The Routine On Yesterday

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply
Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:37 pm


(and can I just say, I don't think anyone actually says JUST "I had dinner yesterday", because we all have to eat, a little more information would be conveyed, such as, "I had a nice fillet of fish yesterday, with the last of the sprouts, ooh and did they give me awful wind!" At least, that's how my gandmother goes on about her immensely exciting dinners and their metabolic effects).

=================
At last, you understand. No, at last, we come to the same opinion. No, I shall say, at last I agree with you and follow your teaching all the way. You can say the above again. :D

Similarly, as I want to point out, nobody says just one sentence and ends the dialogue or thesis. To isolate a single sentence and explain its structure, can be still grammatical, but we can no longer explain the tense. To explain one tense, we have to have at least two sentences.

Hamster, I strongly suggest we stop here before we fall into another round of misunderstanding. We both have had enough. :)

Xui

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:49 pm

Don't patronize me, Xui.

Why should I stop when it's you who starts and often continues these silly "debates", and who always seems to want to have the last word even when you haven't actually "won" (or even gone away appreciating you've lost)?! You don't even win the odd battle while losing the war! Actually, I can't recall you having won a single victory on Dave's, Xui. So, I will say it plainly: I think you are a very, very bad and ungraceful loser.

Nobody would contest that two sentences are often better than one, and that extended discourse is a valuable object of study. But the meaning of tense CAN be understood from single sentences (when the person is at a native or high enough learner level).

I can shorten what my grandmother said right down to one sentence: "I had a nice fillet of fish (yesterday)". She doesn't need to add another sentence for me to realize it is past, over, done. She isn't going to eat any of that fish ever again (well, not unless it "repeats" on her! :lol: ). In no way can it be or be understood as "a future".

Game over, Xui.

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:33 pm

fluffyhamster wrote: Why should I stop when it's you who starts and often continues these silly "debates".........
The incredible thing is, I am doing the silly "debate" all alone. :wink:

For me, it is some self-achievement.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:21 pm

You have come up with that one several times already (usually in the guise of an old lady standing on a chair). To which I reply, would you prefer that we ignore you totally, Xui? That is actually what some people, via private messages to me, have always been and are still suggesting that I do with you, Xui - ignore you. And in this instance, I think I probably will do just that, because this thread does seem to have run its course, and I doubt if you have anything of substance to add to it.

I'd just like to ask you a question before I go, Xui, and provide what I think is an answer (to save me having to come back and read more, let alone post again). The question is: why do you think people respond to you?

Initially, on the threads that you start(ed), I think it is because people are/were either intrigued by what you are trying to say and are/were trying to get you to clarify your theories; or, when they believe(d) they have understood, they want(ed) to help you, Xui - I mean, let's face it, your ideas are usually not only badly expressed, but also betray a lot of confusion about how English functions and should function. Generally, I think people want to help you improve your English and your understanding of English (and language and communication, grammar and discourse, etc etc etc, in general).

When it is on the (more recent) threads that you didn't start, people really do need to respond to what you say, because you quite often are actually quite wrong in your analyses, and it would be irresponsible for any English teacher who knows better than you to let what you erroneously state pass muster and be taken by some as correct guidance.

The main, overall reason, however, is that these forums are here for people to communicate, to make contact and learn, to respect people and perhaps even to make (sometimes grudging!) friendships. You often seem unfamiliar with how these human processes work, but just because you don't always do everything you can to integrate yourself into the community doesn't mean that the community would be willing to ignore you totally. We give you chance after chance to change your ways, Xui, because ultimately we are good people, as are most people.

So, it is really up to you if you want to continue testing that spirit of patience and tolerance...one day you might just get what seems to be your secret wish - total isolation, being ignored totally by everyone, perhaps not even a dozen views to any one of your future posts, and certainly no replies. 8)

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:37 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:You have come up with that one several times already (usually in the guise of an old lady standing on a chair). To which I reply, would you prefer that we ignore you totally, Xui?
Yes, especially you, Hamster! :)

Please do!!

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:14 pm

Okay then, Xui, your wish is granted! But don't expect an easier time of it on Dave's just because I'm not around - there are tougher opponents than me for sure (not that, despite their superior abilities, they would necessarily dispatch you quickly - they could well not even deign to enter "combat" against such an intellectual flyweight as yourself; it just wouldn't be fair).

So, I won't disturb your in(s)ane mutterings to yourself from now on, and will only respond to you if you ever poke your nose in where it doesn't belong e.g. on any future threads that I begin, where some hopefully sensible discussion might actually be taking place.

Please don't attempt to be witty because a) I have sworn not to reply and b) you never are very witty. Spare any others who might read this far and beyond the further torture!
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:16 pm

With respect, thank you very much.

Xui

Richard
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 7:33 pm

Post by Richard » Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:15 pm

And tomorrow Xui will begin yet another thread to lure native English speakers into extended pseudo-debates on points of grammar that Xui thinks are unclear (well, unclear to him anyway).

We wish him well in his solitary pursuit.

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:43 pm

Richard wrote: And tomorrow Xui will begin yet another thread to lure native English speakers into extended pseudo-debates on points of grammar that Xui thinks are unclear (well, unclear to him anyway).

We wish him well in his solitary pursuit.
================
Why tomorrow?

The Outrageous Tense

Ex1: They have worked here in the past. (= a finish)
Ex2: They have worked here in the past few years. (= an unfinish)

How can two sentences be so similar but with so different meanings?
Why would "few years" make a difference?

Or is it is pseudo-problem? Opinions are welcome.
Last edited by Xui on Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:44 pm

The Present Time vs The Present Action

Leech in Meaning and the English Verb says:
When thinking about 'present time' we can think of a period including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future. In this sense, 'present time' is potentially all-inclusive.
He has merged a few confusions here.

First of all, it is a very common phenomenon that grammar writers mistake tense as sentence. As Leech paves the road for Permanency Theory of Simple Present:
Ex: Two and two make four.
Ex: The earth revolves around the sun.
Ex: Birds sing.
Ex: Babies cry a lot.
Ex: Wood floats in water.

however, because the sentence can express something permanent, he has to twist and distort the tense, the time itself, to be all-inclusive. When people think the sentence will do nothing, and put everything on the tense, they will finally crush it.

Secondly, here Leech seems to have introduced one more insightful concept, which is also a confusion in disguise, mistaking present action as present time. Now he wants to explain a tense like "Birds sing", he first mistakes the action (the idea of the sentence) as the tense, and then the present action as 'present time'. As the present action "Birds sing" includes all the time, so he suggests that 'present time' is all-inclusive: including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future. Obviously enough, the concept is erroneous. Does today include yesterday or tomorrow? Does this week include all the weeks? Does this year include last year, and also "into the future", next year? Of course not.

The present time is not the present action at all. When one is sleeping, for example, and the clock strikes (silently) at 24:00, the new present day has arrived but doesn't include the past day, whereas the present action -- sleeping -- includes (some of) the past day. Likewise, in the eve of new year, we countdown .....5,4,3,2,1, Happy New Year.... The new present year doesn't include any seconds of the past year, but the present celebration includes.

As a whole, we regard the time we speak as the present time, and any time before it is past. The past time exists only by contrasting with the present time; therefore, the present time doesn't include the past time whatsoever, and vice versa. But all the present actions, such as our job, our car, our living, our conversation, are including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future.
Very interesting, for many a time when people define past time correctly as "before the present time", I deliberately resort to the present action and prove the present action includes some past time. Now because I can somehow connect something present to the past time, the readers really think they fail to define what is past time. What I mean is, they cannot see between a present time and a present action. As I explain the the present action, they fully accept that I am explaining the present time.

I admit it has taken me a long hard time to separate present time from present action. But with hard study and lengthy discussions, I finally did it. And I don't think people will easily notice the need to see between the difference. Leech has missed the point. To me, it is obvious, because I have passed through there.

This is my humble opinion.

Xui

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

tense in reported speech

Post by Xui » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:28 pm

I have switched to another forum which was already updated. Their default font is bigger than the 'large' font here, so I may see clearly. Most of all, they don't need to add font codes anymore, just like my humble and 'stunted' forum. I guess Dave will update here very soon.

There they are arguing in heat whether in reported speech they should use Present Perfect or Past Perfect:
Ex: They reported that there has been/had been an accident.
Well, I don't know how the style of English has changed, somehow I try to stick to the rules given. We are advised to change the 'present tense' into 'past tense' like the 1) and some other sentences, but Don prefers using the 'present tense'?
I know it is a long story, but I want to answer it briefly as follows.

==================
Backgrounds for English Tenses

To explain English tense, while grammarians try to reduce a paragraph into an orphan sentence, and then into even a verb (notably "The English Verb"), I run the opposite direction. I rather explain tense in paragraphs, backgrounds, or contexts.

I separate past background from present background.

In present background, we use mainly the three tenses -- Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present -- to express our viewpoints, as in our present forum. In such background, every action compares its time with the time frame of the first sentence of the paragraph.

Much has been talked about the present background (present BG). Now I want to introduce briefly the situation in the past background (past BG).

In past BG, we use mostly past tense -- Simple Past, Past Perfect, and Past continuous -- to narrate a story or past events. In a story, everything is past, so we have to use Simple Past to relate actions in a smooth flow of time:
Ex: There was a car accident. People reported this to the police.
== The time flow is 'smooth' here because the accident must happen before the reporting.

When the flow of time is broken, however, we have to give a signal to readers:
Ex: People reported to the police. There had been a car accident.
== Accident happens first but is put behind, so the flow of time is broken.

In past BG, most important, the tenses are also used to tell the time relations between sentences, just as they are in present BG.

There are two rules in the time comparison (in past BG):
A: Every action compares its time with that of the former action.
Ex: "People reported to the police. There had been a car accident."
== Past Perfect denotes an action happening before its former Simple Past.

B: Action in sub-clause compares its time with that of the main clause.
Ex: "He came to a village. Before he entered, he saw a farmer."
== ENTERED in before-clause compares it time with the 'main' action SAW, rather than its former Simple Past CAME.

In past BG, therefore, in reported speech we have only Past Perfect in the that-clause:
Ex: They reported that there had been an accident.
== HAD BEEN in the sub-clause happened before the main action REPORTED. I find this explanation is noticed by few persons, but it is provable and undeniable. As a whole, if the narrative is composed mainly by Simple Past and Past Perfect, then it is a past BG, so we use had been.

Whereas in present BG, since every action compares its time with the time frame in the initiate sentence of the paragraph, we may have a difference:
Ex: They reported that there has been an accident.
== The initiate action doesn't show up here. It may be something like "Today is a rainy day". As a whole, if you allow the comment to use Simple Present, then it is present BG, so we prefer has been.

As we may see, Simple Past, which is often used in both BGs, will perform different kinds of time comparison in different kinds of BG.

However, Past BG can be sometimes embedded in the present BG, and vice versa. For example, when you want to insert a case story in a present-day comment, as there will be several Simple Past actions in sequence, you may want to put them in a smooth flow of time, or else, you still have to use Past Perfect, even in present BG.

If they 'condense' a paragraph into an orphan sentence, they can never tell which one is appropriate:
Ex: They reported that there has been/had been an accident.

Xui
Last edited by Xui on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:39 pm

Dear Xui

You're builiding castles out of sand as usual, and using a discardedice cream wrapper for the archtectural drawings.

It would be a perfectly noraml conversation in the police station for the policeman to say:
Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there has been an accident on the M25
or
Somebody reported there was an accident on the M25 at eleven this morning

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:06 pm

Stephen Jones wrote: It would be a perfectly noraml conversation in the police station for the policeman to say:
Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there has been an accident on the M25
or
Somebody reported there was an accident on the M25 at eleven this morning
I agree to your examples and your explanation about them completely.

However, did my post above have any sand that goes against your castle? You are talking about the present BG, in which Present Perfect is permitted, as is clearly noted in my message.

Please allow me to put it this way: can the policeman use Simple Present to give more details?
Ex: "Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there has been an accident on the M25. I have checked and know a driver is now being sent to the hospital."
== As he can use Simple Present, then it is a present BG: As a whole, if you allow the comment to use Simple Present, then it is present BG, so we prefer has been.

I really don't know which one of sand go against your castle.

Xui

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:51 pm


Perhaps your point is about the time frame in the first sentence. But why you didn't say it? Why I always have to fathom what is the main point in your message? I don't even know if it is really your main point or not. Or our discussion must have to reduce to insults?

Please allow me to analyze the tense in your example (in blue):
Ex: "Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there has been a car accident on the M25. I have checked and know a driver is now being sent to the hospital."

As very probably Simple Present is allowed in this situation, then it is present BG, so it is perfectly all right to use Present Perfect in the reported speech. OK?

Now the time frame of the first sentence is "five minutes ago". OK?

SAID in Simple Past indicates it happened in the same time frame of CAME. OK?

Then we use Present Perfect HAS BEEN to say a finish outside the time frame -- the accident happened before he came in reporting. OK?

If we use WAS instead of HAS BEEN, it means the accident happened at the same time he CAME in reporting. It is illogical.

If we use HAD BEEN instead of HAS BEEN, we try to form a small past BG within a present BG. It is possible and still grammatical, but not so compatible with those tenses now around it.

Then which one point in my background theory goes against your logical example?

By the way, HAVE CHECKED is also a finish, and also happens outside the five-minutes-ago time frame.

KNOW in Simple Present indicates an unfinish outside the time frame.

In very simple words, the time frame in the first sentence controls the tenses in the sentences following. A time frame works until another appears. In this way, tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences. This is the real use of tense. Its use is concrete and can be objectively measured, step by step, tense by tense. I can cheat no one, especially a native English speaker. Everywhere is the usage of English tense. Each paragraph of English can prove me right or wrong. I am afraid the truth can not be proven false just by insulting it, without evidence on one's side. (When I argued with Larry about remoteness theory, however, he was forced to admit that 'distance' is subjective, so is tense, and cannot be objectively measured. He was wrong.)

All tenses can be well explained according to Time. A tense can be ride of any meaning other than Time. Tense is time.

Xui

Xui
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by Xui » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 am

The Routine of Hiding

Conventional grammarians themselves have clearly known that, in explaining Present Perfect, they have hidden away the Past Family (like in the past xx years). The reason is, these past-time adverbials can stay with Present Perfect:
Ex: They have worked here in the past four years.
They hide them away to safeguard the rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials. Every grammar book has to cut the Past Family loose, and this is already a "grammatical agreement" known to every grammar writer.
(I have asked about this to many universities. In my forum, a professor posted a reply to me. She was interested in my message and now told one of her student, another professor, to make a thesis of the concealed phenomenon.)

However, new grammar writers are hiding some more, but for another reason.

Even with the Past Family hidden, grammarians still cannot explain the tense. Students still find Present Perfect hard to understand. Aspect Theorists then think, why don't we also hide away 'Since'? In this case, we just suggest Present Perfect denotes only a completion, so students may understand easier. Good idea! Why not? We are concealing evidences anyway, so why don't we go all the way? This is how Aspect Theory has come from.

Nevertheless, Aspect Theory has never been the mainstream of the conventional grammar, which still explains the use of Present Perfect with 'Since'.

Xui

Post Reply