Highly Selected Examples

[LarryLatham]

Hi Shun Tang,

May I ask, how can a desire or wish be the main difference between Simple Present and Simple Past? Please understand that, for example, a wish to be rich doesn't mean one is rich.

Don't forget, we are talking about a language user here. It's not about wishing for riches. It's about wanting to express the thoughts you have in your head so that other people can understand you. Desire here, or wishing here, in this context, means wanting to express yourself--by using language. Whether something is or is not actually fact, for instance, is not the issue when we're talking about choosing language. What is important is what the language user thinks is fact. When I have said above, that something is suggested by a certain choice of language, what I mean you to understand is that my choice implies that something.

I beg your pardon, but how possibly can YESTERDAY be ever appropriately added to Present Perfect? How? In what imaginable context can one link Definite Past Time like YESTERDAY to Present Perfect?

This is exactly my point. YESTERDAY is not appropriate to a construction like, "I have lived here..." Certain endings can be context appropriate, and others may not be...just as you point out. I do not disagree with you here. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough.

To express time, English uses only Present Perfect, plus some proper time adverbials.

I wonder where you have gotten this idea, Shun Tang? Time can be expressed in many, many different ways. No one here has said otherwise (except you). Speakers can express time with phrases, clauses, (adverbials--"yesterday", "two weeks ago", "when I was in college"), and can also express the time elements of a verb by selecting an aspect--any aspect. Present Perfect is only one particular aspect. There are also all of the continuous aspects (Present Continuous, Past Continuous, Future Continuous, the Perfect Continuous aspects, etc.), as well as the other perfect aspects that you didn't mention. In addition, there are constructions with "be going to...", and others as well. There is a rich trove of possibilities available to the English speaker who wishes (no, wants to express) to convey his thoughts about interpretations of time.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Finally, in a newspaper, even you claim that, according to remoteness theory, Simple Present and Simple Past don't express time, we still know the case stated in Simple Past happened yesterday. And those cases in Simple Present happen today. It is because we know the present day of the paper. If I may say so, even Simple Present and Simple Past cannot make us forget the time we have in mind.

In a prose, you have to put LAST WEEK in a Simple Past sentence, rather than Present Perfect, even we know from remoteness theory that only Present Perfect can express time. In this case, even without repeating LAST WEEK, any Simple Past following will be as "remote" as the first Simple Past that carries LAST WEEK. Therefore, it is arguable that the Simple Past sentences following express time or not.

This is my humble opinion. No more selfish rubbish shall be posted against remoteness theory. After all, I now find the theory is rather interesting.

Shun Tang

[LarryLatham]

we still know the case stated in Simple Past happened yesterday. And those cases in Simple Present happen today. It is because we know the present day of the paper. If I may say so, even Simple Present and Simple Past cannot make us forget the time we have in mind.

Shun Tang,

You miss my point!

Please look at this sentence I have just written above. Look at it carefully. Do you notice that the verb is in Present Simple Tense? Good. Now, according to your post, part of which I have quoted above, you are claiming that you know that "cases in Simple Present happen today". But let's look more carefully at the event in question. First I wrote something and posted it here on the Dave's ESL Cafe website. Sometime after that, you visited the site and read my post. Then you decided to write your own post in reaction to mine, and did so. Several hours after that I visited the post again, in response to an automatic e-mail alerting me to the fact that there was a new post in this thread. I read what you wrote. I believe you misread my earlier post and made an error of interpretation. Still later, I now come back to the site to post my own reaction to your latest post. As you can see, quite a bit of time has elapsed since I first made my point. Nevertheless, I begin this post now with "You miss my point!" even when I am referring to a point made hours ago. It would have made no difference if I had waited two weeks to post my reply. I still would have begun with, "You miss my point!" It can only mean one thing: USE OF PRESENT SIMPLE TENSE VERBS EXPRESS WHAT THE USER BELIEVES IS A FACT. PERIOD. NO REFERENCE TO ANY TIME, LET ALONE PRESENT TIME.

Please understand, I do not mean to be rude or confrontational. I am challanged by trying to get you to clearly understand this concept.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Larry,

Thank you Larry. Points taken.

Shun

[Stephen Jones]

There is a little niggle here Larry:

If you had written
"You're missing my point" it would have had exaclty the same meaning. I suspect that a Brit would be more likely to say that, and an American You miss the point.

The problem with saying that the Present Simple refers to the Present, is that the Present is not a simple concept

In fact of the trio, Past, Present and Future only the Past is unequivocally itself. The Present is ungraspable, as any student of Zeno's paradox knows, and the Future can never be referred to without some overlay in the way we are thinking about it.

[LarryLatham]

Hullo, Stephen.

If you had written
"You're missing my point" it would have had exaclty the same meaning.

I kind of expected to hear from you on this. It's always good to talk to you, even though we're often on different sides of an argument. You have a way of making me think more deeply to clarify my ideas.

While I'll agree that there may be a similarity of pragmatic meaning here, I'm afraid I'll have to challange you about exactly the same meaning if what you mean by that is identical. The two are most definitely not identical in meaning. All I should have to say in defense of that is to point out that one is an unmarked tense, and the other is a continuous aspect (marked for a durative, limited period of time in the speaker's perception). They could not be identical in meaning.

If, however, your point is that either could be used in the same situation, I will agree with you there.

Larry Latham

The problem with saying that the Present Simple refers to the Present, is that the Present is not a simple concept

While this may be an adjunct argument in further support, it is not the problem. The primary problem with saying that the Present Simple refers to the present is that Present Simple does not refer to time at all.

L.

[shuntang]

we still know the case stated in Simple Past happened yesterday. And those cases in Simple Present happen today. It is because we know the present day of the paper. If I may say so, even Simple Present and Simple Past cannot make us forget the time we have in mind.

Shun Tang,

You miss my point!

Please look at this sentence I have just written above. Look at it carefully. Do you notice that the verb is in Present Simple Tense? Good. Now, according to your post, part of which I have quoted above, you are claiming that you know that "cases in Simple Present happen today". But let's look more carefully at the event in question. First I wrote something and posted it here on the Dave's ESL Cafe website. Sometime after that, you visited the site and read my post. Then you decided to write your own post in reaction to mine, and did so. Several hours after that I visited the post again, in response to an automatic e-mail alerting me to the fact that there was a new post in this thread. I read what you wrote. I believe you misread my earlier post and made an error of interpretation. Still later, I now come back to the site to post my own reaction to your latest post. As you can see, quite a bit of time has elapsed since I first made my point. Nevertheless, I begin this post now with "You miss my point!" even when I am referring to a point made hours ago. It would have made no difference if I had waited two weeks to post my reply. I still would have begun with, "You miss my point!" It can only mean one thing: USE OF PRESENT SIMPLE TENSE VERBS EXPRESS WHAT THE USER BELIEVES IS A FACT. PERIOD. NO REFERENCE TO ANY TIME, LET ALONE PRESENT TIME.

Please understand, I do not mean to be rude or confrontational. I am challanged by trying to get you to clearly understand this concept.

Larry Latham

It depends on how much we talk. If we have talked more and you still claim You miss my point!, it means I still miss the point in further discussions. I really don't think they are the same You miss my point! They are of different time, most of all, different present time.

I still think that past and present time, that is, now finished and now not finished, can be precise and be judged objectively, while remoteness cannot be objective.

Shun

[LarryLatham]

I still think that past and present time, that is, now finished and now not finished, can be precise and be judged objectively, while remoteness cannot be objective.

Again, Shun Tang, you miss the point! (And if Stephen is watching, Shun Tang is missing the point! ).*

You must try to understand the most fundamental thing about the tense-aspect system in English. Neither remoteness, nor any of the time judgments in any of the aspects are about objectively measured quantities. Everything about tenses and aspects is subjective. That is so important, let me repeat it: Everything about tenses and aspects is subjective. What matters is not whether something can be objectively measured (in past time, for example, or at present, or in the future, or whether it is in fact objectively remote) but rather how the speaker feels about it. It is how he sees it at the precise moment of speaking (or writing) that counts--and that's all that counts!

Any objective notions of time are expressed with time adverbials, but not inside the verb complex.

Larry Latham

* Shung Tang, please note: This post is a response to one that you made yesterday. I read it today and believe you made an error in your post yesterday, so decided to respond now to your yesterday's post. But because I feel the need to express a truth (as I see it) I say, "You miss the point." Present time does not enter into the equation, that is to say not into my expression of truth, except that my judgment about it is made at present. On the other hand, if I say, "You are missing the point.", that merely means that I now judge that you seem to continue to not see the point--hopefully, a temporary mistake). In this second case, present time is involved in my judgment because I believe you somehow got the wrong idea sometime in the past, and still continue to suffer from it at present.

[shuntang]

Larry,

Neither remoteness, nor any of the time judgments in any of the aspects are about objectively measured quantities. Everything about tenses and aspects is subjective. That is so important, let me repeat it: Everything about tenses and aspects is subjective.

I am afraid I can't say it is true. If in the forum we post a question and ask about others' opinions, it means that the question can be objectively discussed. Take the following quote from (in this forum) "How far back does the present go?" as example:

"Mammoths get through six sets of teeth as they get older and these get bigger as they age. "
Hmmm. The last I heard, mammoths had been extinct for about 50,000 years. So, how would you explain the use of the Present Simple to an enquiring student? I guess even the BBC doesn't make a distinction between tense and time.

Obviously, Lolwhites had an objective view to the example and felt it isn't right, according to Simple Present. In other words, we think tenses can be objectively viewed.
That is why I said:

I still think that past and present time, that is, now finished and now not finished, can be precise and be judged objectively, while remoteness cannot be objective.

However, really embarrassing, today I still don't know what is remoteness in your mind. I don't know how to judge whether remoteness or not. I find remoteness is subjective, as you have openly admitted. I have only caught the main idea of remoteness theory that Simple Present and Simple Past don't express time, while Present Perfect does.
==============

Shung Tang, please note: This post is a response to one that you made yesterday. I read it today and believe you made an error in your post yesterday, so decided to respond now to your yesterday's post. But because I feel the need to express a truth (as I see it) I say, "You miss the point." Present time does not enter into the equation, that is to say not into my expression of truth, except that my judgment about it is made at present.

I try to analyze the time of this message of yours. As I have explained, though you claim Simple Present and Simple Past don't express time, however, as you do here, those time indicators, like today and yesterday, are naturally, perhaps to you reluctantly, put in Simple Present sentence and Simple Past sentence, rather than Present Perfect sentence whose function you claim is supposed to express time. Then they will deliver the time indicator onto the sentences of the same time following. As I say, this is how tenses behave, to connect the time of sentences. Those Simple Present sentences following will have to imply the time today indicated in front, though you claim Present time does not enter into the equation. Likewise, Simple Past sentences following have to imply same time as the one with yesterday in front, though you claim again, I suppose, you can't see time in these latter Simple Past sentences. In short, the fact doesn't match with what you think. Personally I see the time clearly in the entire paragraph, while you claim some sentences may lack of expression of time (because they are not in Present Perfect).
==============

Also in the thread "How far back does the present go?" I have quoted above,

Here are a number of sentences representative of common use. In none of them does the sense of "present time" have any plausible meaning:

1. Babies cry a lot.
2. Water boils at 100 degrees C.
3. Birds of a feather flock together.
4. Grandma sleeps too much.
5. I love bananas.
6. He works at a gas station.
7. Hotels cost too much.

I see differently. All Simple Present here indicates present time (=now not finished).
Sentences 1 & 2 &3 are common knowledge, Simple Present means they are still not changed today.
Sentences 4 & 5 are habitual actions, Simple Present says they are still not finished today.
Sentence 6 describes a job, Simple Present says the job is still not changed today.
Sentence 7 is a comparison with living at home, Simple Present implies today this kind of comparison is not over.
I must say, even though you may argue with my analysis about the meanings of sentences, I still claim these meanings are not finished by the time you write them today. What I mean is, they in Simple Present indicate present time.

Shun

[shuntang]

Larry,

Any objective notions of time are expressed with time adverbials, but not inside the verb complex.

I am afraid merely ONE time adverbial is more than enough. In a paragraph, the time adverbial in the starting sentence "LAST WEEK I went to a new store department....." can control all the other sentences following. Simple Present and Present Perfect indicate something outside LAST WEEK, but they still come from a comparison with it. All other happenings in LAST WEEK have to use also Simple Past, and yet the time adverbial will seldom repeat in any sentence. It is a misunderstanding for us to conclude those Simple Past sentences without time adverbials do not express time.

Just because the time adverbial is objective, the rules to choose tenses are clear and can be objectively judged.

Shun Tang

[shuntang]

Larry,

In this second case (of "You miss the point"), present time is involved in my judgment because I believe you somehow got the wrong idea sometime in the past, and still continue to suffer from it at present.

If this is what you refer to, you are not referring to the present miss, but "the idea sometime in the past". If so, you cannot use Simple Present "You miss the point". You have to say, "You have missed the pointed", or more correctly "You now miss the point because you have missed my point in the past".

Perhaps we may call it remoteness theory. However, when you discuss about it, you never depend on the concept of remoteness. We still use past and present to do all the discussion. Even the remoteness is in your heart, past and present is enough for understanding, obviously.

Shun

[LarryLatham]

Ya know, Shun Tang,

I’m a guy who loves a challenge. It’s a weakness, really, because I always rise to the occasion, sometimes to the point of foolishness. It’s not that I’m such a competitive sort, but I do like to have fun, and to me it’s just plain fun exchanging ideas and opinions with a good mind. However, I’m starting to feel pissed off, here. I’m feeling that you’re not taking the time to carefully read what I or the other well-informed and articulate people are writing to you here. Instead, you misconstrue what we say, and then fire off counter-arguments that not only are off the track, they are not well planned, nor do they have much in the way of facts to back them up, despite the almost too good sounding rhetoric. It’s not so much your English that is getting to me; it’s your lack of rigor.

Then, last night while I was relaxing in a hot shower, I started to think about all this. I began to wonder, “Is this guy for real?” That’s when it hit me: maybe Shun Tang isn’t really who he pretends to be. “How do we know he is really Chinese, for whom English is a second language?” “How do we even know he is in Hong Kong and not in some basement boiler room in Peoria, or some smoky Internet Café in London, chuckling as he toys with his unsuspecting prey?” It all kind of falls into place that way, and yet I’m not sure. Perhaps you’re actually a knowledgeable English speaker who has decided to play devil’s advocate with the rest of us. Maybe you’re playing with us like a cat plays with a mouse. Possibly you’re testing the limits of our knowledge or our patience (or both). Come on, Shun Tang, own up. Are you for real? Are you asking questions and making arguments sincerely? Or is this a big game for you at our expense?

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Larry,

I am sorry if I have said something confusing. I didn't mean it. Days ago I recommended to end the discussion that is way over me, but from your encouragement it seemed to me you wanted to be challenged, or better, want to talk deeply about the remoteness theory. I have done the whole nine yards. As now you hate it I want to say sorry and stop again. It is my privilege to have talked to you.

Shun Tang

[LarryLatham]

Shun Tang,

I am most willing to continue to talk to you, if you will start showing a willingness to consider with care what I write. You don't have to accept my arguments, but when you dismiss them out-of-hand, dash off some crazy nonsense and then claim you have 'proved' the fallacy of my contentions, I tire easily. I can't really speak for other participants here, but you may have noticed they are not in this anymore. I suspect that's because they feel much the same way as I do. And I suspect that if you were to show them a bit more respect, they also would be willing to continue a discussion with you.

If, as you seem to be claiming now, you are for real, then you have put yourself, in effect, in class as our student. You are fortunate indeed to have such knowledgeable instructors as appear on this forum. Moreover, you have, for brief periods, their undivided attention--something you can rarely achieve in most regular classes. But while it is your right--no, your responsibility--to be skeptical of what your teachers say, and put their arguments up to scrutiny, it is also your obligation to treat those ideas with respect. If you do not fully understand, then ask questions. If necessary, ask more questions. If you do find error there, you must say so, but to keep from looking foolish, you must be sure there is error. On this forum, you have been shooting from the hip, so to speak, without rigor, and your arguments have not been hitting their target.

I suggest you go back and again read over some of the things we have been saying to you. Be sure you understand what has been said. If you do this, and you still find you cannot agree, then by all means post your objections. If what you read is not clear in meaning to you, ask questions. We will respond with respect to you, I promise you. If you really have a point to make, my experience with the other people who have been engaged with you here is that they will graciously conceed your point if you are convincing. I hope I will do the same. So far, however, you haven't made a single good argument. Try again. We'll be here.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Shun Tang,
I suggest you go back and again read over some of the things we have been saying to you. Be sure you understand what has been said. If you do this, and you still find you cannot agree, then by all means post your objections. If what you read is not clear in meaning to you, ask questions. We will respond with respect to you, I promise you. If you really have a point to make, my experience with the other people who have been engaged with you here is that they will graciously conceed your point if you are convincing. I hope I will do the same. So far, however, you haven't made a single good argument. Try again. We'll be here.

Larry Latham

ExA: "He brushes his teeth every day."
== A present habit. [The sentence conveys a habitual action; Simple Present expresses present time.]

ExB: "He has brushed his teeth every day since he knew how to use the toothbrush."
== A present habit. [Present Perfect equates either Simple Present or Simple Past, not both.]

They are the same habit, and most of all, the same thing of the same time. Here, what you say to Simple Present can be said again word for word to Present Perfect.

Any objection?

Shun Tang