Highly Selected Examples

[shuntang]

The embarrassment of Definite Past Time Adverbials (DPTA)

Most grammar books will remind you of the ‘Golden Rule’: Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions, such as yesterday, in 1993, last week, etc. However, as they know by heart they are hiding away many past time adverbials like in the past xx years, they would not tell you clearly how to define Definite Past Time Adverbial (DPTA). Defining DPTA to students is showing the weakest point for students to pinpoint the error in the ‘Golden Rule’. Therefore, in an area where grammar writers can spend a lot of time in collecting data easily, they tell us the least of the fact. What a shame. Any of us will meet past time adverbials much more than any grammar book can possibly show you. Most of us don’t even know why.

Take my words and double check it. For grammar writers to define DPTA inattentively is not an isolated case. The obvious purpose is to protect what they are hiding away. Comparatively, it is piece of cake: as they can hide away past time adverbials for Present Perfect and then teach that Present Perfect doesn’t stay with past time adverbials, they have no trouble nor hesitation to ‘forget’ to tell you the pattern of DPTA. They have paid great attention to define DPTA inattentively, and do it collectively. I am not asking anyone to work out as fairly good as my works listed below, defining DPTA. I am pointing out they haven’t started the first step to define them. As students inevitably have to use the Past Family (such as “in the past xx years”) to express, defining DPTA correctly and clearly is encouraging them to ask why the Past Family can stay with Present Perfect. This will instantly kill the only and the last rule in English tense: Present Perfect doesn’t stay with past time adverbials. English grammar writers hate extinction.

We discover and remember what DPTAs are totally by ourselves in observing what usual writers use to connect to Simple Past. We didn’t acquire them through reasonable descriptions. Even with searching machines on internet, we cannot find its solid definitions. The best result we can get is something like “.....Definite Past Time Adverbials such as yesterday, in 1993, last week, etc.” It is true and really surprising. In other forums I have noted to readers that we may even search for obviously erroneous structures such as have/has discussed yesterday, have/has seen yesterday, have/has done yesterday, and many other verbs in Present Perfect placed closely with YESTERDAY. We can always locate mistakes, though the examples are not so many. But we cannot find pages linked to the definition of “definite past time” -- I mean its patterns or characteristics. Have you ever seen in any grammar the contrast between Specific Past Time and Unspecific Past Time? How did they say?

In practice, whether definite or not is judged by the format, rather than by the precision of time. I don’t think a million years ago, a DPTA, is more specific than an Indefinite Past Time recently.

I have spent a lot of time in arranging the categories of time adverbs and I finally grouped them into three:

(a) Definite Past Time Adverbials, or (TIME) FRAME, are such as: in the past few/four/ten years, in 1920, since 1920, in recent years, for many years, for the past few months, during last few weeks, two weeks ago, yesterday, last week/year, when I first saw him, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to both a past and a date.

(b) Indefinite Past Time Adverbials are in the past, before, previously, earlier, long (for a long time), recently, lately, already, yet, and just. Also, time clauses showing indefinite past are also included here (e.g. when I have seen him). They are indefinite because they don't refer to a date, even though they educe the sense of pastness.
Characteristic: They refer to a past but not a date.

(c) Indefinite Time Adverbials are every day/month/year, now, up to now, nowadays, still, today, this morning/week/month, these days/years, often, always, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to a date but not a past.

Notes shall be specifically given to Indefinite Time Adverbs. They confuse people by being able to stay with any tense. They therefore have a difference from the adverbials denoting past time. They can refer to future happenings. As time goes by, the case is described by Simple Present, and then by Present Perfect, and then by Simple Past. Therefore, among three groups of time adverbials, only can this group have a chance to stay with Simple Present.

Timepieces these days/years can be defined as “a period of time started in the past, and continuing up to the present”, a label people usually apply to Present Perfect. Behaving as Indefinite Time Adverbials, however, these days/years can stay with Simple Present. They are very informative, helping me to explain my promise whatever you say to Present Perfect can be word for word said again to Simple Present. Of course, this promise can work only on one-sentence basis. It doesn’t work as we use a paragraph to display the true use of tenses. But as all the time people will automatically do the argument on one-sentence basis, I usually don’t need to add that my promise only works on this stupid basis. On such a basis, the tense nearly doesn’t function at all. Now though I know that what we are arguing is only the SENTENCE, not the TENSE, I have to do it according to people, at the very first, as if we are discussing the TENSE, academically. I have to show them it is no use arguing on the stupid basis: “whatever you say to Present Perfect can be word for word said again to either Simple Past or Simple Present.” After proving this, I then have a chance to suggest the true use of tenses -- in a paragraph of sentences. Since explaining tenses has been a total disaster, I really don’t know how much of my new approach I shall propose at the beginning. I only realize that to get into also Progressive Tense and Future Tense at once is not a good idea.

In this thread above, we mentioned we have four simple rules through the process of tense-changing:
(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity):
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
BUT: If we state a Definite Past Time Adverbial, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity):
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish)
Not all kinds of time adverbials call for the tense-changing process. Only Definite Past Time Adverbials can do so.

As I have noted in the thread of "Simple Past and Present Perfect", because of tense-changing, we may see the difference between the puzzling similarity in:
ExA: I have worked here in the past. (= A finish)
ExB: I have worked here in the past two years. (= A continuity)
== ExB can be explained as “I work here”, but because of mentioning of a time Frame, we have to use Present Perfect to say a present action. “In the past” is only Indefinite Past Time Adverbials, and doesn’t entail a change of expression.

In fact, in most forums at first readers usually could not comprehend why the same tense can have two different and contrary meanings:
Ex1: He has lived in Japan before. (= A finish)
Ex2: He has lived in Hong Kong since 2000. (= A continuity)
They would try their best to explain in a way so that they are both finished, or both continuous. Or most often, both ambiguous: “The tense says that he has lived in a place in the past, but it doesn’t say where he lives at the moment. He may go away visiting now.” I argued that, according to your standards, even Simple Past and Simple Present can be the same ambiguous. Then the funny thing is, we tell the time, we use the tense, and finally we can imply nothing at all now. Just because we have tenses, ironically, according to you, English cannot express time.

Your opinion is welcome.

Shun Tang

[LarryLatham]

No one could accuse you, Shun Tang, of being uninvolved in English!

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Larry, you did, and you could!!

[Andrew Patterson]

(a) Definite Past Time Adverbials, or (TIME) FRAME, are such as: in the past few/four/ten years, in 1920, since 1920, in recent years, for many years, for the past few months, during last few weeks, two weeks ago, yesterday, last week/year, when I first saw him, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to both a past and a date.

(b) Indefinite Past Time Adverbials are in the past, before, previously, earlier, long (for a long time), recently, lately, already, yet, and just. Also, time clauses showing indefinite past are also included here (e.g. when I have seen him). They are indefinite because they don't refer to a date, even though they educe the sense of pastness.
Characteristic: They refer to a past but not a date.

(c) Indefinite Time Adverbials are every day/month/year, now, up to now, nowadays, still, today, this morning/week/month, these days/years, often, always, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to a date but not a past.

I think a classification of the time adverbials is very useful. Perhaps, though it would be better to refer to the categories as:

a) Time adverbials that refer to both a past time and a date.
b) Time adverbials that refer to a past but not a date.
c) Time adverbials that refer to a date but not a past.

I note that c) includes several different structures. Have you thought about sub-categories there?

[shuntang]

Andrew,

Good idea. Any sub-suggestions?

Shun

[shuntang]

Andrew,

Thanks to your instructions I immediately have done a research and thus upgraded the categories. As you see, it is rather showing off to put the new result together with the rest of the discussion, so I posted it separately.

(a) Definite Past Time Adverbials, or (TIME) FRAME, are such as: in the past few/four/ten years, in 1920, since 1920, in recent years, for many years, for the past few months, during last few weeks, two weeks ago, yesterday, last week/year, when I first saw him, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to both a past and a date.
Interaction with tense: The time changes the tense, as in the tense-changing process.

(b) Indefinite Past Time Adverbials are in the past, before, previously, earlier, long (for a long time), recently, lately, already, yet, and just. Also, time clauses showing indefinite past are also included here (e.g. when I have seen him). They are indefinite because they don't refer to a date, even though they educe the sense of pastness.
Characteristic: They refer to a past but not a date.
Interaction with tense: Time and tense don’t change each other, compared with other interactions here.

(c) Indefinite Time Adverbials are every day/month/year, now, up to now, nowadays, still, today, this morning/week/month, these days/years, often, always, etc.
Characteristic: They refer to a date but not a past.
Interaction with tense: The tense changes the time, as Present Perfect will change today as only the past part of today.

A note shall be put here that often/always/for ever/etc., when affected by the tense, shall be interpreted as all the time/all the days of the time Frame. That is, they refer to ‘date’. Not a good idea, I know, but you gave me too little time to upgrade!!

As I've predicted to you fellas before, I will get much more than you from me. Still, more opinion is welcome.

Shun

[shuntang]

To be frank, I have not invented anything. It has been done solely by observation. I take a deep breath, and step back (metaphorically speaking, of course) and take a long and careful look at the flow of time. Then I reported what I’ve got, little by little, time after time. It is a mystery why Larry has known the whole process. Must have seen me in other forum.

[LarryLatham]

I'll give you great credit, Shun Tang, for taking a frank look at your posts and seeing them for what they are, perhaps for the first time.

I think you have been barking up the wrong tree. You were correct to identify discussion of time adverbials in traditional grammars as vague and inconsistent, and therefore troublesome to students, and we all should give you credit for that too. Perhaps you were stretching just a bit, however, to insist that authors of grammar books were in a conspiracy to defraud students of English by hiding the truth.

The problem is, as you may now have learned on your own, is that time adverbials are not a defining characteristic of Present Perfect Aspect, despite what many of the grammar books may imply or even state outright. The reason why that must be true is that Present Perfect forms can be used successfully without any kind of time adverbial attached to them. All the following are perfectly correct (no pun intended):

She has gone home.
I've lost my book.
They've arrived!
Robert has finished his project.

As you can see, time adverbials are not essential to Present Perfect verbs. They are an appendage to sentences, just as all adverbials are, for the purpose of clarifying meaning wherever users believe they are needed. They are not directly intertwined with any verb form. In fact, they can be used with any form of verb. Look at these:

Sally goes to work early every day.
He went home for lunch today.
John had seen her at the dance last Saturday.
We are playing tennis this weekend.
Forms must be submitted to your supervisor before Friday.

So you can see, time adverbials have nothing directly to do with the verb form.

That said, however, it still is true that certain kinds of time adverbials are more likely to be found in sentences with certain verb forms, just because of the interplay between the fundamental meanings of the verb forms, and the meanings of the time adverbials. For example, it would be very strange to find a sentence like this:

*We are playing tennis last Saturday.

The reason is that there is a friction or a mismatch between are playing and last Saturday. Are playing is a form which indicates that the event described by the verb itself has started, but has not yet been completed. Last Saturday has, by definition, already been completed. So these two elements do not go well together in the same sentence (or more properly, the same clause).

By the same token, since the fundamental meaning of Present Perfect Aspect is that the speaker of the sentence expressly places himself at the present moment of time and looks back in time at the event described by the verb, the sentence, "She has gone home." carries the fundamental interpretation that at the moment he says it (now), the speaker looks backward in time to the moment when she left. That moment is before now.

That means that any time adverbial that directs attention to future time or present time is jarring to the listener by default. It makes no sense to say, *"She has gone home tomorrow." On the other hand, note please that looking back in time is not the same thing as past time. The essential element of Perfect verb forms is a directionality of time...a beforeness, if you will. There is express recognition that two times are connected, and that one of them occurs before the other. Past time is a much more holistic notion, implying an organic completeness. Past time is finished. So for that reason, time adverbials which are more definite in nature go together well with past time statements. Since Perfect Aspects emphasize the direction of time to a stronger degree than whether it is completed (as in past time), less definite time adverbials tend to go better with Perfect verb structures.

That does not prevent, however, the use of Present Perfect forms with rather definite time adverbials, even if they may be rarer than use with clearly indefinite time adverbials. There is no error in:

They have worked hard in the past two months.

You can quibble about whether you think in the past two months is definite or indefinite. I say it is rather a definite idea, since it is clear which particular two months is pointed out. For me, that is sufficient precision to count as a definite time adverbial. Yet it goes well with the Present Perfect verb form because its meaning does not conflict with the fundamental meaning of the Present Perfect structure.

In summary: Do not look to time adverbials as a defining characteristic of Present Perfect verb forms (or any other verb forms, for that matter). Learn what each structure fundamentally contributes to the total meaning of the clause. English is a combinatorial system...each part contributes in a predictable way to the total meaning.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Larry,

Thank you for your message.

For example, it would be very strange to find a sentence like this:
*We are playing tennis last Saturday.
The reason is that there is a friction or a mismatch between are playing and last Saturday.

My four simple rules work out a little bit differently, though with the same result.
First, do you want to say a finish or continuity? Ok, a finish.
Second, will you mention a Frame (=Definite Past Time Adverbial) in the sentence? Yes, it is.
As there is a Frame, you have to use Simple Past to say a finish. If not, we reap the same fruit as yours:
Ex: *We are playing tennis last Saturday.

If in a paragraph of sentences, we may say Present Progressive still has a relation to LAST SATURDAY:
Ex: "Last Saturday we bought a wooden old toy car for her. I have painted it with red color. She is playing with it."
== Here IS PLAYING does have a relation to LAST SATURDAY. It is a continuity outside LAST SATURDAY. Tenses are used to tell this kind of time relations between sentences.
Also, HAVE PAINTED does have a relation to LAST SATURDAY. It is a finish outside LAST SATURDAY.
Naturally, BOUGHT says a finish inside LAST SATURDAY.
(If there is no time Frame in the paragraph, the first Simple Past or even Present Perfect can behave as one, guiding the tenses following.)

As you said you may actually read my post perhaps for the first time, I venture to recap the comment here. As you see, we should not cut up a Present Perfect out of the paragraph, as people always do, and discuss it on one-sentence basis:
Ex: I have painted it with red color.
Now the tense doesn't function well, failing to tell a relation to other tense. If we now argue about the implication of the tense here, we are actually arguing about the implication of the sentence. On this basis, as I have promised, whatever you say to Present Perfect can be word for word said again to Simple Past. My foolish promise is only for this foolish basis.
------------------------------

By the same token, since the fundamental meaning of Present Perfect Aspect is that the speaker of the sentence expressly places himself at the present moment of time and looks back in time at the event described by the verb, the sentence, "She has gone home." carries the fundamental interpretation that at the moment he says it (now), the speaker looks backward in time to the moment when she left. That moment is before now.

Whatever you say to Present Perfect Aspect can be word for word said again to Simple Past: "She went home" carries the fundamental interpretation that at the moment he says it (now), the speaker looks backward in time to the moment when she left. That moment is before now.

On the other hand, note please that looking back in time is not the same thing as past time. The essential element of Perfect verb forms is a directionality of time...a beforeness, if you will.

We may, as you do here, call a tense or time anything. Jargons are not out of my expectation. Ultimately, we have only two kinds of looking, backward and forward. But we have to share these directionalities to three kinds of tokens: Simple Past, Present Perfect Aspect, and Simple Present. There is a problem in sharing. As I said, all the jargons and theories are generated for solving this problem. Of course, no matter the jargons, the result will be still a failure. If the beforeness is given to Present Perfect, how to share the non-beforeness to Simple Past and Simple Present? Jargons will make the discussion look like very deep and academic, but it is actually only a simple case of division: how to share TWO clearly to THREE?
------------------------------

Since Perfect Aspects emphasize the direction of time to a stronger degree than whether it is completed (as in past time), less definite time adverbials tend to go better with Perfect verb structures.

Larry you have strongly supported what I said in RULES ARE SIMPLE AND USEFUL: "More theories and jargons are constantly being generated whenever needed. Their purpose is the same, to create enough confusions that, between past and present, students can vaguely figure out the third kind of time." I have seen this enough. Someone used such kind of confusion to answer students who had asked about Present Perfect in forums. As students could not make out anything, nor discuss anything, they had to say thanks and left, believing the question was answered. They must have thought it was much easier to learn how to build an atomic bomb.

As I'll bet anything on it, no one can clearly tell me how to comprehend stronger degree, less definite, go better in the quotation. Can all these comparatives provide any objectivity for anyone to do something? Definitely not. When I in RULES ARE SIMPLE AND USEFUL predicted this kind of hardships, would anyone believe me at all?
------------------------------

You can quibble about whether you think in the past two months is definite or indefinite. I say it is rather a definite idea, since it is clear which particular two months is pointed out. For me, that is sufficient precision to count as a definite time adverbial.

I can't really. I cannot quibble about it as I have already grouped it, a member of Past Family, as Definite Past Time Adverbial (DPTA). The pattern of in the past two months can be as specific as down to years, months, weeks, days, hours, and even seconds, so it is specific. In simple words, if the time adverbial refers to a 'date', then it is specific. If I quibble about it, I am quibbling with myself. I am glad you have the same opinion on the time adverbial, though.

Shun

[Ed]

Sorry to interrupt, Shun, but I have two questions for you.

1. I may have misunderstood you, but do you mean to say that there is no difference between "She has gone home" and "She went home"?

2. If Present Simple denotes present time ("a continuity" in your words), then why can't we say "Where do you go?" when we run into a friend in the street and we want to know where s/he is going?

Regards,

Ed

[shuntang]

Ed,

I may have misunderstood you, but do you mean to say that there is no difference between "She has gone home" and "She went home"?

On one-sentence basis, yes. Whatever you say to "She has gone home" can be word for word said again to "She went home".

If Present Simple denotes present time ("a continuity" in your words), then why can't we say "Where do you go?" when we run into a friend in the street and we want to know where s/he is going?

Mind you, present time is not a continuity. Simple-Present action is a continuity. As I said, to start with many tenses at once is not a good idea. Why don't you tell me the use of Simple Present if it is not used to express present time?

Shun

[shuntang]

Ed,

We have to share two kinds of time -- past and present -- to three kinds of tenses: Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present.

By way of begging, stealing, and borrowing, grammar writers have always wanted to find out a new kind of time, so that three kinds of time can be shared clearly to three kinds of tenses. Unfortunately, as they are not God, they have finally failed to create a time. Now they have done very bad things to cover their failure. Most people don't even know it.

I have found out a way for the two kinds of time to share clearly to the three tenses, please see the four simple rules I have repeated for so many times here. I didn't invent the new approach. I've got it by observation over many writings, for so many years.

Shun

[LarryLatham]

Why don't you tell me the use of Simple Present if it is not used to express present time?

I'm happy to have Ed answer in his own way, Shun Tang, but I'll answer your question for you (again).

Simple Present is chosen when the user wants to assert a fact, and expressly wants to not mark the verb to add any other interpretation (such as time) to the meaning (of the verb).

There may be time adverbials included in the sentence, and they may interpret time elements of the sentence's overall meaning, but they have nothing whatever to do with the choice of verb form.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Larry,

Simple Present is chosen when the user wants to assert a fact, and expressly wants to not mark the verb to add any other interpretation (such as time) to the meaning (of the verb).

There may be time adverbials included in the sentence, and they may interpret time elements of the sentence's overall meaning, but they have nothing whatever to do with the choice of verb form.

In fact, you didn't even give an example -- I used Simple Past to assert a fact.

Please review what you have said. In the quotation there are five sentences. Two sentences are in the negative, and two are protected by "may". To tell the truth, though I cannot argue with negativity or possibility, these instructions can't help anyone, either.

Play a game and tell a guy to follow your command at once: "Don't smoke!" What can he do? Nothing. Why nothing? Because negative instructions are not instructions at all. Possibility is not a rule, either.

The only positive sentence is the first one: Simple Present is chosen when the user wants to assert a fact.

Larry, except so-called Future Tense, you can assert any fact with any tense.

Why? Are you telling me that Simple Past doesn't relate facts?
Why? Are you telling me that Present Perfect doesn't assert facts?
Look how I assert a fact with tenses other than Simple Present:
Ex: I have visited Australia before.
Ex: Washington cut a tree when he was a boy.

To the contrary, Simple Present mostly cannot assert facts, because it is used to help express our opinions, and not all opinions are facts, obviously. If two guys confessed to police and both accused each other in Simple Present: "He is a thief", may I ask, which one guy embraces the fact? Obviously, one guy is using Simple Present to tell lie -- a present lie, I must say.

Tenses are used to express time, neither facts nor falsities.

Shun

[LarryLatham]

I thought you had turned over a new leaf, Shun Tang. I'm sorry, and sad, to see that I have made another mistake and been drawn in by your, what I took to be, conciliatory posting a couple of days ago.

I won't make that mistake again.

Larry Latham