Simple Past and Present Perfect

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:55 am

You wrote that I wrote:

<An exercise.
If you try to contextualise in a short dialogue:
I lived in Japan.
and then do the same with:
I have lived in Japan
What do you get? >

You wrote:

It seems difficult for me. What is the point?

Because trying identify the reasoning behind one usage over the other can be helped by more context that a single sentence. by creating dialogues, or finding real dialogues, you may begin to mark the wood from the trees.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:07 am

Larry,

I just want to say: Your opinions are welcome.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:22 am

Larry,

We, all of us, have discussed the three or four tenses for a while, it is time to show the possible answers. However, any possible answer is not made up by just one points. Take the difference in use between Simple Past and Present Perfect for example, even my four simple rules for Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present cannot solve this problem. The difference has to be fully and easily explained in a paragraph, plus the Frame (Definite Past Time Adverbials). As you see, to explain one point, I have to reveal many necessary contingent messages. To tell the truth, the messages I have posted here are very basic. I have now posted about 40% of what I want to post. But as I have to agree with you, many points are not necessary and I didn't post them immediately, such as the combinations and interactions between various tenses:
Comb. 1: <Frame + Past> + Past
Comb. 2: <Frame + Past> + Perfect
Comb. 3: <Frame + Past> + Present
Comb. 4: <Frame + Perfect> + Perfect
Comb. 5: <Frame + Perfect> + Present
Comb. X: <Frame + Past> + Perfect + Present + Past
(Time) Frame = Definite Past Time Adverbials

Mind you, in the past I have posted all the things here in Eslcafe's Applied Linguistics, for several times. By that time, we didn't need to register. I am quite sure that some of you must have seen them and now regard my messages here are trite.

Shun

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:48 am

Shun,

I have to admit I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I guess you're just way over my head.

Larry Latham

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:12 am

Larry,

I was referring to situations where two sentences/tenses put together. Their tenses interact rather having no relations to another. As I pointed out, tenses are used to tell these kinds of relations -- time relations -- between sentences. Perhaps all I want to say is that I cannot explain tenses on one-sentences basis.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:52 am

DEFINITION IN THE NEGATIVE

A difficult location: I want to report it took many months for me to think up a negative term to define Present. As past is 'now finished', present is 'now not finished'. It seems very easy and logical, but the definition didn't come up in an easy way. Any action "now not finished" is a present action. This negative definition can cover either a present action starting a very long time ago, one happening every day, or one having just started which is made past by milliseconds. In contrast, definitions with 'positive' terms such as Permanency, Habitual Action, Instantaneous Present, etc. cannot be the common characteristic of all actions in Simple Present.
==============

PAST TIME/ACTION/PERIOD OF TIME vs PRESENT TIME/ACTION/PERIOD OF TIME.

These terms are so related that we have to tell them apart clearly.
(a) Past time is not exactly past action or past period of time; present time is not exactly present action nor present period of time.
(b) As we say the time is present, any time before the present is the past. Therefore, past time cannot come up to the present, but past action or period of time can.
(c) We judge whether it is past action or present action by way of present time.
(d) Both past action and present action start in the past.
(e) Past action starts in the past and is finished by the present time.
(f) Present action starts in the past and is not finished by the present time. It may be said that present action is a past action not yet ended.
(g) Past period of time behaves like past action. It can be now finished and be regarded as past period of time. Or, it may run up to the present, and be regarded as present period of time.

Your opinion is welcome.

Shun Tang

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:31 am

Any action "now not finished" is a present action.

Although it may look tempting, Shan Tung, it is not true, I'm afraid, at least not in an important sense. If there is indeed confirmation that there is such an existing action (a now not finished action), all it means is that the action was begun before now, and is not yet completed. You cannot leap from there to the asumption that it is then a "present action" now underway. In the event the viewer contemplates that the action will be finished at some future time (not always the case, as some actions can be started and never finished), then that comprises the classic definition calling for the use of Present Continuous Aspect. The action may indeed not be a present action, that is to say, it may not be 'in-action' at the present moment. For example, if I were to say to you, "Shan Tung, I am reading a wonderful book about the evolution of freedom", the reading in this case is an action begun before now, and now not finished, but right at the present moment I am engaged in typing a message to you...I am not reading.

Larry Latham

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:24 am

Didn't you say everyone is gone?