Globish

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:27 am

But if we are talking about efficiency and disambiguity, the present perfect comes out tops, right?

If we are talking about efficiency, we are talking about economy.
Rules have to be cost effective, the present perfect isn't.

In technology, what is simpler is what is advanced.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:32 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
The point here is not whether the past simple can express by itself a connection with the present.
The point is whether we can express the connection of the past with the present (if we insist on it) without using the present perfect.
The point is whether we can eliminate the present perfect.

We can express our names by saying "I Metal, you Anuradha.". Should we get rid of auxiliaries?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:35 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
But if we are talking about efficiency and disambiguity, the present perfect comes out tops, right?
If we are talking about efficiency, we are talking about economy.
Rules have to be cost effective, the present perfect isn't.

In technology, what is simpler is what is advanced.

If you say so.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:38 am

We can express our names by saying "I Metal, you Anuradha.". Should we get rid of auxiliaries?

This isn't exactly a parallel to our point anyway.

But who knows how languages will evolve in the future.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:47 am

This isn't exactly a parallel to our point anyway.

Hmm. Selective reasoning.

Anuradha Chepur wrote: But who knows how languages will evolve in the future.

It is happening, but many times Standard English itself remains behind. The example I gave about regularisation and so called nonstandard variants shows how standard forms have been slow to catch up.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:04 am

The example I gave about regularisation and so called nonstandard variants shows how standard forms have been slow to catch up

It seems perfectly natural to me that any innovation in language should happen "on the streets" as it were. "Standard" forms are usually the last to follow any change. On the other hand, it means that they aren't subject to the passing fads as words and forms go in and out of fashion. That doesn't make them any better or worse, just fit for different purposes.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:28 am

lolwhites wrote:
The example I gave about regularisation and so called nonstandard variants shows how standard forms have been slow to catch up

It seems perfectly natural to me that any innovation in language should happen "on the streets" as it were. "Standard" forms are usually the last to follow any change.
And yet standardists will entice/force us all to regress if we use forms that they haven't yet adopted.

On the other hand, it means that they aren't subject to the passing fads as words and forms go in and out of fashion. That doesn't make them any better or worse, just fit for different purposes.

Tell that to Anuradha, now deeply involved in his mission of exoricising the present perfect.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:39 am

Tell that to Anuradha, now deeply involved in his mission of exoricising the present perfect.

You lived in India for a year, and you don't know whether a name like Anuradha would be involved in his mission or her mission.

On the other hand, it means that they aren't subject to the passing fads as words and forms go in and out of fashion. That doesn't make them any better or worse, just fit for different purposes.

But the present perfect is travelling outwards from fashion, probably on a
one way ticket!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:59 am

You lived in India for a year, and you don't know whether a name like Anuradha would be involved in his mission or her mission.

Sorry slip of the genders.

On the other hand, it means that they aren't subject to the passing fads as words and forms go in and out of fashion. That doesn't make them any better or worse, just fit for different purposes.

But the present perfect is travelling outwards from fashion, probably on a
one way ticket!

[/quote]

Show us the evidence. Where do you get your facts from?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:02 am

My problem is that it is too much of an unnecessary nuance
for learners to grasp. On another thread, we were talking about using
their L1 to explain difficult concepts; but this doesn't help because most
of them wouldn't have the present perfect in their L1.

Result: They are thoroughly confused
They come up with sentences like
I have gone to my friend's house yesterday.
I have went. . .
I gone . . .
I has gone (the have/has distinction makes matters worse)
He have gone
etc.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:06 am

My problem is that it is too much of an unnecessary nuance
for learners to grasp.

At all levels?

Result: They are thoroughly confused

Time and patience are the key with such aspects.

I has gone (the have/has distinction makes matters worse)

Isn't it the same when you teach them the possessive with "have"?

I has a car. Do you want them to say "I got a car"?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:06 am

Show us the evidence. Where do you get your facts from?

It started in AE and is catching up.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:10 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
Show us the evidence. Where do you get your facts from?
It started in AE and is catching up.

Evidence? Corpus studies, etc?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:11 am

Time and patience are the key with such aspects.

It is a waste of time.
I would better use the time to them extra practice in the simple past.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:13 am

Evidence? Corpus studies, etc?

As suggested in various books that talkabout AE/BE distinction.