In many English forums on Internet, the difference in use between Simple Past and Present Perfect has always been asked by students, and even by frustrated teachers who want to know if you have a better idea to make students understand. It has never been an easy issue. What exactly is the nuance between the following two structures?
Ex1: I lived in Japan.
Ex2: I have lived in Japan.
Your opinion is welcome.
Shun Tang
Simple Past and Present Perfect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Do we have a tense-changing process? I emphasize that the following rules are not a solution to English tenses. I just want to know, do we have such a process?
I have long noticed a kind of tense-changing process: telling the time of an action will have to change its tense. If on one-sentence basis, the basic meanings of Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present are no more than the following four simple rules:
(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we state a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.
These few rules seem simple, but they can cover all the patterns of the three tenses. Conceptually, they are far better than all the things grammar writers have ever written, for they have to ignore the family of "in the past three years" and I don’t.
Your opinion is welcome.
Shun Tang
I have long noticed a kind of tense-changing process: telling the time of an action will have to change its tense. If on one-sentence basis, the basic meanings of Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present are no more than the following four simple rules:
(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we state a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.
These few rules seem simple, but they can cover all the patterns of the three tenses. Conceptually, they are far better than all the things grammar writers have ever written, for they have to ignore the family of "in the past three years" and I don’t.
Your opinion is welcome.
Shun Tang
It is basically difficult to get one's head around the two "tenses".
Past time:
Generally speaking, the past simple form is a "pure past" form that expresses a fact remote in time without reference to any other point.
"Before Now" time:
The present perfect looks back at the past from the point "Now".
Take for example these two present sentences.
Sara is 45.
Sara is younger than Sally.
The first is a simple factual statement; the second is less specific but relates to another point. That distinction in usage is similar to the one between the past simple and the present perfect. The "before now"
quality of the present perfect makes it suitable for general questions and statements.
An exercise.
If you try to contextualise in a short dialogue:
I lived in Japan.
and then do the same with:
I have lived in Japan
What do you get?
Past time:
Generally speaking, the past simple form is a "pure past" form that expresses a fact remote in time without reference to any other point.
"Before Now" time:
The present perfect looks back at the past from the point "Now".
Take for example these two present sentences.
Sara is 45.
Sara is younger than Sally.
The first is a simple factual statement; the second is less specific but relates to another point. That distinction in usage is similar to the one between the past simple and the present perfect. The "before now"
quality of the present perfect makes it suitable for general questions and statements.
An exercise.
If you try to contextualise in a short dialogue:
I lived in Japan.
and then do the same with:
I have lived in Japan
What do you get?
Metal56,
A: Yesterday I visited Ocean Park.
B: Oh, yes? I have been there before.
== Both YESTERDAY and BEFORE entail a finish. BEFORE must be more past than YESTERDAY. Most important, the actions are a finish, and I really don't care how people explain that in a past action BEFORE is still connected to the present time.
Shun
I can say this: If in a prose you add NOW to every sentence that is lack of time adverbial, the whole context of the prose is still correct in description of time. What I mean is, everything is judged by the present time. But naturally, we don't repeat the time very frequently. Even YESTERDAY has to look back at the past from the point "Now". Actually, BEFORE must be more "remote" than YESTERDAY:You wrote:"Before Now" time:
The present perfect looks back at the past from the point "Now".
A: Yesterday I visited Ocean Park.
B: Oh, yes? I have been there before.
== Both YESTERDAY and BEFORE entail a finish. BEFORE must be more past than YESTERDAY. Most important, the actions are a finish, and I really don't care how people explain that in a past action BEFORE is still connected to the present time.
I understand it is very hard to find Simple Past or Present Perfect examples. For the time being, I guess I have to agree with you with these Simple Present examples.You wrote:Sara is 45.
Sara is younger than Sally.
The first is a simple factual statement; the second is less specific but relates to another point. That distinction in usage is similar to the one between the past simple and the present perfect. The "before now" quality of the present perfect makes it suitable for general questions and statements.
It seems difficult for me. What is the point?You wrote:An exercise.
If you try to contextualise in a short dialogue:
I lived in Japan.
and then do the same with:
I have lived in Japan
What do you get?
Shun
THREE KINDS OF TIME ADVERBIALS
THREE KINDS OF TIME ADVERBIALS
Not all kinds of time adverbials call for the tense-changing process. We may have to put them into three categories, and only Definite Past Time Adverbials, which I simply dub as 'Frame', can do so:
(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 Adverbs: They confuse people by being able to stay together with any tense. They therefore have a difference from the adverbials denoting past time. They 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.
They each have different functions, so that 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.
Shun Tang
Not all kinds of time adverbials call for the tense-changing process. We may have to put them into three categories, and only Definite Past Time Adverbials, which I simply dub as 'Frame', can do so:
(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 Adverbs: They confuse people by being able to stay together with any tense. They therefore have a difference from the adverbials denoting past time. They 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.
They each have different functions, so that 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.
Shun Tang
Tenses have to be explained by paragraph, rather than on one-sentence basis.
For example, Yesterday we went to a new store department is grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
Also, examples like We have bought many things are also grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
But we can’t even bring them together as in "*Yesterday we went to a store department. We have bought many things." Grammatical structures cannot stay together grammatically. All the academic explanation and implication for the Present Perfect -- Aspect, Current Relevance, Resutative, etc. -- are completely useless now. This therefore proves that it is the paragraph that decides the tense. Dazzled by the splendor of academic terms, however, grammar writers have always failed to see this simple fact.
Shun Tang
For example, Yesterday we went to a new store department is grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
Also, examples like We have bought many things are also grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
But we can’t even bring them together as in "*Yesterday we went to a store department. We have bought many things." Grammatical structures cannot stay together grammatically. All the academic explanation and implication for the Present Perfect -- Aspect, Current Relevance, Resutative, etc. -- are completely useless now. This therefore proves that it is the paragraph that decides the tense. Dazzled by the splendor of academic terms, however, grammar writers have always failed to see this simple fact.
Shun Tang
Introspective Past vs Retrospective Past
The Past Family are introspective past. It is the opposite of time adverb “Ago”, a retrospective past.
I want to put IN THE PAST DAY and A DAY AGO in contrast.
In the diagram below I hope you can see the right and left limits of YESTERDAY.
__the day before__|__yesterday__|__present__
IN THE PAST DAY is explained as starting somewhere in YESTERDAY, over the right limit, and into the present. Therefore it is not a finish. This is the description of introspective past. The same applies to in the past week/ month/ two years/ few years/ etc.
On the other hand, retrospective past is to the opposite direction. A DAY AGO is regarded as also starting somewhere in YESTERDAY, yet over the left limit, and into the day before. It therefore must be a past, compared with the present. The same applies to a week ago/a month ago/ two years ago/ few years ago/ etc.
The difficulty of the Past Family is that both IN THE PAST DAY and A DAY AGO are Definite Past Time Adverbials, and conduct the tense-changing process (see above). As most of Definite Past Time Adverbials (in 1970s, from 1962 to 1978, yesterday, last week/month/year, etc.) are neither introspective nor retrospective, grammars don’t need to be aware of retrospective past, nor introspective past, and therefore they cannot explain the Past Family.
Shun Tang
The Past Family are introspective past. It is the opposite of time adverb “Ago”, a retrospective past.
I want to put IN THE PAST DAY and A DAY AGO in contrast.
In the diagram below I hope you can see the right and left limits of YESTERDAY.
__the day before__|__yesterday__|__present__
IN THE PAST DAY is explained as starting somewhere in YESTERDAY, over the right limit, and into the present. Therefore it is not a finish. This is the description of introspective past. The same applies to in the past week/ month/ two years/ few years/ etc.
On the other hand, retrospective past is to the opposite direction. A DAY AGO is regarded as also starting somewhere in YESTERDAY, yet over the left limit, and into the day before. It therefore must be a past, compared with the present. The same applies to a week ago/a month ago/ two years ago/ few years ago/ etc.
The difficulty of the Past Family is that both IN THE PAST DAY and A DAY AGO are Definite Past Time Adverbials, and conduct the tense-changing process (see above). As most of Definite Past Time Adverbials (in 1970s, from 1962 to 1978, yesterday, last week/month/year, etc.) are neither introspective nor retrospective, grammars don’t need to be aware of retrospective past, nor introspective past, and therefore they cannot explain the Past Family.
Shun Tang
The difference in use between Simple Past and Present Perfect has always been a noted and puzzling question. I have explored this problem for decades and found no learners who can really tell the two apart. Actually, since tenses are used to show the time connections, or disconnections, between actions in paragraph, these two tenses cannot be discriminated on one-sentence basis. Using paragraph, however, we may now give conclusive answer to the nuance between them. There is a Time for Simple Past and a Time for Present Perfect:
Ex: "Last week we went to a new store department. We bought many things. We have recommended it to Ms B."
== Simple Past bought indicates it happens at the same past time of the former. Present Perfect have recommended happens clearly behind "last week". Additionally, it is therefore not wholly correct for grammars to say commonly that Present Perfect happens in an indefinite time. As here, we know when it happens.
Shun Tang
Ex: "Last week we went to a new store department. We bought many things. We have recommended it to Ms B."
== Simple Past bought indicates it happens at the same past time of the former. Present Perfect have recommended happens clearly behind "last week". Additionally, it is therefore not wholly correct for grammars to say commonly that Present Perfect happens in an indefinite time. As here, we know when it happens.
Shun Tang
A SPECIAL MEMBER OF THE PAST FAMILY and
WHY THE PAST FAMILY PREFER PRESENT PERFECT?
"SINCE 2000" is actually the key to solve the problem of the Past Family (such as in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years.), because it is actually one of its member, though it doesn't harbor the adjective "past". If this year is 2003, then SINCE 2000 equates "in the past three years". Now that SINCE 2000 is generally accepted to use Present Perfect only, so it is reasonably the same with the Past Family :
Ex: They have worked here since 2000/ in the past three years.
The usage of SINCE 2000, if analyzed, violates the 'golden rule' that Present Perfect doesn't stay with a time clearly referring to the past. While grammar writers have to hide away the Past Family in their books, however, because SINCE 2000 doesn't contain 'past', some grammar writers would venture to put it in grammar books. It usually works because as students learn English tenses, they in their age don't ask much. Also, they don't know much. They cannot see any error in a statement "last week refers to a past time, and since 1997 refers to the present". Actually, to be frank, since 1997 refers to 1997, a past time, most of all a Definite Past Time.
If we think it doesn't matter, grammar writers believe otherwise. Aware of the problem, serious grammar writers nowadays talk about only SINCE (usually together with FOR), rather than SINCE 2000, in explaining tenses. SINCE is a good concept indicating "a past time up to the present moment", thus coinciding with the 'normal' use of Present Perfect. If we focus on SINCE alone, it can even be nominated a present time adverbial. Unlike SINCE, however, SINCE 2000 is a potential threat to Present Perfect it has to work with.
To sum up, SINCE 2000 is a time referring to the past but stays with Present Perfect. To successfully explain SINCE 2000 will successfully explain the Past Family.
Shun Tang
WHY THE PAST FAMILY PREFER PRESENT PERFECT?
"SINCE 2000" is actually the key to solve the problem of the Past Family (such as in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years.), because it is actually one of its member, though it doesn't harbor the adjective "past". If this year is 2003, then SINCE 2000 equates "in the past three years". Now that SINCE 2000 is generally accepted to use Present Perfect only, so it is reasonably the same with the Past Family :
Ex: They have worked here since 2000/ in the past three years.
The usage of SINCE 2000, if analyzed, violates the 'golden rule' that Present Perfect doesn't stay with a time clearly referring to the past. While grammar writers have to hide away the Past Family in their books, however, because SINCE 2000 doesn't contain 'past', some grammar writers would venture to put it in grammar books. It usually works because as students learn English tenses, they in their age don't ask much. Also, they don't know much. They cannot see any error in a statement "last week refers to a past time, and since 1997 refers to the present". Actually, to be frank, since 1997 refers to 1997, a past time, most of all a Definite Past Time.
If we think it doesn't matter, grammar writers believe otherwise. Aware of the problem, serious grammar writers nowadays talk about only SINCE (usually together with FOR), rather than SINCE 2000, in explaining tenses. SINCE is a good concept indicating "a past time up to the present moment", thus coinciding with the 'normal' use of Present Perfect. If we focus on SINCE alone, it can even be nominated a present time adverbial. Unlike SINCE, however, SINCE 2000 is a potential threat to Present Perfect it has to work with.
To sum up, SINCE 2000 is a time referring to the past but stays with Present Perfect. To successfully explain SINCE 2000 will successfully explain the Past Family.
Shun Tang
Shuntang,
I've been following these threads you've created in the past week with great interest, but I have to ask you a question:
Seeing as the last six posts in this particular thread were made my you, and only you, who are we to believe you're talking to right now? Or in response to what? Are you still talking to Metal (when Metal hasn't responded to you yet)? Or are you just having fun talking to yourself ? Or are you taking the opportunity to lecture EVERYBODY on "Shuntang's words of wisdom regarding the past family and the present perfect"
I wouldn't blame you, it looks like fun.
The reason I ask is simply because I've never seen anyone on this forum someone get so involved with their own ideas. It's almost as if you love reading your own postings.
I've been following these threads you've created in the past week with great interest, but I have to ask you a question:
Seeing as the last six posts in this particular thread were made my you, and only you, who are we to believe you're talking to right now? Or in response to what? Are you still talking to Metal (when Metal hasn't responded to you yet)? Or are you just having fun talking to yourself ? Or are you taking the opportunity to lecture EVERYBODY on "Shuntang's words of wisdom regarding the past family and the present perfect"
I wouldn't blame you, it looks like fun.The reason I ask is simply because I've never seen anyone on this forum someone get so involved with their own ideas. It's almost as if you love reading your own postings.
A NEW APPROACH TO EXPLAIN TENSES:
SENTENCE and PARAGRAPH
Sentences express meanings (like habit); tenses tell only the time. This is the main point of the new approach. Tenses are used tell different parts of time, namely past, present, or future, of a meaning or action, so that we may have, for example, past/present/future habits. Therefore, it is inappropriate and misleading for grammars to say merely that we use Simple Present to express habit, or any meaning at all. Actually, the sentence expresses habit; tense tells the time of the habit. Most important, different tenses tell different kinds of time of the habit. In short, overlooking the role of sentence, grammar writers are erroneous in the whole process of explaining the use of a tense. And a wrong process can never lead us to a right conclusion. For the time being it is hard to believe but it is true: there are no correct explanations in present-day grammars about tenses explanation. (So far we have had only one rule, the 'golden rule' that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions. And yet it is still a fault.)
Whatever the explanation you want to say to the tense in a very common structure like I run very fast, can be said again, exactly the same, to the sentence without the tense. You may ask, so what? Chances are you are always talking about the meaning of the sentence alone, instead of that of the tense. Chances are you don't know how a tense behaves. The relation between a tense and a sentence is so interlaced that many people may be confused. It is a very common phenomenon for readers to give a speech about the tense, but in fact what they have said is wholly about the sentence.
We in the new approach use simple terms and concepts like past and present, that is, finished and unfinished, as the main tools to deal with tenses, forsaking many grotesque meanings such as timeless, permanency, aspect, current reference, you-name-it. However, as I can promise you, grammar writers need them. They can't do without them. Nowadays, jargons used to explain tense are innumerous and often lead us to nowhere. Seizing on easy terms, we come back to reality. We had better say, we use only the basic terms people use, and screen away the superficial.
Time is comparative. Without today, there is no yesterday or tomorrow. On 20Dec02, we must agree 21Dec02 is tomorrow. By 21Dec02, however, we will change our mind and say it is 'today', and 20Dec02 is 'yesterday'. Therefore, one cannot say exactly which is YESTERDAY, without comparing to TODAY. Likewise, you cannot describe what is past, without comparing to the present. That is to say, to explain just one tense, we have to use at least two tenses, thus two sentences, so we may fulfill a comparison.
Frankly, I have seen many people, including teachers, asking for good ideas to tell the difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect -- on one-sentence basis. However, I have never seen one asking the difference between the two of them in a paragraph. In a paragraph, in a sequence of Simple Past actions for example, will anyone use a Present Perfect in the middle, and ask what the difference is between the two tenses? Never.
Do I eat? Yes, I do. But sometimes I say I have eaten. Why? It is because now you ask me to go to restaurant. Comparing with your present asking, I have eaten. There is a comparison. Various tenses are constantly in the exercise of this kind of comparison. The exertion to cut up a sentence from the paragraph and explain its tense, therefore, is futile.
On one-sentence basis, I may endeavor to ask, "Is Present Perfect explainable?" To me, the answer is very clear. We were like trying to cut up a pearl from a chain of pearls, together with the string in it, and examined the use of the string inside one pearl. The attempt is futile. Some specialists argued the string is used to protect the pearl from humidity. Many books have finally concluded the string is used for decoration, because sometimes it is blue and sometimes red. This conclusion has been widely accepted and agreed with by people. And yet, many are still puzzled by the use of the string, when they have to choose between colors. People are at a mist in explaining the use of the string inside a pearl. I am asking, is the string explainable? The answer? Put the orphan sentence or lonely pearl back to where it belongs, and it will be easier to see its correct usage. Tenses are used to link up (the time of) sentences, like the string is used to link up pearls. We can never truly explain a tense just by one sentence.
And just because I know people everywhere will discuss tenses on one-sentence basis, in many forums I would make a few seemingly impossible promises that no one has yet broken. I won't make such promises if discussing normally - - with a paragraph. (We don't need to post a long paragraph; just two sentences may show the varieties of time comparison.)
Shun Tang
SENTENCE and PARAGRAPH
Sentences express meanings (like habit); tenses tell only the time. This is the main point of the new approach. Tenses are used tell different parts of time, namely past, present, or future, of a meaning or action, so that we may have, for example, past/present/future habits. Therefore, it is inappropriate and misleading for grammars to say merely that we use Simple Present to express habit, or any meaning at all. Actually, the sentence expresses habit; tense tells the time of the habit. Most important, different tenses tell different kinds of time of the habit. In short, overlooking the role of sentence, grammar writers are erroneous in the whole process of explaining the use of a tense. And a wrong process can never lead us to a right conclusion. For the time being it is hard to believe but it is true: there are no correct explanations in present-day grammars about tenses explanation. (So far we have had only one rule, the 'golden rule' that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time expressions. And yet it is still a fault.)
Whatever the explanation you want to say to the tense in a very common structure like I run very fast, can be said again, exactly the same, to the sentence without the tense. You may ask, so what? Chances are you are always talking about the meaning of the sentence alone, instead of that of the tense. Chances are you don't know how a tense behaves. The relation between a tense and a sentence is so interlaced that many people may be confused. It is a very common phenomenon for readers to give a speech about the tense, but in fact what they have said is wholly about the sentence.
We in the new approach use simple terms and concepts like past and present, that is, finished and unfinished, as the main tools to deal with tenses, forsaking many grotesque meanings such as timeless, permanency, aspect, current reference, you-name-it. However, as I can promise you, grammar writers need them. They can't do without them. Nowadays, jargons used to explain tense are innumerous and often lead us to nowhere. Seizing on easy terms, we come back to reality. We had better say, we use only the basic terms people use, and screen away the superficial.
Time is comparative. Without today, there is no yesterday or tomorrow. On 20Dec02, we must agree 21Dec02 is tomorrow. By 21Dec02, however, we will change our mind and say it is 'today', and 20Dec02 is 'yesterday'. Therefore, one cannot say exactly which is YESTERDAY, without comparing to TODAY. Likewise, you cannot describe what is past, without comparing to the present. That is to say, to explain just one tense, we have to use at least two tenses, thus two sentences, so we may fulfill a comparison.
Frankly, I have seen many people, including teachers, asking for good ideas to tell the difference between Simple Past and Present Perfect -- on one-sentence basis. However, I have never seen one asking the difference between the two of them in a paragraph. In a paragraph, in a sequence of Simple Past actions for example, will anyone use a Present Perfect in the middle, and ask what the difference is between the two tenses? Never.
Do I eat? Yes, I do. But sometimes I say I have eaten. Why? It is because now you ask me to go to restaurant. Comparing with your present asking, I have eaten. There is a comparison. Various tenses are constantly in the exercise of this kind of comparison. The exertion to cut up a sentence from the paragraph and explain its tense, therefore, is futile.
On one-sentence basis, I may endeavor to ask, "Is Present Perfect explainable?" To me, the answer is very clear. We were like trying to cut up a pearl from a chain of pearls, together with the string in it, and examined the use of the string inside one pearl. The attempt is futile. Some specialists argued the string is used to protect the pearl from humidity. Many books have finally concluded the string is used for decoration, because sometimes it is blue and sometimes red. This conclusion has been widely accepted and agreed with by people. And yet, many are still puzzled by the use of the string, when they have to choose between colors. People are at a mist in explaining the use of the string inside a pearl. I am asking, is the string explainable? The answer? Put the orphan sentence or lonely pearl back to where it belongs, and it will be easier to see its correct usage. Tenses are used to link up (the time of) sentences, like the string is used to link up pearls. We can never truly explain a tense just by one sentence.
And just because I know people everywhere will discuss tenses on one-sentence basis, in many forums I would make a few seemingly impossible promises that no one has yet broken. I won't make such promises if discussing normally - - with a paragraph. (We don't need to post a long paragraph; just two sentences may show the varieties of time comparison.)
Shun Tang
Wjserson,
After I knew grammars avoid to talk about the Past Family, I haven't read grammar books for decades -- that is why I write very lousy. If I have posted something here, it all comes from the communication with my correspondents. I'll get a lot more from you than you from me. Now I hope you see the reason why I posted them at once.
I haven't started Progressive and Pluperfect (Past Perfect) yet! They answer the question like how we can stuff so many tenses into just two notions -- finished and unfinished, if I've forsaken all jargons? What I mean is, you haven't seen the best yet.
Shun
I just want to say: Your opinions are welcome.You wrote:Seeing as the last six posts in this particular thread were made my you, and only you, who are we to believe you're talking to right now? Or in response to what?
After I knew grammars avoid to talk about the Past Family, I haven't read grammar books for decades -- that is why I write very lousy. If I have posted something here, it all comes from the communication with my correspondents. I'll get a lot more from you than you from me. Now I hope you see the reason why I posted them at once.
I haven't started Progressive and Pluperfect (Past Perfect) yet! They answer the question like how we can stuff so many tenses into just two notions -- finished and unfinished, if I've forsaken all jargons? What I mean is, you haven't seen the best yet.
Shun
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
There is more than an element of truth here, Shun Tang. In order to understand a single verb form and its uses and meanings, one must know something about the entire verb tense-aspect system. You have to know a bit about all of them to understand any of them.That is to say, to explain just one tense, we have to use at least two tenses, thus two sentences, so we may fulfill a comparison.
Larry Latham
Larry,
To tell the truth, the mere word VERB terrifies me a lot. When I understand tenses are used to connect sentenceS, people who talk about tense have reduced sentenceS (ie, paragraph) into sentence, and now verb. What a shame! I have heard about a famous book called The English Verb, and I don't want to see it. I don't like horror books.
Shun
To tell the truth, the mere word VERB terrifies me a lot. When I understand tenses are used to connect sentenceS, people who talk about tense have reduced sentenceS (ie, paragraph) into sentence, and now verb. What a shame! I have heard about a famous book called The English Verb, and I don't want to see it. I don't like horror books.
Shun
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I'm not sure The English Verb is for you anyway, Shun Tang. It's a book for teachers, and in my view, teachers need to read it. But it may be rather confusing for many students.
A suggestion for you: relax a little. Why don't you tell us a bit about yourself? Maybe if we (teachers on this site) know more about you personally and why you seem to be so interested in English verb forms, we might be in a better position to offer help. As Wjserson said above, it seems a little like you're talking to yourself here, and in a panic as well. You've already shown that you know English well enough to express your concerns. Now may be the time to ease up just a bit and take time to read what others are saying and think about their postings more carefully.
Larry Latham
A suggestion for you: relax a little. Why don't you tell us a bit about yourself? Maybe if we (teachers on this site) know more about you personally and why you seem to be so interested in English verb forms, we might be in a better position to offer help. As Wjserson said above, it seems a little like you're talking to yourself here, and in a panic as well. You've already shown that you know English well enough to express your concerns. Now may be the time to ease up just a bit and take time to read what others are saying and think about their postings more carefully.
Larry Latham