Give me any newspaper of today and I will find lots of Simple-Present examples such as these:
Ex1: Recent polls show Bush's standing with the public has weakened as Americans.....
Ex2: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.
Ex3: Sony claims a power outage in Santa Monica right before launch slowed publishing.
Ex4: The 30 new candidates come from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.
Ex5: Seventy percent of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex6: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country holds the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......
== In a newsstand on the web, these examples were found, in one morning some months ago, for illustration during a discussion. They convey the practical use of the tense.
But grammarians have noticed there is a trouble: they can't collect them in their grammar books. As these very common examples should be no longer said in Simple Present some days, weeks, or years later, they may be in a wrong tense by the time the book is published. By then, 'today' will be a past, and the examples shall not be in Simple Present. The teacher in class will have a difficulty to explain the wrong tense printed in the grammar book. Therefore, grammar writers want to keep these examples off their books.
As a result, they forcefully help teachers to explain Simple Present by not reporting them whatsoever. Instead, they carefully select examples that may be very probably still valid in using Simple Present -- as long as the book exists:
Exa: Birds sing.
Exb: The earth revolves around the sun.
Exc: Babies cry a lot.
Exd: Wood floats in water.
Exe: I love you.
Exf: Tommy goes to school every day.
Is this kind of examples familiar to you? Yes, they are in every grammar book for young students. Now with these carefully selected examples, they may even claim Simple Present is to tell Habit or Permanency, which can no way corroborate those news examples above. Unfortunately, it is incredible but true: grammar books avoid the most commonly seen examples, to explain Simple Present tense. Worst of all, while the common examples are not there, they hit a wrong conclusion that depends on the disappearance of the common examples. Every grammar book today is evidence.
Now what shall you think? What is the use of Simple Present? How to describe the general use of Simple Present?
Your opinion is welcome.
Xui
Highly selected selfish examples
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Shun, if memory serves me correctly, this topic was discussed at quite some length several months ago. Actually, I am sure you kicked off that past thread in almost exactly the same way.
Why are you repeating yourself? Do you really imagine that you are going to convince the people who disagreed with you last time that you have anything new or of real, vital interest to say? And do you imagine that you will somehow convince newer members when your English and argument has not improved one iota in the interim?
Why are you repeating yourself? Do you really imagine that you are going to convince the people who disagreed with you last time that you have anything new or of real, vital interest to say? And do you imagine that you will somehow convince newer members when your English and argument has not improved one iota in the interim?
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Anyway, Shun, I will just say this (and hopefully improve upon what I said last time):
The "journalism" examples are "true" (or claim to be so) at the time they are written, and that is all.
Some of the "textbook" examples (involving people such as "I", or "Tommy", whoever he is) are also probably going to only be true for a necessarily limited period from the time they are written or spoken, but most of them (about wood, babies, birds etc) will always be true (and quite obviously so).
The journalism examples will persist in the form they took at the time of their printing - that is the nature of the medium. Nobody expects archives to be "updated" in terms of the tenses employed. They will simply serve as a historical resource to which people will refer, and upon which they will bring their real-world knowledge to bear (itself informed by more recent articles etc). In continuing to talk about the events, we can, of course, use different forms to show that time has elapsed, or that things have changed. Perhaps one day somebody will write a more up-to-date history, but there really is no need to change the sources (in fact, their main value is precisely that they DO NOT change).
Meanwhile, the majority of the textbook examples will always be true, and can be uttered again and again and again using the form as printed.
Where's the big mystery or conspiracy here? I doubt if there are many grammars or textbooks nowadays that deal only in the "Birds sing" type of sentences. Are you even aware of the COBUILD Grammar? I believe that John Sinclair criticizes that very (kind of) sentence in his introduction. Most rather address the "I love you" and "Tommy goes to school by bus" type, and also get increasingly into newspaper articles too. I doubt if students cannot see the difference between obvious and perpetual truths, useful spoken sentences relating to personal everyday life around about "now", and a text that is more or less (going to become) a historical document, a "snapshot" in time.
Once again, Shun, you really do not seem to have a point, and you consequently risk losing people from the start. They will think, "What the **** is this guy on?!". Really.
"But grammarians have noticed there is a trouble: they can't collect them in their grammar books." Actually, Shun, they do, in increasing numbers.
"As these very common examples should be no longer said in Simple Present some days, weeks, or years later, they may be in a wrong tense by the time the book is published. By then, 'today' will be a past, and the examples shall not be in Simple Present. " Sorry, Shun, but these examples SHOULD REMAIN in Simple Present even decades, centuries, millenia later. They are "snapshots" in time, and their perpetual form reflects the writer's intention. See my above comments.
"The teacher in class will have a difficulty to explain the wrong tense printed in the grammar book. Therefore, grammar writers want to keep these examples off their books." Only if students are as obstinately stupid and mental as you are, Shun.
Honestly, you think you are so clever, but you have written absolute b*llsh*t. Anyone disagree? A simple "No" should suffice.
The "journalism" examples are "true" (or claim to be so) at the time they are written, and that is all.
Some of the "textbook" examples (involving people such as "I", or "Tommy", whoever he is) are also probably going to only be true for a necessarily limited period from the time they are written or spoken, but most of them (about wood, babies, birds etc) will always be true (and quite obviously so).
The journalism examples will persist in the form they took at the time of their printing - that is the nature of the medium. Nobody expects archives to be "updated" in terms of the tenses employed. They will simply serve as a historical resource to which people will refer, and upon which they will bring their real-world knowledge to bear (itself informed by more recent articles etc). In continuing to talk about the events, we can, of course, use different forms to show that time has elapsed, or that things have changed. Perhaps one day somebody will write a more up-to-date history, but there really is no need to change the sources (in fact, their main value is precisely that they DO NOT change).
Meanwhile, the majority of the textbook examples will always be true, and can be uttered again and again and again using the form as printed.
Where's the big mystery or conspiracy here? I doubt if there are many grammars or textbooks nowadays that deal only in the "Birds sing" type of sentences. Are you even aware of the COBUILD Grammar? I believe that John Sinclair criticizes that very (kind of) sentence in his introduction. Most rather address the "I love you" and "Tommy goes to school by bus" type, and also get increasingly into newspaper articles too. I doubt if students cannot see the difference between obvious and perpetual truths, useful spoken sentences relating to personal everyday life around about "now", and a text that is more or less (going to become) a historical document, a "snapshot" in time.
Once again, Shun, you really do not seem to have a point, and you consequently risk losing people from the start. They will think, "What the **** is this guy on?!". Really.
"But grammarians have noticed there is a trouble: they can't collect them in their grammar books." Actually, Shun, they do, in increasing numbers.
"As these very common examples should be no longer said in Simple Present some days, weeks, or years later, they may be in a wrong tense by the time the book is published. By then, 'today' will be a past, and the examples shall not be in Simple Present. " Sorry, Shun, but these examples SHOULD REMAIN in Simple Present even decades, centuries, millenia later. They are "snapshots" in time, and their perpetual form reflects the writer's intention. See my above comments.
"The teacher in class will have a difficulty to explain the wrong tense printed in the grammar book. Therefore, grammar writers want to keep these examples off their books." Only if students are as obstinately stupid and mental as you are, Shun.
Honestly, you think you are so clever, but you have written absolute b*llsh*t. Anyone disagree? A simple "No" should suffice.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Oh, I did notice at least one difference between this and the similar thread Shun began months ago (on Page 3 of the thread listings, if you wish to consult it): this one has "selfish" in the title (?!).
Yup, all those nasty grammarians have only ever had one agenda: to confuse poor old Shun. Well, Shun, seeing as you've told us that joke about the nosey old lady standing on a chair to peek at a naked man, how's about this: the old lady is you, the naked man the grammar books, and we, the majority on Dave's, the long-suffering police that you keep calling out.
You do have a choice if the naked man is causing you sleepless nights, Shun. You can draw your curtains, close your eyes and forget about him. Or maybe go out and get a girl and get laid or do something else enjoyable. But you seem to prefer to stand there at the window j*cking off. That is, what you have to say is all a bit m*sturbatory to me. Almost masochistical too. You never seem to have approached the grammars believing that they were designed to help you. If they really are so confusing, try a different approach to learning - a lexical one, for example: "Highly SELECTIVE examples" would be much more appropriate (without any need for the 'silly' "selfish". Who is being selfish or self-centered here really?!).
I am sure that you ultimately have a "good" mind, Shun, but I feel that your chosen "speciality" really is doing you no good.
Yup, all those nasty grammarians have only ever had one agenda: to confuse poor old Shun. Well, Shun, seeing as you've told us that joke about the nosey old lady standing on a chair to peek at a naked man, how's about this: the old lady is you, the naked man the grammar books, and we, the majority on Dave's, the long-suffering police that you keep calling out.
You do have a choice if the naked man is causing you sleepless nights, Shun. You can draw your curtains, close your eyes and forget about him. Or maybe go out and get a girl and get laid or do something else enjoyable. But you seem to prefer to stand there at the window j*cking off. That is, what you have to say is all a bit m*sturbatory to me. Almost masochistical too. You never seem to have approached the grammars believing that they were designed to help you. If they really are so confusing, try a different approach to learning - a lexical one, for example: "Highly SELECTIVE examples" would be much more appropriate (without any need for the 'silly' "selfish". Who is being selfish or self-centered here really?!).
I am sure that you ultimately have a "good" mind, Shun, but I feel that your chosen "speciality" really is doing you no good.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Duncan, I advice you to write more with your elegant style of personal harassment. Though I said I didn't read it, I actually enjoyed reading them very much, as much as your decent friends did. We all enjoyed every word of it. Moreover, this will help you to discuss with other persons, as they will think twice before they go against you in the future.
Xui
Xui
Time of day
Hey everyone!
I've been giving some thought to Shun's comment that maybe I should have used the word "confusing" instead of "confused", and though either could have been used in the sentence I wrote, I am now quite sure I meant "confused" and not "confusing". I did not mean to say that his writing confuses me through being confusing, but rather, that his arguements are not presented in a clear way, which makes them confused. That may well lead to confusing the reader, but again, I don't feel confused by his confused writing at all, reading other's comments, I might even go so far as to say that the rest of us are not confused by confusing writing in his posts. What do you all think?
I will say the same thing I say to my younger students when they stop a class to correct my Spanish: When you get your English up to the same level as my Spanish, then you can be correcting me. Until then, concentrate on your English, I am already concentrating on my Spanish. Each of us has his/her own responsibilities. I've been writing in English (should I say "well") for over 20 years and do find it a bit silly that one who writes as Shun does would offer up corrections of my writing! Just another aspect of his/her multifaceted personality, I guess.
As a post-it, not that it matters too much to me, I am a "he", not a "she".
peace,
revel.
I've been giving some thought to Shun's comment that maybe I should have used the word "confusing" instead of "confused", and though either could have been used in the sentence I wrote, I am now quite sure I meant "confused" and not "confusing". I did not mean to say that his writing confuses me through being confusing, but rather, that his arguements are not presented in a clear way, which makes them confused. That may well lead to confusing the reader, but again, I don't feel confused by his confused writing at all, reading other's comments, I might even go so far as to say that the rest of us are not confused by confusing writing in his posts. What do you all think?
I will say the same thing I say to my younger students when they stop a class to correct my Spanish: When you get your English up to the same level as my Spanish, then you can be correcting me. Until then, concentrate on your English, I am already concentrating on my Spanish. Each of us has his/her own responsibilities. I've been writing in English (should I say "well") for over 20 years and do find it a bit silly that one who writes as Shun does would offer up corrections of my writing! Just another aspect of his/her multifaceted personality, I guess.
As a post-it, not that it matters too much to me, I am a "he", not a "she".
peace,
revel.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Dear Shun
I first read this on your somewhat stunted site. You are on to something, in that it is possible that the choice of examples to explain the Present Simple in Grammar books may be unduly influenced by the desire to make the example self-evident..
One thing you are blissfully unaware of however, is that Newspaper headlines have their own grammar conventions.
One of them is that the Simple Past, since it is the distant form, is not normally used in Newspaper headlines, since they are wish to attract not disntance the reader.
So in examples 1 & 3 you will find the past simple used in the text that follows the headline.
Also you have to remember that the Present Simple is the unmareked form. So in example six to say that Italy is holding the EU Presidency, might be construed as showing an unseemly haste for somebody else to take over.
I first read this on your somewhat stunted site. You are on to something, in that it is possible that the choice of examples to explain the Present Simple in Grammar books may be unduly influenced by the desire to make the example self-evident..
One thing you are blissfully unaware of however, is that Newspaper headlines have their own grammar conventions.
One of them is that the Simple Past, since it is the distant form, is not normally used in Newspaper headlines, since they are wish to attract not disntance the reader.
So in examples 1 & 3 you will find the past simple used in the text that follows the headline.
Also you have to remember that the Present Simple is the unmareked form. So in example six to say that Italy is holding the EU Presidency, might be construed as showing an unseemly haste for somebody else to take over.
You put it very nicely. But the site allows me to talk about my questions, which were banned by a few websites, so I prepared my own one for continuation. I don't use it unless it is necessary. Our present website here is singular. It allows filthy languages, and banned subjects.Stephen Jones wrote:Dear Shun
I first read this on your somewhat stunted site.
==============
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Hi guys, I was away for a few days enjoying myself. Glad to see not many have responded to this thread (it is a "repeat" after all!). I for one am going to heed lolwhite's advice now, I think (so lol's advice hasn't fallen on totally deaf ears - unlike with Shun). Thanks, lol!
I notice Shun has started another "new" thread ("The Beginning of the Confusion", ironic wording, don't you think?!
) that repeats what he has written elsewhere (perhaps it was culled from his site?). He obviously wasn't out chasing the ugly blind babes then.
I was thinking of mentioning the conventions of newspaper headlines, Stephen, and directing Shun to e.g. the relevant section in Swan's PEU, but I thought it would only encourage him.
I'm trying to follow what you've written, revel, but I might well give up on it, if you don't mind. Have you been taking "English" lessons from a certain somebody?!
I notice Shun has started another "new" thread ("The Beginning of the Confusion", ironic wording, don't you think?!
) that repeats what he has written elsewhere (perhaps it was culled from his site?). He obviously wasn't out chasing the ugly blind babes then.I was thinking of mentioning the conventions of newspaper headlines, Stephen, and directing Shun to e.g. the relevant section in Swan's PEU, but I thought it would only encourage him.
I'm trying to follow what you've written, revel, but I might well give up on it, if you don't mind. Have you been taking "English" lessons from a certain somebody?!
As I understand some esteemed gentlemen here know Chinese, I want to mention an interesting case known to everyone, especially to these friends, with sincerity. In Chinese expression, very interesting, ENERGY is as same as ANGER. When we were young, we didn't think two things are possibly ever related. If a teacher told us to do homework, we had to do it. We had energy to do it, without any anger.
As we grew up, we found these two things can be related. A survived prisoner who in WWII worked as a forced labor to Japanese who treated them like animals, confesses in a documentary: "Little food and heavy work, the hardship was unbearable. Only one thing kept me alive: Hatred."
Now it seems evident to me that hatred or anger may also gives one energy to stay on.
As we grew up, we found these two things can be related. A survived prisoner who in WWII worked as a forced labor to Japanese who treated them like animals, confesses in a documentary: "Little food and heavy work, the hardship was unbearable. Only one thing kept me alive: Hatred."
Now it seems evident to me that hatred or anger may also gives one energy to stay on.