Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Casiopea (d)I have eaten lunch in the afternoon. (not OK)
(e)I have eaten lunch at three. (not OK)
(f) I have visited Dalian in July. (not OK)
All of the above are OK iff we add "before":
(d)I have eaten lunch in the afternoon before. (OK)
(e)I have eaten lunch at three before. (OK)
(f) I have visited Dalian in July before. (OK)
The reason being, 'before' turns 'in the afternoon', 'at three', and 'in July'
into non-specific times: any afternoon, any three o'clock, and any July.
:D |
1. I was thinking of not using the distinction between "specific" and "non-specific time" as the reasoning to validate the rule, because while this distinction is correct, it is difficult to demonstrate. Which makes it less than convincing to anyone who thinks there's a conspiracy behind it!!!
2. I agree with you re the examples after adding "before": the "past time expression" becomes "parenthetic" in a sense.
(d) "I have eaten lunch (in the afternoon) before" is equivalent (grammar-wise) to "I have eaten lunch (in the presidential suite) before". With or without "before", the adverb phrase "in the afternoon" remains as such BUT in the latter case the adverb phrase is further modified by the adverb "before", and the meaning changes. :wink: