now

[shuntang]

.....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.....

Simple Past is also retrospective: I brought him a cup of coffee. Word for word: it looks back to the process of bringing and placing of the cup of tea in front of the person.

Actually, Simple Present is also retrospective:
Ex: I bring him a cup of coffee every day.
== If I don't look back to the past days, how can I say "every day"?

Retrospection is only a meaning, and it is subjected to the time flow of past, present, and future. It can be expressed in all kinds of tenses.

Shun Tang

[Andrew Patterson]

Not this old cherry again, Shun,

The past tense is disconected from the present. True all time is in fact connected but we do not have to address this connection when we speak of past time, we can in a sense go directly back to the past event if we feel that we don't want to address its current relevence.

The perfect tenses look back and are connected to the point of retrospection by reason of relevance to that point.

Arguing that the past always has some relevence to the present is a matter for philosophy not English grammar. That's the human thought process when using the two tenses in English whether or not its physically possible to have a true disconnect. Language is a sort of belief system after all. If you don't like it I suggest you invent your own conlang to suit your tastes.

You may find this site useful to help you:

http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/conlang.html

[shuntang]

The perfect tenses look back and are connected to the point of retrospection by reason of relevance to that point.

So does the simple past -- everyone agrees with me, and that is why Present Perfect is regarded as difficult by most people. Relevance is only a meaning. It is subjected to the flow of past, present, and future and therefore expressed by all kinds of tenses. We have past relevance, present relevance, and future relevance. It is as logic and simple as can be.

If you still don't believe me, you may in the following site find something contradictory to me.
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/conlang.html

Shun Tang

[Andrew Patterson]

What is your first language, Shun. Does your first language have the perfect tense?

[shuntang]

I live in Hong Kong. My mother tongue is Chinese. Our language doesn't have tense. But we have here compared my first language with English before.

[LarryLatham]

Bravo, Andy! ...and Stephen too.

I've been lurking here, and I'm comforted that you've come to this conclusion (that perfect aspects always involve retrospection). It squares with my own. It does seem to be true, however, that you have to be prepared to be open to some rather unconventional notions of "now" occasionally, however, with extreme examples. If you can be flexible in that way, grammatical perfection appears to always be retrospective. You have my congratulations.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

Past Simple does not involve retrospection. It involves remoteness (often of time, but not always, so it cannot be retrospective).

I brought you a cup of tea.

...is an entirely different concept from

I've brought you a cup of tea.

The fact that it is possible for someone who has just said the first sentence to look back upon the bringing of the tea does not mean that he does look back upon it. It likely will not be in his mind to do that. However, in saying the second sentence, he expressly details that he is looking back in time.

Even the word brought is not the same is both sentences, despite the identical spelling and pronunciation. One is a past tense, the other is a past participle. Different functions, different parts of speech. Happen, with this particular verb, to be same spelling. With a different verb, the issue is clear:

They went home.
They've gone home.

Nothing is the same about these two verb forms except that they are both derivatives of go.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Past Simple does not involve retrospection. It involves remoteness (often of time, but not always, so it cannot be retrospective).

I brought you a cup of tea.

...is an entirely different concept from

I've brought you a cup of tea.

Even the word brought is not the same is both sentences, despite the identical spelling and pronunciation. One is a past tense, the other is a past participle. Different functions, different parts of speech. Happen, with this particular verb, to be same spelling. With a different verb, the issue is clear:

They went home.
They've gone home.

Nothing is the same about these two verb forms except that they are both derivatives of go.

Larry Latham

Because the structures are different, so they mean different. What a logic! As I have been joking, there is a much easier way: Their names are different, so they mean different!

Shun Tang

[shuntang]

Past Simple does not involve retrospection. It involves remoteness (often of time, but not always, so it cannot be retrospective).

I brought you a cup of tea.

...is an entirely different concept from

I've brought you a cup of tea.

The fact that it is possible for someone who has just said the first sentence to look back upon the bringing of the tea does not mean that he does look back upon it. It likely will not be in his mind to do that. However, in saying the second sentence, he expressly details that he is looking back in time.

Larry Latham

The total difference is in the word possible. Oh, and the likely.

Shun

[shuntang]

THE TORTURE OF THE PRESENT PERFECT TENSE

I have studied and discussed Present Perfect for some decades. I have seen numerous attempts to tell the difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect. If they could ever tell the difference or nuance, it is only infinitesimal. Somehow, perhaps in answering my questions, they posted me an old issue of ELT Journal, published by Oxford University Press in association with The British Council, October 1984. In the Journal there is a comment in which P.S. Tregidgo asked to people How far have we got with the Present Perfect? He admitted the failure to explain the tense. The comment helped relieve the heavy burden on many students in learning the tense. Then I found out, the difference between the two tenses is so infinitesimal that some honest teachers admit we can't tell the difference, while hypocrites keep arguing they can still see some kind of nuance between them, no matter how small. They can see the king's coat.

OK, I say to the hypocrites, let's pretend there is really some infinitesimal nuance between Simple Past and Present Perfect. But what is the point? Why shall we keep such a small nuance in our expression, and tell students to see between them? It is a torture to make them do so. (As everyone knows now, I have now found out an easy way to tell the BIG difference. New visitors shall review the thread "Highly Selected Examples" here.)

Do we remember what happened to the frustrated developing teacher here:

I thought the lesson was fine, until Agnes threw down her pens, wailing, 'I'll never understand the present perfect!'
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 1_sarn.htm

She was WAILING! She was learning the basic part of English -- tenses. And the basic tense made her WAILING.

I recommend we stop the torture, and tell students the truth, as did Sarn Rich the author of the web page. Stop the hypocrisy.

Shun Tang

[metal56]

The perfect tenses look back and are connected to the point of retrospection by reason of relevance to that point.

Arguing that the past always has some relevence to the present is a matter for philosophy not English grammar. That's the human thought process when using the two tenses in English whether or not its physically possible to have a true disconnect.

Shun needs to accept that English verbs forms show a difference between past time (pure past) and before now time.
If he cannot , he should, as you say, find another language.

[shuntang]

The perfect tenses look back and are connected to the point of retrospection by reason of relevance to that point.

Arguing that the past always has some relevence to the present is a matter for philosophy not English grammar. That's the human thought process when using the two tenses in English whether or not its physically possible to have a true disconnect.

Shun needs to accept that English verbs forms show a difference between past time (pure past) and before now time.
If he cannot , he should, as you say, find another language.

Thank you for talking to me. I admit there may be an infinitesimal nuance on one-sentence basis. They are different only in a paragraph of sentences.

Why? You have dropped the theory of remoteness/immediacy that soon?

[Andrew Patterson]

I dropped the theory because Shun, I was wrong. Clearly wrong.

[shuntang]

Shun needs to accept that English verbs forms show a difference between past time (pure past) and before now time.

Being curious, I searched for "pure past" in the papers I have referred to Sarn Rich the author and Tregidgo, and I couldn't get any match. Therefore, today I have met one more new term I have never heard of: pure past. The cruel thing is, we can invent any term at any time for our naughty students. Students simply have no chance. All they can do is but wail, just because they have a clever teacher who knows pure past.

Just imagine how easily we can embarrass a student and stop him from asking too much!!

Shun

[shuntang]

Larry,

Past Simple does not involve retrospection. It involves remoteness (often of time, but not always, so it cannot be retrospective).

A very good design, as I must say, you have my congratulations.

It follows that remoteness (often of time, but not always) doesn't need nor involve retrospection, right? Yes, I agree it is a simple logic, and you have already said it is not retrospective.

However, a remoteness like this must be a future remoteness, which doesn't need nor involve retrospection. You cannot say we don't have future remoteness, can you? Either of time or not, we must have some remoteness in the future. May I ask, do you use Simple Past to say a future remoteness also? I really don't think so. Do you?

Furthermore, naturally, as we cannot stop the time from running, a future remoteness will gradually come to the present, and becomes a present remoteness (often of time, but not always). May I ask, do you use Simple Past also to say a present remoteness? I really don't think so. Do you?

Next week, as we talk about our present remoteness, it is already a past remoteness. You can't say we don't have past remoteness, can you? But if a past remoteness doesn't involve retrospection, how do we know it is past? What I am saying is, if remoteness is not retrospective, a past remoteness is. Do you agree?

Shun Tang