is uncomfortable: every little section is a seperate html page. Don't you have a .pdf or a .txt of the full book?
«I cannot see the point why we split an action into two parts of time.»
Present Perfect, where Perfect=finished. And it is the first part of the action (between some past moment and 'now') which is finished.
«Then you must guess when people mention "ten years", it must be 365x10=3,650 days, not a day less (and not a day more).»
No. Of course, by 'ten yers' they mean 'approximately ten years'. And, which is the most important, Present Perfect (in this example) implies the period of time since the beginning of teaching till 'now'. And 'ten years' is just an estimate of its length and may be not precise.
Ex.: I have owned this shop for ages.
As you see, no definite duration is specified here. It is because 'ages' is just an estimate of the very long period of time since the speaker built/bought this shop till 'now'.
The past part of a still active action is finished (=Perfect). Since the action is still active it is Present, Present Perfect.
«We usually take "Betty has taught English for ten years" as one action, rather than two.»
LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.
How many parts does a pencil have? There is no literally correct answer:
1. Two parts: slate pencil and wooden shell.
2. Three parts: the upper, the middle and the lower parts.
3. Six: when the parts in (2) are divided into two parts as in (1).
...
You better say: "to explain tenses paying attantion to the context". Is it what you mean? Of course, sometimes a tense can not be explained without the context.
«Present Perfect can be either Simple Present or Simple Past.» Maybe you meant it could denote either a Present or a Past action? How can you say that Present Perfect tense can be Present Simple tense. Tenses are determined by certain grammatical constructions, and different constructions have different names...
Well, it'll take a while to read your book and find out how you explain tenses. The organization of the html version of your book is uncomfortable: every little section is a seperate html page. Don't you have a .pdf or a .txt of the full book?
«I cannot see the point why we split an action into two parts of time.»
Present Perfect, where Perfect=finished. And it is the first part of the action (between some past moment and 'now') which is finished.
«Then you must guess when people mention "ten years", it must be 365x10=3,650 days, not a day less (and not a day more).»
No. Of course, by 'ten yers' they mean 'approximately ten years'. And, which is the most important, Present Perfect (in this example) implies the period of time since the beginning of teaching till 'now'. And 'ten years' is just an estimate of its length and may be not precise.
Ex.: I have owned this shop for ages.
As you see, no definite duration is specified here. It is because 'ages' is just an estimate of the very long period of time since the speaker built/bought this shop till 'now'.
The past part of a still active action is finished (=Perfect). Since the action is still active it is Present, Present Perfect.
«We usually take "Betty has taught English for ten years" as one action, rather than two.»
LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.
How many parts does a pencil have? There is no literally correct answer:
1. Two parts: slate pencil and wooden shell.
2. Three parts: the upper, the middle and the lower parts.
3. Six: when the parts in (2) are divided into two parts as in (1).
...
I said: Nevertheless, we usually take "Betty has taught English for ten years" as one action, rather than two. It is an unfinished action, as is recorded in grammar books.
You wrote: <<LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>
My reply: This is our difference. I respect your opinion. But I will not change mine.
You wrote: <<LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>
My reply: This is our difference. I respect your opinion. But I will not change mine.
Ant_222 wrote: << We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>
My reply: We use tense to tell the time of an action whether finished or not. In your way of analysis, even we tell the time specifically "for ten years", and use a tense, we still cannot decide whether the action is finished or not. What a shame. Why then do we use tense at all?
According to your divisions of time, Simple Past "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday" can be also not a finished action: "Here are two actions. Judged by the yesterday's dinner, it is a finished action. Of course, we still eat dinner in the future, naturally."
My reply: We use tense to tell the time of an action whether finished or not. In your way of analysis, even we tell the time specifically "for ten years", and use a tense, we still cannot decide whether the action is finished or not. What a shame. Why then do we use tense at all?
According to your divisions of time, Simple Past "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday" can be also not a finished action: "Here are two actions. Judged by the yesterday's dinner, it is a finished action. Of course, we still eat dinner in the future, naturally."
«In your way of analysis, even we tell the time specifically "for ten years", and use a tense, we still cannot decide whether the action is finished or not. What a shame. Why then do we use tense at all?»
Of course, tenses (along with the context) do give information whether the action has finished or not. And "<Present Perfect> + for <some time>" means that the action is not finished. It just indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.
«According to your divisions of time, Simple Past "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday" can be also not a finished action: "Here are two actions. Judged by the yesterday's dinner, it is a finished action. Of course, we still eat dinner in the future, naturally."» — but that is another action, not mentioned in the sentence.
This is rubbish. I can't believe you really understand me in this way. Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past. But still, if you want, you can divide it into some parts. Assume, you started eating at 7:57 and ended at 8:18. Then we may say that the first part is since 7:57 till 8:00 and the second — since 8:01 till 8:18. the action in question occupies a certain period, and we can divide that period as we want. But moments beyond that period (eating dinner in the future, as you proposed) will not belong to the action in question. And that was your mistake that you had assigned future dinners to the mentioned past dinner. I feel inconvenient as I am writing this paragraph... This all is very simple and evident.
BTW, I asked you to send me your book in a single file. Can you do it?
Of course, tenses (along with the context) do give information whether the action has finished or not. And "<Present Perfect> + for <some time>" means that the action is not finished. It just indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.
«According to your divisions of time, Simple Past "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday" can be also not a finished action: "Here are two actions. Judged by the yesterday's dinner, it is a finished action. Of course, we still eat dinner in the future, naturally."» — but that is another action, not mentioned in the sentence.
This is rubbish. I can't believe you really understand me in this way. Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past. But still, if you want, you can divide it into some parts. Assume, you started eating at 7:57 and ended at 8:18. Then we may say that the first part is since 7:57 till 8:00 and the second — since 8:01 till 8:18. the action in question occupies a certain period, and we can divide that period as we want. But moments beyond that period (eating dinner in the future, as you proposed) will not belong to the action in question. And that was your mistake that you had assigned future dinners to the mentioned past dinner. I feel inconvenient as I am writing this paragraph... This all is very simple and evident.
BTW, I asked you to send me your book in a single file. Can you do it?
<<BTW, I asked you to send me your book in a single file. Can you do it?>>
My reply: Take a wild guess.
My reply: Take a wild guess.
I said: According to your divisions of time, Simple Past "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday" can be also not a finished action: "Here are two actions. Judged by the yesterday's dinner, it is a finished action. Of course, we still eat dinner in the future, naturally."
You wrote: <<This is rubbish. I can't believe you really understand me in this way. Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past. But still, if you want, you can divide it into some parts. Assume, you started eating at 7:57 and ended at 8:18. Then we may say that the first part is since 7:57 till 8:00 and the second — since 8:01 till 8:18. the action in question occupies a certain period, and we can divide that period as we want. But moments beyond that period (eating dinner in the future, as you proposed) will not belong to the action in question. And that was your mistake that you had assigned future dinners to the mentioned past dinner. I feel inconvenient as I am writing this paragraph... This all is very simple and evident.>>
My reply: Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat dinner in the future.
You wrote: <<This is rubbish. I can't believe you really understand me in this way. Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past. But still, if you want, you can divide it into some parts. Assume, you started eating at 7:57 and ended at 8:18. Then we may say that the first part is since 7:57 till 8:00 and the second — since 8:01 till 8:18. the action in question occupies a certain period, and we can divide that period as we want. But moments beyond that period (eating dinner in the future, as you proposed) will not belong to the action in question. And that was your mistake that you had assigned future dinners to the mentioned past dinner. I feel inconvenient as I am writing this paragraph... This all is very simple and evident.>>
My reply: Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat dinner in the future.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<And "<Present Perfect> + for <some time>" means that the action is not finished.>>
My reply: I am glad to hear that. The tense-changing process is therefore saved.
--------------------
Ant_222 continued:
<<It JUST indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.>>
My reply: Maybe you want to say ALSO:
It ALSO indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.
If you don't, I do.
<<And "<Present Perfect> + for <some time>" means that the action is not finished.>>
My reply: I am glad to hear that. The tense-changing process is therefore saved.
--------------------
Ant_222 continued:
<<It JUST indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.>>
My reply: Maybe you want to say ALSO:
It ALSO indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.
If you don't, I do.
<<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. >>
But what about - I live in Hong Kong!
I exist here in XYZ. I live in Hong Kong!
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. >>
But what about - I live in Hong Kong!
I exist here in XYZ. I live in Hong Kong!
«Take a wild guess.»
Well, I guess that you can do it if I provide you with my e-mail.
«My reply: Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat dinner in the future.»
You could rewrite it as follows:
«Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat (that particular) dinner in the future.»
Now it is ok.
I repeat myself: «Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past.» — you quotated this sentence above.
Here a particular dinner is mentioned. The sentence reports that sometime within <yesterday> the action of eating a dinner happened. This action can not happen in the future: it'll be another action with another dinner envolved. It is not about every dinner in the world but about one (particular) dinner. In all my argumentation I considered THAT dinner, not just a dinner (or every dinner). That is, I considered the action involved in the sentence discussed, which is quite natural,
in contrast to considering any action of having dinner, as you tend to.
In the future I'll have a dinner many thousands times, but that will be different actions, having nothing common with the action considered.
«It ALSO indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.»
Yes.
«But what about - I live in Hong Kong!
I exist here in XYZ. I live in Hong Kong!»
And what? The action of your living in Hong-Kong has non-zero past and future parts. That is, 'now' lies within the period of time occupied by the action of your living in Hong-Kong. Did I answer your question?
Well, I guess that you can do it if I provide you with my e-mail.
«My reply: Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat dinner in the future.»
You could rewrite it as follows:
«Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat (that particular) dinner in the future.»
Now it is ok.
I repeat myself: «Yesterday's action of eating THAT dinner doesn't have a future part: it is fully in the past.» — you quotated this sentence above.
Here a particular dinner is mentioned. The sentence reports that sometime within <yesterday> the action of eating a dinner happened. This action can not happen in the future: it'll be another action with another dinner envolved. It is not about every dinner in the world but about one (particular) dinner. In all my argumentation I considered THAT dinner, not just a dinner (or every dinner). That is, I considered the action involved in the sentence discussed, which is quite natural,
in contrast to considering any action of having dinner, as you tend to.
In the future I'll have a dinner many thousands times, but that will be different actions, having nothing common with the action considered.
«It ALSO indicates that the past part of the action is of <some time> length.»
Yes.
«But what about - I live in Hong Kong!
I exist here in XYZ. I live in Hong Kong!»
And what? The action of your living in Hong-Kong has non-zero past and future parts. That is, 'now' lies within the period of time occupied by the action of your living in Hong-Kong. Did I answer your question?
Ant_222,
The publishing company will not allow me to send a book electronically to anyone. Doing so will break the agreement. On the other hand, I have displayed more than enough to explain the three tenses -- Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present.
Simple Past action indicates a past action; Simple Present action indicates a present action. In a paragraph of sentences, between Last Week and Now, there is a time span, which is neither Last Week nor Now. Present Perfect is used to denote this concept of time. English tense is as simple as this. Many other words, terms, and ideas are redundant.
-------------------------
You wrote about my example "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday":
<<Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat (that particular) dinner in the future>>
My reply: I have always said this: on one-sentence basis, all we talk about is the sentence only, not the tense. In my example I added "at 8:00pm", then you found it particular. However, did I say it is particular? What if my example is "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday, as usual"?
Let's go back to the original example "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday":
-- It is an ordinary dinner. It is not particular. Precisely, it is just a past dinner. But if every dinner in the past is taken as particular, did I eat dinner before?
-- If you must take it as a particular dinner, then I will refer to every similar particular dinner in the future, and your grotesque analysis is still the same:
"If we consider the action of [that particular dinner at 8:00pm yesterday] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech. Of course, the action of (just) [eating particular dinner] is not finished."
As you see, I will eat dinner at 8:00pm again, as usual.
-------------------------
Simply put, according to your weird analysis, I don't think you can prove there is a past action at all. All I can do is add "Of course, it is not finished" to it, because you allow us to cut an action into many parts:
<<LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>
If we look into the future part, how can there be a past at all? How can you prove there is a past action at all?
In my humble opinion, just because we use tense, you cannot cut an action into many parts of time, for a certain tense has already specified a certain part of time.
The publishing company will not allow me to send a book electronically to anyone. Doing so will break the agreement. On the other hand, I have displayed more than enough to explain the three tenses -- Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present.
Simple Past action indicates a past action; Simple Present action indicates a present action. In a paragraph of sentences, between Last Week and Now, there is a time span, which is neither Last Week nor Now. Present Perfect is used to denote this concept of time. English tense is as simple as this. Many other words, terms, and ideas are redundant.
-------------------------
You wrote about my example "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday":
<<Then according to the context or logic, you don't eat (that particular) dinner in the future>>
My reply: I have always said this: on one-sentence basis, all we talk about is the sentence only, not the tense. In my example I added "at 8:00pm", then you found it particular. However, did I say it is particular? What if my example is "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday, as usual"?
Let's go back to the original example "I ate dinner at 8:00pm yesterday":
-- It is an ordinary dinner. It is not particular. Precisely, it is just a past dinner. But if every dinner in the past is taken as particular, did I eat dinner before?
-- If you must take it as a particular dinner, then I will refer to every similar particular dinner in the future, and your grotesque analysis is still the same:
"If we consider the action of [that particular dinner at 8:00pm yesterday] then we'll find it is finished by the moment of speech. Of course, the action of (just) [eating particular dinner] is not finished."
As you see, I will eat dinner at 8:00pm again, as usual.
-------------------------
Simply put, according to your weird analysis, I don't think you can prove there is a past action at all. All I can do is add "Of course, it is not finished" to it, because you allow us to cut an action into many parts:
<<LOL. We may divide it into as many parts as we want... It is usefull to distinguish the past and the future parts of the action.>>
If we look into the future part, how can there be a past at all? How can you prove there is a past action at all?
In my humble opinion, just because we use tense, you cannot cut an action into many parts of time, for a certain tense has already specified a certain part of time.
I live in Hong Kong.
You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong
at any stage of your life!
You can say the above even if you never live in Hong Kong
at any stage of your life!