Cas explained: Quote:
|
Well, not necessarily. Just because a given speaker, native or non-native, feels there is no difference between, say, "I ate" and "I have eaten" doesn't prove they are the same. That is, the similarity is apparent only. Both actions ended, finished, are over. They seem similar, don't they, but they aren't.
|
Jws added: Quote:
|
Agreed. I may see no difference, someone else may see or mean a difference.
|
That's a very good point. Consider,
Alex: Have you eaten yet today?
Sam: Yes. I ate today.
'have eaten' and 'ate' appear to be synonymous. :D
Jws,
Quote:
|
1. I think most (all??, including scientific ones?) definitions will have limitations. If we apply the Pareto Principle, it may be good enough that the definition covers the main gist; I think it cannot be completely comprehensive. Exceptions, specific contexts, etc will have to be dealt with by qualification, illustrations, etc.
|
Ain't that the gawd's honest truth! However, the present definition hasn't come close to covering the 'gist', as Shun's examples attest to.
Jws:
Quote:
|
2. Trouble is, many students like "clear" rules, so the teacher is hard-pressed on this, to avoid confusing the student.
|
Yup. Been there, done that! Teachers, like books, don't have all the answers. That's why it's often a good idea to tell students as much as we know. Tell students, "Hey, here's the gist so far." Problem is, the present definitions don't get the gist right.
Jws:
Quote:
|
3. I try to keep it simple (where possible) and "stupid". If the learner can first learn to use the language WITH mistakes but generally correctly, then the refinement comes later and gradually. Some educators may disagree with this viewpoint, like saying old habits die hard.
|
I agree. Learn as you go.
Learning is but a process.
Cas :D