The Routine On Yesterday

[Richard]

Xui once again demonstrates his lack of thought and research before responding to others' comments. The phrase 'his English is confused' is perfectly valid. Here's one of the definitions of the adjective confused from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

"being disordered or mixed up [Example: a contradictory and often confused story]"

So we can easily say that Xiu's English is quite often disordered and mixed up -- by saying that is writing is 'confused'. The adjectives confused and confusing do not have the same meaning.

[Xui]

A Deeper Sense of Tense

I have resurrected the function of the sentence. The role of a sentence in relation to its tense has never been mentioned by the conventional grammar. In the following example, are we talking about the tense, or the verb, or the sentence?
Ex: They go to school together every day.
The tense is unmarked: there is nothing here.
The English Verb is GO. Do we know the meaning of the sentence just by seeing the verb? I really don't think so. It just can't be done.
The sentence is exactly word for word "They go to school together every day". (It is usually called a clause. I call it one when it has sub-clause.) However, if we should ever talk about the unmarked tense here, we are actually just defining the meaning of the sentence. How can we possibly mention anything about the unmarked tense? How can one prove the tense here is useless or useful? We can't even see it at all!!

If there is a meaning of Habit here, it is solely the expression of the sentence, not that of the tense. This role of the sentence relieves a lot of burden loaded on a tense, whose function has been twisted and distorted at will according to the meaning of the sentence. When the sentence expresses a habit, people claim Simple Present expresses Habit. Unfortunately, this kind of distortion has been accepted by many teachers. If they have told it to students, they have to now defend and keep the distortion. Actually, Simple Present at best denotes a present Habit. If a grammar doesn't want to spread falsity, it has to remind us also that we use Simple Past to relate a past Habit. As the time is shifting, every tense can express Habit; different tenses express different time of Habit. If we know about this, we understand that, actually, Habit has nothing to do with any one tense.

Then the question is, what is the use of tense? How do we ever talk about its use? I have finally found out that tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences. Even to explain one tense fully, therefore, one has to use at least two sentences. My many questions here are pointing to the same idea: if we don't use two sentences to explain a tense, there will be unsolvable questions. For example, since we forever have a Yesterday on which we eat dinner, how can you prove "Yesterday we ate dinner" is a past?

Xui

[fluffyhamster]

Why should anyone (teacher or student) who is "appreciating" the "meaning" (e.g. the "habitual" aspect) of a sentence (i.e. a verb in a sentence) expressed in Simple Present have to explicitly address how that "habit" extends into the past (or, for that matter, the future), Shun?

The form as it stands can be assumed and taken to extend meaning-wise into the past (and the future too) if it is necessary to think this deeply about its meaning; in fact, I feel that it would do more harm than good to ponder its extending into the past. It is not ultimately that meaningful to argue that it actually concerns the past also.

We therefore end up with a set of contrasting sentences that includes:

They go to school B.
Did they go to school (B) yesterday? Yes, they did/Yes, they went...
They used to go to school A, but now they go to school B.

If we actually want to clearly talk about "habits" that are actually past, we would use a sentence such as the third one above. Nobody as far as I am aware has ever explicitly suggested that the notion of "Habits" be confined to just Simple Present, despite what the grammar books might overlook or imply.

You generally don't seem prepared to accept that the first (FINITE!) verb in the verb phrase conveys quite a lot of information, Shun.

I'd like to point out that each of the above sentences, alone and by itself, conveys a meaning, despite what you would have us believe ("I have finally found out that tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences. Even to explain one tense fully, therefore, one has to use at least two sentences."). Anybody disagree? Anyone confused?

Put simply, unless and until your "past meaning of the Simple Present" (please excuse the paraphrase) finds "meaningful" expression (which it never will, because it isn't required, at least not by anyone other than you, you philosopher!) in a distinct form that everyone can accept, it will have no psychological validity and certainly be of no practical import or interest to any user of English.

Do you have a copy of Leech's Meaning and the English Verb, Shun? You might find what he says on page4 (of the Third Edition) interesting:

When thinking about 'present time' we can think of a period including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future. In this sense, 'present time' is potentially all-inclusive. On the other hand, 'past time' is limited by the fact that it cannot extend up to the present moment. Similarly, 'future time' is limited by the fact that it cannot extend as far back as the present moment:

<<<Past time>>>......N.....<<<Future time>>>
.............<<<Present..N..Time>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>N>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

However, in English the major formal distinctions of Present and Past Tenses can be associated with two major TIME ZONES, 'past' and 'non-past'. This helps to explain why English, which does not have a Future Tense as such, uses Present Tense (or PT auxiliaries such as will and be going to) to express future time.

<<Past time zone>>.....N.....
................<<Non-past..N..time zone>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>N>>>>>>>>>>>>

(N="now", the "present moment of time"; >>>>>>=The "timeline". The dots ... aren't meant to represent anything other than white space, I had to include them otherwise things wouldn't align properly here on Dave's).

[Xui]

Hello Duncan Powrie,

I don't know why, but we like to use old friend's old name.
What if I suggest we both use our new names?

We therefore end up with a set of contrasting sentences that includes:

They go to school B.
Did they go to school (B) yesterday? Yes, they did/Yes, they went...
They used to go to school A, but now they go to school B.

I'd like to point out that each of the above sentences, alone and by itself, conveys a meaning, despite what you would have us believe ("I have finally found out that tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences. Even to explain one tense fully, therefore, one has to use at least two sentences."). Anybody disagree? Anyone confused?
================

My words (in blue) specifically talk about tense. But you talk about the sentence. They are different. You still cannot see between the two things, unfortunately. I didn't say a sentence expresses no meaning, did I?
=======================

Do you have a copy of Leech's Meaning and the English Verb, Shun? You might find what he says on page4 of the Third Edition interesting:

When thinking about 'present time' we can think of a period including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future. In this sense, 'present time' is potentially all-inclusive. On the other hand, 'past time' is limited by the fact that it cannot extend up to the present moment. Similarly, 'future time' is limited by the fact that it cannot extend as far back as the present moment:

<<<Past time>>>......N.....<<<Future time>>>
.............<<<Present..N..Time>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>N>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

However, in English the major formal distinctions of Present and Past Tenses can be associated with two major TIME ZONES, 'past' and 'non-past'.

If you believe in what has said in Leech's Meaning and the English Verb about the three kinds of time, why at last you agree that there are only two items, just like mine?

Can't you see the inevitable? If I personally quote what Meaning and the English Verb has said, you'll also disagree with me and say, "No way, it is nonsense, we have only two major TIME ZONES, 'past' and 'non-past'". Am I correct?

I thought you would say we have only two major TWILIGHT ZONES, nearness and remoteness!

Xui

[Xui]

When thinking about 'present time' we can think of a period including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future.
================

Wrong! When we say it is the present time, it doesn't include the past. Whereas, a present action includes the past. Leech has confused the past time with the past action. They are different.

Actually, many persons have got the same confusion as Leech's.

Xui

[fluffyhamster]

Xui, I appreciate that tenses are not sentences.

Anyway, argue as you might that you were talking about tenses, you certainly said that "to explain one tense fully, one has to use at least two sentences", so you did mention sentences in the same breath. Most competent users of English can understand (or at least recognize) tense on a single-sentence (verb) basis.

What is puzzling to me, Xui, is that the two-sentence examples that you have produced both use the same tense ("I ate dinner yesterday. I almost choked."), and do not seem to offer any more explanatory power regarding their temporal relationship to "now" than the single sentence alone does.

I wasn't aware that you had anywhere on Dave's said, and certainly not anywhere in your above few posts said, what Leech has (or if you have, it certainly isn't as clear as the way he has expressed it). Seriously, what was your point again (which you seem to have found also expressed in Leech's words), exactly? (Remember that "non-past" subsumes "now" and "after now aka 'the future' ", to allude to lolwhite's exercise on the "DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?" thread).

[fluffyhamster]

When thinking about 'present time' we can think of a period including the present time and extending indefinitely into the past and into the future.
================

Wrong! When we say it is the present time, it doesn't include the past. Whereas, a present action includes the past.

Actually, many persons have got the same confusion as Leech's.

Xui

And there you were just minutes ago seeming to love Leech!

Might I suggest you buy his book (if you haven't already) and read it all (I'd be surprised if you say you have) before you pounce on so little?

Besides, when Leech says "present time" there he himself IS including something of - perhaps only a little, or maybe a lot of - the past. Does it matter at this stage in reading him what "we" think? He is just trying to establish a practical framework and terminology, for gawd's sake (it is, after all, only page 4)!

I really didn't understand your "Leech has confused the past time with the past action. They are different.".

[Xui]

Anyway, argue as you might that you were talking about tenses, you certainly said that "to explain one tense fully, one has to use at least two sentences", so you did mention sentences in the same breath. Most competent users of English can understand (or at least recognize) tense on a single-sentence (verb) basis.

I agree. But the same amount of competent users cannot explain Present Perfect tense. If you had visited my website, you would have noticed I invited only competent learners (professors, Phds) to exchange ideas. Actually, my discussion started some decades ago. I posted air-mails to some universities overseas, and they sent me a copy of Tregidgo's "How far have we got with the present perfect?"

What I want to prove is, many competent users were being troubled by the examples on one-sentence basis. And today I still don't think there are improvements.

I wasn't aware that you had anywhere on Dave's said, and certainly not anywhere in your above few posts said, what Leech has (or if you have, it certainly isn't as clear as the way he has expressed it).What is puzzling to me, Xui, is that the two-sentence examples that you have produced both use the same tense ("I ate dinner yesterday. I almost choked."), and do not seem to offer any more explanatory power regarding their temporal relationship to "now" than the single sentence alone does.

I really don't think so. As I have explained in "Is YESTERDAY a past time?", next weekend you still can say "Yesterday I ate dinner" again, on one-sentence basis. So, it is hard to say that, by NOW, the action or statement is a past. You can repeat the statement daily for a long long time. Can we judge this as something past?

However, if I am lucky or careful enough, next week I can not say "I ate dinner yesterday. I almost choked." Then this statement by NOW is past and never come back anew. The more sentences I say about Yesterday, the less possibility it repeats itself, and it is a past that cannot come back.

I wasn't aware that you had anywhere on Dave's said, and certainly not anywhere in your above few posts said, what Leech has (or if you have, it certainly isn't as clear as the way he has expressed it).

Hamster, I told you not to dig in the wine closet. You are drunk again.

Xui

[fluffyhamster]

Anyway, argue as you might that you were talking about tenses, you certainly said that "to explain one tense fully, one has to use at least two sentences", so you did mention sentences in the same breath. Most competent users of English can understand (or at least recognize) tense on a single-sentence (verb) basis.

I agree. But the same amount of competent users cannot explain Present Perfect tense. If you had visited my websites, you would have noticed I invited only competent learners (professors, Phds) to exchange ideas. Actually, my discussion started some decades ago. I posted air-mails to some universities overseas, and they sent me a copy of Tregidgo's "How far have we got with the present perfect?"

What I want to prove is, many competent users were being troubled by the examples on one-sentence basis. And today I still don't think there are improvements.

I wasn't aware that you had anywhere on Dave's said, and certainly not anywhere in your above few posts said, what Leech has (or if you have, it certainly isn't as clear as the way he has expressed it).What is puzzling to me, Xui, is that the two-sentence examples that you have produced both use the same tense ("I ate dinner yesterday. I almost choked."), and do not seem to offer any more explanatory power regarding their temporal relationship to "now" than the single sentence alone does.

I really don't think so. As I have explained in "Is YESTERDAY a past time?", next weekend you still can say "Yesterday I ate dinner" again, on one-sentence basis. So, it is hard to say that, by NOW, the action or statement is a past. You can repeat the statement daily for a long long time. Can we judge this as something past?

However, if I am lucky or careful enough, next week I can not say "I ate dinner yesterday. I almost choked." Then this statement by NOW is past and never come back anew. The more sentences I say about Yesterday, the less possibility it repeats itself, and it is a past that cannot come back.

I wasn't aware that you had anywhere on Dave's said, and certainly not anywhere in your above few posts said, what Leech has (or if you have, it certainly isn't as clear as the way he has expressed it).

Hamster, I told you not to dig in the wine closet. You are drunk again.

Xui

Xui, we were talking about Simple Present on this page at least. Present Perfect is admittedly more problematic to explain, but it also is understandable on a sentence by sentence basis (otherwise, how would English speakers ever manage?! ).

You keep saying that "next week you can still say 'Yesterday I ate dinner' again", but I presume we will actually be waiting until next week to say it, yes? In which case, it will always refer to the yesterday relevant to the day we will utter the sentence next week...in which case, where is the problem in understanding it is past in relation to THAT time of speaking?

Furthermore, even though we eat dinner everyday, each time we eat is still a unique event in some way, and can be said to be a past event if it is...well, past, despite its resemblance to the same dreary meal we will eat in the same dreary setting today, and tomorrow etc. If you are getting vitamin deficiency (that may be beginning to interfere with your brain function! ) from eating the same microwave dinners in your bedsit, Xui, I suggest you go get some variety in your diet before considering rewriting the grammar books. Not everyone's life or thoughts parallel yours.

We don't need "two-sentence" examples to form also as-undoubtedly-past as, but more unique than, the above one-sentence "dinner" one. How about, "I saw a pink elephant high in the sky yesterday"?

Now, the interesting thing is, Xui, that although this pink elephant thing is unlikely to happen again, hell, whaddya know, this guy (maybe he is a drug abuser) keeps on seeing this flying pink elephant every day! For the first few weeks, he maybe reports it as unique ("I saw the pink elephant again yesterday"), but after months and then years of it he gets to think of it as as so routine that he begins to say, "I see a (the same?) pink elephant everyday".

We are therefore left with "routines" - "I eat dinner everyday" - parts of which can be reported as unique events/occurences ("I had, that is, I certainly didn't miss, dinner yesterday") provided that specific part is indeed past, and "unique" past occurences - seeing a pink elephant - that could conceivably (unlikely though it is) become parts of a "routine" that, because it potentially will happen again, is not yet truly past (truly past: "I used to see pink elephants every day, but I haven't seen one for years now").

Regarding your choking eater, has it occured to you that he could potentially (almost) choke more than once, especially if he is a slobbish eater or has a defective epiglottis?

Honestly, Xui, your ideas really do not make any sense, and I am beginning to feel that you do not actually know very much at all - at least, not anything that we can learn from or that will help anyone. In fact, I am a little worried about you (that is, your state of mind)...

[Xui]

You keep saying that "next week you can still say 'Yesterday I ate dinner' again", but I presume we will actually be waiting until next week to say it, yes? In which case, it will always refer to the yesterday relevant to the day we will utter the sentence next week...in which case, where is the problem in understanding it is past in relation to THAT time of speaking?
==============================

Very correct!! I have to wait until next week to say it. But today, NOW at this moment, I can predict I will and can say it. So, NOW at this moment, is it a finish or not, may I ask, sir? Is this very hard to understand?

Maybe it is easier for you to understand if we put it this way: You know you will have a job finished a day before next weekend, for example. That is to say, on next weekend, you may say, "Yesterday I finished the job." OK?
But what about NOW at this moment? Is the job finished or not now? No, you cannot say now it is a finish. You have to wait until next week to say it. As for today, the job is not finished.
Similarly, just because I have to wait for the next weekend to say the past action "I ate dinner yesterday", shall I call it finished today? NOW at this moment?

No wonder you claimed you didn't understand the question by the time I asked, and then updated, "Is YESTERDAY a past time?" You were just busy teasing at me about my "vague" question. Now I know you really didn't understand. But some others did and we had a discussion over it. Please reviewed the thread to see if what I am saying true or not.

In my humble and stunted forum, I did also talk about the same question, with several persons. They understood what I was asking. (I've stopped the forum for the time being because of here. However, I guess I have said what I wanted to say here now. And I did post both my questions and answers here, as I always had done. Whether it is useful or not is not in my calculation. I will not force anyone to believe my viewpoint.)

[fluffyhamster]

Well, if you want to talk about a job that will only be finished next week NOW, then I suggest you simply use one of the "future time" forms: I finish/will finish/am finishing/am going to finish/will be finishing/will have finished (I don't want to discuss which of these forms we would use exactly). To be able to use "Yesterday, I finished that awful job" in any meaningful sense, you will, unfortunately, have to wait until next week (that is, the day after you finish/will have finished etc the job) - as I am sure you very well realize, Xui.

To be frank, Xui, I abhor pretentiousness, and this sort of discussion is, I have finally realized, exactly that - pretentious. Certainly, it is of no practical use whatsoever.

By the way, I do not feel intellectually wanting because of my inability to comprehend your stunted English. You really should consider studying harder - you could then really impress any impressionable people who have the misfortune to stumble across you or your fancy-looking website with your erudition. You haven't taken in many on Dave's at least, thank goodness.

[Xui]

Well, if you want to talk about a job that will only be finished next week NOW, then I suggest you simply use one of the "future time" forms: I finish/will finish/am finishing/am going to finish/will be finishing/will have finished (I don't want to discuss which of these forms we would use exactly).

OK. I will say/ am going to say/ will be saying "Yesterday I ate dinner" on next weekend. Are you satisfied now?

I am happy at last you understand what I am saying.

But you still misunderstood the purpose why I asked the question. However, it doesn't matter now.

[fluffyhamster]

Well, if you want to talk about a job that will only be finished next week NOW, then I suggest you simply use one of the "future time" forms: I finish/will finish/am finishing/am going to finish/will be finishing/will have finished (I don't want to discuss which of these forms we would use exactly).

OK. I will say/ am going to say/ will be saying "Yesterday I ate dinner" on next weekend. Are you satisfied now?

I am happy at last you understand what I am saying.

But you still misunderstood the purpose why I asked the question. However, it doesn't matter now.

Good. I'm glad you will say what I recommended, because it will help you to be understood. Sorry to be such a dictatorial teacher, Xui, but English is like this.

I don't really care why you asked the question, Xui; I doubt if many here on Dave's do. It is the wrong sort of question for this website. We are English teachers, applied linguists, and we simply don't have time for bunk sub-standard philosophy or Martian 101: 10th-Dimension relative of Advanced Klingon. We don't have much time for lousy English, either!

[Xui]

But you still don't understand my point. I am saying I will do the action again next week, and therefore the action "Yesterday I ate dinner" is not a past or finish, but a future.

I am afraid everyone understands, except you.

[fluffyhamster]

No, Xui, I am afraid YOU don't understand.

I know I edit my posts quite a few times, but I really must urge you to go back a few and CAREFULLY READ what I wrote about routines AGAIN.

Just because we will "do the action again" - have dinner again and again, day after day, into the future, as long as we live and need to eat - does not prevent us from reporting a single instance of eating dinner as a past, finished event. I don't really need to add that no two dinners/dinnertimes are ever EXACTLY alike, either, so they have every right to be viewed as unique and reported as such, wearying though that might be for the listener (and can I just say, I don't think anyone actually says JUST "I had dinner yesterday", because we all have to eat, a little more information would be conveyed, such as, "I had a nice fillet of fish yesterday, with the last of the sprouts, ooh and did they give me awful wind!" At least, that's how my gandmother goes on about her immensely exciting dinners and their metabolic aftereffects).

If you want to claim that "Yesterday I ate (whatever)" is "a future", go discuss it on your website, Xui, where lots of silly people might be inclined to agree with you. I don't think there is one person here on Dave's who will humour you anymore as far as this point is concerned at least...unless you clarify exactly what it is you mean.

For example, I imagine you saying that: 'the notion of "eating dinner" is a routine that can and often does center around the present, that will extend into the future (but can only be talked about, in relation to the present moment of speaking, with future forms), and that can obviously be reported as past (individual) events when they are past (despite their "routineness" and thus apparent incompleteness to me, Xui).'

But such clarity seems beyond you.