The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

[shun]

Cas wrote:

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.

My reply: Some theory.

But what about these examples:

Ex: He went to school for three years.
Ex: He lived in Japan two years ago.
Ex: They lived in Japan years before.

It seems they are MORE THAN ONE, in your way of estimation. They are not grammatical as they are not in Present Perfect?

:wink:

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Shun

But what about these examples:

Ex: He went to school for three years.
Ex: He lived in Japan two years ago.
Ex: He lived in Japan years before.

They're all Simple Past verbs. They have nothing to do with the Present Perfect. :D

The Simple Past is not restricted as is the Present Perfect.

[shun]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

They're all Simple Past verbs. They have nothing to do with the Present Perfect. :D

The Simple Past is not restricted as is the Present Perfect.

My reply: I don't know how to say. You introduced to us a new rule I have never seen. When I produced evidence to the contrary, you said it has nothing to do with Present Perfect. It is incredible. Is there another way to disprove your more-than-one theory?

Your new theory applies only to Present Perfect, but if we know we should use Present Perfect, we don't need your new theory, do we?

:x According to your theory, it is because the time adverbials like "two years ago" are MORE THAN ONE that, the Simple Past examples above shall be regarded as unknown time. With the unknown time, we shall use Present Perfect -- again your new theory. That is to say, they should be in Present Perfect, if you really understand your own rule, which is very new to you, either!

Why don't we just say the Past Family is used with Present Perfect? We must suppose students don't know what tense they should use, and we tell them the appropriate tense. This is why. The same logic applies also to those Simple Past structures I quoted. We know "two years ago" should be with Simple Past, but this doesn't mean students also will, now that your new more-than-one theory must deepen their confusion. We must clarify.

Perhaps we use a very simple way to explain the whole thing here. Some more-than-one time adverbials are suitable with Present Perfect; some aren't. Therefore, students still don't know what to do. We mustn't assume they know what we have already known.

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

On the other hand, the Past Family can be "ONE", in your way of estimation:

Ex: CARE has made some major changes in the past year.

This pattern can also link to other specific time: "in the past hour/ day/ week/ month/ year/ etc", but is still used with Present Perfect. I understand this pattern has been judged by you as ungrammatical before:

Cas wrote:
That's why *"I have lived in Japan in the past week" is ungrammatical. 'have lived' expresses unknown Time, whereas 'in the past week' expresses known Time.

I just invite you again to search about this often-used pattern, and look at the tense among the results.

Honestly, I have never heard of "circular span" before.
Honestly, I have never before heard of the theory that "MORE THAN ONE is unknown time". If you must insist that "in the past two days", because MORE THAN ONE, is unknown time. I have nothing to say.

[Casiopea]

Shun:

When I produced evidence to the contrary, you said it has nothing to do with Present Perfect.

Yes. Your examples relate the Simple Past to past time adverbials. Note,the description: The Present Perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting specfic time does not imply the Simple Past is not compatible with adverbials not denoting specific time. :D

Shun:

According to your theory, it is because the time adverbials like "two years ago" are MORE THAN ONE that, the Simple Past examples above shall be regarded as unknown time. With the unknown time, we shall use Present Perfect -- again your new theory. That is to say, they should be in Present Perfect, if you really understand your own rule, which is very new to you, either!

Right. :D The PP description doesn't refer to SP verbs.

Shun:

Why don't we just say the Past Family [of adverbs] is used with Present Perfect [only]?

Because a) adverbs are divided into two categories: specific and non-specific and b) according to the description PP verbs are not compatible with the former. The description doesn't refer to SP verbs.

Shun:

On the other hand, the Past Family can be "ONE", in your way of estimation:

Ex: CARE has made some major changes in the past year.

This pattern can also link to other specific time: "in the past hour/ day/ week/ month/ year/ etc", but is still used with Present Perfect.

Really? What specific hour, day, week, month, year would that be? The thing is, we don't know because 'in the past' doesn't denote a specific time.

Shun:

If you must insist that "in the past two days", because MORE THAN ONE, is unknown time. I have nothing to say.

Ok. :D

[Tdol]

This pattern can also link to other specific time: "in the past hour/ day/ week/ month/ year/ etc", but is still used with Present Perfect. I understand this pattern has been judged by you as ungrammatical before:

This is not quite specific- in the past hour doesn't tell me exactly when, merely limits it a bit.

[shun]

Originally Posted by tdol

This is not quite specific- in the past hour doesn't tell me exactly when, merely limits it a bit.

My reply: Say the same thing to YESTERDAY, LAST WEEK, and LAST YEAR.

:wink:

[Tdol]

But they are all finished. 'The past hour' runs up to now.

[shun]

Cas,

Your argument of MORE THAN ONE is so new that I could not give it a suitable nomenclature. Please allow me to use 'more-than-one theory' to stand for it, for easy discussion. Inform me if you have the more correct calling. I admit I was lost in this new theory. I have spent some time and got a few points about it.

You wrote:

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.

My reply: :? I understand you will never get the idea behind my simple past evidence. I have to put it in an easy way for us to comprehend. My evidence is to say that, according to you, because those more-than-one adverbials are regarded as "unknown time", they should have been in Present Perfect, but in fact they aren't grammatical if they are:

Ex1: *He have visited in Japan four years ago.
Ex2: *He have worked in Japan years before.
Ex3: *He have lived in Hong Kong from 1970-1985.
Ex4: *They have been at war in 1970s.

:wink: They are not in Simple Past so that you ignored them. They are MORE THAN ONE but cannot be expressed in Present Perfect, so that you ignored them. They are proving wrong the more-than-one theory.

You wrote:

Because a) adverbs are divided into two categories: specific and non-specific and b) according to the description PP verbs are not compatible with the former. The description doesn't refer to SP verbs.

My reply: #a is OK, but your way to define non-specific (= unknown?) is grotesque: more than one is unknown time.
As for #b, we just cannot be, as you say, according to the PP verbs or SP verbs, because we must assume students don't know, as Ex1-Ex4 above.

---------------------------
You wrote:

Shun (wrote):

Really? What specific hour, day, week, month, year would that be? The thing is, we don't know because 'in the past' doesn't denote a specific time.

My reply: A very smart question: "What specific hour, day, week, month, year would that be?"

But the same question can be asked to last year, last month, last week, yesterday, etc.

Please understand we don't have a fixed day called TODAY or YESTERDAY. Time is forever on-going. As today is shifting forward, so will yesterday. If TODAY is 3July for example, you'll call 2July as YESTERDAY. However, in 4July, you will change your mind and call 3July as YESTERDAY -- What specific hour, day, week, month, year would that be?

YESTERDAY is as specific as, or non-specific as, THE PAST DAY. You want to deny the latter, and you will eventually deny the former.

[shun]

:P TDOL wrote about YESTERDAY, LAST WEEK, and LAST YEAR:

Originally Posted by tdol

But they are all finished. 'The past hour' runs up to now.

My reply: :D I understand very well, so your statement has been inappropriate:

Originally Posted by tdol

This is not quite specific- 'in the past hour' doesn't tell me exactly when, merely limits it a bit.

My reply: 8) YESTERDAY, LAST WEEK, and LAST YEAR also don't tell me exactly when, merely limits it a bit, as same as you described 'in the past hour'.

You have to upgrade your statement, so it may tell the difference. And this is what I meant. Please combine the quotations above into one if you could, and you would get the correct answer.

[shun]

Cas,

According to more-than-one theory, you are preaching that most of the past family are 'unknown time': in the past, in the past five years, for the past three months, over the past two weeks, etc., and therefore they should be with Present Perfect.

:) Only when the member doesn't denote MORE THAN ONE, it is specific and should be with Simple Past:

Ex: He worked in that factory in the past year/month/week/etc.

This is what you want to say. Am I correct?

:wink:

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

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Shun (wrote):

(Cas replied:)
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

My reply: :D You filled in negative sentences to avoid to give any substantial statements. The Time meanings of Ex1 and Ex2 are so clear to people, but they are so vague to you who happen to see things through the more-than-one theory. With both tenses and time adverbs mentioned, you still see nothing about any Time, unfortunately. The new theory breeds more vagueness and questions than solving the problems. I advise you to give it up.

:wink: