The Routine On Yesterday

[metal56]

Following my initiate question, no one here will insist anymore that the routine ends yesterday. It is yesterday that have ended, just as Stephen Jones has nicely put.

Xui

No, it's the ACTUAL SINGULAR verb action or state that BEGAN and ENDED in the past.

[Xui]

Thank you for still talking to me, Metal56.

It is very kind of you, really.

[metal56]

Xui, I do find your idea interesting, because although it makes some kind of sense to assume that because regular action is implied by present simple tense the past simple ought to be similar, I have never known a student to jump to that conclusion.

Please don't encorage him. The primary semantic characteristic of all simple tenses is that it expresses the speaker's view of the evnt as a timeless fact.

I am a two tense man, but for those who see more than two, all the simple tenses share the same basic characteristics. The "simple" tenses are simple in that they see the event as single, simple entities, unities, totalities.

"Regular action" is only one use of the simple forms.

[metal56]

<"....we do seem to always provide a time reference when using past simple." >

At least, if not us, someone does somewhere else in the discourse - whether explicit, or ellipted:

Dave: I went to the cinema yesterday.

Sue: That's nice. Did you enjoy yourself.

--------------


Harry: Did you go out yesterday.

Marv: Yes I did <go out yesterday>

[metal56]

... Though there are four different pronunciations of this written "-
peace,

4?

I have /t/, /d/ and /id/. What is the other?

in the grand majority of the cases, a native speaker does not pronounce the "-ed" but rather the "root" or "base" form.

I have never noticed that. Are you talking about in moderately rapid speech?

I think that in moderately rapid to rapid speech, we normally use the -ed sounded as /t/, /d/ or /id/ and link it to the next word:

He want/id/eggs.

He walk/t/home.

She move/d/away.

[metal56]

Similarly, the routine of eating dinner does include the time we don't eat as we are full. Therefore, if We ate dinner yesterday, and then we stop, it doesn't mean the routine ends on that day. We may still continue to eat today.

You are getting confused between what a past simple form can do and what are the real world constraints on all language.

The decontextualised sentence, "We ate dinner yesterday" tells exactly that. An event took place yesterday. Real world logic tells me that, if the speaker is fortunate, he will also eat dinner today and, hopefully, the next and so on.

It is the pragmatic sense of the listener/receiver that deduces routine- or continuance - not the past simple form.

If the speaker needs to mark the unmarked sentence in any way because there is a chance he may not eat the next day or following days, he will have to do so by applying any, or all, of these markers: a certain intonation, a look or gesture, a tone of voice, more language, or by appealing to context, e.g. the listener knows his circumstances.

Taken alone, the unmarked past form cannot convey continuation. It conveys an event that began and ended in the past.

[metal56]

A Deeper Sense of Tense

... For example, since we forever have a Yesterday on which we eat dinner, how can you prove "Yesterday we ate dinner" is a past?

Because we divide time into parts, even though objective time is continuous, unbroken.

A child who is told "not now, later" begins to understand our subjective division of time, why don't you understand? For all of us, yesterday ihas physically finished, it has ended. We may want to hang on to it psychologically, but that type of thinking is also associated with mental unbalance if aloud to go on too long.

Yesterday is past. Our subjective division of time tells us so.

[metal56]

Perhaps the answer would be to look at what it doesn't tell us.
"I played golf yesterday" is just that, I'm afraid. Nothing else can be inferred, to paraphrase Harzer et al. Grammar book writers may be unfortunately clumsy in their explanations and it's understandable, but barely, that an eccentric interpretation of "finished action" might be "an action never to be repeated again". The most cursory study of "I spoke English yesterday" shows that this is so manifestly not meant to mean "never again" that it's, at the very least, obtuse to suppose so.

I guess the explanation of Stephen Jones is plausible: "we use the simple past not because the action is finished but because yesterday is finished". May you share your opinion?

Xui

We use the simple past (when using it to refer to time) because the action or state happened in the past and to express a fact. It is past and it is simple. "Simple" in this use means that the event is viewed as single, simple entities, total, undivided.

[woodcutter]

Please don't encorage him. The primary semantic characteristic of all simple tenses is that it expresses the speaker's view of the evnt as a timeless fact.

Blimey, is it me who encourages him? I think Xui has some interesting ideas - however due to his inability to express them well I do not follow his threads very closely. Why other people who consider him to be some kind of Chinese clown want to spend hours and hours arguing the toss with him is beyond me, and obviously if you ignore him, he will go away.

So Xui, I must say to you, as your only fan, please take more care to write clearly, and avoid making so many mistakes!

[metal56]

Please don't encorage him. The primary semantic characteristic of all simple tenses is that they express the speaker's view of the event as a timeless fact.

Blimey, is it me who encourages him? I think Xui has some interesting ideas - however due to his inability to express them well I do not follow his threads very closely. Why other people who consider him to be some kind of Chinese clown want to spend hours and hours arguing the toss with him is beyond me, and obviously if you ignore him, he will go away.

So Xui, I must say to you, as your only fan, please take more care to write clearly, and avoid making so many mistakes!

[revel]

Hey all!

I do stand corrected, there are only three pronunciations of that "-ed" thing, I was thinking of the four rules of how to determine which of those three ways should be pronounced.

d after voiced consonants
t after unvoiced consonants
d after vowels
ed after a t or a d

If the word following the regular past form of a verb begins with a vowel or an h, then of course as metal56 pointed out, a native speaker would make a liaison using that d. If, however, the consonant following the -ed is a d or t, a native speaker will probably reduce, pronouncing only the consonant following, except in the case of the full sylable -ed after d or t, which needs that vowel to be heard. And, unless the speaker is particularly proud of his/her diction, even before other consonants the tip of the tongue barely touches the spot behind the teeth enough for a non-native to perceive it.

Perhaps my point of view comes from the students I am teaching. Being Spanish speakers, they all enter the class with the certainty that they can pronounce each graphic symbol and that's enough. Thus I first have to remove their tendency to say "ed" at the end of all regular verbs in their past form. Then I have to get them to stop sticking their tongues out every time they see a d. Then I have to get them to link words together. Finally, I try to get their attention away from the verb (where time and person are reflected in their own verbs but not in ours) and get them to properly use the numerous but finite collection of time expressions we use.

Moving away from the regular past form of verbs, I also try to point out other time markers. For example, in questions and negatives in the simple forms, a nice long "oo" sound or a nice round "aass" sound at the outset marks a current event, or a present if you like. However, the short, stacatto "did" marks something that has past. Maybe that should be all "might have past" or "didn't pass" since these markers only occur in these questions and negatives. This sound cue, along with time expressions, along with whatever the subject of the conversation might be, will all contribute to the basic understanding between the two chatting what the time frame of the activity is/was/has been/will be.

Finally, "since" has always been a time marker (needing more words that represent a specific point in the past) that means that "from that point in the past" or "starting at that point in the past" or "beginning at that point in the past" up until the moment I am speaking. In no way am I infering completion when using "since", since the meaning I have described is what since means in the meaning I described. If I want it to be known that I no longer am engaged in this action, I'll just have to say something else. I have lived in Spain since 1989 (and I continue living there). I have lived in Spain (in this lifetime, as well as another incarnation, don't live there at this time, but don't discard the possiblity of returning to Spain to live). I have been living in Spain (and perhaps I'm on the point of some change, and perhaps not, if it's any of your business, I'll let you know.) I can't think of a "since" as part of a time expression that indicates termination of the action represented by the verb.

peace,
revel.

[metal56]

Finally, "since" has always been a time marker (needing more words that represent a specific point in the past) that means that "from that point in the past" or "starting at that point in the past" or "beginning at that point in the past" up until the moment I am speaking. In no way am I infering completion when using "since", since the meaning I have described is what since means in the meaning I described. If I want it to be known that I no longer am engaged in this action, I'll just have to say something else. I have lived in Spain since 1989 (and I continue living there). I have lived in Spain (in this lifetime, as well as another incarnation, don't live there at this time, but don't discard the possiblity of returning to Spain to live). I have been living in Spain (and perhaps I'm on the point of some change, and perhaps not, if it's any of your business, I'll let you know.) I can't think of a "since" as part of a time expression that indicates termination of the action represented by the verb.

peace,
revel.

Rev. Since does indeed indicate a time in the past and a time leading up to another moment - not just the moment of utterance:

He had worked there since 1942.

But, events and states that exist during that time-space can be viewed as either durational or inclusive. As I pointed out in another post, there is the U-perfect and the E-perfect (among others). The former allows a reading of duration while the latter allows one of inclusion.


A diagram (rather poor, I know, but ...):


1. U-perfect (duration):

The point SINCE. --------------------------------------------NOW

XXXXXXXXXXXXEVENT/STATEEVENT/STATEEVENT/STATE

2. E-perfect (inclusion):

The point SINCE. -----------------------------------------------------------NOW

XXXXXXXXXXXXEVENT/STATE--EVENT/STATE--EVENT/STATE (END)

[Xui]

How I wish to talk more to you if you didn't call me cheating!

After all, we have known each other for a long time. I still regard you as my friend. See you some other time.

[fluffyhamster]

In a thread that has been deleted, I have given examples like this to explain what is time frame:
Ex: "Yesterday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. I *have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital."
The time frame here is Yesterday. We use the same tense to refer to the actions happened in the same time frame. Therefore, the Present Perfect here is not grammatical because it under the control of time frame Yesterday.

When actions are outside the time frame, we may then use other tenses:
Ex: "Last Friday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. I *have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital. I have recovered now."
While the first Perfect is not, the second is grammatical here. Obviously, I didn't recover within Last Friday. Because of this, people misinterpret its use as resultative perfect. However, nearly every action is almost the result of the former action. "I was sent to hospital" is the result of choking, for example.

I recall metal telling you to focus more on the verbs than the adverbs, Xui, to which I would add, it is not so much the presence or absence of time words/frames/adverbs that dictates the choice of tense, but rather, how events relate to "now" (the moment of speaking, the anchoring point for any meaningful discourse), to which adverbials may or may not be added. You seem to have got things *ss about t*t, Xui, and really do need to define what it is you mean by a "time frame". Do you just mean adverbs? As I say, the most important thing is "now".

[Xui]

This is an adverb: Lovely. Do you see any time frame here?

This is a time adverbial: Last Friday. Can you not see a time frame or time span here? I don't think so! How can I explain more? You tell me!

In the same paragraph, actions finished within the time frame or span of Last Friday, will all have to use Simple Past to express they happened within that day. Those things finished outside Friday can use Present Perfect to express it is not[/i] in the same time frame of Last Friday. To tell the truth, I think only you didn't understand what I meant. You have seen too many stars, that is why!!