[Casiopea]

Shun:

I asked Kiparsky to go to my own forum. He seem to have turned down my invitation, obviously. In the past I have visited online various universities or colleges and invited many PhDs and professors to my forum -- an old forum controlled by another website. Many of them visited and we had discussions. They didn't help much, to tell the truth.

First of all, I am aware of that, more so than you probably know. Second of all, what did you want them to do?

Shun:

But I want to tell you bluntly, all of people I have consulted admitted they didn't see any grammar that talks about the Past Family. Or better to say, they could not find any such grammar book.

But you have. So why not describe it? :D

Shun:

Back to our topic, ..., please accept my reminder again that it is because of the Rule that grammar writers have put the Past Family into concealment.

I don't follow your logic. The 'Rule' clearly states adverbs denoting specific time are not compatible with the Present Perfect. I believe it's the term specific and not the description you disagree with. :D

Shun:

As I have hinted, the Golden Rule is the only one rule they have so far to explain or support English tenses.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Moreover, to use current, up-to-date terminology, the Present Perfect is an aspect of time, not a tense. :D

Shun:

And yet the Rule is still a fault.

The rule is not at fault. It's descriptively accurate. :D

Shun:

In Asia, since writers cannot often keep in touch with EFLs, they depend heavily on grammars, and therefore they wrongly say:

Ex: *He worked in that factory in the past five years.

"He has worked...in the past five years" is grammatical. The adverbial does not denote specific time. At some unknown time within the past five years, he worked in the factory. We do not know when he started working there or when he stopped working there, but what we do know is that he doesn't work there anymore. If you want to express that he still works there now, say "for the past five years."

Shun:

EFLs know the truth but give Asians the falsity: "Don't use Present Perfect with past time expression."

You forgot to add "specific" to 'past time expressions'. :D As far as I can tell if we omit the word 'specif', we, too, become the ones who 'give Asians the falsity'.

Shun:

EFLs will eventually learn the correct use of the Past Family as they are immersed in English all the time. We ESLs cannot be so, but sometimes we have to write in English, so grammar rules are important to us.

Please note, the term EFL refers to speakers who live in their native country. ESL refers to speakers who live in a foreign country.

Shun:

We didn't expect grammar writers are hiding the truth from us, and give us a Golden Rule to the wrong way.

Again. If the word 'specific' is omitted from the 'Rule', then he who omits it contributes.

Shun:

You wrote:

There's no argument there. Adverbs denoting unspecified time are compatible with the Present Perfect. (i.e., "in the past few days" denotes an unknown time within the past few days.)

My reply: Fortunately, not all agreed with you. I want to remind you, there have been arguments here!! I've explained that even YESTERDAY is less specific than "in the past five minutes". Actually, it is "circular span" that there's no argument there.

Again. I am neither aware nor familiar with the whos and the whats. Moreover, I have not been privy to your explanation regarding X is less specific than Y.

Shun:

I want to repeat the way to be specific again, in regard to "in the past few days". We may have to say in Simple Past: Ex: I met him in the park last year. It is in Simple Past because of the "Golden Rule". Actually, I didn't tell when in LAST YEAR. Compared with "in the past few days", LAST YEAR can be regarded as non-specific at all.

'last' is specific. There is only one 'last year'.
'in the past few days' is not specific. There is more than one day.

Shun:

The patterns of "in the past few days" can be as specific as down to a few years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or even seconds, and therefore they are specific.

They are not specific. There is more than one day, week, hour, etc.

Shun:

Moreover, .... If you think "in the past few days" is an unknown time, how about IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS?

:) Ex: He has worked here IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.
:) Ex: He has worked here IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.
:) Ex: He has worked here IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
:) Ex: He has worked here IN THE PAST SIX YEARS.
:) Ex: He has worked here IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.

These examples are all grammatical -- I don't know whether you agree or not.

All are great. Note, 'years' denotes more than one year, hence 'years' is not specific. If it were specific, we could answer the question: Which of the years stated did he work? But we can't answer that question because we don't know the specific year. It's unknown to us.

Shun:

I beg you to search for any one of these time adverbials. The searching results can persuade you that only one tense is appropriate for them: Present Perfect.

Yes. Again, it's aspect, not tense. :D

Shun:

Now, it is your turn to tell us WHY and HOW to label them as "unknown time".

I believe I have. :D more than one = unspecified number :D