Teacher Discussion Forums

It's a question that may make me look extremely stupid if the answer is staring me in the face.

I was idly wondering two things. One was why modals are called modals and the other why perfects are called perfects. There is apparently a branch of philosophy called modality which studies possibility, necessity and so on, so I suppose that's the answer to one question. So......

What's so perfect about perfects? Or imperfect about imperfects? OK: an action that has happened before a point in time is perfect but why that word?

"It's rained. That's perfect!" I don't think so.

To perFECT something (stress on the second syllable) can mean to complete or finish something, so I guess that's the connection.

Mmm, I've sometimes wondered about the name "present perfect" when struggling to get the idea across. It often doesn't seem to have much to do with the present nor to be perfect either. A better term would be helpful!

Modal verbs change the mode and mood of verbs, so the term may be related to these words. I think 'mood' might be a derivation of 'mode'. Sentences containing a modal verb are said to be in the conditional mood, which expresses possibility.

Perfect is a latin term that which means something like 'do' or 'make'. I think that the use of this antiquated latin term reflects the sad state of English grammar. Grammar is hard enough for students, when the terms have some meaning. I know that other subjects are also loaded with greek and latin terms, but there is usually some rationale for them.

Another term that bothers me is 'adverb' for the modifier of an adjective. It is a very misleading term.

On the other hand there has been a good number of posts here complaining that the "past tense" mentions the past. At least a fairly meaningless term like "perfect" avoids that sort of thing.

woodcutter wrote:On the other hand there has been a good number of posts here complaining that the "past tense" mentions the past. At least a fairly meaningless term like "perfect" avoids that sort of thing.

I don't think people have a problem when it is indeed the past which is being talked about (which it is in the large majority of cases).

Metal said something about Present Perfect on your old 'Huddleston speaks!' thread:

Huddleston has defined present perfect as the ‘inclusive past’, as opposed to past tense as the ‘exclusive past’ (1984). Thus we can think of past tense as having some fixed point in a time previous to now and ‘excluding’ the present, and the present perfect as expressing a relationship between some past time and now, therefore ‘including’ the present time.

However, it is very important to note that the choice of past simple or present perfect often resides with the speaker, rather than any temporal location of an event or situation. For example if asked, “Have you ever been abroad?” it would be perfectly acceptable to reply, “Yes, I went to Mexico last year.” or, “Yes, I’ve been to Mexico.” The selection relies on the speaker’s perception of the situation, and whether they think it necessary to give a definite time or an indefinite time.

Note that 'Yes, I've been to Mexico' would be odd in reply to 'Have you ever been to Mexico?', and even 'Yes, I went to Mexico last year' would need some work (changes, or better yet, simply ellipsis).

Present perfect should probably be treated more as a general "unspecific discourse/topic opener" or something, than as a form "as if not important than Simple past tense". We don't spend nearly half as much time on or worrying about the other compounds, so why should those with perfect aspect be treated so "royally"; but if genuine "understanding" can be somehow be induced in students (as opposed to confusion), then obviously time spent on the one form can reinforce the learning elsewhere of related forms.

The trouble with picking holes in the usual explanations is that, as we saw in all those discussions, simple alternative explanations are unlikely to work any better - the situation is always complex, and requires elaboration in any case. Do we always use a perfect tense to open a topic? No. Do we sometimes use a perfect tense when we want to be specific? Yes.

Oh, I'm sure that if I went painstakingly through hundreds of examples, I would sooner or later find some that didn't fit in with the proposal I've suggested. That still leaves us with many instances where simple past would equally do (see for example that 'have suggested' just there), which is why students get nosebleeds when CELTA trainees or recent CELTA grads do the standard "two contexts" routine. Just look at Shuntang (and don't think that a lot of students wouldn't mind throttling their teachers at times like this). But if the choice really isn't as important communicatively as we'd perhaps like to imply, then why not find usages where the form really does seem to be equally valued, useful and necessary (in all or most varieties of English), and leave the "competing" form(s) to be passed over briefly as and when they are actually encountered singly (which is what students will need to do once they leave the classroom anyway).