The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

[shun]

TDOL,

:D I agree that "SINCE 1987" is the key to solve the problem of the Past Family (in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc."), because it is actually one of its member, though it doesn't harbor the adjective "past".
If this year is 2003, then SINCE 1987 equates "in the past 16 years" (2003-1987=16). That is to say, like the Past Family, SINCE 1987 refers to a specific past time but uses Present Perfect:
Ex: They has worked here since 1987.

The usage of SINCE 1987, if analyzed, again, violates the golden rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time.
:( While grammar writers have to hide away the Past Family in their books, however, because SINCE 1987 doesn't contain 'past', some grammar writers would venture to put it in grammar books. It usually works because as students learn English tenses, the basic part of English, they in their age don't ask much. Also, they don't know much. They cannot see any error in a statement "last week refers to a past time, and since 1997 refers to the present". Actually, to be frank, since 1987 refers to 1987, a past time.

If we think it doesn't matter, grammar writers believe the other way. Aware of the problem, sincere grammar writers nowadays talk about only SINCE, rather than SINCE 1987, in explaining tenses. Usually they will explain FOR and SINCE together, and hence they don't need to clearly state the embarrassing SINCE 1987, like this:

PRESENT PERFECT + FOR, SINCE
Using the present perfect, we can define a period of time before now by considering its duration, with for + a period of time, or by considering its starting point, with since + a point in time.
For + a period of time:
for six years, for a week, for a month, for hours, for two hours.
I have worked here for five years.
Since + a point in time:
since this morning, since last week, since yesterday,
since I was a child, since Wednesday, since 2 o'clock.
I have worked here since 1990.
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses7.cfm

If they state cleverly, few persons will notice they have already legalized the combination of Present Perfect with a specific past time, progressing against many grammars.

:o SINCE is a good concept indicating "a past time up to the present moment", thus coinciding with the 'normal' use of Present Perfect. If we focus on SINCE alone, it can even be nominated a present time adverbial. Unlike SINCE, however, SINCE 1987 is a potential threat to Present Perfect it has to work with.

To sum up, SINCE 1987 is a time referring to a specific past but stays with Present Perfect. To successfully explain SINCE 1987 will successfully explain the Past Family.

[shun]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Shun:

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl

:wink: The "circular span" is as fragile as we don't use Present Perfect with specific past time. My hope of returning to 21 is vinished.

[shun]

I have studied English tenses for a long time. I know there was only one rule in explaining, or supporting, the three tenses: Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present. The rule was that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time. Now it is over, as we have all agreed.

Then sad to day, there is no rule any more. To prove that, now I promise this: Whatever you say to Present Perfect, can be said again word for word to either Simple Present or Simple Past.

Or I may say, no matter how carefully you define the use of a tense, the definition can be said again word for word to another tense. What I mean is, your definition must be so vague that it must be applied also to another tense. In other words, we can define nothing about any tense.

It seems that I am doomed to lose and I cannot keep my stupid promise. But the truth is, the promise has never been broken by anyone.

My promise is actually part of the answer to the perplexity we are now in, so play it fair. Keep out of personal matters.

For a start, one may say Simple Past can stay with specific past time.
Then I shall reply: Present Perfect can also stay with specific past time.

Any more definitions?

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Shun:

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl

I think I must be one, too.

[shun]

:? Why do we sometimes treat Present Perfect differently, because of the different members of the Past Family?

Ex1: He has lived in Japan in the past. (a finish)
Ex2: he has lived in Japan in the past five years. (a continuity)

It seems that we have no control over any concept about the tense. We may call the tense a finish or a continuity, at our own free will. We see a finished time, and we call Present Perfect a finish. While we see a continuity of time, we call Present Perfect a continuity. Is there any grammar, or rule here?
:o

[Tdol]

The second isn't a continuity- the time is, but he is very unlikely to be there now.

[shun]

TDOL,

You wrote about "Ex2: he has lived in Japan in the past five years":

The second isn't a continuity- the time is, but he is very unlikely to be there now.

My reply: I am afraid I cannot follow you here. A few days ago, it was you who understood and said:

:wink: Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.
Do they still work here? Yes, so the past is innapropriate.

The second quote here means you are aware that, because of "for the past five years", they still work here and Present Perfect shall be appropriate. This is agreed to most of us here. And then in a very similar example Ex2, with correct Present Perfect tense, why do you suddenly have such a conclusion: he is not there? This time, no one will agree with you, I fear.
:?

[Casiopea]

Cas:

• :( "I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks." specific
  :D "I have lived in Japan for the past two weeks." non-specific

Shun:

• The present perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting a specific past time.
  
  http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/..._kiparsky.html

[shun]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Cas:

• :( "I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks." specific
  :D "I have lived in Japan for the past two weeks." non-specific

Shun:

• The present perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting a specific past time.
  
  http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/..._kiparsky.html

Cas,

I am afraid we should not depend our discussion solely on icons.

If the icon implies something, please say it. I don't even know whether you agreed to your examples or not. Or do you imply that your examples violate the quotation, or what?


But the quotation has been repudiated by us, for quite some time now. Then what is the result if a bad example is violating a bad statement? Can this result be expressed by an icon?

[Casiopea]

• ungrammatical (PP with specfic past time adverbial (see Kiparsky))
  "I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks." specific
  
  Grammatical: (PP with non-specific past time adverbial)
  "I have lived in Japan for the past two weeks." non-specific