now

[LarryLatham]

This discussion has given me new understanding of Michael Lewis' meaning for what he terms the "immediacy" of present forms. He contrasts that with "remoteness", which is associated with some other forms. While remoteness is not hard to comprehend, immediacy is somewhat more complex. But this discussion of NOW helps me to realize that Lewis' immediate has possibilities that are more varied than simply 'at the present moment'. It was a niggle that has bothered me a little, but a little less now.

Thanks, guys.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

This discussion has given me new understanding of Michael Lewis' meaning for what he terms the "immediacy" of present forms. He contrasts that with "remoteness", which is associated with some other forms. While remoteness is not hard to comprehend, immediacy is somewhat more complex. But this discussion of NOW helps me to realize that Lewis' immediate has possibilities that are more varied than simply 'at the present moment'. It was a niggle that has bothered me a little, but a little less now.

Thanks, guys.


Larry Latham

"Then and there" (remoteness) becomes "here and now" (immediacy)

"Nothing is there to come, and nothing past, but an eternal now does ever last."

Abraham Cowley

Glad to have been of service. Good luck

[shuntang]

This discussion has given me new understanding of Michael Lewis' meaning for what he terms the "immediacy" of present forms. He contrasts that with "remoteness", which is associated with some other forms. While remoteness is not hard to comprehend, immediacy is somewhat more complex. But this discussion of NOW helps me to realize that Lewis' immediate has possibilities that are more varied than simply 'at the present moment'. It was a niggle that has bothered me a little, but a little less now.

Thanks, guys.

Larry Latham

In explaining tenses, if we give a student a meaning, rather than time,we are confident he will eventually make a fool of himself. As we claim Simple Present denotes habit, the best a student can further think of is past and future habits, he could not think up "present perfect habit", so there is no problem about Present Perfect, the most difficult tense. We therefore are safe.

The term Habit is gradually losing its power, as a student may find out Present Perfect can also express habit, so there is a problem in explaining the tense. Lewis has wisely invented immediacy and remoteness, the best a student can do now is arguing about these philosophic meanings. Present Perfect is the last thing they will get in. We therefore are safe.

Obviously, the terms are useful because they are vague. They are not for understanding. Both immediacy and remoteness have their past, present, and future. Actually, they can be expressed in any tense, including Present Perfect. But please don't tell this to students, or we are not safe.

Have Lewis ever explained the terms clearly to you?

Shun Tang

[metal56]

Here you are again Shuntang. I must begin by asking ,again, if you are a teacher of English. Are you?

Lewis has wisely invented immediacy and remoteness, the best a student can do now is arguing about these philosophic meanings.

Coincidentally enough, I used those very terms the other day when teaching one of my Business English students. I explained how immediacy and remoteness, the proximate and the distal-plus all on a scale between-run through much of English usage. He listened carefully, we made a few examples, and he ended by telling me that it was the first time he'd clearly understood the thinking behind a lot of language choices in English. He also said that it was exactly the same in Spanish. So, please stop citing these imaginary students that you think are too stupid to be able to discuss more complex matters of usage.

[metal56]

Obviously, the terms are useful because they are vague.

If you know how to apply them in class, they as clear as crystal. Try teaching using those terms and then come back with qualified opinion.

[metal56]

Have Lewis ever explained the terms clearly to you?

Do you need help with concord?

[LarryLatham]

Respectfully seconded.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Respectfully seconded.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Metal56,

I must begin by asking ,again, if you are a teacher of English. Are you? .....Coincidentally enough, I used those very terms the other day when teaching one of my Business English students. I explained how immediacy and remoteness, the proximate and the distal-plus all on a scale between-run through much of English usage. He listened carefully, we made a few examples, and he ended by telling me that it was the first time he'd clearly understood the thinking behind a lot of language choices in English.

I must begin by asking, where are the examples, the convincing evidences that have helped the student believe? Are they of no importance here anymore? As we know, no matter how good the examples are, they will be only ones with ordinary tenses we are so familiar with. As nothing can ever escape from the flow of Time, all that you can and will mention are subjected to the flow of past, present, and future, thus using all kinds of tenses. It follows that both remoteness and immediacy can be expressed by all kinds of tenses for sure. And yet students are not aware of this.

Most important, students have no reason at all to suspect that Present Perfect is difficult. But deep learners like Tregidgo did post and claim we don't know Present Perfect, in an old issue of ELT Journal, published by Oxford University Press in association with The British Council, October 1984. (One cannot publish anything there without prestige and profound studies.) Tregidgo asked to people How far have we got with the Present Perfect? He in the comment emphasized he said nothing new, but collected and pointed out the known-to-all confusions in present-day advanced theories (not including Michael Lewis' The English Verb). Now, as I want to know from you, shall we ask if he was a teacher or not? What is the point whether he was one or not? If one is teacher, he cannot tell the truth of what we know about tenses even here? IMHO, if a teacher is sincere, he or she shall admit Present Perfect is unexplainable, for the time being. On the other hand, the teacher who depends on jargons is not telling the truth to students.

As I have noted before, on internet, there are intensive comments about tenses in the following pages:
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 1_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 2_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 3_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 4_sarn.htm
Anyone who wants to know more about tenses shall take a look at them. It seems to be an updated version of what Tregidgo has tried to say, and now includes Lewis' The English Verb. A disappointed developing teacher admitted she didn't know how to use Present Perfect, albeit the teacher author regarded his lesson as a good one:

I thought the lesson was fine, until Agnes threw down her pens, wailing, 'I'll never understand the present perfect!'

The author then admitted and pointed out the difficulties, in pages of writing, and finally prayed that the questions in the exam for developing teachers would not include Present Perfect. I want to tell you Metal56, the disappointed would-be teacher was much more eager than your student in Business English, as she will have to repeat what she has learned to her students. Now, you may send email and ask the author whether he is really a teacher or not. It may help eliminate your doubt.

As I have repeated for many times, at the stage when a student learns how to use English tense, we can give the novice any vague term and he has to say thanks and leave, believing the problem is solved. I have seen numerous times of this. Facing a difficult new term, a student will naturally guess that being not able to understand Present Perfect, is his or her own embarrassing problem. As long as they don't clearly understand the jargons, our ideas are safe. (Larry still believes that remoteness/immediacy is the right tool because, as he now admits, he doesn't quite understand what is immediacy.) Next time you may throw to another student this simplicity:

And finally. I mean finally:
I've seen this many times, Becky. (Looks back OVER the past)
I've saw this many times, Becky. (Looks back TO the past)

And the student will also have to admit that for the first time he has now understood clearly. He will immediately leave and go back to business.
------------------

Even here, to us English teachers, you have tried a lot of alternatives for the use of Present Perfect. Unfortunately, we are not just a student aiming at Business English. I have no surprise at all if you jumped to Lewis' remoteness and immediacy, as you didn't mention them here before, as far as I recollect. These terms are as vague as can be, but you have Lewis' book for support, so the student cannot suspect any longer. However, while Larry claimed his comprehension here:

While remoteness is not hard to comprehend, immediacy is somewhat more complex.

the author I mentioned above points out it is not so true:

Other writers are happy with the 'remote' label, too, and it feels right in a lot of cases - but surely we should ask remote from what? Now? the speaker? the interlocutor? here?

To tell the simple logic, if it is really not hard to comprehend remoteness, it will be also not hard to comprehend the opposite of remoteness, that is the immediacy. Therefore, likewise, if immediacy is difficult, so will the non-immediacy: the remoteness. We know nothing about them for sure.

Now the author on internet was rather disappointed, complaining the vagueness. As I have pointed out, however, it is the vagueness that protects teachers from further asking by students. And this is why Michael Lewis claims The English Verb is "For teachers". Outsiders may have a difficulty to understand: do teachers have some tenses different to those of students? Of course not. Actually, the book is solely for the protection of teachers. It is not for understanding, especially by students. Or else, students can easily ask what on earth is remoteness? Can an immediacy turn remoteness? If it can, is it then called a past immediacy or remote immediacy?

Being as disappointed as his student, the author in conclusion has finally suggested that we may still tell the distinction "with attachment to a definite time reference". (That is, he must have mentioned the "Golden Rule" that Present Perfect cannot stay with definite past time expressions.) But as he is not aware, it is this final frontier that entails the hiding away of the Past Family (such as "in the past xx years"). This is the genuine situation of present-day explanation of English tenses.
------------------

I explained how immediacy and remoteness, the proximate and the distal-plus all on a scale between-run through much of English usage.

Even as experienced as I am at English tense, I cannot handle at once so many terms and the scale in one talking, especially without examples. If I am a student for Business English, why shall I have to get into something like this? I merely want to express past, present, and future, and you didn't even mention any of it. Rather, you've brought up a lot of ideas I don't want to express. The student understood he had better be off, of course with a thank and a compliment to the respectable teacher, that is you certainly.

However, if you really have some convincing examples for remoteness or immediacy, I really want to see them.

Shun Tang

[Andrew Patterson]

Thanks for the websites Shun,

I've seen thm before, but it's certainly worth revisiting, and it's worth telling everyone else.

It made me thin again about the sentence,

"When you've finished we can get on."

Which is given as an example of where the present perfect is not retrospective.

I think this can be got round quite simply by saying that the default position is that the present perfect is retrospective, but here the time expression, "when" alters it.

The example I've brought you a cup of tea is cited as looking around.

Maybe we should think of the present perfect as looking to a remote action from the present rather than necessarily to the past.

[metal56]

Shun Tang

I've been around a few forums in the past two weeks and they warned me against discussing with you. most felt that you find it impossible to accept facts when they can be proven. I really must ask you not to bother posting to me any longer. I find that your ideas come from outside the realm of the classroom and deny real evidence-i.e. successful learners. I have had hundreds of them and am still in contact with many. They are all doing fine. Try to teach some of them and we'll see who is most successful of the two of us.

Good luck!

Please don't waste your time wasting my time!

[shuntang]

I find that your ideas come from outside the realm of the classroom and deny real evidence-i.e. successful learners.

Where are these successful learners? You mean those who are criticized by Sarn Rich the author and Tregidgo?

I have had hundreds of them and am still in contact with many. They are all doing fine.

Who are they? You mean those who have hidden away past time adverbials for Present Perfect and then preach that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials? Yes, I agree they cannot do it alone, since all grammar books in the world have to hide away the Past Family (such as "in the past xx years"). All these wise friends must have a collective agreement to do so. I have always believed they all are friends and friends of friends, and now you support my conjecture.

I really must ask you not to bother posting to me any longer.

Please be fair. I have never posted to you personally. I don't even know your email address. I posted to the forums, and discussed with your ideas. When you posted your ideas in forums, you invited discussions. I just accepted your invitation. It is called Forum, if the term means something to you.

Please be more reasonable.

Shun Tang

[shuntang]

"When you've finished we can get on."

Which is given as an example of where the present perfect is not retrospective.
I think this can be got round quite simply by saying that the default position is that the present perfect is retrospective, but here the time expression, "when" alters it.

I agree. It is a kind of conditional clause. We can get on under the condition you have finished it. WHEN works as IF.

The example I've brought you a cup of tea is cited as looking around.

Maybe we should think of the present perfect as looking to a remote action from the present rather than necessarily to the past.

I guess you have mistaken something here.

Please understand that Sarn Rich the author and Tregidgo are not suggesting any rules to you. If they do, how can they say they don't understand Present Perfect? In their papers they just point out the conflicts in theories from other grammar tycoons. Actually, they are denying a remote action, looking back, looking around, or looking even forward into the future. But you still like to dance with these jargons that confuse Rich and Tregidgo. As I told you, these jargons can only bully young students. However, it is up to you whether you will use them or not.

We BRING something from one place to destination. When we reach the destination, it is a finish: "I have brought it from home to here".

The example I've brought you a cup of tea is a finish of bringing it from kitchen to you. Now, what I am doing is speaking to you and handing it to you, which is usually not clearly expressed on one-sentence basis, though.

As you may see from the thread "Highly Selected Examples" here, the terms I am using are mainly past, present, future, action, finish, continuity, etc. They are concepts understandable to students. People who don't know the tense-changing process make the whole thing so complicated that now none can understand or explain tenses anymore.

Shun Tang

[Stephen Jones]

When you have finsihed, we can get on.

is looking back from the time envisaged. Out time view comes from 'when we can get on' and 'we have finished' si prior to that.

Take

I've finished, so we can get on

and transfer it to the future.

[Andrew Patterson]

Quote:
When you have finished, we can get on.

is looking back from the time envisaged. Out time view comes from 'when we can get on' and 'we have finished is prior to that.

Take Quote:
I've finished, so we can get on
and transfer it to the future.

Stephen, I take it all back. Looked at this way, and this seems the only sensible way to do so, we can say that the perfect tenses are always retrospective, but we sometimes alter the position from which the action looks back. When I think of it, I've brought you a cup of tea is also retrospective, it looks back to the process of bringing and placing of the cup of tea in front of the person you brought it for before the moment before announcing that you did it.

I'm sticking with always retrospective. These aren't exceptions at all.