[riverkid]

Originally Posted by shun

----------------
The Past Family

My reply: I would only read the book that explains Present Perfect correctly. It isn't there, however. All grammar books want to propagandize that "Simple Past can, but Present Perfect cannot, work with past time adverbials":

Actually, you're mistaken again. Prescriptive grammars are the ones that have given these misleading impressions about a number of language issues.

Ex: They worked here yesterday.
Ex: *They have worked here yesterday.
[font=Verdana]They have therefore hidden the past time adverbials for Present Perfect, such as those which I called the Past Family: in the past, in the past three years, within the past four weeks, during the past few months, for the past century, etc.

Yes, there are even some grammars that have screwed this up. But any decent descriptive grammar points up these prescriptive mistakes and rectifies them. Both the CGEL and Michael Swan's book do this. [Those are the only two that come to mind where I'm certain that's it's specifically addressed. I'm certain that others do so.]

Since CGEL is an usual grammar, also hiding the Past Family, I would not read a book that is misleading students.

Again, you're mistaken, Shun and I suspect it's because you're confused about how the PP works.

*They have worked here yesterday.

Both the CGEL and Michael Swan deal specifically with this issue. Yes, prescriptive grammars have often stated that such a collocation, above, marked as ungrammatical by Shun, is not possible, but actually these are possible and grammatical in certain limited situations.

Both note that it is uncommon and Swan notes specifically that ESLs should avoid such uses because they will not understand how to use it.

They have therefore hidden the past time adverbials for Present Perfect, such as those which I called the Past Family: [i][i]in the past, in the past three years, within the past four weeks, during the past few months, for the past century

These adverbials fit quite nicely with some functions of the present perfect, Shun, most notably the experential PP. Any decent grammar recognizes this and states it clearly. Maybe it's time to do a bit of house cleaning. Clear your shelves of the old prescriptive grammars.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shun's confusion and obvious anger is something that I predicted, long ago, would happen. I'm surprised that there aren't more really angry ESL students and ESL non-native teachers/professors. They have been so badly misled, for so long, by so many people that it seems some can't trust anyone anymore.

Shun, and other ESLs, please let me assure you that descriptive grammar has done and is doing all it can to rectify the nonsense "rules' that have long been perpetuated by unthinking prescriptivists.

Can descriptivists make mistakes? Most assuredly they can and there will be disputes for language is indeed, tough stuff.

"But always, under the descriptive appraoch, claims about grammar will depend upon evidence." [CGEL - page 11]

Such cannot be said for prescriptive grammar based as it is upon opinion, improper analogies and ill thought out comparisons to other languages. Ask for proof from a prescriptivist and you'll likely see a new world's record for the 100 meter sprint.