Highly Selected Examples

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:13 pm

Ex: I am getting up early these weeks.
Ex: I get up early these weeks.
Ex: I have been getting up early these weeks.

I've never heard the "expression" these weeks.

These days is good, but it means "at the present in contrast with a past action that was opposite". It is idiomatic.

I used to get up late, but I get up early these days.

Different, and not idiomatic:

I used to get up late, but I've been getting up early these past few days.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:17 pm

<Ex: “He lives in Japan” (a continuity) compares with
“He has lived in Japan” (a finish) >

He has lived in Japan for years. (a continuity or a finish?)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:25 pm

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

That many amatuers don't have a clue.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:43 pm

shuntang wrote: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,
Are you assuming here that Lewis is stating the "current relevance" theory of the present perfect? If so, you'd be wrong. On page 78 of TEV he cleary warns against explanations of "current relevance".

His "grounded in the point NOW" above refers to the present perfect as an aspect that looks back from the point Now:

...the speaker sees, or thinks of; something at the moment of speaking which makes him look back onsomething which has already happened.

Oh look! Someone opened the window.

Oh look! Someone has opened the window.

When the speaker is strongly aware of the moment of speaking, he mostly, though not inevitably, chooses the present perfect.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:06 pm

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)

Trying to make decontextualised sentences do your dance is inadvisable.

In ?"He lived in Japan before" , what period does the before refer to? Before what?

In, "He has lived in Japan before", the before clearly refers to before Now-the moment of speaking.

Past time is of course before Now, but think clearly about "before now" time and "past" time, the English verb distinguishes one from the other.

The past simple (remote form) refers to a point in time without any relation to any other point in time, the present perfect talks about time as looked at from the point Now - retrospective form.

Compare these two:

Joan is 34.

Joan is younger than me.

They are very similar to the contrast between the past simple and the present perfect. I'll let you figure out why.

And finally. I mean finally:

I've seen this many times, Becky. (Looks back OVER the past)

I've saw this many times, Becky. (Looks back TO the past)

The hardest thing is to BE SURE why a speaker would use one form over another. That would be better interpreted in context. The only thing we have here are guesses, generalisations and hypotheses.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:08 am

metal56 wrote:His "grounded in the point NOW" above refers to the present perfect as an aspect that looks back from the point Now:

...the speaker sees, or thinks of; something at the moment of speaking which makes him look back onsomething which has already happened.

Oh look! Someone opened the window.

Oh look! Someone has opened the window.

When the speaker is strongly aware of the moment of speaking, he mostly, though not inevitably, chooses the present perfect.

Metal56 you need a test paper to tell the difference between the two tenses!!

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:35 am

metal56 wrote:
Ex: I am getting up early these weeks.
Ex: I get up early these weeks.
Ex: I have been getting up early these weeks.
I've never heard the "expression" these weeks.

You have heard little truth. It is normally used by people.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:38 am

Metal56 you need a test paper to tell the difference between the two tenses!!

And you need to read what is written.

someone opened (past simple)

someone has opened (present perfect)

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:40 am

metal56 wrote:
shuntang wrote: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,
Are you assuming here that Lewis is stating the "current relevance" theory of the present perfect? If so, you'd be wrong. On page 78 of TEV he cleary warns against explanations of "current relevance".

I were pointing out the fact that, as we have two kinds of Present Perfect, they usually want to use one definition to explain the both.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:01 am

metal56 wrote:And finally. I mean finally:

I've seen this many times, Becky. (Looks back OVER the past)

I've saw this many times, Becky. (Looks back TO the past)

Time is invisible. Look back over SOME TIME and look back to SOME TIME are only figurative. But grammarians successfully change the problem of Simple Past/Present Perfect to the problem of look back OVER/look back TO. Only superman can see the difference. Only young students have to believe the difference between the two abstract views.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:02 am

shuntang wrote:
metal56 wrote:
Ex: I am getting up early these weeks.
Ex: I get up early these weeks.
Ex: I have been getting up early these weeks.
I've never heard the "expression" these weeks.

You have heard little truth. It is normally used by people.

Shun

I think you shouldn't be afraid to admit that you need a fair amount of help with your idiomatic (natural sounding) English.

Observe:

25th October
2nd Nov. 2004*
8th November
15th November
22nd November
29th November
6th December

* these dates are Tuesdays because the Monday is a day off in France. The courses then start on the Tuesday but all the hours are given within four days on these weeks.

The word "these" is anaphoric above and an adjective modifying "dates". It refers back to the dates mentioned. If the dates were days, it would be "these" days. "These dates" here means "The ones previously mentioned. You can see them in the text!

-------------------------------

I'm getting up early/earlier these days.

Here, "these" is also an adjective but is not directly anaphoric. As a modifier of "days" it instead contrasts with an implied,yet ellipted/surpressed, "those days". A change has happened. Here "these days" is an idiomatic/metaphoric expression and very common for expressing a change from the past to now.

-------------------------------

I'm getting up early/earlier these weeks.

is neither anaphoric or an idiomatic expression in standard English.
---------------------

If you need more help with your natural English, please ask.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:21 am

metal56 wrote:His "grounded in the point NOW" above refers to the present perfect as an aspect that looks back from the point Now:

...the speaker sees, or thinks of; something at the moment of speaking which makes him look back onsomething which has already happened.

Oh look! Someone opened the window.

Oh look! Someone has opened the window.

When the speaker is strongly aware of the moment of speaking, he mostly, though not inevitably, chooses the present perfect.

Awareness is not objective. "he mostly, though not inevitably," is absolute freedom. Actually, according to this kind of argument, we can use Simple Past and Present Perfect with absolute freedom, without any restriction. But what is the point? Do students get anything concrete here? Absolutely not. Teachers are only pouring vagueness to students. What is their purpose? It is finally this kind of vagueness that sends both teachers and students, in many forums, ask for some concrete guidelines.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:27 am

Time is invisible.

What the he*l does that mean. Chronological time is a construct that is far from invisible for humans. We devised it to separate Now from Then.
Psychological time is another thing altogether. Through that we express how we perceive time. Time is felt, it is far from invisible.

Different reactions after an 8 hour sleep:

I'm so tired, I feel like I've slept for only ten minutes.

I'm so awake, I feel like I've slept for two days.

How one person percieves a moment may be totally different from the next person's perception. That's why many times you have to divine the speakers reasoning from context. The meaning of "He's living in Japan" is not a absolute temporal fact. The speaker may be the one who perceives the action as a period or as a point. The listener/addressee will only know whether the time referred to is actually a period by asking more questions. That is the true nature of the present perfect-non-specificity. By asking more questions the generalised/non-specific statement (present perfect) becomes specific. It becomes the past simple.

Look back over SOME TIME and look back to SOME TIME are only figurative. But grammarians successfully change the problem of Simple Past/Present Perfect to the problem of look back OVER/look back TO. Only superman can see the difference. Only young students have to believe the difference between the two abstract views.

Shun

In language use, we need to find a way to talk about the undivided nature of REAL TIME. We abstract.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:37 am

metal56 wrote:I'm getting up early/earlier these weeks.

is neither anaphoric or an idiomatic expression in standard English.

If you need more help with your natural English, please ask.

No, I'll get help from some others with more reasonable objectivity.

Ex: The raspberries are getting ripe during these weeks and I also have a lot of forest strawberries and real strawberries who are also getting ripe these months.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ganswijk/chipdir/about/new.htm

Ex: I may tell you that I felt pretty stout and supple until very lately, but I find that my limbs are getting rather weak now these weeks.
http://towns.mayo-ireland.ie/WebX?14@88 ... [email protected]

Ex: Members are getting 20% discount during these weeks.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pjame ... s/news.htm

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:47 am

Metal56 wrote:
Shun wrote:Time is invisible.
What the he*l does that mean. Chronological time is a construct that is far from invisible for humans. We devised it to separate Now from Then.
Psychological time is another thing altogether. Through that we express how we perceive time. Time is felt, it is far from invisible.

Let it be written. Tell the students to feel and see whether the time is past, present, and future!!! We have reached our splitting point. No more discussions are needed.

Shun