And what do you think that little word "present" means in "present perfect"?
bomb
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4
"So, imagine you're in a teaching context, say in a secondary school, and the student asks you whether the present perfect is a present tense/aspect, a past tense/aspect or not a tense or aspect at all, what would you reply?"
Well, that would depend on me accepting an arbitrary batch of grammatical categories for English verb inflections as authoritative.
Well, that would depend on me accepting an arbitrary batch of grammatical categories for English verb inflections as authoritative.
"And what do you think that little word 'present' means in 'present perfect'?"
That's pecisely the problem with the terminology.
That's pecisely the problem with the terminology.
Why do you think the speak says it?
HAHAHAHAHA
What does this mean?
Idiot
HAHAHAHAHA
What does this mean?
Idiot
<That's pecisely the problem with the terminology. >
Apart from that, why do you think its there? Why is "present" in "present perfect", and what's your name for that construction if you don't use "present perfect"?
Apart from that, why do you think its there? Why is "present" in "present perfect", and what's your name for that construction if you don't use "present perfect"?
<What does this mean?
Idiot >
Maybe, but are you clever enough to answer the question?
Idiot >
Maybe, but are you clever enough to answer the question?
"Apart from that, why do you think its there?"
It represents an attempt to hammer English verb concepts into Latin ones.
"Why is 'present' in 'present perfect', and what's your name for that construction if you don't use 'present perfect'?"
Oh I don't know, how about "have+past participle construction"?
It represents an attempt to hammer English verb concepts into Latin ones.
"Why is 'present' in 'present perfect', and what's your name for that construction if you don't use 'present perfect'?"
Oh I don't know, how about "have+past participle construction"?
<Oh I don't know, how about "have+past participle construction"? >
Fine, it may catch on, but is it a past tense?
Fine, it may catch on, but is it a past tense?
Right Pos you ask ed for it.
"The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
This is set in a form that would be more menacing as if a it was a threat or rather a strict fact.
"Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
This would be a soft fact as if you could deal with it (and we do don´t we)
In other words it is a way of calling attention to this fact in the first case and in the second case would be an example of a accepted situation.
What ever the tense, it does give a very different feeling for the phrases even though they do mean basicly the same thing.
I hope I set you straight. It still dosen´t change the fact that guest is an idiot
"The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
This is set in a form that would be more menacing as if a it was a threat or rather a strict fact.
"Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations."
This would be a soft fact as if you could deal with it (and we do don´t we)
In other words it is a way of calling attention to this fact in the first case and in the second case would be an example of a accepted situation.
What ever the tense, it does give a very different feeling for the phrases even though they do mean basicly the same thing.
I hope I set you straight. It still dosen´t change the fact that guest is an idiot
Previous page Pages: 1 2 3 4