What are the tenses of these two sentences? (Bomb)

Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations.

The atomic bomb has provided a clear deterrent for big nations.

These are the choices:

Simple Present

Present Continuous

Simple Past

Past Continuous

Present Perfect

Past Perfect

To be honest, I find the question a bit boring. It does not help me understand the sentences any better. But it seems to be the way that the English language is understood by linguists.

The second sentence is: Simple Past

The first sentence is: ?

***Atomic bombs have provided a clear deterrent for big nations.***

Present Continuous

Past Continuous

Present Perfect

Past Perfect

What a slog to look through all the different choices?

<<<We use the Present Perfect Continuous to show that something started in the past and has continued up until now.>>>

Robin, stop misleading students. The sentences are using the PRESENT PERFECT (have/has + past participle). Now, how about picking up a grammar book or two and spending time reading them?

"But it seems to be the way that the English language is understood by linguists."

No, it's simply the way instruction in English grammar is dominated by prescriptivist grammarians.

Dear Pash

This topic 'Bomb' has attracted an amazing amount of interest. What is interesting about it, was that people were not interested in the solution. What they were interested in, was having a big row.

The solution was found under another Topic Heading, very similar to this one, which I also started.

Someone, pointed out, what you have pointed out.

They also pointed out, that the two sentences have different meanings.

One is about 'Atomic Bombs', the other is about 'The Atomic Bomb'.

I don't think that it was a futile exercise. Ok, I started off on the wrong track, but it was an honest mistake. I did not indulge in the sort of name calling that you find under the topic heading 'Bomb'.

I have tried to study English Grammar, and I do find it incredibly boring. I also wonder how useful it is.

Bye for now

Robin

<I have tried to study English Grammar, and I do find it incredibly boring. I also wonder how useful it is.>

It may help you to correct this sentence:

<< What is interesting about it, was that people were not interested in the solution.>>

Robin is a native speaker, a final authority on language usage.

The question has been answered.

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t5781-0.htm

These are both present perfect but I will agree with you, Robin, on one point: the question is a bit boring.

It has little to do with any supposed domination by prescriptivist grammarians. The die-hard descriptivist will use the same terms with the same meaning. The only difference would be that the descriptivist will say that such-and-such a structure is used in such-and-such a situation whereas the prescritivist will say use such-and-such a structure in such-and-such a situation.

I recall when this first came up you put inverted commas around the word "tense". I thought that you didn't mean grammatical tense but something else & that you used the word for want of anything better. That's fine but you say grammar is boring and useless and well it may be for some ... for many. So don't use grammatical terms and you'll keep out of strife. If you want to use such terms, be sure to use the right ones, however, this will entail reading up on a bit of boring old grammar.

Slight correction:

The only difference would be that the descriptivist will say that such-and-such a structure is used in such-and-such a situation whereas the prescritivist will tell you to use such-and-such a structure in such-and-such a situation.

What is a present tense?

Usually: Present tense refers to a situations which occupy a much longer period of time than the present moment, but which include the present moment.

What is a past tense?

Basic meaning: location of a situation in time prior to the present moment. That meaning does not include any reference as to whether the situation continues to the present or even into the future.

<Basic meaning: location of a situation in time prior to the present moment. That meaning does not include any reference as to whether the situation continues to the present or even into the future. >

Good, Pash. Note the words "location in time", a thing the present perfect doesn't try to do, apart from the general expression of, as you say, "before now". Connection with now, is present perfect: disconnection with now is past simple.

I have left my house.
I left my house.

Both setences are implying the same meaning like I was no more at my house. One is present perfect and another is past tense. If these tenses are two different tenses then how they are able to express the same meaning. I mean, can we describe future events with past perfect hell no because they are two different tenses designed for expressing events at different times and can not be equal.

<I have left my house.
I left my house. >

Can you ask the question "when have you left your house" to the first one?