Highly Selected Examples
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
"SIMPLE PRESENT EXPRESSES HABIT"
In the beginning of studying English tense, we in young days had to accept the unwise process to fill in the 'right' tense:
Ex: Tommy (go) to school every day.
== Even on internet, today one can easily find many such exercises to help children to understand English tense.
In school, teacher will help students a bit, I am sure. "Do you see the meaning of a habit here? Yes? Good. So we fill in Simple Present, because Simple Present expresses habit." And students will do it accordingly. They usually don't ask much.
But I don't know about Adult English teaching. Will an adult ask, if from the sentence I have already seen the meaning of habit, why shall we redundantly use Simple Present to say it again?
The adult is right in hitting the point. It is redundant to use Simple Present to repeat what has been already implied by the sentence. Actually, anyone who has a little more knowledge about English, will soon notice that no matter what tense, the example will still be a Habit. Therefore, it is very partial to say Simple Present expresses habit:
Ex: Tommy goes to school every day.
Ex: Tommy went to school every day.
Ex: Tommy has gone to school every day.
Still, grammar writers will use Time to explain and compare Simple Past and Present Perfect, as if they still remember tenses are used to tell time. As there are only two kinds of time, past and present, which have been engaged by these two tenses, they have only to explain Simple Present with Meaning, no matter how unreasonable it seems. If they find Habit not satisfactory, they will try some other Meanings like Permanency, Routine, Fact, Truth, etc., a meaning clearly seen from some highly selected sentences. Most often, at the same time a grammar will recommend a few Meanings for Simple Present. To tell the truth, Meanings can be endless, if the grammar writer will procure a dictionary.
Shun
In the beginning of studying English tense, we in young days had to accept the unwise process to fill in the 'right' tense:
Ex: Tommy (go) to school every day.
== Even on internet, today one can easily find many such exercises to help children to understand English tense.
In school, teacher will help students a bit, I am sure. "Do you see the meaning of a habit here? Yes? Good. So we fill in Simple Present, because Simple Present expresses habit." And students will do it accordingly. They usually don't ask much.
But I don't know about Adult English teaching. Will an adult ask, if from the sentence I have already seen the meaning of habit, why shall we redundantly use Simple Present to say it again?
The adult is right in hitting the point. It is redundant to use Simple Present to repeat what has been already implied by the sentence. Actually, anyone who has a little more knowledge about English, will soon notice that no matter what tense, the example will still be a Habit. Therefore, it is very partial to say Simple Present expresses habit:
Ex: Tommy goes to school every day.
Ex: Tommy went to school every day.
Ex: Tommy has gone to school every day.
Still, grammar writers will use Time to explain and compare Simple Past and Present Perfect, as if they still remember tenses are used to tell time. As there are only two kinds of time, past and present, which have been engaged by these two tenses, they have only to explain Simple Present with Meaning, no matter how unreasonable it seems. If they find Habit not satisfactory, they will try some other Meanings like Permanency, Routine, Fact, Truth, etc., a meaning clearly seen from some highly selected sentences. Most often, at the same time a grammar will recommend a few Meanings for Simple Present. To tell the truth, Meanings can be endless, if the grammar writer will procure a dictionary.
Shun
TENSES INTERACTIONS IN A PARAGRAPH
Example Yesterday we went to a new store department is grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
Also, examples like We have bought many things are also grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
But we can't even bring them together as in "Yesterday we went to a store department. *We have bought many things." Grammatically and independently correct structures may not stay together grammatically. Therefore it is obvious that it is of most importance to explain the interactions of tenses in a paragraph of sentences. As HAVE BOUGHT happens also in the same time Frame, you have to use BOUGHT.
Grammars should have given a note to this. English tenses are used to tell the time relations such as this. Now all the theories for dealing with or explaining Present Perfect do not work anymore. All the discussions about Simple Past and Present Perfect peacefully rest. Even young students can understand the reason why we have to use BOUGHT, rather than HAVE BOUGHT here. Jargons are needed no more. In a paragraph of sentences, I have to withdraw the stupid promise that what you say to Present Perfect can word for word be said again to either Simple Past or Simple Present. The game is over.
Shun
Example Yesterday we went to a new store department is grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
Also, examples like We have bought many things are also grammatical, well-accepted and well-explained.
But we can't even bring them together as in "Yesterday we went to a store department. *We have bought many things." Grammatically and independently correct structures may not stay together grammatically. Therefore it is obvious that it is of most importance to explain the interactions of tenses in a paragraph of sentences. As HAVE BOUGHT happens also in the same time Frame, you have to use BOUGHT.
Grammars should have given a note to this. English tenses are used to tell the time relations such as this. Now all the theories for dealing with or explaining Present Perfect do not work anymore. All the discussions about Simple Past and Present Perfect peacefully rest. Even young students can understand the reason why we have to use BOUGHT, rather than HAVE BOUGHT here. Jargons are needed no more. In a paragraph of sentences, I have to withdraw the stupid promise that what you say to Present Perfect can word for word be said again to either Simple Past or Simple Present. The game is over.
Shun
TIME RELATIONS BETWEEN TENSES
Tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences or so-called actions. This is the main point of the new approach to explain tenses. If merely on one-sentence basis, we cannot even explain well any of tenses. In this message we try to compare a few combinations in which there are different tenses. Since for the time being we talk about only Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present, we use Past, Perfect, and Present to stand for them respectively. The brackets <Frame + Past> indicate that within a sentence there are both a time Frame and a Simple Past.
In the thread of "Simple Past and Present Perfect" in this forum, I have introduced the combinations and interactions between various tenses:
Combination 1: <Frame + Past> + Past
Combination 2: <Frame + Past> + Perfect
Combination 3: <Frame + Past> + Present
Combination 4: <Frame + Perfect> + Perfect
Combination 5: <Frame + Perfect> + Present
Combination X: <Frame + Past> + Perfect + Present + Past
(Time) Frame = Definite Past Time Adverbials
I use them to explain how a Frame guides the selection of tenses following.
If there is no Frame, the first Past or Perfect can work as one. My impression is, Past will link to another Past, forming a sequence of actions, but Perfect usually cannot link to another Perfect, in relation of time.
As most people say, the context is important, and here is to try to explain how a context works on tenses, according to my observation. Though it is redundant, I still give a trite explanation to each combination. Sorry about that.
Combination 1: <Frame + Past> + Past
Prototype: Yesterday I bought a ball. I painted it red.
== PAINT using Past indicates the action finishes within the same time Frame ahead. Actually, only in this combination does the Frame dominate the latter sentences. It does so until there comes another Frame.
Ex: In 1958, the lower Thames was so heavily polluted that it was usual to find no dissolved oxygen whatever in water for several months of the year. The river stank, and there were no fish.
Combination 2: <Frame + Past> + Perfect
Prototype: Last Friday I bought a ball. I have painted it red.
== Both actions here are finished. PAINT in Perfect indicates it finishes outside the Frame ahead: I didn't paint it red on the day I bought it. Please note that this also means we actually know the definite time of the painting. Often, without a judgmental Frame, writers usually use the two tenses to denote two cases happen at clearly different time.
Ex: Their size was conceived in Napoleon's day; but the motorcar has killed all that.
== If KILL is in Past, it results in anachronism, implying there were already destructing motorcars in Napoleon's day.
Ex: Soon after the 1961 antichoke war, Gourvennec formed a SICA in north Finistere and has succeeded in imposing minimum prices on local middlemen.
Combination 3: <Frame + Past> + Present
Prototype: Last Friday we bought a dog. We call it Hero.
== The stand-alone expression of CALL in Present indicates the calling is now not finished: we still call it so today. In a paragraph, it further indicates it happens outside the Frame ahead.
Ex: From 1955 to 1958, a Royal Commission on Common Land made a thorough review of commons and their report is a fascinating document of considerable social and historical interest.
== The report is still fascinating today. If we use 'was', it means it is so only from 1955 to 1958.
Combination 4: <Frame + Perfect> + Perfect
Prototype: He has lived here since 1970. He has visited the Ocean Park.
== Interesting, two different kinds of Present Perfect are put here side by side. The former with a Frame means he is still living here, while the latter relates a past case by now. Compared with Combination #1, Frame with Perfect cannot be related to another Perfect. That is to say, the latter Perfect cannot express a continuity because of the Frame ahead.
Ex: The weather has been beautiful ever since last Thursday; but, there has been a white frost every morning.
== The weather can be still fine, but 'every morning' cannot be still continuous. The latter Perfect retrospects the frost in the past few days.
Combination 5: <Frame + Perfect> + Present
Ex: In just over a decade, 3000km of large pipelines for oil have been laid in Europe and more are under construction.
== Two continuations here. Because of the Frame, the former has to use Perfect.
It is in this frequent kind of examples that we notice the Frame with Perfect ahead cannot affect the tense of another sentence.
Ex: Since the war the figure has risen from 3.4 to 13 per cent, and is now comparable with British, German and American levels.
===============
The five combinations above are quite common. In the following we may put them together and see how they interact with one another. Since they don't necessarily have to have a fixed sequence, we use a random combination for explanation:
Combination X: <In 1970 + Past> + Perfect + Past + Present
== In a paragraph such as this, while the sentences can say millions of different things, as the role of tenses, both Perfect and Past simply serve the same expression, indicating past time. And yet, only the Past in different sentences can imply it happens also "in 1970", while Perfect doesn't. If we cut up sentences into many orphan ones, we cut away the function of tenses.
Ex: They obtained legislation in 1966 and soon afterwards set up the LVR Park Authority. It now owns or occupies around 1040 ha of land and water and has brought into use 160 ha of water.
== Logically, SET UP in Past here has its own Frame: 'soon after 1966'. As can be objectively seen, OWN and OCCUPY in Present do not relate habitual actions nor routines, nor permanency, nor Instantaneous Present. We can hardly give a positive term to describe it. But they are actions now not finished, at the time of writing.
Ex: "Abbot Daniel died so long as eight years since, without sickness or any pain. I am not his successor. I have only been abbot since last year. He was succeeded by Peter Matin."
Ex: "You have described that episode remarkably well, splendidly. That is exactly how it was."
== It is easy to notice that, without giving a specific past time, many writers use Perfect and Past just to imply things finished in different time.
Ex: Of these three people, the British were until about 1960 the richest and are now the poorest, while the Germans have moved from third to first place.
Ex: The Rothschild debate symbolized a dilemma which has begun to face Britain, the United States, and other advanced countries. In short, why do we support science?
Ex: Between 1957 and 1971, 1500 cinemas closed, and annual cinema attendances fell from 411 to 175 million. They have since picked up slightly, and in 1975 audiences were back at 181 million, but high inflation has bought new problem, and the French industry is ill-suited to cope with this kind of crisis.
Conclusion from different Combinations: Frame with Simple Past can dominate another Past sentence, affecting its tense, while Frame with Present Perfect cannot another.
I hope you can tell me exactly where is the ambiguity so I may elaborate on it. Or you may pick up some paragraphs for us to analyze or do some discussion.
Thank you for your time in reading.
Shun
Tenses are used to tell the time relations between sentences or so-called actions. This is the main point of the new approach to explain tenses. If merely on one-sentence basis, we cannot even explain well any of tenses. In this message we try to compare a few combinations in which there are different tenses. Since for the time being we talk about only Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present, we use Past, Perfect, and Present to stand for them respectively. The brackets <Frame + Past> indicate that within a sentence there are both a time Frame and a Simple Past.
In the thread of "Simple Past and Present Perfect" in this forum, I have introduced the combinations and interactions between various tenses:
Combination 1: <Frame + Past> + Past
Combination 2: <Frame + Past> + Perfect
Combination 3: <Frame + Past> + Present
Combination 4: <Frame + Perfect> + Perfect
Combination 5: <Frame + Perfect> + Present
Combination X: <Frame + Past> + Perfect + Present + Past
(Time) Frame = Definite Past Time Adverbials
I use them to explain how a Frame guides the selection of tenses following.
If there is no Frame, the first Past or Perfect can work as one. My impression is, Past will link to another Past, forming a sequence of actions, but Perfect usually cannot link to another Perfect, in relation of time.
As most people say, the context is important, and here is to try to explain how a context works on tenses, according to my observation. Though it is redundant, I still give a trite explanation to each combination. Sorry about that.
Combination 1: <Frame + Past> + Past
Prototype: Yesterday I bought a ball. I painted it red.
== PAINT using Past indicates the action finishes within the same time Frame ahead. Actually, only in this combination does the Frame dominate the latter sentences. It does so until there comes another Frame.
Ex: In 1958, the lower Thames was so heavily polluted that it was usual to find no dissolved oxygen whatever in water for several months of the year. The river stank, and there were no fish.
Combination 2: <Frame + Past> + Perfect
Prototype: Last Friday I bought a ball. I have painted it red.
== Both actions here are finished. PAINT in Perfect indicates it finishes outside the Frame ahead: I didn't paint it red on the day I bought it. Please note that this also means we actually know the definite time of the painting. Often, without a judgmental Frame, writers usually use the two tenses to denote two cases happen at clearly different time.
Ex: Their size was conceived in Napoleon's day; but the motorcar has killed all that.
== If KILL is in Past, it results in anachronism, implying there were already destructing motorcars in Napoleon's day.
Ex: Soon after the 1961 antichoke war, Gourvennec formed a SICA in north Finistere and has succeeded in imposing minimum prices on local middlemen.
Combination 3: <Frame + Past> + Present
Prototype: Last Friday we bought a dog. We call it Hero.
== The stand-alone expression of CALL in Present indicates the calling is now not finished: we still call it so today. In a paragraph, it further indicates it happens outside the Frame ahead.
Ex: From 1955 to 1958, a Royal Commission on Common Land made a thorough review of commons and their report is a fascinating document of considerable social and historical interest.
== The report is still fascinating today. If we use 'was', it means it is so only from 1955 to 1958.
Combination 4: <Frame + Perfect> + Perfect
Prototype: He has lived here since 1970. He has visited the Ocean Park.
== Interesting, two different kinds of Present Perfect are put here side by side. The former with a Frame means he is still living here, while the latter relates a past case by now. Compared with Combination #1, Frame with Perfect cannot be related to another Perfect. That is to say, the latter Perfect cannot express a continuity because of the Frame ahead.
Ex: The weather has been beautiful ever since last Thursday; but, there has been a white frost every morning.
== The weather can be still fine, but 'every morning' cannot be still continuous. The latter Perfect retrospects the frost in the past few days.
Combination 5: <Frame + Perfect> + Present
Ex: In just over a decade, 3000km of large pipelines for oil have been laid in Europe and more are under construction.
== Two continuations here. Because of the Frame, the former has to use Perfect.
It is in this frequent kind of examples that we notice the Frame with Perfect ahead cannot affect the tense of another sentence.
Ex: Since the war the figure has risen from 3.4 to 13 per cent, and is now comparable with British, German and American levels.
===============
The five combinations above are quite common. In the following we may put them together and see how they interact with one another. Since they don't necessarily have to have a fixed sequence, we use a random combination for explanation:
Combination X: <In 1970 + Past> + Perfect + Past + Present
== In a paragraph such as this, while the sentences can say millions of different things, as the role of tenses, both Perfect and Past simply serve the same expression, indicating past time. And yet, only the Past in different sentences can imply it happens also "in 1970", while Perfect doesn't. If we cut up sentences into many orphan ones, we cut away the function of tenses.
Ex: They obtained legislation in 1966 and soon afterwards set up the LVR Park Authority. It now owns or occupies around 1040 ha of land and water and has brought into use 160 ha of water.
== Logically, SET UP in Past here has its own Frame: 'soon after 1966'. As can be objectively seen, OWN and OCCUPY in Present do not relate habitual actions nor routines, nor permanency, nor Instantaneous Present. We can hardly give a positive term to describe it. But they are actions now not finished, at the time of writing.
Ex: "Abbot Daniel died so long as eight years since, without sickness or any pain. I am not his successor. I have only been abbot since last year. He was succeeded by Peter Matin."
Ex: "You have described that episode remarkably well, splendidly. That is exactly how it was."
== It is easy to notice that, without giving a specific past time, many writers use Perfect and Past just to imply things finished in different time.
Ex: Of these three people, the British were until about 1960 the richest and are now the poorest, while the Germans have moved from third to first place.
Ex: The Rothschild debate symbolized a dilemma which has begun to face Britain, the United States, and other advanced countries. In short, why do we support science?
Ex: Between 1957 and 1971, 1500 cinemas closed, and annual cinema attendances fell from 411 to 175 million. They have since picked up slightly, and in 1975 audiences were back at 181 million, but high inflation has bought new problem, and the French industry is ill-suited to cope with this kind of crisis.
Conclusion from different Combinations: Frame with Simple Past can dominate another Past sentence, affecting its tense, while Frame with Present Perfect cannot another.
I hope you can tell me exactly where is the ambiguity so I may elaborate on it. Or you may pick up some paragraphs for us to analyze or do some discussion.
Thank you for your time in reading.
Shun
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
-
Lighthouse1971b
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:54 am
NOT PERSONAL MATTERS
Actually, in forums people are changing information and not jsut personal matters. Even you will not summarize anything for me, I will spend a lot of time in the subject. I am not talking to just you actually. Rather, I am talking about our ideas. The two progressives are so interesting that we have to explain them together. As they have many things in common, we shall deal with them at once. But as I wanted to answer you yesterday, I thought people might be interested in giving their ideas, so I asked for their opinions first.
On the other hand, have other people reminded you that Present Progressive is allowed to stay with since? I will keep in mind that, sometimes, since can relate a reason and therefore not talk of time. I stress that, below, since telling the time can stay with Present Progressive, rather than Present Perfect usually. Examples are frequent, though some EFLs, being unable to explain them, regard them as abnormal. But I think otherwise. Some months after the World Trade Center accident of 911, I saw news about New Yorkers who gathered together and helped each other, asking "What are you doing since 911?" Present Progressive is acceptable to stay with since. They know the use of the tense. Using Perfect Progressive here is inappropriate.
Ex: A recent New York Times article stated that America is reaching levels of economic polarization unseen since the early 1900’s.
http://www.corpuschristifremont.org/jan26trid.html
== I have deliberately searched for your mysteriously forbidden progressive Aspect of "reaching".
Ex: Wealth is reaching levels of concentration not seen since before the stock market crash of 1929.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0403-04.htm
Ex: www.Schoolfriends.ie is reaching tens of thousands of people since it started 3 years ago.
http://www.campus.ie/user?cmd=section§ionid=2
Ex: Although the concept of Oromumma as the cultural and political project is reaching different sectors of Oromo society since the early 1990s, it is not well developed into the master Oromo ideology of liberation.
http://www.gumii.org/Articles/Oromumma.html
Ex: In this exam, I need to assess how well you are understanding the information covered since the previous exam.
http://wilkes.edu/~kklemow/ICS-220.exam3.html
Ex: He is graduate in Law, MA (English) and working in the Bank since 29.09.1975.
http://www.syndicatebank.com/asp/0100te ... pageID=111
Ex: Fasol has been working professionally in or with Japan since 1984 and he is working continuously in Japan since 1991 in responsible positions.
http://www.eurotechnology.com/info/fasol.html
== In this example the author uses both Progressives with since. He knows the difference.
Note: These are all new examples I have just collected. Examples are very frequent.
Shun
If I am boring, why would you keep talking to me, even entering my thread here? Do you think I would not expect you could check me, now that we are at the top threads? Do you think I have no other forums whatsoever to ask for help? Do you think I cannot post some very vague terms to bypass the discussion, as you did to the summary? Did you have any idea I would push this thread up here just for you? Again, do you think other people could not say what you have been cutely saying here?Lighthouse1971b in other thread wrote:I don't have the time or the inclination to sumarize it for you here. You bore me.
Actually, in forums people are changing information and not jsut personal matters. Even you will not summarize anything for me, I will spend a lot of time in the subject. I am not talking to just you actually. Rather, I am talking about our ideas. The two progressives are so interesting that we have to explain them together. As they have many things in common, we shall deal with them at once. But as I wanted to answer you yesterday, I thought people might be interested in giving their ideas, so I asked for their opinions first.
On the other hand, have other people reminded you that Present Progressive is allowed to stay with since? I will keep in mind that, sometimes, since can relate a reason and therefore not talk of time. I stress that, below, since telling the time can stay with Present Progressive, rather than Present Perfect usually. Examples are frequent, though some EFLs, being unable to explain them, regard them as abnormal. But I think otherwise. Some months after the World Trade Center accident of 911, I saw news about New Yorkers who gathered together and helped each other, asking "What are you doing since 911?" Present Progressive is acceptable to stay with since. They know the use of the tense. Using Perfect Progressive here is inappropriate.
Ex: A recent New York Times article stated that America is reaching levels of economic polarization unseen since the early 1900’s.
http://www.corpuschristifremont.org/jan26trid.html
== I have deliberately searched for your mysteriously forbidden progressive Aspect of "reaching".
Ex: Wealth is reaching levels of concentration not seen since before the stock market crash of 1929.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0403-04.htm
Ex: www.Schoolfriends.ie is reaching tens of thousands of people since it started 3 years ago.
http://www.campus.ie/user?cmd=section§ionid=2
Ex: Although the concept of Oromumma as the cultural and political project is reaching different sectors of Oromo society since the early 1990s, it is not well developed into the master Oromo ideology of liberation.
http://www.gumii.org/Articles/Oromumma.html
Ex: In this exam, I need to assess how well you are understanding the information covered since the previous exam.
http://wilkes.edu/~kklemow/ICS-220.exam3.html
Ex: He is graduate in Law, MA (English) and working in the Bank since 29.09.1975.
http://www.syndicatebank.com/asp/0100te ... pageID=111
Ex: Fasol has been working professionally in or with Japan since 1984 and he is working continuously in Japan since 1991 in responsible positions.
http://www.eurotechnology.com/info/fasol.html
== In this example the author uses both Progressives with since. He knows the difference.
Note: These are all new examples I have just collected. Examples are very frequent.
Shun
Perhaps Larry, Stephen, Metal, Lori, Duncan, Andrew or another highly respected member of these threads can back me up here, but I'll make an attempt to answer you Shuntang:
Semantically (in meaning only) the difference between these two sentences is time. The first ("I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight.") states clearly that starting somewhere in the past, 'I' began "exercising and dieting" (habitually by the sounds of it) and as of yet have not lost any weight.
The second ("I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
) has no specification to how long the subject has been "exercising and dieting". All we know is that they are "exercising and dieting" habitually at this point in time (or "now", or "these days").
So I would conclude that the only difference that I can pull from these two examples is that one clearly states that the subject started working out before... the second simply states that the subject is in the present with no given time of when the subject started .
Semantically (in meaning only) the difference between these two sentences is time. The first ("I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight.") states clearly that starting somewhere in the past, 'I' began "exercising and dieting" (habitually by the sounds of it) and as of yet have not lost any weight.
The second ("I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
) has no specification to how long the subject has been "exercising and dieting". All we know is that they are "exercising and dieting" habitually at this point in time (or "now", or "these days").
So I would conclude that the only difference that I can pull from these two examples is that one clearly states that the subject started working out before... the second simply states that the subject is in the present with no given time of when the subject started .
Wjserson,
We are talking about the following pair of progressives:
ExA: "I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
ExB: "I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
Something you said is applicable to both, so there is of little use:
> starting somewhere in the past
> started working out before
>
Both the progressives are starting somewhere in the past or started working out before. I don't believe that we haven't started anything yet and complain "but I haven't lost weight."
This description is hard to follow:
> habitually at this point in time (or "now", or "these days")
>
How come there is now or these days? I don't know. If we can forcefully describe one sentence with these time adverbs, are you sure we cannot do to the other sentence?
As for "habitually at a point a time", it is self-contradictory. How can you judge it a habit by a point of time? Even if you can, you can say it to both ExA and ExB.
Lastly, you wrote:
> the second simply states that the subject is in the present
> with no given time of when the subject started.
>
As far as I know, there is also no time given to the first example.
If I have mistaken not, you often use different rulers to measure the two tenses, so I cannot see one contrasting point in it. The one point you say to ExA can, if checked, be clearly applicable to another.
You didn't say which point ExA has, but ExB hasn't.
You didn't say which point ExA does, but ExB doesn't.
Therefore, I am afraid I can't see the difference.
=========
I have clearly stated that we actually have only two kinds of time, past and present. If so, one may argue why there are so many tenses: Perfective ones, and Progressive ones. By way of the four simple rules, I think I have solved the problem of Present Perfect. (Past Progressive and Past Perfect are in story-writing for describing the flow of actions, as I have stated in the thread "Standard use of used to or not?" around here.)
Now, as the final step, we have to explain how to stuff the Present Progressive and Perfect Progressive into two kinds of time, past and present. Actually, I have mentioned that the following three are nearly the same:
ExA: "I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExB: "I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExC: "I exercise and diet, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== I mean the former part of the examples.
There must be something to separate them. What is that? I know it is not fair: I have had a few decades for preparation, and you have only one night. As I will not be so foolish as to claim my way is the only way, what is your way to separate them?
This may be a hint. I repeat that we can easily find since working with Present Progressive: "How are you doing since our last visit?" What does the structure tell us?
Shun
Thank you for your message.You wrote:Semantically (in meaning only) the difference between these two sentences is time. The first ("I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight.") states clearly that starting somewhere in the past, 'I' began "exercising and dieting" (habitually by the sounds of it) and as of yet have not lost any weight.
The second ("I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight.") has no specification to how long the subject has been "exercising and dieting". All we know is that they are "exercising and dieting" habitually at this point in time (or "now", or "these days").
So I would conclude that the only difference that I can pull from these two examples is that one clearly states that the subject started working out before... the second simply states that the subject is in the present with no given time of when the subject started .
We are talking about the following pair of progressives:
ExA: "I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
ExB: "I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight."
Something you said is applicable to both, so there is of little use:
> starting somewhere in the past
> started working out before
>
Both the progressives are starting somewhere in the past or started working out before. I don't believe that we haven't started anything yet and complain "but I haven't lost weight."
This description is hard to follow:
> habitually at this point in time (or "now", or "these days")
>
How come there is now or these days? I don't know. If we can forcefully describe one sentence with these time adverbs, are you sure we cannot do to the other sentence?
As for "habitually at a point a time", it is self-contradictory. How can you judge it a habit by a point of time? Even if you can, you can say it to both ExA and ExB.
Lastly, you wrote:
> the second simply states that the subject is in the present
> with no given time of when the subject started.
>
As far as I know, there is also no time given to the first example.
If I have mistaken not, you often use different rulers to measure the two tenses, so I cannot see one contrasting point in it. The one point you say to ExA can, if checked, be clearly applicable to another.
You didn't say which point ExA has, but ExB hasn't.
You didn't say which point ExA does, but ExB doesn't.
Therefore, I am afraid I can't see the difference.
=========
I have clearly stated that we actually have only two kinds of time, past and present. If so, one may argue why there are so many tenses: Perfective ones, and Progressive ones. By way of the four simple rules, I think I have solved the problem of Present Perfect. (Past Progressive and Past Perfect are in story-writing for describing the flow of actions, as I have stated in the thread "Standard use of used to or not?" around here.)
Now, as the final step, we have to explain how to stuff the Present Progressive and Perfect Progressive into two kinds of time, past and present. Actually, I have mentioned that the following three are nearly the same:
ExA: "I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExB: "I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
ExC: "I exercise and diet, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== I mean the former part of the examples.
There must be something to separate them. What is that? I know it is not fair: I have had a few decades for preparation, and you have only one night. As I will not be so foolish as to claim my way is the only way, what is your way to separate them?
This may be a hint. I repeat that we can easily find since working with Present Progressive: "How are you doing since our last visit?" What does the structure tell us?
Shun
Sorry people, but I need to speak to Shun
Shun, let me tell you something, and I promise to calmy express what I'm about to say:
I don't want to damage your ambition (entirely) from posting Shun, but I have to know : Why ask a question when you seem to already know the answer you desire? Is this some type of game show to you? Where you educate those who dare reply to your questions that seem to be sincere? I don't wish to play games with you, Shun. If you want to play games, why not label those postings that you consider games in a way that helps me never waste my time like this again.
Why did I even bother when all I get back is that I'm "self-contradictory"? Does he even understand what I said? Does anybody understand what his purpose is on this site?
Also Shun, I think you're slowly losing numbers of individuals who are willing to bother replying to you. I know you at least lost one.
I don't want to damage your ambition (entirely) from posting Shun, but I have to know : Why ask a question when you seem to already know the answer you desire? Is this some type of game show to you? Where you educate those who dare reply to your questions that seem to be sincere? I don't wish to play games with you, Shun. If you want to play games, why not label those postings that you consider games in a way that helps me never waste my time like this again.
Why did I even bother when all I get back is that I'm "self-contradictory"? Does he even understand what I said? Does anybody understand what his purpose is on this site?
Also Shun, I think you're slowly losing numbers of individuals who are willing to bother replying to you. I know you at least lost one.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm