Globish

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:14 pm

The wheel has come full circle.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:16 pm

Quote:
My specialization is Chomskyan linguistics.

Why?

My Ph.D is in that area.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:20 pm

And what do AE rules have to say about the use, or redundant nature, of the present perfect.

According to Raymond Murphy, In AE, you can use the present perfect OR the simple past where you use the present perfect in BE.

Why are so many AE speakers still using what you claim to be a redundant form?

Because they have a choice.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:38 pm

I also doubt if other languages have the present perfect.
The Indian languages I know, do not.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:17 pm

metal56 wrote:For me, you confuse the whole idea of what the present perfect and past simple are for. The past simple is seen as disconnected from the present, no matter how short the time period, and the present perfect includes the present. That's why it's called the present perfect.

Metal's a closet prescriptionist — and maybe the aristrocratic kind he often warns us against.
For I just had a sandwich, if we didn't have anything else, Americans could say it more clearly this way: "I only had a sandwich." If it happened just seconds ago, Americans might prefer (but not necessarily) the more active verb eat: I just ate a sandwich. The intonation would make the difference clear if the context were confusing — as the example dialogue was designed to be. In writing, sentences could be reworked to achieve maximal clarity — and all without having to use present perfect.
Americans comfortably use present perfect for experience: I have had a dog. But even this could be circumvented in casual speech: I had a dog before. (maybe not recommended for writing or formal speaking) Otherwise, if the present perfect renders no apparently greater clarity to the situation, it is not used so commonly. I could say that our lowly American dialect is more efficient and succint than the King's "standard" British; but that would be a subjective musing that doesn't belong to no greater an austere and objective field than science.[/i]

sbourque · Post by **sbourque** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:15 am

But we (Americans) do use the perfect in sentences such as "Elizabeth Taylor's been married ___ times". We wouldn't use the past unless we were listing the individual partners: "she was married to Michael Wilding, and Nicky Hilton, and Mike Todd, and Richard Burton, and Eddie Fisher, and that politician, and that plumber guy she met in rehab..."

James Michener's written a lot of books. After he dies, we'll say that he wrote a lot of books.

and so on...

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:40 am

But you can say it in the present tense too. I have come across sentences like, "He is/He's twice married" " She is/She's twice divorced."
You can say: Elizabeth Taylor is/Elizabeth Taylor's eight times married .

We may need the present perfect to indicate the number* of times an action has taken place at the time of the utterance. But you can alway have other ways around it.

I saw the movie four times.
He wrote a lot of books till now.

*We can choose to teach this usage to an ESL learner;
still worrying a student about other trivial nuances
associated with the present perfect are avoidable.

At least AE is a few steps ahead in the direction of progress,
as indicated by the markedly reduced usage of the Present perfect in it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:01 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
According to Raymond Murphy, In AE, you can use the present perfect OR the simple past where you use the present perfect in BE.

How does one choose which one to use and when?

Why are so many AE speakers still using what you claim to be a redundant form?

Because they have a choice.

[/quote]

People choose to use a redundant form? Or is it that many AE speakers do not see the form as redundant?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:07 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:I also doubt if other languages have the present perfect.
The Indian languages I know, do not.

A Chomskian should know better.

For starters:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p886575u3jq1jp30/
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Interests_aspect.html
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Panche ... 004).pdf[b][/b]

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:10 am

Metal's a closet prescriptionist---and maybe the aristrocratic kind he often warns us against.

Do you really know the meaning of that term?

Anyway, would the descriptionist in you please describe the reason for the use of the past simple and/or the present perfect in AE in such cases as these?

Are you hungry?

No, I just ate, thanks.
No, I've just eaten, thanks.

And, BTW, is this correct usage, IYO?

I might could come tomorrow.
There's a guy lives down our street has an enormous dog.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:20 am

I could say that our lowly American dialect is more efficient and succint than the King's "standard" British; but that would be a subjective musing that doesn't belong to no greater an austere and objective field than science.[/i]

Is that your normal reaction each time a person questions AE usage? Seem somewhat petulant.

Americans comfortably use present perfect for experience: I have had a dog. But even this could be circumvented in casual speech: I had a dog before. (maybe not recommended for writing or formal speaking)

Please tell us why you would not recommend the past simple form, in that context, for writing or formal speaking. What is it about the past simple that lends itself to casuality?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:20 am

At least, there are many languages that do not have the present perfect.

People choose to use a redundant form? Or is it that many AE speakers do not see the form as redundant?

May be old habits die hard for some of them.
The very availability of the choice attests the redundance.

A Chomskian should know better.

Well, actually, specialization is knowing more and more about less and less.
My thesis is about the binding theory in pronominals. I am familiar with certain other areas too, but I didn't do any reading in studies in the present perfect. A lifetime isn't enough to read everything.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:23 am

A Chomskian should know better.

Google hits:
Chomskyan: 324,000
Chomskian: 50,700

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:25 am

Anyway, would the descriptionist in you please describe the reason for the use of the past simple and/or the present perfect in AE in such cases as these?

It depends if I'm describing British or American. At first glance, I don't see a difference. I prefer the American one as a prescriptionist in American English because it's popular, and I can just merely accept it as a descriptionist. Descriptionists don't care which dialect is proper or better based on dominance or efficiency.
There is a useful distinction in American English for actions still going on. Garner says that there is an increasing hostility to it from the educated and throws out the possibility that it may be obsolete in the future.

Do you really know the meaning of that term? [prescriptionist]

A prescriptionists guides others in how to write or speak more effectively — like when arguing for the use of present perfect for clarity and criticizing the absence of it as ineffective. Descriptionists would just accept it as just another way of expression and consider people being exasperated by it to be in need of "pschiatric" counseling. They wouldn't really care whether or not the neoteric form were more effective or enjoys widespread popularity, or will endure.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:28 am

sbourque wrote:
James Michener's written a lot of books. After he dies, we'll say that he wrote a lot of books.

and so on...

There, you maintain the traditional idea of the present perfect and past simple in English. The past is seen as disconnected/remote from the moment of speaking and the present perfect as connected in some way to the moment of speaking. So, why, in such sentences as this "Did you have dinner yet" ("yet" meaning, I think, "up to now"), do you conflate the use of the tense called the past simple and the aspect called the present perfect?