How would you define the future time?

[Genius86]

hi everybody..
actually it depends on what you have in mind when you hear the word "TIME"...
to clarify more, if you put in your mind a watch when you hear the word time then you are concerning with hours... the present time then the time in the watch and the future is the next milliseconds as it's the case in past.
while if you think of a day as a measurement fo time then you have yeasterday which is past , today which is present and tomorrow which is future...
the same procedure is followed if you have a year as a time measurement or any other means....
I hope that my idea is clear and meaningful
Best WISHES,
Genius86

[shun]

Originally Posted by Genius86

actually it depends on what you have in mind when you hear the word "TIME"...
to clarify more, if you put in your mind a watch when you hear the word time then you are concerning with hours... the present time then the time in the watch and the future is the next milliseconds as it's the case in past.
while if you think of a day as a measurement fo time then you have yeasterday which is past , today which is present and tomorrow which is future...
the same procedure is followed if you have a year as a time measurement or any other means....

My reply: So, you also don't believe their ways of defining time, so you try yours. Your way is a magical way.

It depends on whom listen to you. I am afraid you might show your magical procedure to a kindergarten boy or girl and get passed, but not here.

In TV programs, I was much surprised by the trick with which magicians make a tank or an elephant disappear. Now dear Genius86 you are the greatest magician I have ever seen, because you can make the past time of today disappear. How? Think of a day, and all you can see is Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, but you will not see the past/future of today itself.

Your procedure has not all failed and can actually apply to the shortest instant of time. You may have the shortest past instant, the shortest present instant, and the shortest future instant. As you see, they are now 'pure', and the present doesn't contain past or future. They each are different.

However, any time bigger than the smallest present instant, like a present second, can be still split into its smaller parts: its past part, the present part, and future part. If anyone knows this, your magic fails.

Therefore, you had better improve your theory by adding more condition to it: "If we think of a day that cannot be split, you have yesterday which is past, today which is present and tomorrow which is future..."

But the bad thing is, now I have specially pointed out the simple fact that any measurement of time can be split. This year can be split into past/future months; this month into past/future weeks; and this week into past/future days; and so on. In other words, you cannot define the present time so pure that it doesn't contain past and future. Much like theirs, your way of defining has also failed to tell the difference between past, present, and future. As I have said, if one succeeds, three kinds of time doesn't contain each other.

Nevertheless, I didn't say there is no way of defining time to the degree they are not confused with each other. I just want to point out, it is funny that people who use tense to express time don't know how to define time at first.

---------------------------
My own interpretations for the three often-used tenses are very simple:
-- Simple Present expresses present time
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses the time between present time and past time.

It is said on the assumption that you can define time.

It is also said on the condition we know there is a nameless time span between past and present, as I have explained the nameless time span around here:

"A Nameless Time Span -- Few can explain Present Perfect because people have missed a kind of nameless time: the time between the past and the present. It is neither past or present. For example, if Last Week is past and Today (Wednesday) is present, there is a time span between past and present. English has Present Perfect designed to express this kind of time."

I use Time to explain Tense; I don't use Meanings at all to explain Tense.

Tense is indeed very simple, but people have made it complicated because they haven't spent time to define Time first. They don't know how to define past, present, and future.

-------------------
How to define time: the past, the present, and the future?

I would like to give a big hint: why will we need to mention "present time" at all? If you know why you need it, you may know how to define it. After defining the present, you know how to define past and future.

There is another big hint: actually, old English has defined time correctly. They have defined time before explaining tenses. Strange, nowadays English users have missed the power of defining time.

[shun]

I said: If someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train.

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me.
I said you would not expect to say "I go to work by train" while on the train.
By this I mean, you would expect to say "I go to work by train" at a party, or when answering a questionnaire; but on the whole, people don't ask you how you get to work when you're sitting on a train.
(Trust me. I've gone to work by train very nearly since the age of steam. No one has ever asked me such a question.)

My reply: I am afraid you have stated it very clearly and there is no misunderstanding. What you have said is exactly what I mean. And you are wrong. We say it that way.

You are now arguing against yourself. You have answered why you haven't said "I go to work by train" while on the train: because no one has ever asked you such a question.

But trust me: IF someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train. It is absurd to claim that one cannot say a habit while one is doing the habit. Tell me again to say so is a mistake and you have found the first rule to guide students not to use Simple Present.

People don't know how to differentiate my three examples of expressing routines.

What do you say about my example "I live in Hong Kong" while in Hong Kong? Am I wrong? Isn't it same as saying "I go to work by train" while on the train?

----------------------
Without explanation, you have combined my example of using many sentences into one sentence, in order to keep "used to":

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

1. "He used to sit on the balcony in the early morning, enjoying the morning sun, drinking a cup of coffee, reading newspapers and listening to the music on the radio."
2. "He would sit on the balcony in the early morning. He would enjoy the morning sun, drink a cup of coffee, read newspapers and listen to the music on the radio."

My reply: I have deliberately shown you the example of not using "used to" and you shall not reconstruct it, in order to keep using "used to".

Are you announcing using many Simple Past sentences to say a habit is wrong, as in the following example?
Ex: "He would sit on the balcony in the early morning. He enjoyed the morning sun and drank a cup of coffee. He read newspapers and listened to the music on the radio."
== Tell me again it is wrong to use Simple Past here and I will end the discussion. But please don't reconstruct and combine it, so as to use "used to".

I have often accepted the opinion of my correspondents as the final say. But please don't avoid MY example of using many sentences to express a habit or routine.

---------------
I have shown you an example of using Simple Past sentences to say a past habit, and you said:

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

This does not sound entirely idiomatic to me.

My reply: Actually, if you search "he was often", or "she did often", or "he usually liked" and see into the examples, you will see a past habit expressed in Simple Past. Do they all not sound entirely idiomatic to you?

Other than "used to", there are actually many ways to express a past habit. At least, "used to" itself is a Simple Past expression.

---------------

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I'm sorry, Shun, you have mostly misunderstood my meaning in that post. I'm afraid my explanations were insufficiently clear.
Ex 2 presents a routine/habitual occurrence: the routine/habit is expressed by "every day".

My reply: I am afraid it is clear enough. You have now admitted that the routine/habit is expressed by "every day". If so, Simple Present doesn't need to express routine/habit.

Simple Present at best describes a present habit. As for a past habit, you still use past tense. I am glad you have not denied "used to" as past tense, after all. You have finally accepted we use past tense to say a past habit.

Furthermore, you didn't deny every tense can say a habit, and Simple Present can express any Meanings such as "love". If knowing this, any young students may understand Simple Present has nothing to do with habit.

----------------
It is strange. Every time you said I have misunderstood you, your clarification is exactly what I wanted to tell you. What a wonderful misunderstanding I have made!! Actually, we understand each other very well.

[MrPedantic]

My reply: I am afraid it is clear enough. You have now admitted that the routine/habit is expressed by "every day". If so, Simple Present doesn't need to express routine/habit.

Simple Present at best describes a present habit. As for a past habit, you still use past tense. I am glad you have not denied "used to" as past tense, after all. You have finally accepted we use past tense to say a past habit.

Hello Shun

If I were to go out into the street now, and approach a perfect stranger, and say (without any preamble) "I go to work by train", the perfect stranger would interpret it as follows:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is as I have stated.

MrP

[shun]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

If I were to go out into the street now, and approach a perfect stranger, and say (without any preamble) "I go to work by train", the perfect stranger would interpret it as follows:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is as I have stated.

My reply: On one-sentence basis, no one has ever succeeded in defining any one tense without getting confusion with another.

You may say in Present Perfect "I have gone to work by train since I got the job", the perfect stranger would interpret it as same as above.

Every word you say to your Simple Present can be said to my Present Perfect. "I have gone to work by train since I got the job" means:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is the same.

[Philly]

.
Just out of curiosity, Shun, what do you suppose the "default" interpretation of "I have gone to work by train" would be?
.

[shun]

Originally Posted by Philly

.
Just out of curiosity, Shun, what do you suppose the "default" interpretation of "I have gone to work by train" would be?
.

See above. "My own interpretations for the three often-used tenses are very simple..."

[MrPedantic]

Hello Shun

1. I've gone to work by train since I got the job.
2. I go to work by train.

#1 makes a statement about your commuting habits from the moment when you got the job until now.

#2 makes a statement about your commuting habits in the past and the present. It also implies that the speaker expects those habits to continue into the future.

As Philly's post suggests, the two sentences are not equivalent. Cf.

3. I have gone to work by train.
4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.

#3 does not express a habit. It might conceivably occur in a context where you wanted to describe your recent journey to work.

#4 is not idiomatic. Change to either #1, or:

5. I've been going to work by train since I got the job.

All the best,

MrP

[shun]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.
#4 is not idiomatic. Change to either #1, or:
5. I've been going to work by train since I got the job.

My reply: How do you know about Present Perfect Progressive?

I may reply other questions later, but the following example of using Present Perfect Progressive "have been pushing" should be noticed now, as you may still check the news today:

Senators ask for $6 billion in farm aid
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 6, 7:49 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Farm-state senators are increasing their request for drought relief dollars by half, saying the nation's farmers now need an estimated $6 billion or more in assistance.

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been pushing a package that included $4 billion to help farmers and ranchers weather a devastating drought that has set records in many parts of the country. The package stalled earlier this year as House Republicans and the White House said it was too expensive and would unfairly distribute the money.

Since then, says Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, conditions have worsened. Along with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and 10 other senators, Conrad introduced a bill Wednesday asking for additional help. The bill is expected to exceed $6 billion and covers losses from both 2005 and 2006.

== http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/...rought_farmers

Does Present Perfect Progressive mean a finish or not? According to the news, it means a finish. The old package has been now replaced by a new bill. So, why is your Present Perfect Progressive #5 compatible with Since?

[shun]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

1. I've gone to work by train since I got the job.
2. I go to work by train.
#1 makes a statement about your commuting habits from the moment when you got the job until now.
#2 makes a statement about your commuting habits in the past and the present. It also implies that the speaker expects those habits to continue into the future.

My reply: I agree. But both of our examples are fit with your earlier conditions:
"1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future."

You would not deny it, will you? Or do you mean that in #1 here, the speaker doesn't expect those habits to continue into the future?

-----------------------

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

3. I have gone to work by train.
4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.
#3 does not express a habit. It might conceivably occur in a context where you wanted to describe your recent journey to work.

I didn't say #3, did I? How can you change my example with Since into the one without Since? What kind of argument is that?

-------------------------

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

As Philly's post suggests, the two sentences are not equivalent.

My reply: How will anyone expect the following two examples are equivalent?
Ex: I've gone to work by train since I got the job. (an unfinished action)
Ex: I've gone to work by train. (a finished action)

They are totally different, so one should not change my example with Since into the one without it.