The dual function of Present Perfect

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:00 am

Shuntang:

John and Mary in the bus, passing a building.
John: Look at this Company, it is very large.
Mary: Yep. I have worked there in the past.
John: Oh, yes?
Mary: So it is not finished.
John: What do you mean?
Mary: What? Didn't I just tell you? I have worked there in the past.
John: You mean you WORK there!! Don't you?
Mary: No, I have worked there in the past. By saying so, it is not finished.
John: I see.....!?

To me, not an authentic dialogue at all. And confusing.

Why do you think the speaker isn't using the past simple here?

"I have had several jobs but I am unable to find one that is exciting or challenging to me. I have stayed with some companies less than 3 months."

Or:

Is there anyway that a company can find out I have worked there in the past?

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:15 am

metal56 wrote:Shuntang:

John and Mary in the bus, passing a building.
John: Look at this Company, it is very large.
Mary: Yep. I have worked there in the past.
John: Oh, yes?
Mary: So it is not finished.
John: What do you mean?
Mary: What? Didn't I just tell you? I have worked there in the past.
John: You mean you WORK there!! Don't you?
Mary: No, I have worked there in the past. By saying so, it is not finished.
John: I see.....!?

To me, not an authentic dialogue at all. And confusing.

Why do you think the speaker isn't using the past simple here?

"I have had several jobs but I am unable to find one that is exciting or challenging to me. I have stayed with some companies less than 3 months."

Or:

Is there anyway that a company can find out I have worked there in the past?

But we were arguing whether "I have worked there in the past" is a finish or not!

As I have explained, only a finish after more than a period of time do we use "in the past". If it finished yesterday, we will not now say I have worked there in the past. A finish in the past must be more past than yesterday's one. Then, if yesterday's finish shall not connect to the present, so won't a finish in the past. However, as people want to argue in the past connects to the present, so they say that I have worked there in the past is not a finish.

EX D I have worked there in the past.
This is not finished because you added the prepositional phrase 'in the past'. It has significant meaning, otherwise you would have just said:
EX E I have worked there.

As you see, therefore, I have to create a dialogue featuring I have worked there in the past. I agree it is not authentic dialogue. Actually, I want to indicate the dialogue doesn't make sense because Mary thinks "I have worked there in the past" is not finished.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:10 pm

The period referred to, whether one day or many years, is finished in, "I have worked there in the past" The new period may not have begun at the time of speaking. The "in the past" is somewhat redundant by the way.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:43 pm

Metal56,

You wrote:The period referred to, whether one day or many years, is finished in, "I have worked there in the past" The new period may not have begun at the time of speaking. The "in the past" is somewhat redundant by the way.

I am afraid this is definitely not the way I decorate the phrase IN THE PAST. Of course it is very useful. It throws a contrast with the present time. Many of us use it to start a story: "In the past I have visited a castle in Europe....". If without the time phrase, I personally will ask, when did it happen. Thought IN THE PAST is not definite, however, if you have mentioned the time, I will not ask WHEN unless the exact time is of most importance.
There are many short story writings starting with Simple Past, without giving any timing. Then the first Simple Past "I had a bad experience in a party" now works as a (time) Frame, affecting the tenses of the sentences following. It follows that most the sentences about the party will be stated in Simple Past. As you see, however, this will seldom happen with Present Perfect. It is not about grammar. I guess it is still grammatical to do so, but it is bad looking if the whole story are filled with Present Perfect. Too many HAVE or HAS.
As I have pointed out, IN THE PAST (and BEFFORE, etc.) as a past time cannot connect to the present, while IN THE PAST TWO YEARS as a past time period can. I once asked in another forum, why something happens "within the past three years" can be now not finished. "Within a past time" is still not a past? I can't restate the discussion here as it is rather long. Actually, the action starts "within the past three years", and goes up to the present. However, I want to point out that many would be puzzled by the fact that something happens "within a past time" is still not a past. Really, many would wrongly explain that though it is finished, it is very near the present time, and therefore has some connection with the present time, thus using Present Perfect.

Interesting, again, many would explain that as for IN THE PAST YEAR in relation to Present Perfect, we use it to say things in late December, or just at the turn of a year. Actually, as we may know now, you can say it in any month you like.

Shun

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:36 pm

I decorate the phrase IN THE PAST.

You are indeed "decorating"it Shuntang; indeed you have so loaded it with baubles that you have completely covered it's meaning.

What makes the phrase "I've worked there in the past" imply it is possible you will work there in the future is the use of the present perfect

Say I worked there in the past and the employment is given as well and truly finalized.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 8:59 pm

Stephen,

Truly thank you for your message.

You wrote:What makes the phrase "I've worked there in the past" imply it is possible you will work there in the future is the use of the Present Perfect

Say I worked there in the past and the employment is given as well and truly finalized.

Maybe you are right. As far as I know, however, if yesterday we went to a good restaurant and had a fine dinner, it is most likely we will go there again in the future. What I mean is, using Simple Past doesn't exclude the possibility of doing it again in the future.

Therefore, my humble opinion is, I fail to see if we say "I worked there in the past", it excludes the possibility of working there again in the future.

Shun Tang

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:33 am

It's more a question of emphasis than a hard and fast rule.

I've worked there in the past. implies a series of freelance stints, or possibly some temporary placings.

I worked there in the past. implies a single period of working that is now finished.

The question to ask is why are we using the present perfect with the phrase 'in the past'. The Present Perfect is used when the action is considered to have some effect on the present, so 'I've worked there' can be taken as implying that the option of continuing to work there is still open.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:33 am

Stephen Jones wrote:It's more a question of emphasis than a hard and fast rule.

Ex1: I've worked there in the past. implies a series of freelance stints, or possibly some temporary placings.

Ex2: I worked there in the past. implies a single period of working that is now finished.

The question to ask is why are we using the present perfect with the phrase 'in the past'. The Present Perfect is used when the action is considered to have some effect on the present, so 'I've worked there' can be taken as implying that the option of continuing to work there is still open.

We may as well say that Ex1 " implies a single period of working that is now finished".
Also, we may say that Ex2 "implies a series of freelance stints, or possibly some temporary placings".

What you say to Present Perfect can be said word for word again to Simple Past.

Shun