The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

[shun]

TDOL wrote:

If the time is specific and unfinished (since 1987) then the present perfect is used.

My reply:
1. What time do you mean? Yes, 1987 is specific. But please tell me how it is unfinished. I thought 1987 is finished, by 2003.

2. Are we talking of the Past Family?

3. What happens to the ordinary Present Perfect which is without a time, like "He has lived in Japan"? It seems to be a finish. Perhaps your assumption now has clouded those ordinary Present Perfect structures. Would you do some clarification?

4. Please understand that even your presumption here still makes the common rule invalid that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time. But this has already been our conclusion from my previous long comment. The issue is rather clarified than clouded. Can you say your new discovery doesn't depend on what I have concluded?
:?

[Tdol]

1987 is finished, but in this time pharse it merely marks the beginning- there is no cut-off point because 'since' brings us up to the present.

[shun]

TDOL explained "since 1987":

1987 is finished, but in this time pharse it merely marks the beginning- there is no cut-off point because 'since' brings us up to the present.

Dear TDOL, if it is really as you said, we were just mentioning the beginning of the finished 1987, which is possible, and we brought the time up to the present by 'since', which is unlikely. In your because, 'since' doesn't bring us up to the present, as it is not "since us".

I hope we may try again and also other questions above, which are more related to our topic.

[shun]

I revisited the search of "specific past time present perfect" in yahoo, and I found just how common the rule is.

From The Linguistics Department of Stanford University:

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

http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/..._kiparsky.html

As we now must agree, this common rule doesn't really work. It only works by hiding the Past Family. Think of our days of discussion that can rectify so many erroneous statements from around the world!! We should be proud of ourselves here.

[Casiopea]

Shun:

More evidence is that Cas wrote:

Quote:
That’s why *"I have lived in Japan in the past week" is ungrammatical.

If according to Cas, Present Perfect is ungrammatical staying with "in the past week", why then it is grammatical with "in the past two weeks"?

:D

"I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks" is ungrammatical. for the past two weeks modifies 'have lived' quite nicely.

:wink:

[Casiopea]

Shun:

Please teach us how to make a span of time circular.

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl

[Red5]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl

LOL!!! :D

[shun]

Cas wrote:

"I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks" is ungrammatical. for the past two weeks modifies 'have lived' quite nicely.

My reply: It is inexcusable for me not to have discussed about the prepositions used in the pattern of the Past Family.

IN is dynamic, meaning sometimes there, and sometimes not there.

FOR is static, meaning most, if not all, of the time.

But in past discussions (in other forums) we agreed that they are so only when the pattern is without the adjective 'past'.

Ex: *I have lived in Japan in two weeks.
Ex: I have lived in Japan for two weeks.

Actually, in the pattern without 'past', many other prepositions should not work, either:

Ex: *I have lived in Japan during two weeks.
Ex: *I have lived in Japan over two weeks.
Ex: *I have lived in Japan within two weeks.

:agrue: But I want to report to you, as we agreed then, both in opinion and evidence, when there is the adjective 'past', most prepositions are acceptable:
Ex: I have lived in Japan in/within/during/over/for/etc. the past two weeks.
== Only God knows the difference. ALL are frequent in the format of the Past Family.

:) But I agree you may now argue instead whether we should use LIVE, rather than STAY, to describe a period of staying there for two weeks. I want to skip the discussion of the preference in LIVE or STAY, with "in two weeks". Nevertheless, I predict you have a keen eye on this matter.

[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.