What are tenses of these two sentences? (Bomb)
A: [showing a photograph] That's me in Ljubljana.
B. Yes, a lovely city. I've been there a number of times. The last time was in July 2005.
So Pos, tell us why "I've been" is present tense, when clearly all the action occurred in the past.
Sorry - that last was mine.
I completely agree with Johan Elsness' explanation, and I second Pos' question. If the present perfect is a past tense, then how come you can't say "John has been drunk yesterday?"
<<So Pos, tell us why "I've been" is present tense, when clearly all the action occurred in the past.>>
Because the verb is describing the state of having been there, which is a present state. Does the following sentence sound right to you?
"I've been there the first time in 1999, and then I've been there in 2002, and then I've been there in 2005."
Because if the present perfect is a past tense as you say, then there would be nothing wrong with this sentence.
<So Pos, tell us why "I've been" is present tense, when clearly all the action occurred in the past. >
You have a major part of your answer here, Guest:
<Because the verb is describing the state of having been there, which is a present state. >
"Because the verb is describing the state of having been there, which is a present state."
I was in Zagreb yesterday.
Why isn't this present tense? It certainly describes the state of having been there.
<<Lazar, Pos & Calliope are correct and fake Mxsmanic has ceased to be funny.>>
It all has to do with Jim and his substandard thoughts and his substandard country.
12LOST, look up "anterior", "simple", and "posterior. Then look up "anterior present".
Now you're talking "Mxsmanic". Keep up the standard.
I'm with Lazar. Johan Elsness' explanation is correct. I too second Pos' question. No, 12SURELY-CAN'T-BE-SERIOUS, you haven't answered it.
"I was in Zagreb yesterday."
Note the "was" this is a past tense of "be". What it does not describe is the state of having had been there.
12??, you write the following.
"The gist of your argument would seem to be that, because this particular verb construction encompasses events from past time up to present time, it should be considered present tense.
"However, it's no less valid to argue it should be considered past tense: it encompasses events from past time up to present time, so it should be considered past tense.
"So we're still talking opinion here not 'truth.'"
No, we certainly are not talking opinion here. We are talking about the definition of particular grammatical terms. It is very much less valid to argue that it should be considered past tense. Why? The reason is simply that it does not fit the definition of the term.
Now it's all well and good to get about and create your own meanings for terms but if your meaning differs from what the rest of the world means by the term, you can really hope for a very useful discourse. There's glory for you.
Gee Jim, thanks for being thoroughly condescending and patronizing with me.
I realize now that your opinions are of much greater import than other people's.
Even though, at the end of the day, they are merely "opinions" and not "truths."
"'I was in Zagreb yesterday.'
Note the 'was' this is a past tense of 'be'. [no kidding!] What it does not describe is the state of having had been there."
So I'm actually saying I wasn't in Zagreb yesterday?
I see. My - you are good at this semantic/pragmatic stuff!
<<So I'm actually saying I wasn't in Zagreb yesterday?>>
The Simple Past describes the *fact* (a past fact) that you were there.
The Present Perfect describes the *state* (a present state) of having been there.
Now if we answer your questions, 12xx, then you have to answer ours. How come I can't say "John has been drunk yesterday"?
<Gee Jim, thanks for being thoroughly condescending and patronizing with me. >
You seem to have a persecution complex 12INNOCENT.
<What it does not describe is the state of having had been there.>
What do you think the synoymous verb/expression of "was in + place" could be?
<The Simple Past describes the *fact* (a past fact) that you were there.
The Present Perfect describes the *state* (a present state) of having been there. >
This is all basic stuff, even for me, a NNES. I would have thought a native speaker such as 12?? would know this stuff.
The present perfect allows a "before now" expression of events.
The past perfect allows a "then" expression of events.
The "past perfect" allows a "before then" expression of events.