The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

[shun]

Cas,

:( You have taken us back to the very beginning, I am afraid, now if you agree in full to the "Golden Rule" such as this:

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

Someone wrote (and later deleted):

I agree in full. Ask Kiparsky :D

My reply: :P I did, days ago. But I asked Kiparsky to go to my own forum. If you don't believe me, please write and ask him. 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. The then forum gradually and freely sent full-screen pop-up advertisement, so I terminated it. (I could have put all the discussions on my website as they obviously agreed to.) I have now set up a mediocre forum of my own. But I don't have a zeal to invite them for discussion. Instead, I go to various forums to seek for help. Now I don't need to take anything from other forums to mine, for people shall know by now that, as an ESL, I am not speaking without evidence or experience.

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.

Back to our topic, if you agree fully to the Golden Rule, please accept my reminder again that it is because of the Rule that grammar writers have put the Past Family into concealment. As I have hinted, the Golden Rule is the only one rule they have so far to explain or support English tenses. And yet the Rule is still a fault. 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.

I put an asterisk in front of the example is because I know how EFLs correctly say it -- in Present Perfect. EFLs know the truth but give Asians the falsity: "Don't use Present Perfect with past time expression." 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. We didn't expect grammar writers are hiding the truth from us, and give us a Golden Rule to the wrong way.


As you now have to agree the Golden Rule, you have to solve the problem of the Past Family. I don't know if this is fair or not.

------------------------------
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. :wink: 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.

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.

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.

Moreover, I always insist we use some agreed examples for discussion. 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. 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.

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

[shun]

I have posted a pair of examples for contrast:

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)

I guess that it is no use defining them as unknown time. No matter its calling, Ex2 is regarded by all as a continuity, contrary to Ex1, and yet they are both in Present Perfect, unfortunately.
:wink:

[Tdol]

The Stamford people have to mean finished past time by their use of specific; otherwise they are wrong, IMHO.

[shun]

Originally Posted by tdol

The Stamford people have to mean finished past time by their use of specific; otherwise they are wrong, IMHO.

Which one? Ex2?

The importance is what do you think? :wink:

As I said, in Ex2, many Asians also have to mean finished past time by their use of specifc past; otherwise they are wrong. They further have to use Simple Past. So, do the Stamford people use Simple Past or not, for a finished past time?

[Casiopea]

Shun:

Now you seemed to agree to such a rule, quoted from The Linguistics Department of Stanford University:

The present perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting a specific past time.

Not 'seemed', do. I have always agreed with it, and, moreover, am somewhat at a loss as to why you have assumed I wouldn't.

Shun:

But the quotations such as this have been repudiated by us, for quite some time now.

With all due respect, I am not familiar with 'us', their reputations or their repudiations.

Shun:

Do you now want to go back from the beginning, and agree to the "golden rule":

NOTE: We do NOT use specific time expressions with the Present Perfect. We cannot say, for example, "I have eaten spaghetti yesterday." http://conversa1.com/presentperfectpastsimple.htm

You've me confused with another postee, I believe. The above description holds true. I've never argued otherwise.

Shun:

Also even this: You CANNOT use the Present Perfect with time expressions such as "yesterday," "one year ago," "last week," "when I was a chlid," "when I lived in Japan," "at that moment," "that day" or "one day."
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html

Again. I agree with the description.

Shun:

Is that what you wanted to say? If not, how can we depend on a wrong rule to support our discussion?

All of the descriptions hold true for me. :D

[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

[Casiopea]

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)

Both examples express that he lived in Japan at some unknown time within the past (five years). Whether or not he lives there now is neither stated nor denoted nor expressed.

:D

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by tdol

The Stamford people have to mean finished past time by their use of specific; otherwise they are wrong, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Shun

As I said, in Ex2, many Asians also have to mean finished past time by their use of specifc past; otherwise they are wrong. They further have to use Simple Past. So, do the Stamford people use Simple Past or not, for a finished past time?

'non-specific' is defined as more than one. 'specific' is relative and refers to one.

:D

What's finished past time?

[shun]

Cas,

You wrote:

You've me confused with another postee, I believe.

If I have misunderstood you, I beg your pardon.

8) The message is quite clear to me now: You agree to the Golden Rule. You have repeated quotations I searched from the web. You don't want to deal with the Past Family at all.

:? You agree to turn a blind eye to those who are misled by the Golden Rule, perhaps including ourselves, if you pardon me. You see no concealment, if I interpret correctly. In short, you uphold the Golden Rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time. Just because the pattern "in the past few years" posts a threat to the specific past time, you even concluded it is "an unknown time".

It seems that we now have only one problem left:

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

Even if we agree they are unknown time, can the Golden Rule help us to tell the reason to the difference, in your opinion?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Shun

It seems that we now have only one problem left:

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

Even if we agree they are unknown time, can the Golden Rule help us to tell the reason to the difference, in your opinion?

Yes :D

Do we know how many days, years, minutes, seconds there are "in the past"? If so, then 'in the past' is specific, if not, then 'in the past' is not specific. To determine how many days, years, minutes, seconds and so on are 'in the past' we need to a) find out when 'in the past' or 'in the past five years started and b) count forward to the present moment. When we'e got that number we'll find that that number is MORE THAN ONE, and that not ONE of those days, years, moments, seconds and so on are dentoted by 'in the past' or 'in the past five years', hence those adverbials are not specific and compatible with the Present Perfect. :D