I wonder if you have ever encountered the expression, "pissing upwind".
Larry Latham
now
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
http://www.acme2k.co.uk/Acme/remote.htmshuntang wrote:
One most important thing, you have mentioned above: "remote verb forms". Where did it come from? From Lewis' book or, of course, you may create anything. Can you tell me more about "remote verb forms"? Please don't avoid this question.
Shun Tang
Don't respond to this post.
Metal56,
I still think vagueness is the main powerful point of Lewis' protection.
I am now asking about remoteness and immediacy in some other websites, but they don't seem to be interested. However, it is too early to get any conclusion. Believe or not, I really don't know anything about remoteness and immediacy. Honestly, I don't know I have always mentioned about them in every sentence.
Shun
Since Larry said the remoteness theory is widely known to people, I thought I could know more of "remote verb forms", and searched it on-line. There was only one match located, same as you did. Therefore I asked Larry whether the term is really from Lewis. If it is, it should be widely talked about. I also asked Lolwhites for more information. I did visit the website before you. I suspect one may get anything there. But its graphics are terrific, though. How about you? How much you know about "remote verb forms"?You wrote: http://www.acme2k.co.uk/Acme/remote.htm
I still think vagueness is the main powerful point of Lewis' protection.
I am now asking about remoteness and immediacy in some other websites, but they don't seem to be interested. However, it is too early to get any conclusion. Believe or not, I really don't know anything about remoteness and immediacy. Honestly, I don't know I have always mentioned about them in every sentence.
Shun
Before here, you have talked about only remoteness, not remote facts. As you say, we don't even know remote what, how can you now add a new condition that it must be remote fact? Even a falsity, as long as it is past, we have to use Simple Past to say it. Most of all, we don't preclude remoteness denotes time, do we? Then if in my mind I have a remote time in the future, I have to use Future Tense to say the future remoteness.Larry wrote:Although time in the future is also remote, the use of remote verb forms expresses remote facts (in the user's eyes, of course). Therefore, future remoteness is excluded because, as we all know, future events cannot be seen as factual.
Interesting, in the past, because in a forum they mentioned Simple Present expresses Habit, I of course explained that habit is only a meaning, and cannot escape from the time flow of past, present, future. Therefore we have past habit, present habit, and future habit -- just like I proved we have past/present/future remoteness. I concluded that Simple Present expresses only present habit. A gentleman argued that past habit is precluded, because, once finished, a habit is called experience. As the discussion went on, he had to call everything past as experience, including past week, past design, etc. And he refused to talk about anything in the future. For most readers, however, they understood the point instantly.
We use Simple Present to express everything present.
We use Simple Past to express everything past.
We use Future Tense to express everything future.
Therefore, my conclusion is as simple as can be: tenses are used to express time, just as people usually think. It follows that other than time, one more meaning is one more error. My logic is, the meaning can be, again, further divided by time into of past, present, and future. (Actually, as only one tense can be correct, one more meaning is two more errors.)
Nothing can escape from time, don't even think that we don't have future remoteness, unless remoteness means past time.
Shun Tang
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Of course not. That would be silly.
But note, you could say, "I'm having a birthday party this Sunday."
Or, you could say, "My birthday is Sunday."
Notice that despite present verb forms, in neither case is present time involved directly. In fact time is not involved at all in the second sentence, except that "this Sunday" is mentioned. But that has nothing at all to do with selection of the verb form. That word could be replaced with "fun", or lots of other words without changing the verb form.
Remoteness is an important, no...vital feature of English. No one can claim mastery of the language without an intuitive understanding of this feature. Native speakers often are not aware of this in a "top-of-mind" sense, but they do understand it nonetheless. They could not be fluent otherwise.
The feature of remoteness has implications that are wider than choice of verb forms, although that is one clear area where the concept plays a distinct and important role. It is the only difference of meaning between Simple Present and Simple Past forms. Since Simple Present forms express matters of fact...alone..., then Simple Past forms must, by definition, express remote matters of fact. That is why events in future time, which cannot be viewed as factual (except for the possibility of scheduled events which occur routinely and regularly, as I mentioned in an earlier post) do not receive Simple Past verb forms--because they are not seen as factual. An event can be seen as factual and remote in time, if it is in past time, but time is not the only kind of remoteness, as many posters here have been trying to explain. There are also choices involving remote possibilities, remote relationships, remote liklihood, to name some of the most important.
This is all nothing more than English Verb Forms 101. It is a survey of the most basic concept involved in selection between Present Simple and Past Simple. It is not a detailed and comprehensive discussion of all issues involved in verb choices. It is the merest beginning, but it is vital to grasp this concept if you hope ever to understand English verb forms in detail. I, again, highly recommend a careful and open-minded reading of The English Verb.
Larry Latham
But note, you could say, "I'm having a birthday party this Sunday."
Or, you could say, "My birthday is Sunday."
Notice that despite present verb forms, in neither case is present time involved directly. In fact time is not involved at all in the second sentence, except that "this Sunday" is mentioned. But that has nothing at all to do with selection of the verb form. That word could be replaced with "fun", or lots of other words without changing the verb form.
Remoteness is an important, no...vital feature of English. No one can claim mastery of the language without an intuitive understanding of this feature. Native speakers often are not aware of this in a "top-of-mind" sense, but they do understand it nonetheless. They could not be fluent otherwise.
The feature of remoteness has implications that are wider than choice of verb forms, although that is one clear area where the concept plays a distinct and important role. It is the only difference of meaning between Simple Present and Simple Past forms. Since Simple Present forms express matters of fact...alone..., then Simple Past forms must, by definition, express remote matters of fact. That is why events in future time, which cannot be viewed as factual (except for the possibility of scheduled events which occur routinely and regularly, as I mentioned in an earlier post) do not receive Simple Past verb forms--because they are not seen as factual. An event can be seen as factual and remote in time, if it is in past time, but time is not the only kind of remoteness, as many posters here have been trying to explain. There are also choices involving remote possibilities, remote relationships, remote liklihood, to name some of the most important.
This is all nothing more than English Verb Forms 101. It is a survey of the most basic concept involved in selection between Present Simple and Past Simple. It is not a detailed and comprehensive discussion of all issues involved in verb choices. It is the merest beginning, but it is vital to grasp this concept if you hope ever to understand English verb forms in detail. I, again, highly recommend a careful and open-minded reading of The English Verb.
Larry Latham
.
http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/aus/ ... earfar.pdfI am now asking about remoteness and immediacy in some other websites, but they don't seem to be interested. However, it is too early to get any conclusion. Believe or not, I really don't know anything about remoteness and immediacy. Honestly, I don't know I have always mentioned about them in every sentence.
Shun
Larry, thank you for your response.
I have asked about this:
Instantly I clicked at the news on-line about gas prices and I took this down:
Ex: Several news reports on TV, in magazines and in newspapers have already declared a trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles is under way. Automakers and analysts challenge the reports, though some surveys seem to support a shift.
== Since it is published today, Simple Present refers to today, obviously. How can I pretend I don't know or I don't care of the time?
I still don't know what is remoteness and no one has ever tried to tell me. If I don't know what is remoteness or immediacy, how can I believer they are important and vital? Anyone who claims to know what remoteness is please tell me, so that I am able to believe it is important and vital.
In another website, a reader posted to me something similar to Lolwhites'. I then kindly (this time for real) asked him to give me some examples to explain what is remoteness. He stopped. Maybe he is now looking for some examples that are very convincing. Maybe he is, like me, looking for the meaning of remoteness. It is a rare production on human mind if connected to English tense.
Can you use some examples to explain what is remoteness? I know now it is Simple Past, but how to see the remoteness, I don't know. Lolwhites' example "What was you name, please?" (even without again) is not remote at all. As I said, it is this kind of examples that crush the remoteness theory.
Shun Tang
I have asked about this:
And you said no:Shun wrote:But if I am inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday, shall I say the following because of remoteness:
Ex: I was inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday.
I am afraid we have talked about this before. Please understand that other than Simple Present, there are other choices. Above, I couldn't use "I was inviting" is clearly because the party is not past, therefore I cannot use Simple Past. Then Simple Present "My birthday is Sunday" is chosen because of Time. Simple Present action is "now not finished". The tense expresses the present time, the time one is speaking or writing. Like oxygen, time is everywhere, how can we say something without time? As I said, time is regarded as important in any kind of language. We people have watches on our hand, and they tell the time, not the remoteness. Even Chinese doesn't have tense, we people in our conversation still have to say at the very first what time we are talking about, so that the time will carry over to the whole of our conversation.LarryLatham wrote:Of course not. That would be silly.
But note, you could say, "I'm having a birthday party this Sunday."
Or, you could say, "My birthday is Sunday."
Notice that despite present verb forms, in neither case is present time involved directly. In fact time is not involved at all in the second sentence, except that "this Sunday" is mentioned.
Instantly I clicked at the news on-line about gas prices and I took this down:
Ex: Several news reports on TV, in magazines and in newspapers have already declared a trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles is under way. Automakers and analysts challenge the reports, though some surveys seem to support a shift.
== Since it is published today, Simple Present refers to today, obviously. How can I pretend I don't know or I don't care of the time?
Then I have to agree with you that the vagueness is important and vital.You wrote:Remoteness is an important, no...vital feature of English. No one can claim mastery of the language without an intuitive understanding of this feature. Native speakers often are not aware of this in a "top-of-mind" sense, but they do understand it nonetheless. They could not be fluent otherwise.
I still don't know what is remoteness and no one has ever tried to tell me. If I don't know what is remoteness or immediacy, how can I believer they are important and vital? Anyone who claims to know what remoteness is please tell me, so that I am able to believe it is important and vital.
In another website, a reader posted to me something similar to Lolwhites'. I then kindly (this time for real) asked him to give me some examples to explain what is remoteness. He stopped. Maybe he is now looking for some examples that are very convincing. Maybe he is, like me, looking for the meaning of remoteness. It is a rare production on human mind if connected to English tense.
Can you use some examples to explain what is remoteness? I know now it is Simple Past, but how to see the remoteness, I don't know. Lolwhites' example "What was you name, please?" (even without again) is not remote at all. As I said, it is this kind of examples that crush the remoteness theory.
Shun Tang
Dear Sir,metal56 wrote:http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/aus/ ... earfar.pdfI am now asking about remoteness and immediacy in some other websites, but they don't seem to be interested. However, it is too early to get any conclusion. Believe or not, I really don't know anything about remoteness and immediacy. Honestly, I don't know I have always mentioned about them in every sentence.
Shun
Please be fair. Can you get anything there and put it here?
Shun Tang
Remoteness, bringing together the notions of modality (COND, PROP, and possibly HAB), distance from present (past), distance between the speakers (politeness), distance through mediation by someone else's consciousness (IND).shuntang wrote:In another website, they quoted me the examples same as Lolwhites'. Now I am really puzzled. But if I am inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday, shall I say the following because of remoteness:
Ex: I was inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday.
Honestly, I want your opinion.
Shun
Very good. Excellent. But please note that Lolwhites' example "What was you name, please?" (even without again) is not remote at all. Do you have some examples of your own?metal56 wrote:Remoteness, bringing together the notions of modality (COND, PROP, and possibly HAB), distance from present (past), distance between the speakers (politeness), distance through mediation by someone else's consciousness (IND).shuntang wrote:In another website, they quoted me the examples same as Lolwhites'. Now I am really puzzled. But if I am inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday, shall I say the following because of remoteness:
Ex: I was inviting you to my birthday party this Sunday.
Honestly, I want your opinion.
Shun
Shun Tang
All of these jargons and terms, are not more important than a word "yesterday". Please think about it.metal56 wrote: Remoteness, bringing together the notions of modality (COND, PROP, and possibly HAB), distance from present (past), distance between the speakers (politeness), distance through mediation by someone else's consciousness (IND).
Anything against these ideas, shall also be used Simple Past, if there is a word "yesterday". Please think about it.
Is Simple Past used according to these jargons and terms, or according to "yesterday"? Please think about it.
Why is "yesterday" so important? It is about time, and tense is used to express time.
Shun
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
OK, Shun. I wondered above whether you had ever encountered, “Pissing upwind.” I surely don’t recommend it, but here I am in the awkward position of not following my own advice. Nevertheless, to a teacher, the words, “I don’t understand”, are tantamount to a race-car driver hearing, “Gentlemen, start your engines”. I simply can’t help myself!
Somehow, you continue to miss the point. But of course, time is everywhere, as you insist, and time is an important issue for everybody. And it’s clear that all languages have features for talking about time. But verb tenses (if you accept the premise, as I do, that English has only two true tenses) are not the feature of English that express users’ perceptions of time in connection with their sentences. Rather, verb tenses are used to express the speaker’s perception of remoteness (or no remoteness). A Simple Past choice of verb form signals the user’s perception that she sees the event as remote…in some way. It might be remote in time, but it also might be remote in possibility, or in likelihood, or the speaker might be acknowledging that she sees her relationship with the listener as remote. If the user chooses a Present Simple verb, it is unmarked, which is to say no remoteness is signaled. Actually, not marking (meaning choosing a Simple Present verb form) signals that no kind of special interpretation is intended beyond the assertion of a fact. It’s also important to understand that time is not always important to every sentence.
Look at this sentence:
That girl’s eyes are big!
Would you agree that it is a well-formed sentence? Would you also agree that it seems silly to assert that it means: RIGHT NOW that girl’s eyes are big! ? If you do think that’s what it means, then do you think that a few minutes ago her eyes were not big? Or will they be small tomorrow? Of course not. That’s pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? The sentence means merely and only that the girl’s eyes are big. It is a simple statement of fact…period. It does not contain any implicit statement about time at all. Her eyes were big yesterday, they are big today, and we expect they will continue to be big tomorrow as well.
How about another one:
I am his father.
Is there anything about time in this sentence? I don’t think so. I am always his father. Again, it is purely an assertion of fact. Time is not involved here in this particular sentence. It would be absurd to insist that the sentence means I am his father AT THE PRESENT TIME.
She sells apples.
However, you might say this to your friend sitting next to you about the girl across the aisle from you on the bus. She clearly is not selling apples at the moment…she is riding home on the bus. But her day-job is selling apples. The sentence states a fact, and does it with a Simple Present verb form, but she is not selling the apples at the present time. The sentence is a statement of fact, and only that. Time has nothing to do with it. Of course, that does not mean that time in general is not an important issue for the speaker saying this sentence; but it does mean that time is not on her mind at the moment she utters the sentence.
If you want to make a simple statement of fact, and you, at the same time, do want to say something about time as well, you do it with time-words:
Yesterday it rained pretty hard.
He sold three houses last month.
Today is my birthday.
I’ll finish that book tomorrow.
Notice, please, that there is a kind of agreement necessary between the time-words and the verb form. When the time-word puts the event clearly into past time, a remote verb is most appropriate because the time is remote and the event is a fact. When the event is clearly in the future, a (wi)ll + infinitive verb form is likely, although there are others that also work: “Next week I’m going to go on a diet.” Also possible is, “Next week I only eat vegetables.” This last sentence is possible only because we can interpret and understand that the user is purposely asserting what she believes is a plain fact. She, herself, does not allow for the possibility of a departure from her plan. (Of course, since next week is clearly in future time, you and I know that things may not turn out the way she presently envisions--her new boyfriend may take her out for a steak-dinner. But we still understand her sentence.)
Are you with me so far, Shun Tang?
Larry Latham
Somehow, you continue to miss the point. But of course, time is everywhere, as you insist, and time is an important issue for everybody. And it’s clear that all languages have features for talking about time. But verb tenses (if you accept the premise, as I do, that English has only two true tenses) are not the feature of English that express users’ perceptions of time in connection with their sentences. Rather, verb tenses are used to express the speaker’s perception of remoteness (or no remoteness). A Simple Past choice of verb form signals the user’s perception that she sees the event as remote…in some way. It might be remote in time, but it also might be remote in possibility, or in likelihood, or the speaker might be acknowledging that she sees her relationship with the listener as remote. If the user chooses a Present Simple verb, it is unmarked, which is to say no remoteness is signaled. Actually, not marking (meaning choosing a Simple Present verb form) signals that no kind of special interpretation is intended beyond the assertion of a fact. It’s also important to understand that time is not always important to every sentence.
Look at this sentence:
That girl’s eyes are big!
Would you agree that it is a well-formed sentence? Would you also agree that it seems silly to assert that it means: RIGHT NOW that girl’s eyes are big! ? If you do think that’s what it means, then do you think that a few minutes ago her eyes were not big? Or will they be small tomorrow? Of course not. That’s pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? The sentence means merely and only that the girl’s eyes are big. It is a simple statement of fact…period. It does not contain any implicit statement about time at all. Her eyes were big yesterday, they are big today, and we expect they will continue to be big tomorrow as well.
How about another one:
I am his father.
Is there anything about time in this sentence? I don’t think so. I am always his father. Again, it is purely an assertion of fact. Time is not involved here in this particular sentence. It would be absurd to insist that the sentence means I am his father AT THE PRESENT TIME.
She sells apples.
However, you might say this to your friend sitting next to you about the girl across the aisle from you on the bus. She clearly is not selling apples at the moment…she is riding home on the bus. But her day-job is selling apples. The sentence states a fact, and does it with a Simple Present verb form, but she is not selling the apples at the present time. The sentence is a statement of fact, and only that. Time has nothing to do with it. Of course, that does not mean that time in general is not an important issue for the speaker saying this sentence; but it does mean that time is not on her mind at the moment she utters the sentence.
If you want to make a simple statement of fact, and you, at the same time, do want to say something about time as well, you do it with time-words:
Yesterday it rained pretty hard.
He sold three houses last month.
Today is my birthday.
I’ll finish that book tomorrow.
Notice, please, that there is a kind of agreement necessary between the time-words and the verb form. When the time-word puts the event clearly into past time, a remote verb is most appropriate because the time is remote and the event is a fact. When the event is clearly in the future, a (wi)ll + infinitive verb form is likely, although there are others that also work: “Next week I’m going to go on a diet.” Also possible is, “Next week I only eat vegetables.” This last sentence is possible only because we can interpret and understand that the user is purposely asserting what she believes is a plain fact. She, herself, does not allow for the possibility of a departure from her plan. (Of course, since next week is clearly in future time, you and I know that things may not turn out the way she presently envisions--her new boyfriend may take her out for a steak-dinner. But we still understand her sentence.)
Are you with me so far, Shun Tang?
Larry Latham