The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
Jws,
1. I think most (all??, including scientific ones?) definitions will have limitations. If we apply the Pareto Principle, it may be good enough that the definition covers the main gist; I think it cannot be completely comprehensive. Exceptions, specific contexts, etc will have to be dealt with by qualification, illustrations, etc.

Ain't that the gawd's honest truth! However, the present definition hasn't come close to covering the 'gist', as Shun's examples attest to.
Cas :D

Shall we continue discussing definitions under a fresh topic/new thread? This thread has got kind of long, and the original heading's not appropriate to what's here. :p
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Cas explained:

Well, not necessarily. Just because a given speaker, native or non-native, feels there is no difference between, say, "I ate" and "I have eaten" doesn't prove they are the same. That is, the similarity is apparent only. Both actions ended, finished, are over. They seem similar, don't they, but they aren't.

Do we eat dinner? Yes, we do, always do. But how come we sometimes say "I ate / have eaten dinner"? I don't eat dinner anymore? No, I will keep eating dinner every day. But why do we sometimes say "I ate / have eaten dinner"? I can't figure how to explain it. Would you help?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Shun wrote:
I doubt that. "For the past week" is a member of the Past Family, which are compatible with Present Perfect:
Ex: They have stayed in this hotel for the past week.
== The structure is perfectly alright. :lol:

Cas answered:
Yes. It's perfectly fine. :p Have you checked the verb's semantic structure? The use of the participle 'stayed' is synonymous with 'been', meaning existed, which expresses continuity in the past, and the reason it's compatible with 'for the past week'.

My reply: I guess you missed my point. :puppydog: But it is because my bad expression. :oops: :oops: What I wanted to say is, "for the past week" is a past time expression, why shall it stay with Present Perfect? :roll: :roll:
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
For the past\last week is an unfinished time period that began 7 days ago and continues up to the present. It is not the same as 'last week', which is finished. ;-)
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Thank you Tdol.
You wrote:
For the past\last week is an unfinished time period that began 7 days ago and continues up to the present. It is not the same as 'last week', which is finished.

My reply: I hope people here can understand this: I agree to you that it is an unfinished time. I know very well. :cry:
But please answer a straight question: Is it a past time adverbial or not? If it has an adjective 'past', how can we say it is a present or future time adverbial? I myself cannot do it, so do all other grammar writers. And therefore all grammar writers will not talk about examples like I have posted at first:
Ex1: I have seen him in the past few days.
It is because we all know Present Perfect cannot stay with past time adverbials:
Ex2: *I have seen him yesterday.

If you can help explain "in the past few years" is a present or future adverbial, then you will have helped me, and many grammar writers, and most of all, many students. If not, we can only keep cheating our students reluctantly and helplessly. :eggface:

Do you know what the situation now is? Because "in the past few years" looks clearly like a past time adverbial, many students in Asia are using Simple Past to say it:
Ex3: ?I saw him in the past few days. :oops: :oops: :oops:
== We don't even have a grammar book to explain to them. Even worse, many Asia teachers themselves mostly use Ex3. They are bad. But whose fault it is? :oops: :oops: :?

Is it very hard to understand what I am saying and begging? :agrue:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Shun:
I guess you missed my point. :puppydog: But it is because my bad expression. :oops: :oops: What I wanted to say is, "for the past week" is a past time expression, why shall it stay with Present Perfect? :roll: :roll:

Well, there's more to a sentence than its parts. We need to look at how the parts function together and as a whole.

Your example sentences are fabulous! Truly. They appear to buck the general rule. But, and here's a hurdle we need to overcome, just because a given sentence doesn't appear to satisfy the rule, doesn't necessarily mean the rule is faulty. That is, it may be a case of 'hidden evidence' that we, the reader, not the rule writer, have overlooked. For example, guess what's hidden in:

:D I have seen him in the past week.

We know the sentence above doesn't fit the rule we're given; that rule being something like, 'past time expressions', specifically adverials, are incompatible with Present Perfect verbs. In other words, don't use adverbs expressing Past time to modify have -ed/-en verbs.

:( I have seen him yesterday.


But, we hear native speakers using adverbs like "in the past" to modify have -ed/-en verbs,

:D I have seen him in the past week.

so we wonder, "What's with that? Who's the authority here? The rule writers or the native speakers? Who do I trust? How can I learn English if people keep changing the rules? It's frustrating!

Well, the answer is always hidden in the question asked. The original question was something like "Why do they hide...?" If we take another look at one our example sentences, say

:D I have seen him in the past week.

we'll notice that (1) it's grammatical, and (2) that if it's grammatical there must be (a) something wrong with the rule and/or (b) something wrong with the way we are analysing the sentence.

Let's give the rule writer the benefit of the doubt for the present time since s/he has way more knowledge about the topic than we have put together at the present moment. So, let's assume the rule is correct. If so, then, the problem with,

:D I have seen him in the past week.

has to do with the way in which we are analysing the sentence. Which brings me back to my previous statement that 'the answer is always hidden in the question.'

If 'in the past week' is grammatical in a sentence with a Present Perfect verb, and yet cannot modify a Present Perfect verb, then it has to be modifying something, something that's hidden. What could be hidden? Adverbs modify verbs. So what verbal form could be missing? Oh wait, doesn't the verb 'see' take a present participle? Yes. It does. I studied that when I was learning English verbs. Ok, so let's add a participle and see what happens:

:D I have seen him jogging in the past week.

Aha! "in the past" modifies "jogging", a non-Perfect form. Unbelievable! The rule is correct. It stands unchanged. It was my original analysis that was off. I placed too much focus on the verb and no focus at all on the sentence's structure.

So, is 'in the past week' still an exception to the rule? No. It fits the rule quite nicely. It would be nice, however, if rules such as the one you found were followed by examples like the ones you've provided, Shun.

We need to move on to another example. Test our analyses. That's what this is all about, right? We're investigating language in use.

Cas :D
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Cas,

I do believe I have to wear a smiling icon to hide my face if I have to explain the thing in the class as you did.
:oops: :oops:
I have answered this your example:
Ex: I have seen him jogging in the past week. (grammatical)
If we can do this, we can also explain:
Ex: I have seen him jogging yesterday. (grammatical)
However, this grammatical example enables us to say:
Ex: I have seen him yesterday. (ungrammatical)
== Therefore I don't think the analysis is a good one.

You wrote:
:p I have seen him in the past week.
We know the sentence above doesn't fit the rule we're given; that rule being something like, 'past time expressions', specifically adverials, are incompatible with Present Perfect verbs. In other words, don't use adverbs expressing Past time to modify have -ed/-en verbs.

My reply: The example does fit what I call the Past Family. :lol: It is a past time, even I don't know how to explain it can stay with Present Perfect, neither do grammar writers. If a time which has the djective 'past' and is still not past, then what is past? :?: :?:
"I have seen him in the past week" is a past time and stays with Present Perfect. I agree the action is not past, but the time is past. Why? To me, it is compatible, because a present action can be started in the past, that's why. In other words, we do use adverbs expressing Past time to modify have -ed/-en verbs.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Shun:
1. Ex: I have seen him jogging in the past week. (grammatical)

If we can do this, we can also explain:

2. Ex: I have seen him jogging yesterday. (grammatical)

Oh, Yes. I see your logic quite clearly. Nice point, indeed. :D What you're saying is,

Since "in the past" and "yesterday" both belong to the past family of adverbs, we should be able to use them in the same way. So you tested that assumption by replacing "in the past" with "yesterday", expecting the same grammatical result:

2. :( I have seen him yesterday. (iff 'in the past' is grammatical in this position , then 'yesterday' is grammatical in that position)

but it wasn't or isn't grammatical, which is your point.

Okay. Now that we understand each other, here's why sentence 2. is faulty. "yesterday" modifies "jogging", a present participle, which just happens to be hidden, or omitted from the sentence.

Present participles (-ing) express continuity, wheres "yesterday" can not:

3. :( I am going jogging yesterday. ungrammatical

In short, even though "in the past week" and "yesterday" belong to the same past time club, they do not express past time in the same way. "in the past" expresses continuity, whereas "yesterday" can not. The former is compatible with -ing words, whereas the later is not.

"I have seen him yesterday" is ungrammatical because 'yesterday' modifies an -ing word, which is hidden, or omitted from the context.

Shun:
"I have seen him in the past week" is a past time and stays with Present Perfect. I agree the action is not past, but the time is past. Why?

Well , the action started in the Past and continues up to the Present. Past time (-en) is used to start the continuum and Present time (have see) is used to complete it. Time is used in this way to create a span of time, of which a start point and an end point is needed.

The adverb "in the past week" is not compatible with the PP verb; it's compatible with the PP verb's extension: have seen someone doing.

-ing words express continuity as does "in the past week". That is, we don't know when in the span of the past week the event started. It started at some unknown time within the past week. The word 'within' refers to a span. So you see,

:D I have seen him in the past week

is okay. "in the past" modifies an -ing word that is hidden, or omitted from the context.

:D I have seen him jogging in the past week

Shun:
In other words, we do use adverbs expressing Past time to modify have -ed/-en verbs.

On the surface it appears that they're modifying have -ed/-en verbs, but underlyingly, they're modifying something else. So, technically, adverbs expressing Past time do not modify have -ed/en verbs. Sorry :oops:

Do you have more examples?

:D
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Cas,

You wrote:
Past time (-en) is used to start the continuum and Present time (have see) is used to complete it. Time is used in this way to create a span of time, of which a start point and an end point is needed.

My reply: I guess your explanation is solely for the examples such as "I have seen him in the past week", example for the Past Family. :? All the resources have now been turned to the Past Family for the time being. But what about the normal Present Perfect? :lol:

In many other examples of Present Perfect, the time doesn't show "a start point and an end point":
Ex: He has seen Mary recently/just/lately.
Ex: We all have met John before/earlier. :idea:

Actually, normally, most Present Perfect sentences don't link to any time. They don't imply such a span of time, "of which a start point and an end point is needed".
:wink: Ex: I have lived in Japan. (I live in HK now.)
:wink: Ex: They have been to Paris. (They are back to HK now.)
== Present Perfect structures normally don't reveal a time and they just don't "span".

I am afraid we cannot ignore the normal structures for Present Perfect and, in order to explain the Past Family, say something strange, created solely for the Past Family. I am afraid it is not fair. They are the same Present Perfect tense, I suppose. They deserve the same treatment. :popcorn:
They are of the same tense that, as you analyzed, Past time (-en) is used to start the continuum and Present time (have see) is used to complete it. The analysis works only for the Past Family, but violates most of normal Present Perfect structures. This is why even grammar writers would not do it. :roll:

Or we may put them together for contrast: sometimes we span, sometime we don't:
:p Ex: I have seen him in the past week. (we span.)
:p Ex: I have lived in Japan before. (we don't span.)

What is it? A freedom of using tense? :Fade-col:
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What is meant by "Sometimes we span, sometimes we don't"?

:?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
RonBee asked:
What is meant by "Sometimes we span, sometimes we don't"?

:oops: My reply: Casiopea has already explained the meaning of a span of time:
Well , the action started in the Past and continues up to the Present. Past time (-en) is used to start the continuum and Present time (have see) is used to complete it. Time is used in this way to create a span of time, of which a start point and an end point is needed.

Our meaning is, :D in Ex1, the time "started in the Past and continues up to the Present", while our normal Present Perfect structures, such as Ex2, don't express such a span.
Ex1: I have seen him in the past week. (we span.)
Ex2: I have lived in Japan before. (we don't span.)
:wink:
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Okay.

:roll:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Shun:
In many other examples of Present Perfect, the time doesn't show "a start point and an end point".

Yes. I couldn’t agree with you more. :up: The reason being, there’s a difference in meaning, not to mention function, between “an event ends” and “a time frame is completed”. When I wrote the word ‘completed’ I was referring to the Past as a time frame, not an event (i.e. the Past meets the Present; they form a circle, with no end point and no beginning point).

Shun:
Actually, normally, most Present Perfect sentences don't link to any time. They don't imply such a span of time, "of which a start point and an end point is needed".

That’s the way I see it, too. :squarewi: No start, no end, just a circular span, no pun intended. :oops: :oops: In fact, the true function of the Present Perfect is to take focus off Time so as to place more focus on the event, in much the same structural way that passive constructions take the focus off the subject so as to place more focus/emphasis on the object. (Hmm, seems very apropos come to think of it that Present Perfect definitions use passive constructions i.e. ‘is completed’).

Shun:
Or we may put them together for contrast: sometimes we span, sometime we don't:

I have seen him (jogging) in the past week. (we span.)
I have lived in Japan before. (we don't span.)

Firstly, great examples! :smilecol:

Secondly, on the contrary :cry: :cry: Both sentences express a span, “between then and now”.

As for compatibility, the adverb ‘before’ and the Present Perfect both express unknown time. They take focus off Time. The adverbial phrase ‘in the past week’ and the Present Perfect are not compatible, however, because ‘in the past week’ expresses a known time: “within the past week”. 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.

Shun:
What is it? A freedom of using tense?

The variation you mean? Freedom, no. Systematic, yes. By the way, although it’s neither here nor there which term you choose to use, the term “Perfect Aspect” is more common these days. “Tense” means, Time. And, as we know, Present Perfect verbs do not express time. They take the focus off Time so as to place more focus on the event.

:D
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I said:
Actually, normally, most Present Perfect sentences don't link to any time. They don't imply such a span of time, "of which a start point and an end point is needed".

You replied:
That’s the way I see it, too. No start, no end, just a circular span, no pun intended. In fact, the true function of the Present Perfect is to take focus off Time so as to place more focus on the event

My reply: So, I see no span of time because I am seeing a circular span? If so, don't you think you need to explain a bit what is "circular span"? If without further explanation, it is pun. When explained, it is then no pun, as simple as this. :wink:
Personally, I don't know what is "circular span". But I am an old man with little knowledge, so I don't count. Somehow, I hope I could get back to age of 21, by way of "circular span".
We are talking about a span of time. How can a time shuttle back and fro like a circle? I don't know. I can't understand how I am able to turn the time back, controlling it. Actually, time has no return. You only have got "lineal span". :!:

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

Cas wrote:

That’s why *“I have lived in Japan in the past week” is ungrammatical.

My reply:
:cry: My goodness, I don't know you have this idea: It is ungrammatical. No wonder you have kept giving me the example:

Ex: I have seen him (jogging) in the past week.

Why didn't we use some grammatical examples of the Past Family? I suggest a way how we find examples in a fair way: Go to yahoo and type in "in the past few years", a member of the Past Family, and see how many Present Perfect we can find:

Ex: Photography has come along way in the past few years.

:roll: I want to report to you, most searching results are in Present Perfect. You are lucky enough if you notice a few Simple Past working with the Past Family. Even with Simple Past, the writers are still victims of grammar books which say Simple Past works with specific past time, and hide the Past Family away. More victims are now in Asia. (see further below).

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

:B-fly: Many grammar writers would teach us not to use Specific Past Time, such as yesterday, last year with Present Perfect. For example from the following page:

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

I did not deliberately find rare examples. I just went to yahoo and typed in key words such as "specific past time Present Perfect", and chose one in the first page among many pages of matches. Statements like this quotation are frequent. However, very unfortunately, it is the assuredness such as this that forbids they touch the Past Family. :mad:

The pattern of the Past Family, like "in the past xx years", can be as specific as down to a few years, or months, or weeks, or days, or hours, or minutes, or even seconds:

8) :lol: Ex: "I have watched over him for the past five minutes."

They are specific enough!! Compared with them, "yesterday" is non-specific at all:

Ex: I saw him yesterday.
== I didn't see him the whole day. I didn't say exactly when in yesterday. Comparatively, "yesterday" is a very unspecific time, measured and compared with "in the past five minutes".

On the other hand, are the Past Family PAST? Yes, I can bet anything on it. The Past is the same Past in "Specific Past Time". :idea:

Therefore, the Past Family are both specific and past. And this is the trouble. This is why they are guilty and put into concealment, poor thing. However, the concealment is not the end of the story. Rather, it is just the beginning. Following the common rule such as the quotation above, Asians frequently use Simple Past with the Past Family:

Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.

They would say, "Why not Simple Past?" :cry: It is specific, and it is past, students pointed out. Most of all, they would appeal, grammar books don't teach that "in the past five years" cannot stay with Simple Past! Students even challenged us: Do you have any grammar which foolishly say "in the past five years" can possibly stay with Present Perfect? No! Therefore this time adverbial must be used with Simple Past, they concluded!!

We teachers are speechless. :mad: Why will someone produce such a quotation above, without giving a word to the Past Family?

Some teachers have listlessly given up to students, "Go ahead, may be you right, use Simple Past (with the Past Family)." Some are seeking for help. I am not here giving you confusions. Not at all. On the contrary, grammar books written by native English speakers have heaped lots of confusions upon you and me. Give me the good answer of the Past Family and we Asian teachers will say thanks for a thousand times to you English native speakers.

Please teach us how to make a span of time circular. We have to explain to students.
:) :)
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.

Do they still work here? Yes, so the past is innapropriate.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL wrote:

Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.
Do they still work here? Yes, so the past is innapropriate.

:( My replied: I have made a terrible mistake in understanding your idea. I have deleted the old part and replace with this. :(

Then what tense is appropriate and WHY. I was asking about Present Perfect, not Simple Past. :wink:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL,

I say sorry again for the mistake I've made. :eggface:

As you see, now I can only tell students to go to search machine and study the appropriate tense for the Past Family. Students have to make a conclusion by themselves. They have to believe me, fortunately. :n00b:
But it is not a grammar solution for the Past Family, as you must agree. We have to find an explanation, and that is why I am seeking for the answer.:hi:

:drinking:I was waiting for the "circular span" theory.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL,

You wrote:

Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.
Do they still work here? Yes, so the past is innapropriate.

:D My reply: Please understand I agree with you 100%.:up: But how should we say it? You are implying that even with specific past time, sometimes, using Simple Past is inappropriate. However, this goes against the normal rule as I quoted above:

NOTE: :silly: 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

:eyes: How shall we explain the whole thing? Below, I try to give my supposition, or conclusion, that is deduced from all the opinions here.

:agrue: I have been seeking for help for a long time and I was told that we may easily find examples that violate the agreement. We may search in the pattern "have seen yesterday", and we will get many examples violating our quotations before::snipersm:

:shock: Ex: But we have seen yesterday, that Judah and Ephraim are to be taken as the same;
:shock: Ex: On the other hand, this of course leads here only to practical construction, architecture is something of another sort...not always so bad, I have seen yesterday affamed dwellings by a japanese architect that.....
:shock: Ex: ''What I have seen yesterday and today is people coming in to use the computers because they needed to communicate with relatives in other states.''
:shock: Ex: I have seen yesterday something suspiciously like this, but this was 2.0.14 on a Cabriolet board and otherwise Red Hat 3.0.3, i.e. no shared libraries at all. :infinity:

:!: That is to say, using the pattern "have seen yesterday", replace SEEN with other past verbs like discussed, arrived/ finished/ shown/ told/ got/ received/ agreed/ found/ lost/ decided/ etc., or replace YESTERDAY with last year/ month/ week/ etc., we still easily find a number of examples -- "Present Perfect with YESTERDAY". What does this finding prove?

:smilecol: If we add things all up, we may find something consistent, though. We may prove the rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time, is just not there. Grammar writers provide us a non-existent rule that in turn forces themselves to hide away the Past Family. :silly: It is "circular vice", or a vice circle, no pun intended. If this is not the conclusion, then what is?

------------------------
:cheers: More evidence is that Cas wrote:

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"? :squarewi:

:p But if Present Perfect is ungrammatical with "in the past two weeks", why then it is grammatical with "in the past 1000 weeks"? And then, why it is grammatical with "in the past five years"? They are of the same pattern!!!

That is, from the beginning to the present, logically, Cas regarded that Present Perfect is not compatible with "in the past five weeks".

------------------------
:cheers: More evidence is that a gentleman here regarded our rules are nothing but a viewpoint:

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 (a viewpoint, doesn't make it a rule.)

-----------------------
:cheers: Of course, as we see from above, your statement is also a disagreement to the rule.

The temporary conclusion here is obvious: Nobody agrees to such a rule.

What do you say?
:) :)
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If the time is specific and unfinished (since 1987) then the present perfect is used. I think the issue is clouded by the fact that the present perfect is the choice when time is not specified, but that is its only use. ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top