The universal perfect describes a situation which started in the past and continues into the present.
We have been here for ten hours.
They have lived here since 1961.
Have you been sick since last summer?
The resultative perfect ascribes to a PRESENT TIME a property which is the result of some past event.
He has had dinner.
He's been busy recently so he's not getting the phone.
The existential perfect indicates that a given situation has held at least once during some time leading up to the present.
He has been to Paris.
I have seen Titantic 11 times.
They have lived here since 1961.
Have you got (been) sick since last summer?*
(Sandström, 1993:120)
* This shows how "get" is sometimes less ambiguous than "been" and so the better choice.
Readings of the perfect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Readings of the perfect
Last edited by metal56 on Thu May 06, 2004 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Some people here describe the Present Perfect as "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown." that's deceiving for in (1) one can perfectly use the Past simple and yet not mention when it occurred.
(1) They won the match.
What differs the present perfect is that one is looking at the past towards now, if the situation no longer exists, at least its results can be felt due what happened.
(2) They have won the match. (and maybe it was a good victory that the adversary is waiting the next game for a revenge.)
José
(1) They won the match.
What differs the present perfect is that one is looking at the past towards now, if the situation no longer exists, at least its results can be felt due what happened.
(2) They have won the match. (and maybe it was a good victory that the adversary is waiting the next game for a revenge.)
José
What differs the present perfect is that one is looking at the past towards now, if the situation no longer exists, at least its results can be felt due what happened.
(2) They have won the match. (and maybe it was a good victory that the adversary is waiting the next game for a revenge.)
Present perfect looks back on the past-it is retrospective. What you talk about above is the resultative use of the perfect.
What about:
Have you been to London since last January?
When I ask that present perfect question, I want to know what has happened between January and the now-of-asking. Sure I can say that if the answer was "Yes", I could say that the present result is he has the experience, at the present moment, of being in London, but that may not be my reason for asking.
Re: Readings of the perfect
metal56 wrote: He's busy at the moment so he's not getting the phone. quote]
How is this a use of the perfect?
Re: Readings of the perfect
Respectfully seconded.zaneth wrote:How is this a use of the perfect?metal56 wrote: He's busy at the moment so he's not getting the phone.
Re: Readings of the perfect
zaneth wrote:Ooppss! I was writing that post whilst teaching an English by telephone class . Not concentrating. Thanks.metal56 wrote: He's busy at the moment so he's not getting the phone. quote]
How is this a use of the perfect?
He's been busy recently so he's not getting the phone.
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Present perfect looks back on the past-it is retrospective. What you talk about above is the resultative use of the perfect.
What about:
Have you been to London since last January?
When I ask that present perfect question, I want to know what has happened between January and the now-of-asking. Sure I can say that if the answer was "Yes", I could say that the present result is he has the experience, at the present moment, of being in London, but that may not be my reason for asking.
Let me see if I got your train of thought. when one is asked Have you been to London since last January? one could infer that I want to know how long and how many times the other's been to London, right?
A: Have you been to London since last January?
B: Yes, twice but only on work.
If I am to look at the result I would ask...
A: Have you ever been to London?
B: Yes, and I intend to get back before long.
Are my hunches correct?
José
You aren't necessarily asking how many times and how long the person has been to London. Probably not, in fact. The more likely question for that would be "How much time have you spent in London since last January?"
Maybe something happened last January and the questioner wants to know if you've seen the results. Someone might ask me "Have you been back to America since 9-11?" They aren't really interested in knowing how long and when. They just want to know if I've experienced post-9-11 America. Normally, once they've established that they'll ask for further information if they're interested. But there are a lot of different possibilities for that further question. The initial question can lead to a lot of different things.
Yes.
Oh, yeah? Is it as strange as people say it is?
No.
Well, you're better off. Stay here in Russia where it's safe.
No.
Well, I went but I wish I hadn't. It was totally weird. Not the America I grew up in.
No.
Are you planning to go sometime soon?
No.
Have you been staying away on purpose or have you just not had the time?
And of course:
Yes.
Oh yeah? How much time did you spend there?
Maybe something happened last January and the questioner wants to know if you've seen the results. Someone might ask me "Have you been back to America since 9-11?" They aren't really interested in knowing how long and when. They just want to know if I've experienced post-9-11 America. Normally, once they've established that they'll ask for further information if they're interested. But there are a lot of different possibilities for that further question. The initial question can lead to a lot of different things.
Yes.
Oh, yeah? Is it as strange as people say it is?
No.
Well, you're better off. Stay here in Russia where it's safe.
No.
Well, I went but I wish I hadn't. It was totally weird. Not the America I grew up in.
No.
Are you planning to go sometime soon?
No.
Have you been staying away on purpose or have you just not had the time?
And of course:
Yes.
Oh yeah? How much time did you spend there?
In general, yes, but the latter resultative option could also be asked as:Let me see if I got your train of thought. when one is asked Have you been to London since last January? one could infer that I want to know how long and how many times the other's been to London, right?
A: Have you been to London since last January?
B: Yes, twice but only on work.
If I am to look at the result I would ask...
A: Have you ever been to London?
B: Yes, and I intend to get back before long.
Are my hunches correct?
Have you been to London.
if one sees a number of full, Harrod's, shopping bags lying on the sofa.
That sentence seems to be a very fine example of one that would be written in a grammar book or ESL teaching book. It may even be used in a spoken exchange, but not often. Spoken grammar is somewhat different to the written form and use shortcuts, implication and inference ibased on context, etc.zaneth wrote:
You aren't necessarily asking how many times and how long the person has been to London. Probably not, in fact. The more likely question for that would be "How much time have you spent in London since last January?"
Maybe something happened last January and the questioner wants to know if you've seen the results. Someone might ask me "Have you been back to America since 9-11?" They aren't really interested in knowing how long and when. They just want to know if I've experienced post-9-11 America.
Exactly. As I said, there are both resultative (universal, extended to now) readings and there are existential (then, at least one time before) reading of the same sentence. A lot will depend on the adverbials that are included or, by implication, excluded. The main interpretation will depend on context.
Yes, it's hard to come up with a natural example from a given one lacking context. We tend to change some particular point but really, in a natural setting there's always a context that determines the wording. It seemed easier to me to switch to a different example with more personal relevance. Even still, I'm not totally satisfied with the naturalness.
Respectfully seconded, again. Even there is no total satisfaction, it is more natural if discussing with the context.zaneth wrote:Yes, it's hard to come up with a natural example from a given one lacking context. We tend to change some particular point but really, in a natural setting there's always a context that determines the wording. It seemed easier to me to switch to a different example with more personal relevance. Even still, I'm not totally satisfied with the naturalness.
Shun
Like many of you, I am now running between different forums, at the same time. You guess correct, I am talking about English tense there. 
I don't want to miss any chance of discussing about tenses, no matter how busy I now am.
(1) They won the match.
(1b) They have won the match.
It was a very wise step to avoid the discussion. Perhaps achieving the avoidance was exactly what we wanted. Those academic papers from learners arguing we don't know about Present Perfect are because of this pair of examples, obviously.
Metal56 jumped to an totally unconcerned style of structure: a question that contains SINCE. We know what SINCE can do, and it even instantly quieted down further discussion over the deceiving definition, as Metal56 seemed to have produced evidence to prove it is not so deceiving. Now that nobody will claim we can use Simple Past to say the same with SINCE, the deceiving definition can save its skin.
But what we weren't aware is, as Met56 has linked to <Perfect + SINCE>, a sentence containing both Present Perfect and a time Frame, we are linking it to Simple Present. Actually, even Simple Present can be sometimes fit for the deceiving definition "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown":
(2) He stayed in Hong Kong (sometimes).
(2b) He has stayed in Hong Kong (sometimes).
(2c) He stays in Hong Kong (sometimes).
== All three can be fit for the deceiving definition.
In 2c, Simple Present does mean his staying did occur in the past. Likewise, if you are a teacher, the teaching does occur in the past sometimes, though not finished now. If you eat frog, your habit of eating does occur in the past, though the habit is not finished now. Therefore, I guess Metamorfose should have enclosed the idea of now-finished in the definition, so as to restrict the discussion only to Simple Past and Present Perfect.
As you all must now understand, as far as people admit there is a problem in seeing the different use between Simple Past and Present Perfect, I have noticed there is another problem between Simple Present and Present Perfect (2c and 2b above). As long as people are checking the 'meaning', rather than the time, of Present Perfect, there are the confusions. The reason is really very simple: every case of happening or meaning must have its past, present, and future. Different tenses are just used to tell different kinds of time of the happening or meaning. There is no exceptional meaning or happening that is without time. Therefore, it is arbitrary for us to say Present Perfect expresses a meaning, such as a result, experience, current relevance, etc. We literally can use Present Perfect to express anything. More accurately, we can use any tense to say any meaning or happening. Different tenses tell different time.
Furthermore, I repeated, and have repeated, and am repeating, and will repeat this in the future: Simply a statement "No, thanks. I have taken dinner" doesn't mean I don't take dinner anymore. Rather, Present Perfect is used to contrast with the time of your present request to go restaurant together. Therefore, to define just I have taken dinner is of no avail. Tenses are thus further, most chiefly, used to tell the time relations between happenings. Simple Past is used to connect to another Simple Past, but Present Perfect isn't to another Present Perfect. Present Perfect actions describe finishes outside the time frame of Simple Past actions. Concrete examples are in the thread of "Highly Selected Examples".
Shun Tang
I don't want to miss any chance of discussing about tenses, no matter how busy I now am.
However, we didn't stay on the inseparable pair:Metamorfose was hitting the deceiving point and wrote: Some people here describe the Present Perfect as "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown." that's deceiving for in (1) one can perfectly use the Past simple and yet not mention when it occurred.
(1) They won the match.
(1) They won the match.
(1b) They have won the match.
It was a very wise step to avoid the discussion. Perhaps achieving the avoidance was exactly what we wanted. Those academic papers from learners arguing we don't know about Present Perfect are because of this pair of examples, obviously.
Metal56 jumped to an totally unconcerned style of structure: a question that contains SINCE. We know what SINCE can do, and it even instantly quieted down further discussion over the deceiving definition, as Metal56 seemed to have produced evidence to prove it is not so deceiving. Now that nobody will claim we can use Simple Past to say the same with SINCE, the deceiving definition can save its skin.
But what we weren't aware is, as Met56 has linked to <Perfect + SINCE>, a sentence containing both Present Perfect and a time Frame, we are linking it to Simple Present. Actually, even Simple Present can be sometimes fit for the deceiving definition "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown":
(2) He stayed in Hong Kong (sometimes).
(2b) He has stayed in Hong Kong (sometimes).
(2c) He stays in Hong Kong (sometimes).
== All three can be fit for the deceiving definition.
In 2c, Simple Present does mean his staying did occur in the past. Likewise, if you are a teacher, the teaching does occur in the past sometimes, though not finished now. If you eat frog, your habit of eating does occur in the past, though the habit is not finished now. Therefore, I guess Metamorfose should have enclosed the idea of now-finished in the definition, so as to restrict the discussion only to Simple Past and Present Perfect.
As you all must now understand, as far as people admit there is a problem in seeing the different use between Simple Past and Present Perfect, I have noticed there is another problem between Simple Present and Present Perfect (2c and 2b above). As long as people are checking the 'meaning', rather than the time, of Present Perfect, there are the confusions. The reason is really very simple: every case of happening or meaning must have its past, present, and future. Different tenses are just used to tell different kinds of time of the happening or meaning. There is no exceptional meaning or happening that is without time. Therefore, it is arbitrary for us to say Present Perfect expresses a meaning, such as a result, experience, current relevance, etc. We literally can use Present Perfect to express anything. More accurately, we can use any tense to say any meaning or happening. Different tenses tell different time.
Furthermore, I repeated, and have repeated, and am repeating, and will repeat this in the future: Simply a statement "No, thanks. I have taken dinner" doesn't mean I don't take dinner anymore. Rather, Present Perfect is used to contrast with the time of your present request to go restaurant together. Therefore, to define just I have taken dinner is of no avail. Tenses are thus further, most chiefly, used to tell the time relations between happenings. Simple Past is used to connect to another Simple Past, but Present Perfect isn't to another Present Perfect. Present Perfect actions describe finishes outside the time frame of Simple Past actions. Concrete examples are in the thread of "Highly Selected Examples".
Shun Tang
Metamorfose was hitting the deceiving point and wrote: Some people here describe the Present Perfect as "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown." that's deceiving for in (1) one can perfectly use the Past simple and yet not mention
when it occurred.
(1) They won the match.
I'm not sure I see the problem, simple tenses are not about time at all they express single, simple entities, unities, and totalities.However, we didn't stay on the inseparable pair:
(1) They won the match.
(1b) They have won the match.
So does the other tense. That is the problem.metal56 wrote:Metamorfose was hitting the deceiving point and wrote: Some people here describe the Present Perfect as "an action that occurred in the past, but the time that it happened is not relevant or shown." that's deceiving for in (1) one can perfectly use the Past simple and yet not mention
when it occurred.
(1) They won the match.I'm not sure I see the problem, simple tenses are not about time at all they express single, simple entities, unities, and totalities.However, we didn't stay on the inseparable pair:
(1) They won the match.
(1b) They have won the match.
Shun