Subjectivity in usage

[Richard]

I have given an example here:

And thus Xui demonstrates his lack of expertise in using tense in a simple, everyday context.

After reading all those academic and reference books, why has he never learned the proper tense to introduce an example in English expository prose? Does he not understand what he reads? Will he ever learn to use tenses correctly?

[metal56]

Even if you have a thousand of GOOD reasons to explain Present Perfect, it doesn't fit the time here. This is the way, the only way, I explain tenses. It is about Time. Time decides what the tense is.

Really?

I could come tomorrow, if you like.

I walked in the park. I was walking in the park. (Both in past time. Which should I use?)

I catch the train at 8 tomorrow
I'm catching the 8 o'clock train.
I will catch ...
I am to catch ...
I'm going to be catching ...

[fluffyhamster]

Both the web page and the pdf file have explained the tense in a wrong way: on one-sentence basis, an unsuitable and unfortunate basis to explain tense.

I have given an example here:
Ex: "Yesterday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. *I have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital."

Now that's just getting silly - even sillier than Xui's previous example (which contained two sentences with the same tense: "I ate dinner yesterday; I almost choked.").

Tenses can be the same across several sentences, or they can change, and Xui is in no fit position to tell us how or (especially) why.

You'd imagine from Xui's "evidence" there that Present Perfect can never follow straight on from Simple Past. After a moment's reflection, I am sure many of you can quite EASILY and NATURALLY come up with counterevidence such as: "I had fish last night - I've had fish every night this (past) week, in fact! I really must stop it with the whoppers!".

Envious yet, Xui? If not, you should be; if so, good. In either case, spend more time studying natural discourse, and less time imagining how it "should" be.

[metal56]

[

But please tell me if we could use Present Perfect here, with your special new and more splendid meaning.

Your use of tenses is awful, but your use of sarcasm makes up for that weakness. Is it your mission to make enemies of all posters here?

The one-sentence basis is a joke. Now it seems to be eternal in explaining tenses. Any lucky day, you will still find another web page explaining Present Perfect in a better way, with a better meaning. You don't even know why you liked the old one before. You guess it is really a lucky day. And so on. And so on.

I'm not sure who you are trying to address here. I started by telling you that cotext and context really do matter. Do you remember that, or are you merely trying to hide that fact?

Almost all of my postings on this and other fora insist on the importance of discourse in explaining usage - especially the tenses. So, if you want to try to patronise me by telling me that intersentiality is the only way to analyse and advise on structure, don't bother. I have been preaching about intersententially for years in many ESL conferences around the globe. And you?

[metal56]

Both the web page and the pdf file have explained the tense in a wrong way: on one-sentence basis, an unsuitable and unfortunate basis to explain tense.

Isn't that just what you were doing here? You tried explaining a structure using just the context-isolated sentence.

Ex: I have seen her only once since 1990.
Ex: I have visited the park since we lived here.
Ex: She has written to him three times since 1990.
== These actions would be a finish if without Since.

[metal56]

I have nothing to say anymore.

Oh, but he has had plenty more to say. He goes on and on and on and on and on... just like the Energizer bunny.

Here's my take on Xui:

He's a frustrated English learner.

He's a frustrated English teacher.

He wants so much to be able to understand English like a native speaker yet knows he never will.

So he purchases dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of English grammar books yet is impatient and insulted when they seem to contradict each other.

And thus he goes on an endless crusade to formulate his own grammar that will satisfy only him.

But in the process, he is constantly frustrated when native speakers provide counterexamples. He can't stand this, because it demolishes his belief that a grammar can simplistically explain (and predict) any utterance.

**********
What do you guys think? Close? You've 'known' him much longer than I have. What's your take?

"Down to a T" is the expression I would use.

[fluffyhamster]

So he purchases dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of English grammar books yet is impatient and insulted when they seem to contradict each other.

Doesn't seem to own a Murphy, or a Leech, or a...(you name it). Doesn't seem to understand any of whatever he reads either (unless it is polemical).

[Xui]

Both the web page and the pdf file have explained the tense in a wrong way: on one-sentence basis, an unsuitable and unfortunate basis to explain tense.

I have given an example here:
Ex: "Yesterday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. *I have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital."

Now that's just getting silly - even sillier than Xui's previous example (which contained two sentences with the same tense: "I ate dinner yesterday; I almost choked.").

Tenses can be the same across several sentences, or they can change, and Xui is in no fit position to tell us how or (especially) why.

You'd imagine from Xui's "evidence" there that Present Perfect can never follow straight on from Simple Past. After a moment's reflection, I am sure many of you can quite EASILY and NATURALLY come up with counterevidence such as: "I had fish last night - I've had fish every night this (past) week, in fact! I really must stop it with the whoppers!".

Envious yet, Xui? If not, you should be; if so, good. In either case, spend more time studying natural discourse, and less time imagining how it "should" be.

You know I referred to my example only. Or you don't know?

[Xui]

I have nothing to say anymore.

Oh, but he has had plenty more to say. He goes on and on and on and on and on... just like the Energizer bunny.

=======================

This is what I said: I have quoted enough sources to prove my point, while you cannot prove yours. I have nothing to say anymore.

If he can prove his, I have nothing to say.

[fluffyhamster]

Um, "yes", Xui, I know all those "gems" are your deformed offspring. That's kind of what I meant when I said "Now that's just getting silly - even sillier than Xui's previous example".

What's the matter, can't understand even basic English now?

[Xui]

Both the web page and the pdf file have explained the tense in a wrong way: on one-sentence basis, an unsuitable and unfortunate basis to explain tense.

Isn't that just what you were doing here? You tried explaining a structure using just the context-isolated sentence.

Ex: I have seen her only once since 1990.
Ex: I have visited the park since we lived here.
Ex: She has written to him three times since 1990.
== These actions would be a finish if without Since.

Of course I will discuss in your way, as the conclusion has not come yet. Shall I put the conclusion before the discussion?

[JuanTwoThree]

I don't understand the rules of the game, and I'm not going to play anymore.

When I gave a nice long contextualised example of the many things I've done since 1986 I was sternly rebuked in a subsequent post that we were talking about single sentences, although I had emphasised that the sentences had the same lack of meaning taken in isolation.

Everybody should take very careful note of the fact that the post has been deleted, which is deplorable. No, I didn't imagine it.

Now it seems that " one-sentence basis (is a) an unsuitable and unfortunate basis to explain tense" .

Deleting posts is disgusting, both dishonest and unacademic. Nipping back in time to massage earlier comments or "disappear them" is unpardonable. Even if it's a childish fear of being seen to be changing your mind or contradicting yourself, or worse still having to say "Yes I finally see what you mean".

In fact the angrier I get about it, the more I feel sure that nobody in their sane judgement should have any more dealings with such an unscrupulous intellectual cheat.

I hope I don't sound hysterical about this but to wake up in the morning and find that the previous night's discussion has been "modified" by one of those involved goes beyond my understanding of what is reasonable behaviour . I'm having no more to do with this person.

[Xui]

[

But please tell me if we could use Present Perfect here, with your special new and more splendid meaning.

Your use of tenses is awful, but your use of sarcasm makes up for that weakness. Is it your mission to make enemies of all posters here?

The one-sentence basis is a joke. Now it seems to be eternal in explaining tenses. Any lucky day, you will still find another web page explaining Present Perfect in a better way, with a better meaning. You don't even know why you liked the old one before. You guess it is really a lucky day. And so on. And so on.

I'm not sure who you are trying to address here. I started by telling you that cotext and context really do matter. Do you remember that, or are you merely trying to hide that fact?

Almost all of my postings on this and other fora insist on the importance of discourse in explaining usage - especially the tenses. So, if you want to try to patronise me by telling me that intersentiality is the only way to analyse and advise on structure, don't bother. I have been preaching about intersententially for years in many ESL conferences around the globe. And you?

Did you ever think it is a comment for your sources?

[Xui]

I have given an example here:
Ex: "Yesterday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. *I have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital."

The paragraph decides the tense. Tell me if you can use Present Perfect here.

But if outide the time frame, it is then reasonable:
Ex: "Last Friday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. *I have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital. I have almost recovered now."

[metal56]

[quote="Xui

I have quoted enough sources to prove my point, while you cannot prove yours. I have nothing to say anymore.

If he can prove his, I have nothing to say.[/quote]

Who is "his" in the last part?