TDOL,
I recommended my simple definitions:
Simple Present is to tell present time.
Simple Past is to tell past time.
You commented:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tdol I don't agree with this- we can use the present for the future and, occasionally, the past. We can also use the past for present time (Impossible) or the unlikely future, or just to be polite.  |
My reply: :? Before this, you cannot see any loophole in your advanced definitions of the three tenses, or any tense at all? I haven't yet seen your definition for Simple Present, but I am sure it is much worst than mine.
However, it was you who said in another thread here: "Do we have Future Tense?":
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tdol It's a very difficult subject. I, for one, do not believe we have a Future Tense..... |
:P How comes you now remind me of some tenses that can refer to future? I am not avoiding your point. I won't. Give me examples and we'll have a good talk.
----------------------
By the way, in "Do we have Future Tense?" you also wrote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tdol However, having been through and seen this argument time and time again, I think of it as more a question of faith\belief, rather than logic. |
My reply: Please let me try the logic. Are you aware that we literally have no future time, because all kinds of future time are within the present time? For example, is the coming December a future time? Yes? But it is still within "this year", a present year, a present time. That is, since a future time must be within a present time -- Simple Present can do that!
Again, will "next ten years" be a future time? But it is within this present century, a present time. That is, future time must be within present time. Or would you tell me the correct way how to define future time?
:x Since we cannot logically define a future time, how can we logically use a tense to say it? Therefore, it is more than faith or belief. It is logic that we don't have Future Tense.
[Note: YESTERDAY/IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS/etc. can also be recognized as a time within this present year, but we have a clear way to separate the past from the present time, while it is not possible to do so with the future. We may even use a stopwatch to mark a passing second, but never a coming second.] :)
----------------------
Another point is, even if we have Future Tense, it is obvious we are now talking about past and present. Personally, I think we can leave Future Tense alone for the time being. By leaving it behind, I clearly understand I do not secretly use its definition to explain other tense, while you know that people are unknowingly or secretly borrowing Simple Present definition to explain Present Perfect, as I explained in my previous message.
----------------------
As for your "occasionally use Simple Present to tell past time", please give examples. Perhaps I know what you meant, but it is better for you to give examples.
---------------------
You wrote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tdol Aspect shows whether something is finished (perfect) or unfinished (progressive) for actions. For states, the perfect is unfinished but seen as long-term, while the progressive is temporary. |
:D I want to explain what Aspect is in tenses.
In dictionary, ASPECT means direction, viewpoint:
Ex: We love the valley in all its aspects.
== We love the valley if viewing it in all directions.
Therefore I agree Present Progressive is a kind of Aspect. Most Simple Present can be repeated in Present Progressive without making a big mistake in expressing Time. That is, Present Progressive is another direction to look at Simple Present:
Ex: "He lives in Japan" compares with
"He is living in Japan"
Ex: "She writes stories for children" compares with
"She is writing stories for children"
Ex: "We discuss the use of Aspect" compares with
"We are discussing the use of Aspect"
All of above are referring to the present time.
However, since Present Perfect has a dual function, it is at best
half an Aspect. Or better to say, people want to use one stone (Aspect) to kill two birds (the dual function).
As you claim "Aspect shows whether something is finished (perfect)", how you can explain the unfinished indication of the tense:
Ex: Jack has lived there since 1980.
==
This is a continuity and Aspect tycoons had to avoid encounter with it.
A very few of them explained, as I said in the previous message, that Jack's living there is too a finish. But they will add "I am not sure whether now he still lives here or not", to give an implication he may still live there -- it may be unfinished.
I want to make it simple to understand: tycoons want to say Perfective is finished, but may be unfinished.
As I have explained, vagueness or confusion is the purpose of using Perfective Aspect.
--------------------
You wrote:
Quote:
|
For states, the perfect is unfinished but seen as long-term |
My reply: :x As I explained the method of borrowing, here you borrow Simple Present to explain Present Perfect. That is to say, your Present Perfect definition fits Simple Present perfectly:
Ex: He lives in Japan.
== In Simple Present, the living
is unfinished but seen as long-term, word for word as you've described Present Perfect.
As I promised, whatever you say to Present Perfect can be said word for word again to either Simple Present or Simple Past. It is because Present Perfect has a dual function, indicating both present and past.
:)
Therefore, I don't get anything from "time is not the determining factor".
Past actions can be also near: "I posted the message a minute ago", and can be "actions or states that are seen as near to us, whether that is time, socially". Worst of all, you didn't even use examples to help you. Therefore, your definition permits examples of the near past, completely. 
Linear Mode
