change in what sense

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:00 am

So:

I'm living in HK (now)

I've lived in HK (and Bali and...) (experiential aspect)

I've lived/been living in HK for 3 years (up until and including the present, am probably still in HK, although progressive might be "reason for absence", see next example)

I've been (living) in HK (reason for absence from a place other than HK, not sure if "I" still lives in HK or not! as Shun pointed out and JTT countered

; could also be simply an "inform")

I'm studying Japanese (now)

I've studied Japanese (and Chinese and...) (experiential)

I've studied/been studying Japanese for a year (see above)

I've been studying Japanese (=up until and including now, could be a reason for "being absent/unavailable/busy", or simply an "inform")

Hmm, seems like that whole "proform" thing is a bit counterintuitive, the Present Progressive does seem to have a different functional force to the Present Progressive.

I've neglected to say anything about the "rate of change" in Seiichi's original examples (got sidetracked by Shun and JTT). Like I said on Seiichi's other thread, I don't detect much "rate" here really, there is not much to go on after all besides the bare "facts"; I simply AM (or have been) "forgetting my English", and Ken is (or ?has been - like "impersonating"?!) "resembling his father more and more" presumably as a result of having simply aged/matured enough by now (don't let the "more and more" fool you?), although I suppose you could argue that Ken's present state is the result of a gradual process of change.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:26 am

Wow, I really do seem to have (inadvertently!) got rid of Shun! The price you've had to pay for this miracle is, unfortunately, perhaps having had to indulge my inane ramblings above.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:28 am

Duncan Powrie wrote:The price you've had to pay for this miracle is, unfortunately, perhaps having had to indulge my inane ramblings above.

Is the second half of that sentence actually English?!

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:38 pm

Yes, but pretty lousy Englisht. Par for the poster though

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:29 pm

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:38 am

Duncan Powrie wrote:Suit yourself, Shun. I don't know what I know - please don't imagine I am a sadistic genius who knows what you "know", but who is pretending he doesn't. I am exploring here (if you don't mind).

If you know the answers, please tell us - but CLEARLY, and be genuinely willing to explore too yourself. You're stomping off just as it is perhaps getting interesting (I'd also like to point out that I've added a fair bit to my previous post in the edits).

I have long noticed a tense-changing process, which is simple yet really true. It mainly applies to the three tenses: Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present. Telling the time frame of an action will change its tense. The process can be revealed by the following four simple rules:

(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we state a time frame, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity=a):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish=b):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.

I did repeat it for a serval times here, though.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:59 am

Telling the time of something will not change it anything.
Telling the time of a church is still the same church.
Telling the time of USA is still the same USA.
Telling the time of a man is still the same man.
Telling the time of the closeness/distance is still the same closeness/distance.
However, telling the time will change a tense, then does the new tense imply a new distance/closeness?

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:05 am

Why have you stopped responding?

So, it is true that you don't talk to me anymore, right?

Then let it be written.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:15 am

Xui wrote:(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we state a time frame, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity=a):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish=b):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.

I would disagree that "I live in HK" is an action, and the "continuity" is unnecessary (I think it can lead to confusion). Isn't it just a fact, with no time or process (or even state) involved? As Tarzan would say, "Me, house, Tokyo...you, HK...yes?".

I would also disagree that "I have lived in Japan" is necessarily "finished", in fact, I would say it has a lot on common with the above, factual kind of sentence. It is a factual statement about experience, so it does not necessarily "date", even if the actual situation is that we no longer live in Japan (i.e. that we used to live in Japan only in the past). You really have to accept, Shun, that regardless of "the(?) facts" (=absolute, abstract timeline involved), speakers can construe and express such facts in e.g. experiential terms (and often, they do both: "Yeah, I've lived in Japan - I was there from '97 to '99". This might make things easier for you to understand and accept).

Adding "time frames" does NOT always necessitate a change in tense (

). If we take your third sentence but change it to "I have lived in Japan since/for/?in...", we can see that all that has happened is we are saying since/for how long the fact in sentence b has been true. It is, admittedly, a little mind-bending that in sentence b), the person is probably not in Japan anymore, and that in "my" c), they are probably still there, but this is where context helps enormously in sorting out what was meant (and, indeed, constrains what it is grammatical to say).

Finally, therefore, sentence d) CANNOT be taken as the equivalent of sentence b). Their meanings are quite different, I can assure you.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:19 am

Xui wrote:Why have you stopped responding?

So, it is true that you don't talk to me anymore, right?

Then let it be written.

I "stopped" responding because I was taking the time to write you a considered and hopefully clear answer, Shun - something that you never do.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:53 pm

Duncan Powrie wrote: I would also disagree that "I have lived in Japan" is necessarily "finished", in fact, I would say it has a lot on common with the above, factual kind of sentence. It is a factual statement about experience, so it does not necessarily "date", even if the actual situation is that we no longer live in Japan (i.e. that we used to live in Japan only in the past).

Even with Yesterday, you cannot prove Simple Past "I ate dinner yesterday" is "finished"! So how can you prove "I have lived in Japan" is so?

Xui

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:49 am

Xui wrote:Even with Yesterday, you cannot prove Simple Past "I ate dinner yesterday" is "finished"! So how can you prove "I have lived in Japan" is so?

I'd right away like to point out that I wasn't attempting to prove "I have lived in Japan" is "finished" AT ALL.

Could Shun get my meaning any more wrong?! Does this guy understand ANYTHING he reads?!?!

Obviously "a finish", "finished" etc is an important word to Shun and a hurdle that he (and anyone who wants to talk to him) has to overcome, but rather than have me "prove" whatever the hell it is that he thinks it is to him to his total satisfaction, why don't we see what Shun himself thinks and means?

I may be totally misrepresenting Shun's ideas (but then, who could ever present them coherantly?!), but he said something on his "The collapse of the conventional grammar?" thread (which has "unfortunately" disappeared) that might provide us with a glimpse of how the great man's mind "works".

Basically, Shun seemed (to me) to be saying that "I ate dinner yesterday" only acquires the necessary meaning to him when it is followed by e.g. "and I almost choked to death" (you may recall his frequent, vague mutterings about "time frames" and "grammar only dealing in verbs and not looking at or beyond sentences"); that is, that the first verb could only be past/complete/finished/whatever the hell he wants it to mean if it was followed by another, second verb. Hmm...

I directed readers who are interested in how tenses occur in series to check out the relevant research in Discourse Analysis (The Grammar Book, Second Edition, is an affordable source of many such findings) rather than waste time ploughing through Shun's endless sh*te.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:07 pm

Hi all, guess who I am!

Shun also said something along the lines of that because "I ate dinner yesterday and almost choked to death" is "unique", it can thus be "a finish"...like people don't use single verbs to report on things they do quite often?! "I went down to the local pub last night (as usual)".

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:10 pm

By the way, if any of you guys who exchanged private messages with me under my old name are in any doubt that this is really "me", send me a new private and ask me what we talked about, that way I should be able to allay any doubts you might have about this new identity of mine!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:47 am

Mr Hamster, never get a job as a spy. Doesn't your confession mean that you will be booted off again?