|
|
 Wed Sep 19, 2007 20:09 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi Alex,
I guess that was exactly the point Amy wanted to make -- the National Corpus doesn't have any entries for "since I have stopped" which might be an indicator that this construction is very rare. At least less common than "Since I stopped."
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 8044
Location: EU
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 20:15 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
What do you think of this sentence, does it follow Amy's pattern?
Since I began my Ph.D., this need has been met by my research into cosmology.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 8044
Location: EU
|
 |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Wed Sep 19, 2007 23:57 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
What did I say?
| Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
This doesn't apply to the type of sentence we're talking about. In the sentence, "Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line," the present perfect is inappropriate in any case, because Henry Ford has been dead for a long time, and the statement has no relation to the present time.
| Yankee wrote: | 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? |
Ahem! Henry Ford is dead! The sentences we were discussing had nothing to do with dead people.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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 just don't see your arguments as completely valid for the type of sentence Jovana gave us.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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? |
I agree that using "knew" in the simple past would not have made sense.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
It can be. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4454
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 13:40 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi everybody,
What do you think of the following sentences -- would the present perfect work here as well?
They have operated as joint directors since the company started.
I have known Mr Smith since we did an MBA together.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 8044
Location: EU
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 14:11 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi Torsten
I would not change the simple past tense to the present perfect in either of those sentences. Both of your sentences talk about an activity that continues up to now (have known and have operated). The use of the past tense in the 'since' part of each sentence (started and did an MBA) refers back to specific and finished past points in time. As I mentioned before, it's not really any different from saying something such as "since last February".
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 14:25 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | They have operated as joint directors since the company started. |
I would not change the verb in the "since" clause to the present perfect tense, but there are people who would, evidently with the image in mind that the company is still operating and that the word "start" indicates a sort of new era that continues to today. They'd be more likely to do this if the "since" clause came at the beginning.
| Torsten wrote: | | I have known Mr Smith since we did an MBA together. |
Again, I wouldn't, but there are people who would. As it stands, the sentence has a problem, because it's not clear whether "did" indicates a finished action in the past (i.e., we studied together and graduated) or a habitual action in the past (i.e., we routinely studied together). This is more a weakness of English than of the sentence. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4454
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 14:33 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
What did I say?
And what did I say, Jamie? I had not overlooked or missed the fact that you included "discourse context". Why did you quote my sentence in isolation? Why ignore the rest of the context? Why delete and ignore what preceded and followed my sentence? To be honest, I think you're doing a pretty excellent job shooting yourself in the foot here.
Your statement in the quote above was overly simplistic and did not include the fact that previous knowledge (i.e. knowledge which is not provided by the context) can also play a role in choice of tense. As you know, you had previously stated that "Whether or not the time is known to the speaker is immaterial to which tense is used in the sentence", and I disagreed with that. I then went on to precede my next point with a statement about something I felt would not be a point of contention for either of us -- something we both know.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
This doesn't apply to the type of sentence we're talking about. Sure, the sentence is different, but I don't see it as irrelevant to Jovanna's sentence. My assembly line sentences were most directly connected to my disagreement with your statement that "Whether or not the time is known to the speaker is immaterial to which tense is used in the sentence." This was one of your arguments about the use of the present perfect in Jovanna's sentence, was it not? In the sentence, "Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line," the present perfect is inappropriate in any case, because Henry Ford has been dead for a long time, and the statement has no relation to the present time. Right, and each individual will have their own subjective definition of "a long time". Ford died a long time ago. A person doesn't need to know or mention precisely what year, day or time something happened in order to correctly use the simple past tense. The fact remains that an introduction to someone (met) can be and very often is viewed as a point in past time. The same idea applies to someone's death. The same idea applies to the invention of something.
| Yankee wrote: | 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? |
Ahem! Henry Ford is dead! Can I assume that is your previous general knowledge speaking? The sentences we were discussing had nothing to do with dead people. No, we were not discussing dead people. Apparently, you're either still missing the point or intentionally trying to cloud the issue. My point is that a person's general knowledge can also play a role in the choice of tense.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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 just don't see your arguments as completely valid for the type of sentence Jovana gave us. Then we'll just have to leave it at that, I guess.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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? |
I agree that using "knew" in the simple past would not have made sense. Thank goodness. Otherwise, you'd have had me really worried.
| Yankee wrote: | | 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. |
It can be. I won't argue that "it can be", but don't you think it would be appropriate to accept that my points "can be" quite valid, too -- even in Jovana's sentence? Come on, Jamie. Admit it! |
|
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 14:46 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Torsten wrote: | | I have known Mr Smith since we did an MBA together. |
Again, I wouldn't, but there are people who would. As it stands, the sentence has a problem, because it's not clear whether "did" indicates a finished action in the past (i.e., we studied together and graduated) or a habitual action in the past (i.e., we routinely studied together). This is more a weakness of English than of the sentence. |
Whatever the further specifics of "did an MBA together" might be, the action itself is finished and done. I don't see that as a grammatical "problem" in the sentence.
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 14:58 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Torsten wrote: | | I have known Mr Smith since we did an MBA together. |
Again, I wouldn't, but there are people who would. As it stands, the sentence has a problem, because it's not clear whether "did" indicates a finished action in the past (i.e., we studied together and graduated) or a habitual action in the past (i.e., we routinely studied together). This is more a weakness of English than of the sentence. |
Whatever the further specifics of "did an MBA together" might be, the action itself is finished and done. I don't see that as a grammatical "problem" in the sentence. |
It's not clear from that sentence that the people finished their MBA. It's not a grammatical problem, but a semantic one. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4454
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Thu Sep 20, 2007 15:21 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Yankee wrote: | | Come on, Jamie. Admit it! |
I'm busy preparing for work today, so I'm not going to deal with your comments in detail right now (or possibly ever, since they're long and many of the quotes are snarled into the body text). I think the best thing to do is to let your comments stand on their own, and people can evaluate them as they wish.
What I will say is that there's a problem of lack of documentation on what we've been talking about:
All of the books and other resources I've been able to find deal with the present perfect coupled with "since" clauses that contain either a one-time, finished event in the simple past, or a stative verb in the simple past. In all the cases given in the grammar books, the action or state has been completed and is no longer relevant to the present.
There are, however, grammatical-sounding sentences that use the present perfect in the "since clause" to indicate a single, completed action, and these are evidently used frequently by native English speakers.
This does not mean that any time the simple past is used in a "since clause" it can be replaced with the present perfect. Clearly we've seen some sentences in which it can't.
However, there are times when native speakers may do it and come out with a grammatical-sounding sentence. As far as I can tell, this is possible under these circumstances:
1. The time of the event's occurrence is not stated, and
2. The event in the "since clause" is completed, and
3. The speaker or writer feels the event has resulted in a changed state or situation that continues into the present.
Language is full of these little usages that have rules but are not explained in grammar books. For example, why can you say, "John fell on his nose," but you can't say, "John punched Tom in his nose"? Or why can you say, "John punched Tom in the nose," but you can't say, "John fell on the nose"? Why can you say, "John digs the hell out of that car," but you can't say, "John likes the hell out of that car," even though dig and like mean the same thing in those sentences. There are rules for those, but they aren't in grammar books, and I had to figure them out on my own (and even write "scholarly papers" on them in grad school). |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4454
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:49 am present perfect tense |
|
|
i came across some information that i found interesting. The reason being Grammars sometimes say that the present perfect is not used with expressions referring to definite/exact time.. This can be confusing - the present perfect is not often used with finished time expression, but it actually is very common with definite time expressions.
Eg. I have lived here for exactly three years, seven months and two days. (present perfect with very definite time reference)
or Once upon a time a little girl lived with her mother in a lonely house in a dark forest. (simple past with very indefinite time-reference) |
|
1111166666
I'm new here and I like it ;-)
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 22
|
|
| Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:45 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
Hi 1111166666
Yes, that's correct. The present perfect is common in sentences containing "for" or "since" when you talk about something that has (or has not) happened or been happening up to the present:
"I have been working at this company since I graduated from college."
"She has been on cloud nine since she met John."
However, what we've been discussing here is the use of the present perfect vs the simple past tense in a since clause. In my two sentences above, the simple past tense AND the present perfect are both used in each sentence. In each of the sentences the simple past tense is used in the since clause:
- "since I graduated from college"
and
- "since she met John".
The simple past tense is used in these since clauses because the reference is to a definite point in the past -- the point in the past when the action or state in the other half of the sentence began.
Here is another way of looking at it (in the form of a question and a possible typical response to the question):
Q: How long have you loved her?
A: Since I met her.
And here is one more example (taken from the BNC). In this case, the sentence begins with the since clause:
"Since I met you my self-esteem has sunk to an all-time low!"
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| Tue Sep 25, 2007 19:32 pm present perfect tense |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Yankee wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Torsten wrote: | | I have known Mr Smith since we did an MBA together. |
Again, I wouldn't, but there are people who would. As it stands, the sentence has a problem, because it's not clear whether "did" indicates a finished action in the past (i.e., we studied together and graduated) or a habitual action in the past (i.e., we routinely studied together). This is more a weakness of English than of the sentence. |
Whatever the further specifics of "did an MBA together" might be, the action itself is finished and done. I don't see that as a grammatical "problem" in the sentence. |
It's not clear from that sentence that the people finished their MBA. |
That wasn't my point, Jamie. My point was that whatever the further specifics of "did an MBA together" might be, the speaker clearly sees the action as finished/ended/stopped. So, "did an MBA together" can be viewed as a point in past time -- just as "invented the assembly line" can be. This sort of point in the past can be used as the "starting point" when referring to other states or activities that have existed or have been happening up to now.
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
|
| What does "sticky" mean? (Sticky posts) | Article for particple phrases |
