Highly Selected Examples

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply
Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:38 pm

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.
Only if you have a fixation with time.

The time difference here is the least meaningful of the distinctions, since all three can refer to exaclty the same period of time.

The Present Perfect Progressive here is putting the emphasis on the period of time from the beginning of the dieting to now.

Tne Present Progressive could be construed as the unmarked form here. It's referring to the person's dieting at present.

The Present Simple here suggests that the diet is not just a temporary fad but rather part of a long-term lifestyle decision.

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:01 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:As far as I can tell in this example it's simply a question of emphasis. The present perfect continuous puts the emphasis on the period of time up until now, whilst the present doesn't.
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 am afraid continuity is not gradable, that is, no more or less.
As you say "whilst the present doesn't", do you mean ExB or ExC?

If I don't emphasize, is ExB, or ExC, not continuous? Obviously not.
However, as I emphasize, does it mean ExA is very continuous? But how can I put emphasis on something not gradable. Can ExA be more continuous than ExB? I don't think so.

Then, what is the emphasis? I don't really know.

Shun

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:07 pm

Wjserson wrote:Why ask a question when you seem to already know the answer you desire?
Very simple, did you hear about second opinion? I want second opinions for comparison, obviously. If you have a better idea, I drop mine.

If not through discussion, how do I know my opinions are feasible? Do you think I've figured out the whole thing all by myself? No. As I have admitted for many times, I've got the whole thing by discussions. Actually, I don't even know if judging the following simple structures is a question at all:
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."
Now I think that it can be a discussion.

I have posted my things here before, without discussing with anyone. Please review the thread "Simple Past and Present Perfect". Please, Wjserson, at that time it was you who joked about my postings.
Wjserson wrote:Are you still talking to Metal (when Metal hasn't responded to you yet)? Or are you just having fun talking to yourself ? Or are you taking the opportunity to lecture EVERYBODY on "Shuntang's words of wisdom regarding the past family and the present perfect" .....It's almost as if you love reading your own postings.
And I then simply wrote: "I just want to say: Your opinions are welcome." Please check. I did say that to you, in very simple words, as if I am afraid you don't understand.

Now as you posted to me a few hours ago, I did say at the very first, "Thank you for your message". Wjserson, may I ask, how many persons have expressed such gratitude to you, just because you talked to him or her? The gratitude is true, no matter how you think. Through discussion is how I get something from you people here. As I don't have many grammar books, my ability is to create new opinions from you respectable people. I have learnt this ability from discussions in the past few decades.

What if at the very first I have posted all the answers to Lighthouse1971b? My so-called answers are no more than an embarrassing meager conclusion managed to save my skin. Without opinion-exchanging, I will get no betterment. It then helps neither Lighthouse nor me.

I need more polishing from opinions outside. I still thank you for your previous ideas given to me. Finally, however, you now tell me you will stop talking to me. Do you know what you are talking about? You equally tell me that I will get no more ideas from you. I beg you to think again. But don't expect me to beg twice.

Best wishes,

Shun Tang

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:20 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:The Present Simple here suggests that the diet is not just a temporary fad but rather part of a long-term lifestyle decision.
Please understand that action like decision cannot be long-term. Decision is made at a very short time. Only hesitation can be long term. One can spend a lifetime on hesitation, but not on decision. A "long-term lifestyle decision" is illogical. I guess here you mean activity.

Moreover, another logic is, at the beginning, we don't know if the action is long-term or not. An addict to opium will always say at first "I am just smoking for fun." But the smoking will very probably last life-long. Judging from such situation, we cannot say Present Progressive is a temporary fad, can we? The fact is, we don't know.
We don't know that "I am just fishing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just swimming for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just discussing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just singing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just robbing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
Therefore, we can hardly say a Present Progressive action is only temporary activity, because we don't know, as we are not prophets.

Shun

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:39 pm

PROGRESSIVE FORMS ARE ASPECTS

I try to link together all the information around here about the Progressives .
Stephen Jones wrote:The time difference here is the least meaningful of the distinctions, since all three can refer to exaclty the same period of time.
You are correct, time is the least meaningful of the distinctions, as there is no time period of time mentioned:
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)

On the other hand, the idea I have been trying to deliver is that even we mention a time period, such as a Frame (=Definite Past Time Adverbial), the Progressive simply doesn't care:
Ex: www.Schoolfriends.ie is reaching tens of thousands of people since it started 3 years ago.
== See also many other examples I found some messages ahead.
Why it doesn't care? Because the Progressive is not a tense. It is an Aspect. Yes, the famous jargon. After this message, however, it won't be one anymore. By the way, I have never used the term Tense to call Present Progressive or Perfect Progressive. (But Past Progressive working with Past Perfect will be different, as they are Tenses.)

To tell the truth, I studied Aspect Theory for quite a long time. I thought it was the only way to explain Present Perfect. And yet I finally found out, I didn't know what Aspect was, and didn't understand why we have Aspect at all. It is known to Aspect Theory that Aspect doesn't tell time. But the Present Perfect Aspect in Remoteness Theory, maybe from "The English Verb", relates time, according to some arguments here, and therefore I was quite confused at the beginning in dealing with such Aspect. In this message I will not refer to this kind of Remoteness Theory. I am not qualified to judge what is remote. As I have mentioned, the bad thing is, the term Aspect is so vague that anyone who now has any idea about Present Perfect will call the idea Perfective Aspect. (See also "What is Aspect?" below.)

It is evident that usual Aspect Theory wanted to link Present Perfect to Aspect, implying a completion, just as Present Progressive has been linked to Aspect, yet relating a continuity. But they cannot explain that when we tell the time, such as since 1900, we normally use Present Perfect to denote an incompletion:
Ex: He has lived here since 1900.
As I have reported, many Aspect tycoons always avoided this subject. As a result, I maintain Present Perfect is not Aspect, but telling since 1900, a kind of Time, and therefore it is a tense. Actually, most present-day grammars still regard Present Perfect as tense. Yes, I did deny Present Perfect as Aspect. However, have we ever denied also that Present Progressive is an Aspect? We didn't. What a shame! After failing to include Present Perfect as Aspect, we would no longer talk about what is Aspect, the characteristic of Present Progressive. We didn't study the behavior of it. It is surely not a good idea.

===========
What Is Aspect?

In dictionary, ASPECT means direction, viewpoint:
Ex: We love the valley in all its Aspects.
== We love the valley if viewing it in all directions. But the important thing here is, as can be understood, though we may get a different look at it, it is the same valley.
Therefore I agree Present Progressive denotes a kind of Aspect. That is, most Simple Present can be repeated in Present Progressive without making a big mistake in expressing Time. That is to say, Present Progressive is another direction to look at Simple Present:
Ex: “He lives in Japan” compares with
“He is living in Japan”
Ex: “She writes stories for children” compares with
“She is writing stories for children”
Ex: “We discuss the use of Aspect” compares with
“We are discussing the use of Aspect”
All of above are referring to a continuity at the present time.

But Present Perfect is not an Aspect since it is not another direction to look at Simple Present:
Ex: “He lives in Japan” (a continuity) compares with
“He has lived in Japan” (a finish)
Ex: “She writes stories for children” (a continuity) compares with
“She has written stories for children” (a finish)
Ex: “We discuss the use of Aspect” (a continuity) compares with
“We have discussed the use of Aspect” (a finish)

Of course, the possibility has been considered that Present Perfect is another direction to look at Simple Past. Actually, this is the invisible essence of Aspect Theory, but it couldn't past "since 1900", as explained above.

====================
Another important point of Aspect is about logic. We use sentences (including tenses) to describe so-called actions in our life. Most actions or happenings are not like running a 60-meter match that has a clear start and end. Most actions are not so clear as to when to have started, or when will be ended. Progressive Aspects are used to help express or emphasize such kinds of vagueness.

At the beginning of doing something, logically, we don't know if the action is long-term or not, as we are not prophets. We cannot see the whole action by now. An addict to opium would always say at first "I am just smoking for fun." But the drug-smoking would very probably last forever. Judging from such logic, we cannot say Present Progressive is a temporary fad, can we? The fact is, we don't know the whole action, especially the future part.
We don't know that "I am just fishing for fun" will turn a career or not.
We don't know that "I am just swimming for fun" will turn a competitor or not.
We don't know that "I am just discussing for fun" will turn life-long or not.
We don't know that "I am just singing for fun" will turn a habit or not.
We don't know that "I am just robbing for fun" will turn a regular prisoner or not.
Therefore, we can hardly say Present Progressive is a temporary activity. We call it temporary activity only after it ends, but it is not the right time to judge the time of an action.

Moreover, we even don't know exactly when we started to do such fishing, swimming, discussing, and singing. If you are still a teacher, actor, policeman, or fireman, can you tell me exactly when did you start? Or exactly when will the career end? We actually didn't know the exact time. For example, if you go for a vacation NEXT WEEK with your family, please tell me PRECISELY when it starts? Did it start on some fine day when you and your wife talked about traveling? Or another day you two made the decision? Or another day you finally booked the tickets? Or will you regard it starts on the day you step on the plane? Or the moment you step down the plane and reach the destination? You can never tell. No jury can judge this. However, all these are the Aspects of a vacation. All these times you can use Present Progressive to say it. It tells, or emphasizes, the vagueness of an present action.

=====================
As for the difference in the use between Present Progressive and Perfect Progressive, please see the following timeline diagram, a present action from beginning A to the end D, like a horizontal curve:

A//////B|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||C\\\\\\D

1. From A to B is the starting part of it, expressed in Present Progressive. In simple words, A-B is a new action. The action is newly started.
2. From C to D is the ending part of it, expressed in Perfect Progressive. In simple words, C-D is an old, long-term action. However, sometimes it is a just-finished action, indicating it is approximately at D.
3. From B to C is the on-going part of it, expressed in Simple Present. It is the main part of present action. As logically, usually we can't see the whole part of action, and don't know when an action ends, this B-C part is supposed to be indefinitely long.
The whole part from A to D is a present action. Any part of it is “an action not yet finished”, which is the definition of Simple Present.

Please note that most of the time, the three tenses are nearly interchangeable, with two progressive forms indicating we look at the action from another directions, or Aspects:
Ex: I am getting up early these weeks.
Ex: I get up early these weeks.
Ex: I have been getting up early these weeks.

We may use Present Progressive to describe something like I am traveling to Japan next week when you ask me why I am packing up things. What I mean is, traveling to Japan doesn’t have to start at the time I leave home. When I start preparing to go, it is part of the traveling. This is much more reasonable than labeling Present Progressive as Future Tense.

Further, according to the diagram, though Perfect Progressive is mostly not a finished action, sometimes we use it to describe actions that are just ended (at the point D):
Ex: “What happens? I have been sleeping, what's up?”
Ex: “Joe, I have been talking to Mary and I know what you have done.”
== A just-finished action can be said in Perfect Progressive.
Because I know this phenomenon, I would endeavor to search for something like "*I have been reaching the summit", which is wrongly regarded by Lighthouse1971b as an erroneous structure, in the thread of "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive":
Ex: Inflatable technologies for solar array deployment have been reaching maturity.
== A just-finished action can be said in Perfect Progressive.

Interesting, I have noticed a combination before, and if you want, you will also become aware of this more than usual: The adjective ‘new’ is frequently coupled with Present Progressive, while ‘long’ is well compatible with Perfect Progressive.

A//////B|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||C\\\\\\D
However, speaking logically, as in the diagram above, it is very hard to tell exactly where is A-B, because usually we don't see the whole action at the moment. Therefore, even exactly in A-B, Simple Present and Present Progressive are nearly interchangeable. Even with the whole situation being understood by the listeners, and even in writing, no one will challenge against either Simple Present or Present Progressive, should the speaker confuse them, or switch them at will. Simply put, using Aspect is subjective, rather than objective, being just another viewpoint to Simple Present. The similarity applies also to C-D, the vagueness between Simple Present and Prefect Progressive.

Talking about A-B, the newest action is the one we are doing at the moment. Therefore we use Present Progressive to describe what happens under our very nose at the moment. In dialogue, this is the most frequent use of Present Progressive.

================
Some examples reviewed here.

ExA: "I've been exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== An old action. To me, the sentence relates a complaint about not losing weight for long suffering. If we don't use the style of Aspect, we may say in Present Perfect: "I have exercised and dieted for a rather long time, but I haven't lost weight."

ExB: "I am exercising and dieting, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== A new action. To me, it is no wonder I haven't lost weight -- yet.

ExC: "I exercise and diet, but I haven't lost weight." (= a continuity)
== A on-going action. A present action. An action now not yet ended. I don't know why I haven't lost weight.

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. As relating Aspects, the time Frame doesn't work, violating my four simple rules. Has been working is regarded as an old action, while is working is new. Progressive tenses denoting Aspects are rather subjective, and yet we still cannot change the order of these two progressives here.

===========
As I can remember, I have expressed all my viewpoints about various tenses here. After this, I have nothing to say anymore, and therefore I am going away. If the information can be published, please do, as it has never been published in English, either in large scale or small. I have it printed in Chinese versions, though. I'll claim no money at all, but it is much better to add my name on it. If you think it is only rubbish, please forget the whole thing.

As I said I have spent decades on the studying, it is true. I started the discussion first by posting letters. I have done the whole study because I really can't hide away past time adverbials (such as "in the past xx years") for Present Perfect, and then teach that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials. Under this false conclusion, there will be no deeper researches anymore. To top all, more and more harmful things have been done just for the same concealment. In contrast, my four simple rules, or the horizontal curve in this message, for example, can be understandable to young students, I guess.

By the way, in order to support their theory of "current relevance" for Present Perfect, in A Grammar of Contemporary English, R. Quirk, et al. use only examples with expressions of a time adverbial, just like a group of examples selected by Lighthouse1971b, in the thread of "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive". Maybe they really, as same as Lighthouse1971b, didn't even know something special about those examples.

Shun

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:46 pm

Larry,

In another thread you talked to Lighthouse1971b and stabbed at me:
Larry talked to Lighthouse1971b and wrote: I see you have run into Shun Tang and his usual shenanigans.
I was quite annoyed as I noticed the insults.

Larry, you have written this in this thread "Highly Selected Examples":
Larry Latham wrote:I thought you had turned over a new leaf, Shun Tang. I'm sorry, and sad, to see that I have made another mistake and been drawn in by your, what I took to be, conciliatory posting a couple of days ago. :(

I won't make that mistake again.

Larry Latham
Did you mean I had taken advantage of use of shenanigans as you were sleepy?

Now you have found out my trick, will you go on another discussion with me again?

How about talking about Simple Present as telling FACT, rather than time? Or any tense you know best?

Shun Tang

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:03 pm

[quote="Larry to Lighthouse1971b in "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive""] I see you have run into Shun Tang and his usual shenanigans.

I have coughed all morning.
I have been coughing all morning.


So far, so good. We have identified the similarities between the two sentences. But there are also differences, and the same differences apply for all your examples, indeed for any examples of the two forms. The verb phrase in the first example sentence contains "coughed." The other one contains "been coughing." In the second example, the user is, at the exact moment of use, conceiving the coughing event as extended in time, or having a beginning and continuing for some period of time. (That is, of course, the primary essence of "continuous" forms). However, in the first example, the user is, at the moment of use, conceiving the coughing event as a single, unified, organic whole. It is simple. It is indivisible (as conceived). It is unitary.[/quote]
Larry, actually, all the time here you are talking about the use of "all morning", rather than the tenses. If you can tell the difference between Present Perfect and Perfect Progressive, without "all morning", then I agree that I am playing shenanigans. OK?

This time, by insulting me, you started the discussion.

Shun Tang

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:15 pm

Larry,

Lately I have invented a Long Theory that can match with your Remoteness Theory. Anyway, we both don't have clear definitions about them. Would you like to compare them with me?

To start with, what is the most convincing theme of "The English Verb"?

Shun

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:49 am

Far from the conventional Aspect Theory, I knew there may be another kind of Present Perfect Aspect, I desired to know a bit more of it and on internet searched for "The English Verb". There were many useful matches linked to it. Now I have known a little bit more about Remoteness. There are intensive comments about Present Perfect in the following pages:

http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 1_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 2_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 3_sarn.htm
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 4_sarn.htm

Anyone who wants to know more about the tense shall take a look at them.

The author wants to help a friend who was discouraged in learning Present Perfect. He in these pages studies and compares the great works of a few top grammarians:

Batstone, R. 1994. Grammar. Oxford University Press
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge University Press
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. 1987. The Natural Approach. Pergamon
Lewis, M. 1986. The English Verb. An Exploration of Structure and Meaning. Language Teaching Publications
McCoard, R.W. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. North-Holland
Svallberg, A. 1986. Teaching Tense and Aspect: A Systematic Approach. E.L.T. Journal 40/2:136-145
Swan, M. 1980. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press
Thomson, A.J. and A.V. Martinet 1980. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford University Press
Thornbury, S. 1999. How to Teach Grammar. Pearson Education
Thornbury, S. 1997. About Language. Cambridge University Press
Tregidgo, P.S. 1984. How far have we got with the present perfect? E.L.T. Journal 38/4:286-289
Yule, G. 1998. Explaining English Grammar. Oxford University Press

After browsing these, you may know how far have they got with the Present Perfect.

Shun Tang

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:08 am

A quote from the following page:
http://www.developingteachers.com/artic ... 1_sarn.htm
According to Lewis,
'The most important thing to understand about "the present perfect", or present retrospective, is that it is a present form. It is always essentially grounded at the point NOW, the moment of speaking.' (1986:76)
I couldn’t get the examples. But on the other hand, similarly, in order to support their theory of "current relevance" for Present Perfect, in A Grammar of Contemporary English, R. Quirk, et al. use examples only with expressions of a time adverbial, just like a group of examples selected by Lighthouse1971b, in the thread of "Perfect vs. Perfect Progressive". They refer to only half of Present Perfect, as Lighthouse1971b has noticed.

As I have always emphasized, there are two kinds of Present Perfect:
ExA: He has lived in Japan before. (a finish)
ExB: He has lived in Hong Kong since 1900. (a continuity)
But grammars always want to explain the two functions as one, and that is the trouble. To achieve their purpose, they have to use vague terms to lead you to nowhere. I have seen enough of these. Check the quotation above, what means “It is always essentially grounded at the point NOW, the moment of speaking”? It is a completely useless reminder, since all kinds of tenses essentially ground at the point NOW, the moment of speaking.

If Lewis’ book is meant for teachers, it suggests how to defend themselves against students, rather than to teach students. The hope to get something friendly from “The English Verb” is remote, as implied from the web pages I listed above.

Shun

ELPIS
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:30 pm

WWW.ELPISSERVER.TK

Post by ELPIS » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:23 am

WWW.ELPISSERVER.TK

Or

http://ferrariferrariferrari.port5.com/index.htm



Hi this is a website I have created to evaluate a prototype I have implemented for my university final year project. All you have to do is enter the website and use the application and then answer the questionnaire.

I know how everyone is busy this days :>:> the whole process will take only one minute to complete.

Please help me by sending this email to your friends.

Thank you for you time

Elpis Anastasiou

shuntang
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Post by shuntang » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:42 pm

THE EVOLUTION OF A TENSE

It is a long story. Nowadays as we explain the modal verb, people might go so far as to say this:
Permission:
(e.g.) Can I smoke in this room?
(e.g.) You can't smoke here, but you can smoke in the garden.
(e.g.) You can meet her tomorrow, but tonight you have to stay home.

Concession:
(e.g.) OK, OK, you win!. You can go there once you've finished.
(e.g.) I surrender, you can do with me what you will.
They honestly think so, to tell the very truth. However, they are wrong. Actually, it is the sentence, not the modal verb, that denotes permission, or concession.

It's been long time for people to learn that whenever the sentence expresses a meaning, we instead will teach students to say that the tense, now the modal verb, expresses the meaning. They then explain a tense as same as they explain the sentence, but they don't mention the sentence anymore.

Therefore, maintaining the quotation above, one nearly says this:
-- When the sentence denotes a permission, we say the modal verb denotes it.
-- When the sentence denotes a concession, we say the modal verb denotes it.

It is their duty to confuse a tense with a sentence. It is so common that it has become part of their instinct.
=============

In the beginning of studying English tense, we in young days had to accept the injudicious 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 the first step of 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. They are acquiring the instinct of explaining a tense.

However, I estimate an adult would have enough common sense to ask, "If from the sentence I have already seen the meaning of habit, why shall we redundantly use Simple Present to say it again?" But he or she has to accept what a teacher has taught him -- unless the beginner immediately thinks up a whole new idea to argue with the experienced teacher.

To be worse, after the student has to accept the idea of using Simple Present to express habit, in later days she or he will have to totally forget that, at the very first, we understand Meanings based on the sentence, rather than on the tense. Now they mention no more the important role of the sentence.

Consequently, in all discussions over internet, people completely ignore the sentence, as we discuss the tense. All the time, as they can see a meaning from the sentence, people honestly believe that they shall say the tense, or the modal verb, expresses the meaning. They instinctively take the expression of a sentence to be that of the tense. They ridicule the opinion that thinks the other ways. This is how they explain a tense, a mystical, unexplainable thing evolved from the sentence.

Shun

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:44 pm

Therefore I agree Present Progressive denotes a kind of Aspect. That is, most Simple Present can be repeated in Present Progressive without making a big mistake in expressing Time. That is to say, Present Progressive is another direction to look at Simple Present:

Ex: “He lives in Japan” compares with
“He is living in Japan”
Ex: “She writes stories for children” compares with
“She is writing stories for children”
Ex: “We discuss the use of Aspect” compares with
“We are discussing the use of Aspect”
All of above are referring to a continuity at the present time.
Are you saying that in each contrasted pair above the speaker perceives the permanency or duration of action in the same way?
Last edited by metal56 on Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:54 pm

We may use Present Progressive to describe something like I am traveling to Japan next week when you ask me why I am packing up things. What I mean is, traveling to Japan doesn’t have to start at the time I leave home. When I start preparing to go, it is part of the traveling. This is much more reasonable than labeling Present
Progressive as Future Tense.
You seem determined to twist verbs to fit your rather strange way of seeing things. I am packing in preparation to travel to Japan. See it? In preparation NOW for the trip I will begin/take LATER.

Good grief! You'll be telling me next that the runner who is in the traning stage has actually begun the race. That puts the guy with the starting pistol out of a job right away!

:lol:
Last edited by metal56 on Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:04 pm

At the beginning of doing something, logically, we don't know if the action is long-term or not, as we are not prophets. We cannot see the whole action by now. An addict to opium would always say at first "I am just smoking for fun." But the drug-smoking would very probably last forever. Judging from such logic, we cannot say Present Progressive is a temporary fad, can we? The fact is, we don't know the whole action, especially the future part.

The present progressive is the speaker's interpretation of the action as something with a beginning and an end,as a duration, it is not a truth. The speaker uses the simple present to express her perception of the event as having no clear beginning and end-a point in time as opposed to a period. Even though "I live in London" will have a natural end one day-through death, eviction, or a later to move, we do not express it as such with the unmarked present simple. If we wish to modify an unmarked present simple statement, we can add nice little items such as, "I live in London, but I plan to move next year."

points (simple ) and periods (progressive)
facts (simple) and time interpretations (progressive)
speaker's perception of the event.
Last edited by metal56 on Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply