Subjectivity in usage

[metal56]

My view of Since is same as those of many grammar sources I have quoted.[/size]

Then your view is limited, which comes from digesting too much pedagogical grammar.

[metal56]

Because of the page http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm in your initiate message, you have judged that my common sources of Since as pedagogical grammars.

No,it is because they are.

Now you found out a new pdf file, and noticed that my sources are compatible with the new terms:[/size

]

I HAPPEN TO HAVE HAD THAT PDF FOR A LONG TIME, AND MANY MORE LIKE IT. DID YOU READ ALL OF IT? Your sources only cite the U-perfect use of the present perfect, the pdf goes further.

It is indeed, and since is compatible with both the U-perfect (now you have a new term, eh?) and the E-perfect.========================

Don't be such a child. I am a teacher and linguist, the term U-perfect and E-perfect has been in my vocabulary for a long time.

I don't know now if my sources are still regarded as pedagogical grammars or not?

Yes.

[metal56]

At first we were talking about the page http://www.gabrielatos.com/TTA.htm, which is about Proximity and Distance: Tense expresses proximity (Present) or distance (Past), in relation not only to time, but also to possibility and status. Aspect indicates whether the user’s view of an event is external (Perfect), or internal (Progressive).

No, at first we were talking about this quote:

"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."

You are the one who decided too disprove distance theory, mine purpose was to discuss subjectivity. You, as always, tried to divert the discussion to suit YOUR agenda. Get it right!

Because the page claims that Present Perfect only denotes a completion, I tried to disprove it by quoting some sources of Since and For as above, with Present Perfect, denoting an incompletion. However, you judged all my examples as pedagogical grammars.

They are. They just state the opposite to the article by Gabrielitos. I have shown that the perfect aspects can denote completion or incompletion. You still argue against that.

Of course, I thought you used the new file to fortify Proximity and Distance, explaining how Since expresses a completion.

That's your problem. No where here did i discuss proximity and distance connected to the perfect tenses. Again you need to create and force your agenda put you in error about the true discussion going on around you.

Therefore I suggested to ask readers here if they believe Since only denotes a completion or not. Nobody seemed to agree with this.

Yes, I was one of them.

Only at this time did you clarify you have changed the preference form Proximity/Distance to U-perfect/E-perfect: "Who has said it does only denote a completion?"

Are you mad!!?? They have nothing to do with each other. No one in this thread, apart from you is discussing proximity and distance. Your agenda.

And the new concepts, U-perfect and E-perfect, as you explained, are compatible with my quoted common examples that are incompatible with the Distance theory. In other words, U-perfect and E-perfect have disproved the Distance theory by accepting my examples that you once denigrated as pedagogical.

This shows that you have not understood what you call distance theory. Distance is connected to the past simple, not the present perfect.

Wake up, for God's sake.

[metal56]

Can't we simply ignore every post Xui makes? He doesn't understand
English that well, has no intention of ever doing so, and is completely batty.

I have long given up reading his posts, but still find it hard to follow a discussion based on his latest spoutings.

He is so desperate to get one up on native speakers that he doesn't follow the discussions, doesn't answer direct questions and doean't read any articles he has asked for. All in all, he is a very weak debater and terrible academic.

[Xui]

They [Xui's sources of Since and For] are. They just state the opposite to the article by Gabrielitos. I have shown that the perfect aspects can denote completion or incompletion. You still argue against that.
=====================

Here you have cleverly mixed up the two articles. I know what is Aspect Theory in the initiate message (TTA.htm), much more than you do, or did. It suggests that Present Perfect implies only completion, going against the common use of Since. In any circumstance, the theory doesn't talk about Since at all. That is why I had to drop it. That is why you have denigrated my examples of Since and For.

But your subsequent pdf file (IAI.pdf) doesn't relate to Aspect Theory at all. It talks about ordinary use of Present Perfect, which does have two uses, as we all know. It justifies the ordinary use of Since and explains how we achieve our basic agreement of it. It is not possible that its author will, as you Metal56 do, regard the common use of Since, denoting an incompletion, as pedagogical.

I would also like to quote a point from the file, which shows the importance of the relation between the tense and the context:
=====================
(9) Mary has been sick.
Does this sentence have a U-reading? It can certainly have an experiential reading, but there is also a context in which it can appear where the reading is clearly not experiential. We have to consider this context, shown in (10), to see whether we are dealing with a U-reading.
(10) A: I haven't seen Mary in a while. Where is she?
B: She has been sick.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/IAI.pdf
=====================
The context reins the U-perfect or E-perfect. It also controls other examples in the pdf, but the author thinks he can handle them on one-sentence basis, however.

Most important and obvious, IAI.pdf doesn't restrict only to Since and For, our main discussion point. It doesn't intend to help the weak point of Aspect Theory, which ignores Since at all. But you have cleverly linked up the two files. No wonder you needed to call me cheating. In doing so, you can give to people a non-cheating, honest image in yourself.

You cleverly adopt Aspect theory in TTA.htm to conclude Present Perfect denotes only completion. As for Since, you switch to the pdf file. However, the viewpoints to Present Perfect in two articles cannot be the same. How to mix them up is a display of craftiness.

IAI.pdf follows the traditional way, explaining how examples of Present Perfect achieve our agreement. It is the ultimate destination of every theory to explain how we achieve our basic agreement. Different theories are supposing different ways towards the same direction. Therefore, holding a different opinion is not batty at all.
TTA.htm cannot do that, so it keeps silent of Since, a common and necessary tactic in Aspect Theory. But it has never gone so far as to regard our basic agreement to Since as pedagogical.

I guess the only thing left is for you to insult me personally. What have I actually done about the subject of Since? I have just quoted a few sources for examples. Yes, I do agree with and uphold the traditional opinion about Since. However, because of this, I am being called cheating, and even batty.

Xui

[metal56]

Xui said:

I would also like to quote a point from the file, which shows the importance of the relation between the tense and the context:
=====================
(9) Mary has been sick.
Does this sentence have a U-reading? It can certainly have an experiential reading, but there is also a context in which it can appear where the reading is clearly not experiential. We have to consider this context, shown in (10), to see whether we are dealing with a U-reading.
(10) A: I haven't seen Mary in a while. Where is she?
B: She has been sick.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/IAI.pdf
=====================
The context reins the U-perfect or E-perfect. It also controls other examples in the pdf, but the author thinks he can handle them on one-sentence basis, however.

Why don't you post the rest? Stop trying to cover yourself by posting partial truths:

The rest:


Is B’s utterance (She has been sick) a U-perfect? It is at least compatible
with (10B) that Mary is still sick at the utterance time (the sentence can be
continued with and she still is and so she hasn’t been coming to the office),
which raises the suspicion that we are, in fact, dealing with a U-reading.17
However, unlike a U-perfect, (10B) is also compatible with Mary’s not
being sick at the utterance time; (10B) could also be continued with but she is fine now and she will come to the office soon. In other words, She has been sick is simply silent about whether Mary is sick at present and this is precisely not how the U-perfect behaves.
What type of perfect is (10B), then? We argue that (10B) has the range of meanings found with (11).
(11) She has been sick lately.

Xui spouted:

You cleverly adopt Aspect theory in TTA.htm to conclude Present Perfect denotes only completion.

ARE YOU LISTENING? For the 100th time, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE PRESENT PERFECT ONLY DENOTES COMPLETION!!! STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!!


As I said before, you are a weak debater and a cheat. you try to use smoke and mirrors to cover what someone has really said.


I said that those grammar references which show only the incompletion use of since are pedagogical grammars. They show only partial truths. They do that mostly for students of English (YOU) who need simplified examples and guidelines. Good linguists, on the other hand, would never just accept partial truths. They try to discuss all uses of a language item.

Xui said:

It talks about ordinary use of Present Perfect, which does have two uses, as we all know.

Much more than two, dear STUDENT.

[Xui]

Dear Metal56,

Your latest message will confuse people. I am even not pretty sure which are your words and which are mine. I wonder if your new format of discussion is an improvement?

I also discuss IAI.pdf in other forums. Readers find a few points interesting (mainly in Question 2 below). Some weak points of E-perfect and U-perfect I want to list here:

Question 1:
TTA.htm says that Present Perfect denotes completion, while IAI.pdf explains we have two kinds of Present Perfect (E-perfect and U-perfect), denoting both completion and incompletion. May I ask why you put the two files together?

Question 2:
If there are E-perfect and U-perfect, then every time when one uses Since, we don't even know it is whether a completion or incompletion. Is this true?

For example, if one says "Ms JH has lived in Japan since 1987", we have to ask, "Does JH live in Japan now?" It seems more like a necessity than redundancy, am I correct?

Likewise, if one says "She has been sick since April", we have to ask, "Is she sick now?" It is a necessity, not redundancy, because we don't know it is U-perfect or E-perfect. Am I correct?

We use Present Perfect, we use Since, and we can't even tell if the action is completion or incompletion at the present, do you accept that? Then why shall we use Since at all?

If she is not sick now, why don't we say, "She was sick in/after April"? Why shall we say "She has been sick since April"?

Question 3:
I have given an example here:
Ex: "Yesterday I ate dinner and watched football on TV. *I have been choked with food. I was sent to hospital."

Even if you have a thousand of GOOD reasons to explain Present Perfect, it doesn't fit the time here. This is the way, the only way, I explain tenses. It is about Time. Time decides what the tense is. Do E-perfect and U-perfect make a better explanation? Will they justify the use of Present Perfect here?

Thank you very much.

Xui

[Xui]

IAI.pdf has two analyses to the same I have been sick since 1990.

============================
(2) a. I have been sick since 1990.
b. 1990__________NOW (=utterance time)
On the U-perfect reading, (2a) is understood to mean that there is a sickness eventuality that holds throughout the named interval, that is, a period extending from 1990 up to now.


(3) a. I have read “Principia Mathematica” five times.
b. I have been sick since 1990.
c. 1990__________ NOW (=utterance time)
On the other hand, (3b) is ambiguous. On the experiential reading, it says that within the interval that extends from 1990 till now there is some (at least one) interval in which I was sick. On this reading, (3b) can be continued by I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993. This reading is indicated in (3c).
============================

(2a) and (3b) are the same superficially, with different analyses, as the author suggests. As (3b) is ambiguous, so is (2a). In (3b), I can be not sick now. But if it can "be continued by I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993", why don't we just say I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993? We really don't need to say I have been sick since 1990 at all, do we?

In (3b), the sickness has nothing to do with 1990, so why shall we link them up?

Even if we have to link the sickness to 1990, why don't we say "I was sick after 1990"?

If I am not sick now, why shall we say I have been sick since 1990 at all? I really don't know.

[metal56]

============================

(2a) and (3b) are the same superficially, with different analyses, as the author suggests. As (3b) is ambiguous, so is (2a). In (3b), I can be not sick now. But if it can "be continued by I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993", why don't we just say I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993? We really don't need to say I have been sick since 1990 at all, do we?

If I am not sick now, why shall we say I have been sick since 1990 at all? I really don't know.

Doctor: Well, let's see..., here it says that you haven't been sick since 1990.

Patient (astounded) I have (*)!

I'll let you fill in the ellipted language (*).

In (3b), the sickness has nothing to do with 1990, so why shall we link them up?

What do you mean? Of course it has to do with 1990. There is a period between then and the moment of utterance and the speaker wants to point to intervals within that time.

Even if we have to link the sickness to 1990, why don't we say "I was sick after 1990"?

Or, even better:

I have been sick a number of times since 1990.

[Xui]

Doctor: Well, let's see..., here it says that you haven't been sick since 1990.
Patient (astounded) I have (*)!
I'll let you fill in the ellipted language (*).
==========================

I had better switch the doctor if he did not ask me further exactly when it happened. But if I was sick in April of 1996, for example, can I simply answer "I have", with an ellipsis, implying I have been sick since 1990? I don't think so.

Similarly, in IAI.pdf, if I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993, how can I link it to 1990, and furthermore mistakenly conclude "I have been sick since 1990"?

--------------------------------------------

Because of discussion on IAI.pdf, I have spent some time in reading and understanding it. On the other day, however, I thought it was only a supplement to Aspect Theory, namely in TTA.htm. As I know now, it isn't. The reason why you put the two files together is still a mystery, if not a switch of argument.

IAI.pdf says, ""The U-perfect has often been claimed to not be a core meaning of the perfect because many languages do not have a U-perfect (Jespersen 1924, Comrie 1976)."
I want to make absolutely clear of this. Because as a fan of Jespersen I own the major publications of his. I cannot speak for Comrie, but Jesperen didn't talk about U-perfect at all. To top all, most obviously, I don't think both Jespersen and Comrie said the same thing in the same words. All IAI.pdf has implied here is, therefore, only about the opinion of both Jespersen and Comrie in relation to their jargons: U-perfect and E-perfect, which are, in ordinary terms, incompletion and completion respectively.

No patterns of sentences shall go beyond my four simple rules about tense-changing process:
(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=unfinish):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we state a time frame, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=unfinish=a):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish=b):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.
They are the very basic implications and relations in the three tenses on one-sentence basis.

Anyone who doesn't know about the process will have a hard time to explain why Present Perfect is sometimes a finish (#B), and sometimes an unfinish (#C). That is what the authors of IAI.pdf have displayed to us. They don't find it necessary to separate Present Perfect with a time frame from the one without.

Furthermore, the authors of IAI.pdf want to show their ability in finding some kinds of finish in the rule (#C):
(3b) I have been sick since 1990.
== "On this reading," they say, "(3b) can be continued by I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993."
To me, however, I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993 cannot be implied just by I have been sick since 1990. But it is another story if they work together.

IMHO, we have to stick to the agreement of the common use of Since: In I have been sick since 1990, the sickness is an unfinish: I am still sick today. But we may add other sentences to explain the present condition: I feel much better these days. This is permissible.

I have been sick since 1990 and I feel much better these days are compatible. The latter has no idea to disprove the former that is an unfinish.

I also accept that I have been sick since 1990 can be continued by The sickness was so serious for three months in the fall of 1993. Again, the latter doesn't disprove the former that is an unfinish.

But the pdf does have an inclination, as you did above, to imply that just because I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993, one may say I have been sick since 1990. This is not the usual way to use Since. As I suggested, if you have to link the sickness in 1993, to 1990, you may say I was sick after 1990.

If we don't have an agreement as to whether Since denotes an unfinish or not, and claim "Who knows", then Since will be in many circumstances ambiguous. Then we have to constantly ask about the present stage of Since. Every time when one says, for example, Ms HJ has lived in HK since 1987, each listener will have to ask exactly where HJ lives today. If Since is that ambiguous, I don't think anyone will use it at all.

--------------------------------------------

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 am afraid no one will be so scrupulous about the tense here at such moment. If you want to be precise, however, you may use Past Perfect.
A: John's just been fired!
B: What! What a shame, he had worked here since 1989.

--------------------------------------------

Lastly, every routine must acquiesce the reasonable time of not doing it.
In saying "He goes to school every day", we must admit he has reasonable time of not going to school on holidays, even a long summer holidays.
"I live in HK" includes the reasonable time of going out of HK, traveling. A man can travel around the world for many years, and still in any country admit "I live in HK".
"She often writes letters to her mother" acquiesces the reasonable time of not writing letters.
It follows that, when at the time of not doing it we use Since, it doesn't mean the routine has interrupted or finished at all. For example, even during summer holidays, it is permissible for us to say "He has gone to school since 2000". The example doesn't support the suggestion that, in using Since, we are not sure whether the action is up to now or not. It is going too far to judge that, because he is on holiday and doesn't go to school, "He has gone to school since 2000" means a finish or experiential. However, in a sense, IAI.pdf is doing this.

--------------------------------------------
As a whole, I still follow and uphold the agreement recorded in every grammar that talks about Since. I will do it, even people here call me cheating and batty.

Xui

[metal56]

Doctor: Well, let's see..., here it says that you haven't been sick since 1990.
Patient (astounded) I have (*)!
I'll let you fill in the ellipted language (*).

==========================

But if I was sick in April of 1996, for example, can I simply answer "I have", with an ellipsis, implying I have been sick since 1990? I don't think so.

That's basic English ellipsis. I thought you'd know it. Mind, you are not known for your skill in being concise with your answers.

Mom (returning for trip): Your father tells me that you haven't taken a bath for three days.

Son: I have!

-----

Metal (To Xui): I hear you haven't decided about the present perfect and experiental reading yet?

Xui: I ...

[metal56]

[Similarly, in IAI.pdf, if I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993, how can I link it to 1990, and furthermore mistakenly conclude "I have been sick since 1990"?

Immigration officer: Now, it is important that you tell the truth in this immigration interview. We need to know your medical history for the past 14 years. Have you been sick since 1990?

Applicant: ...

I'll let you fill in the gap, as you are the learner here.

[metal56]

The reason why you put the two files together is still a mystery, if not a switch of argument.

Ayee! You are funny. Lol! I posted a document and wanted to talk about subjectivity in language use. You went off track, as usual, and decided to make this thread be about the present perfect and what you call "distance theory".

As I've said many times, you hijacked this thread in order to spout your own agenda.
I humoured you by following suit for a while, and when you asked me to prove certain things about the validity of the experiential perfect (nothing to do with my original question), I supplied the other document.

UNDERSTAND! You hijacked this thread.

[metal56]

BUT: If we state a time frame, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=unfinish=a):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.

Xui[/size]

And that is your choice. If you do not want to see that:

I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.

can receive either a universal reading or an experiential reading, that is not my problem. I, and many others, see it.

[metal56]

Furthermore, the authors of IAI.pdf want to show their ability in finding some kinds of finish in the rule (#C):
(3b) I have been sick since 1990.
== "On this reading," they say, "(3b) can be continued by I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993."
To me, however, I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993 cannot be implied just by I have been sick since 1990. But it is another story if they work together.

No one is saying that "I was sick for three months in the fall of 1993." can be implied by "I have been sick since 1990." No one at all!

They are saying that it can be implied by and/or inferred from "I have been sick since 1990.", that the person is either still sick or is no longer sick. I have said this numerous times already here and will not repeat it.

Again:

The Universal perfect asserts that the underlying eventuality holds throughout an interval, delimited by the reference time and a time prior to it (cf. (2a)). The Experiential perfect places the eventuality prior to the reference time


--

"I have been sick since 1990." has the tendency to be read as a universal, BUT IT IS NOT THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT STRUCTURE.