What is the purpose of the Present Perfect?

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:58 pm

Duncan Powrie wrote:BTW what have you got against stars, Shun? They are quiet, peaceful. And they go "twinkle twinkle" in the night sky, and make you feel all small and insignificant in the greater, ordered-yet-chaotic scheme of things. You been seeing stars lately?

Wonderful!

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:03 pm

I suspect you are being ironic, Shun, but, "yes", it is wonderful. Cute, too. Even Jackendoff has time for twinkly winkly stars, it seems.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:32 pm

Duncan Powrie wrote:I suspect you are being ironic, Shun, but, "yes", it is wonderful. Cute, too. Even Jackendoff has time for twinkly winkly stars, it seems.

Who is Jackendoff anyway?

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:47 pm

Jackendoff, as in Ray Jackendoff. I'm honestly surprised you haven't heard of him, Shun. He wrote a quite well-publicized and well received/reviewed book a few years ago:
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-827012-7
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0198270127
http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... _0Z5cSnI9J
http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelma ... ml#Clark00
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/jackpink.htm
http://bbsonline.cup.cam.ac.uk/Preprint ... /Referees/

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:18 pm

Actually, no, I'm not surprised YOU haven't heard of Jackendoff, Shun - I mean, you don't seem to know very much about grammar or linguistics at all, so how would you know about this famous linguist?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:30 pm

I'd never heard of Jackendoff either. Until you posted the links I thought you were making an obscene suggestion.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:53 am

Do you guys never browse any bookstores? Not even publishers' online catalogues?!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:58 am

Duncan Powrie wrote:
Yes, it can (the speaker is under no obligation to mention "when", unless the discourse calls, or the other discourse participants call, for that information), and once you can accept that the experiential aspect of Present Perfect is actually useful, you might be in a better position to start appreciating its other aspects.

That is one of the keys that will unlock much for Xui. I agree, if only he could understand.

I've lived in Spain for 10 years. can be referring to a completed or an incomplete state. He can't seem to get that.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:03 am

I have quoted enough sources to prove my point, while you cannot prove yours. I have nothing to say anymore.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:15 am

metal56 wrote:
Duncan Powrie wrote:
Yes, it can (the speaker is under no obligation to mention "when", unless the discourse calls, or the other discourse participants call, for that information), and once you can accept that the experiential aspect of Present Perfect is actually useful, you might be in a better position to start appreciating its other aspects.

That is one of the keys that will unlock much for Xui. I agree, if only he could understand.

I've lived in Spain for 10 years. can be referring to a completed or an incomplete state. He can't seem to get that.

Hiya M!

When I wrote all the above I was more thinking that "I've lived in Spain (and...)" would most likely assume a "completed" experience sense, whilst the addition of "...for ten years" would seem to make it more "incomplete" (=I still live there).

I've been following your comments on the other thread ("Subjectivity in Usage") with interest, however, and now I am not so sure that the latter is always necessarily "incomplete" (it could, as you are implying if not saying, also be one of several experiences that are complete, and are being "rattled off" by the jet-set, well-travelled raconteur there)...but still, I can't help but feel that we would be more likely to say "I lived in Spain for ten years before e.g. moving to Iraq".

It would be interesting to investigate if Present Perfect and Simple Past are used to make consistent meaning distinctions of this kind.

But even if consistencies could be found, that would not always prevent the language from being potentially ambiguous.

What he giveth he taketh awayeth. Fluffy SM masterhamster!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:44 am

Wow. I Jackendoffed six times because of a hamster.

Pinker claims in his review that Yugoslavian bards have no concept of words, but as I remember he is usually skeptical about grand conclusions drawn from anthropology.

Do you really think that primitive people have no concept of words? I can't believe it. I mean, they must be aware of names for things, at the very least.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:27 am

Hello All

Would you say that this is a good, basic description of the use of the present perfect?

The perfect is said to describe (or focus on) a state that follows
from a prior eventuality.

(Parsons 1990, Vlach 1993, Giorgi&Pianesi 1998
and others)

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:45 am

The "eventuality" is not too clear or helpful. Might as well just say "something" or "whatever" or whatever.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:05 am

metal56 wrote: Would you say that this is a good, basic description of the use of the present perfect?

The perfect is said to describe (or focus on) a state that follows
from a prior eventuality.

(Parsons 1990, Vlach 1993, Giorgi&Pianesi 1998
and others)

I agree to this, though I also agree to Hamster's idea that The "eventuality" is not too clear or helpful. Therefore, we need to use a few more sentences to help attain to this effect:
The perfect is said to describe (or focus on) a state that follows from a prior eventuality, and outside its time frame.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:11 am

Um, Xui, sorry to be a pain, but what's the antecedent of "its" there?

And, for that matter, what exactly is a "time frame"? You going hyper-cognitive on us?