Subjectivity in usage

[metal56]

"The actual time and duration of an event do not dictate choice of tense and aspect; the choice is largely subjective and context-sensitive, depending more on the time-point the user wants to focus on."

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm


Any opinions on the above would be welcome.

[Xui]

"The actual time and duration of an event do not dictate choice of tense and aspect; the choice is largely subjective and context-sensitive, depending more on the time-point the user wants to focus on."

My dear Metal56,

Where is the sense in such opinion? If it is subjective and not objective, then how can it be also context-sensitive?

If the context controls the tense, as I agree, then how much room is left for subjectivity?

[Xui]

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm

I went to take a look. The page says:

English has two tenses (Present, Past) and two grammatical aspects (Perfect, Progressive). Tense expresses proximity (Present) or distance (Past), in relation not only to time, but also to possibility and status.

So it is again Distance. Your favorite thing.

[metal56]

So it is again Distance. Your favorite thing.
[/quote]

Hardly. As a linguist I have many interests.

[Xui]

English has two tenses (Present, Past) and two grammatical aspects (Perfect, Progressive).

Perfect: Event seen as a whole / completed

Metal56,

Please allow me to point out very briefly. As I have explained for countless times, having preached that Perfective Aspect is a completion, such shrewd theorists will not display examples that use Present Perfect to talk about incompletion:
Ex: They have worked here since 1989.

Search "since" in that page, and you know what I mean.

Xui

[Xui]

Hardly. As a linguist I have many interests.

Do you estimate how much truth is in there if they have to hide away some evidences, so as to bring out a perfect conclusion? Will a linguist call this a research or study? Or actually what?

Xui

[Stephen Jones]

"The actual time and duration of an event do not dictate choice of tense and aspect; the choice is largely subjective and context-sensitive, depending more on the time-point the user wants to focus on."

http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm


Any opinions on the above would be welcome.

Whic are we to comment on,: the quote or thw whole article?

the quote is quite correct, and the article is general is a clear explanatiion of the mainstream consensus.

Some of the explanations of aspect I might disagree with. If the perfective aspect stresses the completeness of something in contrast to the continous aspect which stresses its incompletenss, what are we to say of the combination of the two aspects -- confusion?

Also I wonder about some of the examples. Since when was it possible to put 'can' into the past?

In general a useful article though.

[Xui]

The mainstream has explained Present Perfect with since.

[woodcutter]

This article is a clear reiteration of what we have all heard before. How about trying to deal with some of the criticisms instead? For example, that troublesome one on the other thread about how any old nonsense creates a polite 'distant' sentence, whether it be a past tense form or not.

Anyway, is this article surprising to anybody? Does anyone really think that tense and aspect are generated by a precise location on a rigid time chart, rather than by perspective and temporally linked context?

[Xui]

I pointed out the page 'forgot' to include an important feature of Present Perfect: denoting incompletion, which goes against its mainstream. The usage in the page will collapse because of this.

Also, Stephen Jones has pointed out its confusion:

Some of the explanations of aspect I might disagree with. If the perfective aspect stresses the completeness of something in contrast to the continous aspect which stresses its incompletenss, what are we to say of the combination of the two aspects -- confusion?
=====================

Strangely, it is somehow "In general a useful article though". I thought it was Metal56's conclusion!

[metal56]

Anyway, is this article surprising to anybody? Does anyone really think that tense and aspect are generated by a precise location on a rigid time chart, rather than by perspective and temporally linked context?

I often find people like you who think that the whole world has the same understanding on this.

This article is a clear reiteration of what we have all heard before

.

Who is "all"?

[metal56]

As I have explained for countless times, having preached that Perfective Aspect is a completion, such shrewd theorists will not display examples that use Present Perfect to talk about incompletion:
Ex: They have worked here since 1989.

Search "since" in that page, and you know what I mean.

Xui[/size]

I'm not quite sure are you are getting at. The sentence above needs context to know if the speaker is referring to completion on incompletion of the period of time. There is always an "up to this point" (completion of a period) implied in such sentences. The sentence is about time and is a general statement (another quality of the present perfect)

How long have they worked here?

For 5 years/Since 1989.

Without context and cotext, I cannot know if they still work there at the moment of speaking. For example, it could be this context:

A: John's just been fired!

B: What! What a shame, he's worked here since 1989.

Can you see completion there?

[metal56]

Some of the explanations of aspect I might disagree with. If the perfective aspect stresses the completeness of something in contrast to the continous aspect which stresses its incompletenss, what are we to say of the combination of the two aspects -- confusion?

Could you give some examples of combined aspects?

Also I wonder about some of the examples. Since when was it possible to put 'can' into the past?

Could you point out where that has been done?

Thanks for your contribution.

[Stephen Jones]

Dear metal 56

just a quick answer to your queries: you have the two aspects combined in the Perfect Continous tenses:
"I've been tninking about this for a long time."

In one of the questions he asks what is the effect of putting 'can' in the past

[Xui]

Without context and cotext, I cannot know if they still work there at the moment of speaking. For example, it could be this context:

A: John's just been fired!

B: What! What a shame, he's worked here since 1989.

Can you see completion there?
========================

I do not review the following much because I do discussion in two forums at the same time. Please ignore my minor writing problems, if you kindly will.

I have asked similar questions of yours to people and now the question comes back to me. When a man has passed away, in the epitaph we may still say "He's lived here since 1989". And the epitaph will last for many years. I asked them why? Similarly, there are many examples for Since to render a completion to be incompletion:
Ex: I have seen her only once since 1990.
Ex: I have visited the park since we lived here.
Ex: She has written to him three times since 1990.
== These actions would be a finish if without Since.
I asked them why this is not a completion with Since. Can we use simple Past? It is not an easy question.

Now you have linked the question to the context. Yes, this makes the context much more important, doesn't it? As you may know, however, I advocate to use more than one sentence to explain tenses. In a context, "He lives in HK" can be explained as he doesn't live in HK. Because he has been working in Macau, he lives in Macau. He only lives in HK when during weekends he comes back here to see his wife and children. Though he spends more time in Macau than in HK, he is still regarded as HK citizen and he lives in HK. What I mean is, context is everything.

As for your example, A is a completion; B isn't. If Present Perfect alone denotes completion as in A, the one working with Since 1989 doesn't.

Here is my humble opinion: Please be informed that Simple Past doesn't denote the time of Yesterday; rather, it works with Yesterday. Similarly, Present Perfect is not used to denote Since 1989. Rather, the tense works with Since 1989. As the so-called action includes every single word in the sentence, it denotes an incompletion, because of Since. As you use Since, you have to accept the incompletion implied by the combination of Present Perfect and Since.

On the other hand, as for your example again, you may say in Simple Past, "He worked here for 14 years". FOR 14 YEARS doesn’t contain the adjective past, so it is not a member of the Past Family (like in the past few years).

SINCE is actually a member of the Past Family. If this year is 2004, then since 2000 is same as in the past four years. They express a time not yet finished, and thus render the action as incompletion. However, they are past time adverbials, though not like Yesterday. They are very difficult. Grammarians didn't skip the Past Family for nothing,

I have asked about the Past Family so often that I find it redundant to post it here again during this visit. I am sure I did ask about them here and post the answer here before. I didn't skip posting the answers anywhere to the questions I asked, because I myself want to test and improve the answers. But if I still post about the Past Family here this time, people will think I am at my wit's end.

Xui