Do we eat anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

I eat dinner at eight- statement of fact, implying that this is my normal time for dinner.

I ate dinner at eight- statemnt about dinner on an occasion in the past. This does not implyu that this is my usual time.

I have eaten dinner- a recent past action

---

As you mentioned "statement of fact" to Simple Past, are you aware that Simple Present and Present Perfect here are also statements of fact? Is habit not a fact? Of course it is. Therefore, the information of "statement of fact" is redundant. FACT is not the characteristic only applicable to Simple Past.

Also, does Simple Past mean that my normal time for dinner is not at eight anymore? I don't think so. As you must agree, even my normal time for dinner is STILL at eight, we are permitted to say I ate dinner at eight. This is the point we have been talking about: to the same routine, we can say I eat dinner at eight or I ate dinner at eight.

Unfortunately, we cannot now compare also with Present Perfect. As we can see, we are not able to put "at eight" to the Present Perfect here. You have answered my question about comparison by changing it to a situation in which we cannot compare the three of them at once. So I want to go back my original situation: Why can we say the three tenses at the present:
I ate dinner.
I have eaten dinner.
I eat dinner.

All language occurs within some kind of context. It is only within context that a word or a sentence truly makes sense.

:)

"Also, does Simple Past mean that my normal time for dinner is not at eight anymore? I don't think so. As you must agree, even my normal time for dinner is STILL at eight, we are permitted to say I ate dinner at eight. This is the point we have been talking about: to the same routine, we can say I eat dinner at eight or I ate dinner at eight. "

This is utterly irrelevant- I didn't say it was not my normal time; I said it didn't imply that it was my normal time. There is nothing whatsoever in the sentence to imply that this is my normal time. We cannot say 'I eat dinner at eight or I ate dinner at eight' and mean the same thing, otherwise we wouldn't have the two forms. You seem out to prove something that makes no logical sense- there are genuine differences between the tense. Trying to prove that there are no differences is basically a waste of effort. Trying to understand the differences makes more sense. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

You seem out to prove something that makes no logical sense- there are genuine differences between the tense. Trying to prove that there are no differences is basically a waste of effort. Trying to understand the differences makes more sense.

---

But how to understand the difference? That is the point. As you claimed Simple Past to be statement of fact, for example, it is also a waste of effort. Do you mean Simple Present I eat dinner is not a fact? Present Perfect I have eaten dinner is not a fact? Yes, all these are statements of fact. Therefore, to link statement of fact only to Simple Past is misleading and redundant.

I say, if these structures have genuine differences, you failed to tell clearly to us. Of course I am trying to understand the differences. Therefore, your suggestion that "Trying to understand the differences makes more sense" is also a redundancy. :)
Asking about the differences more clearly is not proving there are no differences. It is a simple logic. People around here are asking some one point of grammar, so does this mean that they are proving that there is no such point?

As you claimed, "The simple present can be seen as existing outside time or as being of the past, present and future." According to you, therefore, regardless of time, at any moment we may usually say I eat dinner, rather than I have eaten dinner. However, it seems possible we do sometimes say it in Present Perfect I have eaten dinner, and sometimes even Simple Past I ate dinner. But if this is true that we can talk about the routine in Simple Past or Present Perfect, then the routine is proven not "existing outside time or as being of the past, present and future." Actually, there is no such routine. It follows that Simple Present doesn't denote such a routine that doesn't exist.

I am here to accept logical explanation, rather than picking up any redundancy being thrown to me. We are here discussing whether an explanation is reasonable or not. We call here "forum".

I have dinner at eight o'clock yesterday.

Fine? ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

I have dinner at eight o'clock yesterday.

Fine? ;-)

---

No, I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonBee

All language occurs within some kind of context. It is only within context that a word or a sentence truly makes sense.

:)

---

Is this the start, or is this the end, of your suggestion? :)

What I mean is, do you have some details?

This?
http://www.usingenglish.com/poll/index.php?poll_id=78
;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

This?
http://www.usingenglish.com/poll/index.php?poll_id=78
;-)

---

The whole thing in the link is:

Quote:

---

No text is free of other texts.- Ferdinand de Saussure

---

Some detail!! :P

I hope you understand, if the context is that important and real, all the messages you people have provided me before here are futile. On the other hand, I don't know how the context functions in your mind. Further, Ferdinand's sense of humor is he puts his text "No text is free of other texts" next to nothing. His text is free of other texts, and we still believe his contradictory, don't we? He is speaking against his own self, and we still believe him, don't we? Or else, the person who has cut off "No text is free of other texts" from Ferdinand's context must be insulting his intelligence.

But he who will quote the link must be very intelligent, I am sure.
:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonBee

All language occurs within some kind of context. It is only within context that a word or a sentence truly makes sense.

:)

---

Is this the start, or is this the end, of your suggestion? :)

What I mean is, do you have some details?

---

It is, I think, the start. For example, "I ate at eight" has no real meaning unless we know who "I" is and why he or she is talking about having eaten.

:)