|
|
 Mon Sep 17, 2007 20:16 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | I agree that "ever since I met her" is correct. But that is exactly my point -- your original sentence means exactly the same thing. You refer to a specific single point in the past -- and that specific single point in the past is known to the speaker. |
I have told people, "I have eaten a fish's eyeball." I am referring to a specific single point in the past, which is known to me, but the time when it happened is not important to the conversation, so it is never stated, and no one is going to ask me about it. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
|
vanity fair
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 32
|
 |
| Tue Sep 18, 2007 0:13 am present perfect tense |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Yankee wrote: | | I agree that "ever since I met her" is correct. But that is exactly my point -- your original sentence means exactly the same thing. You refer to a specific single point in the past -- and that specific single point in the past is known to the speaker. |
I have told people, "I have eaten a fish's eyeball." I am referring to a specific single point in the past, which is known to me, but the time when it happened is not important to the conversation, so it is never stated, and no one is going to ask me about it. |
Jamie, you disappoint me by not addressing or even bothering to acknowledge all of the very specific points I've made as to why I consider the simple past (met) to be perfectly correct as well as natural in Green Knight's original sentence.
I have not disagreed with you about sentences such as "I have eaten a fish's eyeball."  On the contrary, I have agreed with you about that. However, sentences such as that do not really compare to Green Knight's original sentence. Why not compare apples with apples instead of comparing apples with oranges?
.
_________________
Amy
.
ESL teacher, translator, and a native speaker of American English |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 7464
Location: Northeast US
|
|
| Tue Sep 18, 2007 13:51 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Green Knight wrote: | Hi Amy,
So, the only difference between these two sentences is whether the action is completed or incompleted and the rule I stated is used depending on the verb and the completion of the action?
I'm so complicated! 
Jovana |
Hi Jovana
Sorry that I didn't answer this question earlier. Yes, the completion of an activity is important in the two sentences I gave you, and the meaning of the verbs themselves (know and meet) also plays a part. The fact that the verb met can serve as a specific and definite point in time in the past (just like "last February") is important. Using met in your original sentence is neither particularly informal nor particularly formal -- it is simply a standard usage.
A simple sentence such as 'I've met her.' is fine. It is extremely general and when you met her is not important at all in that short sentence. In the speaker's mind, only the fact that you met her is important.
The word 'met' serves a different purpose in your original sentence. It establishes a definite point in time -- a starting point for the incomplete activity mentioned in the second half of your sentence.
.
_________________
Amy
.
ESL teacher, translator, and a native speaker of American English |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 7464
Location: Northeast US
|
|
|
vanity fair
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 32
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 0:40 am present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Amy, if someone says, "I've eaten swordfish once," he is correctly describing a complete and finished past action. |
I agree. And surely you will agree that the structure of that sentence is not only different, but also simpler than the one in question.
[/color]
. |
Actually, I disagree here. You should not say "I've eaten swordfish once." It should read, "I ate swordfish once."
It is a popular construction -- however, we all know that popular does not equal correct (well, until some stodgy old professors decide it is so...)
_________________
And so they buried Hector, Breaker of Horses. |
|
auldglory
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 16
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:50 am present perfect tense |
|
|
| auldglory wrote: | | Yankee wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Amy, if someone says, "I've eaten swordfish once," he is correctly describing a complete and finished past action. |
I agree. And surely you will agree that the structure of that sentence is not only different, but also simpler than the one in question.
[/color]
. |
Actually, I disagree here. You should not say "I've eaten swordfish once." It should read, "I ate swordfish once."
It is a popular construction -- however, we all know that popular does not equal correct (well, until some stodgy old professors decide it is so...) |
You're actually wrong, and thanks for calling me a stodgy old professor.
Your use of the simple past in, "I ate swordfish once," is peculiar to American English and even in American English is merely optional, and a bit colloquial. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:04 am present perfect tense |
|
|
| I know that past simple is more used than present perfect in American English, but I have to agree with Jamie that in the example sentence the accent is on the action--it is not the time of the action that is important so present perfect is preferable choice here! |
|
vanity fair
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 32
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:42 am present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | Jamie, you disappoint me by not addressing or even bothering to acknowledge all of the very specific points I've made as to why I consider the simple past (met) to be perfectly correct as well as natural in Green Knight's original sentence. |
Well, it could be that I'm busy with work, or catching up on sleep after working on a project until 4:30 a.m. There could be a host of reasons.
| Yankee wrote: | | I have not disagreed with you about sentences such as "I have eaten a fish's eyeball." On the contrary, I have agreed with you about that. However, sentences such as that do not really compare to Green Knight's original sentence. Why not compare apples with apples instead of comparing apples with oranges? |
Okay, my problem with a sentence like, "Since I met her, she has never lost her temper," is the fact that using the simple past creates a sense of incompleteness, or a sense that the act was habitual, when the specific time is not given or not included in the context. It can also create the misimpression that "since" means "because". Taken in isolation, it sounds confusing and colloquial.
Whether or not the time is known to the speaker is immaterial to which tense is used in the sentence. It has to do with whether or not the time is mentioned in the sentence or in the discourse context. If it is not mentioned, in ordinary standard English the present perfect is used. If it is, you use the simple past.
Using the present perfect makes the action appear to be completed, not habitual, and to me it sounds as if it somehow indicates a major change in something.
Do your own searches, and you'll find that this structure is quite common, and in some cases I'm finding it's more frequent than the structure you recommend. Here is just a random sample of what I've found:
| Quote: | "Since I have stopped, I have not had any more crashes."
"Since I have seen it, I have also seen the documentary."
"Ever since I have seen it I have wanted to make one for myself."
"Ever since I've tried it I have never ordered from anywhere else."
"Since I have met her, I have learned tolerance and compassion."
"Since I have met her, I have read over three books."
"But since I have done that, I have been much more satisfied and I think consistent in my spiritual convictions." |
I would bet you that no good English composition teacher would correct any of those sentences. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:57 am present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi to everyone!
I am flabbergasted how diverse the language can be! I've always been told that 'since' as a time indicator doesn't require perfect form(since I met, since I visited) unless the context justifies it. That's why Amy's explanation about 'met' seems well-grounded to me and the usage of 'have known' after 'since'.
In the sentences given below, Jamie, present perfect nicely fits if 'since' stands for 'because', IMHO 
"Since I have stopped, I have not had any more crashes."
"Since I have seen it, I have also seen the documentary."
"
"Since I have met her, I have learned tolerance and compassion."
"Since I have met her, I have read over three books."
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Using the present perfect makes the action appear to be completed, not habitual, and to me it sounds as if it somehow indicates a major change in something |
BuT: Yes, to me present perfect invites attention to the fact, stresses it. |
|
Pamela
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1232
Location: RF
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 13:17 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Pamela wrote: | In the sentences given below, Jamie, present perfect nicely fits if 'since' stands for 'because', IMHO
"Since I have stopped, I have not had any more crashes."
"Since I have seen it, I have also seen the documentary."
"Since I have met her, I have learned tolerance and compassion."
"Since I have met her, I have read over three books." |
You're right. That is possible, but it's clear to me that these people are not using "since" to mean "because". The feeling in most of these sentences is that some transformation has occurred in the speaker or the situation since the event they're using the present perfect to describe. It triggered some change in their lives, large or small. You'll often hear people say, "Since I've become a Christian, I have been..." or, "Since he's been promoted, he has gotten..." and they're not using "since" to mean "because". They're really indicating, "Since X transformation, bla bla bla." |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
|
lost_soul
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: South Park, Colorado, USA
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 19:52 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi Jamie
I hope we can all agree that the decision to use the present perfect rather than the past simple (or vice versa) sometimes simply reflects the way the speaker views things. There are times when both would be equally correct. And there are definitely times when only one or the other will be grammatically correct.
| Jamie(K) wrote: | | Whether or not the time is known to the speaker is immaterial to which tense is used in the sentence. |
I don't agree with that. I think previous knowledge about the time of something often does have an effect on choice of tense. This previous knowledge might come from the broader context of the text or conversation, or it may well come from the speaker's general knowledge, for example. Another consideration would be whether the speaker sees the information about 'when' as important or not.
| Jamie(K) wrote: | | It has to do with whether or not the time is mentioned in the sentence or in the discourse context. If it is not mentioned, in ordinary standard English the present perfect is used. If it is, you use the simple past. |
We both know that sentences do not normally occur in isolation. However, if a sentence is isolated and mentions no specific time, that does not preclude the use of the past simple. For example, there is nothing unnatural or grammatically "low" or incorrect with this sentence: "Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line". Even if that sentence were to be uttered in complete isolation, I feel sure you would agree that the present perfect should not be used. I also think you will agree that it is completely unnecessary to add a specific time to that sentence. And even if you believe that Ford invented the assembly line, the addition of a specific time would still not be grammatically necessary in the sentence. You might be able to think up some justification for using the present perfect, but that's just the point -- you'd have to justify it.
To me, there is nothing habitual about "invented the assembly line". The use of the simple past invented does not suggest the past habitual "used to invent" to me -- not in the least. Now look at these two partial sentences:
- Since Henry Ford invented the assembly line ...
- Since Henry Ford has invented the assembly line ...
Which do you prefer? If you still like the present perfect, then would you be kind enough to tell me how you'd complete the sentence?
Referring to the use of the past simple in Jovana's original sentence as "low colloquial" is not appropriate. Saying "since I met her" is a perfectly acceptable and standard usage. I attempted to explain why in my posts, but I guess I'm never going to be able to get you to acknowledge the validity of any of my arguments, am I?
I also mentioned that using 'knew' in place of 'met' in Jovana's sentence would not work, and that the present perfect would be correct. That probably has more to do with the meaning of the verb 'know' than anything else. It would be perfectly acceptable to use 'met' because your introduction to her is finished and complete. However, using 'knew' wouldn't make much sense in the same sentence -- that would suggest that knowing her is finished. Do you disagree with that?
Your point about the idea of 'transformation' (in other sentences) is well taken, but I don't see that as particularly applicable in Jovana's sentence.
Regarding a possible misinterpretation of 'since' as a causal usage, I think that possibility is mainly the result of word order rather than tense in Jovana's particular sentence. I believe the causal 'since' is more commonly used at the beginning of a sentence. Using a causal 'since' is definitely not restricted to the past simple. It can be and is properly used with the present perfect -- and other tenses as well.
.
Like you, I also have work to do. Nevertheless, I did take the time to do a little bit of searching on the BNC:
since+I+have+stopped
since+I+stopped
Those results were entertainment enough for me, so I decided to stop there.
_________________
Amy
.
ESL teacher, translator, and a native speaker of American English |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 7464
Location: Northeast US
|
|
|
lost_soul
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 1739
Location: South Park, Colorado, USA
|
|
|
| Phrase 'that once would have been two days hence' | let and be allowed to URGENT |
