How would you define the future time?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
First of all, I should qualify point 5 in my last post: you might not expect to say "I go to work by train" while on the train, but you might say "I go to work by train every day" during a discussion with a fellow traveller. So I had better withdraw that part of it.

My reply: I am afraid this is not realistic. As the late grammarian Otto Jespersen pointed out, the earth is rotating around the sun, but we say only "The earth rotates around the sun". He sensed there must be some reason to use Present Progressive. He theorized Present Progressive is used because of a contrast with other tenses. I have accepted this theory and applies it also to all kinds of tenses. I have furthered that tenses are used to tell the time relations between actions. On one-sentence basis such as your example "I go to work by train", you cannot explain any tense.

As I am living in Hong Kong, I can say I live in Hong Kong, "while in Hong Kong".

If someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train.

-----------------
MrPedantic said:
Again, I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted your comment; but I would say that although we label e.g. "I go" in "I go to work by train" as "present tense" (i.e. it does not have a past tense inflection), its aspect is "habitual", i.e. it expresses a composite past-present-future context. If the speaker wanted to limit the context in some way, he would have to choose another form, e.g.
1. I used to go to work by train.
2. From now on, I'll be going to work by train.

My reply: To argue and hold that "I go" in "I go to work by train" has not a past tense inflection, is a disaster. Nothing escapes from time, and every action or habit also has its past, thus taking past tense inflection.

We have often heard that there are continuous aspect and perfective aspect, but when have they started to claim Simple Present to be an aspect? Can you quote any sources on the web that claim Simple Present is "aspect"?
As for English tense, aspect is a special word and "habitual" is not an aspect.

Don't we use also Simple Past or other tenses to say so-called habitual aspect, as in the following?
Ex: When I lived in UK, I went to work by train every day.
Ex: When I go to university next year, I will get up early every day.

Why will you repeatedly stay on "used to" alone? One habit must have its details and it is foolish to claim we can always use one sentence to encompass any habit. If a writer uses a few sentences to describe a past habit, will he use "used to" in all the sentences, as in the following?
Ex: ?"He used to sit in the balcony for the early morning. He used to enjoy the morning sun and take a cup of coffee. He used to read newspapers and listen to the radio music."
== I don't think one will describe it all the way with "used to".

Rather, Simple Past has to be used:
Ex: "He used to sit in the balcony for the early morning. He enjoyed the morning sun and took a cup of coffee. He read newspapers and listen to the radio music."
Also, is "used to" a past tense or present tense? If you recognize "used to" to be past tense, we still use past tense to say a past habit, don't we?

Or do you know we only use "used to" to express past habits?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I have pointed out three customs:
Ex1: I walk 3 miles every day.
Ex2: I am walking 3 miles every day.
Ex3: I have been walking 3 miles every day.
== In many other forums, they often asked about the difference between Ex1 and Ex2, and I pointed out there is Ex3 that is also confused with them.

As for Ex1 ("I walk 3 miles every day"), you wrote:
<<Ex1: This is a neutral statement of a regular or habitual occurrence.>>

My reply: Please be reminded that, since all three of them are now done every day, they are neutral statement of a regular or habitual occurrence.

Now as you have found out "habitual" is not enough, you instantly usher "neutral' for help. Of course, you may choose many other Meanings for other tenses that express "habit", because you know there are many synonyms for "habit". As I say, people use Meanings to explain tenses; they don't think of time anymore.

We will surprise people to a high degree if we remind them we have an agreement that tense is used to express time. Are you aware of the agreement at all? Are you aware that Simple Present can express other meanings such as "love"? If you can deny "love" for Simple Present, I can deny "habit".

-----------------
As for Ex2 ("I am walking 3 miles every day"), you wrote:
<<Ex2: This draws attention to the nature of the routine. The present progressive conveys an action in progress; it does not in itself suggest habit (unless habit is part of the verb's meaning). >>

My reply: What a confusion it is! If it is not a routine or habit, how can we draw attention to the routine or habit? Or do you mean Habit is not Routine at all? Are we using tenses to tell such a nuance between routine and habit? I can't believe my eyes even I have seen your words.

The fact is, as for the three examples, because you have found out "habit" has been occupied by Simple Present, so you use "routine" to help explain Present Progressive. However, as three of them are doing every day, they are all in the nature of a routine or habit.

Why haven't grammar books stipulated there are many kinds of habits, and some of them are for Simple Present, while some of them are not?

If according to Time, it is a simple logic that different tenses are used to say different time spans of a habit.

However, if according to Meanings, you have to say different tenses are used to tell the difference between Habit and Routine. How ridiculous it is!!

People have always agreed that tense is used to express time, but why have they always violated the agreement without mercy?

------------------
As for Ex3 ("I have been walking 3 miles every day"), You wrote:
<<Ex3: The present perfect progressive conveys a action in progress, which began in the past, and has some relation to the present. Again, it does not in itself suggest habit.>>

My reply: Here you want to link Present Perfect Progressive to Present Perfect, thus relating "has some relation to the present".

Are you aware that, as I have pointed out to Mr Riverkid, the standard of "has some relation to the present", being used to explain Present Perfect, makes many students wailing?
As the following would-be teacher has pointed out, everything we say now of course "has some relation to the present":
Several years ago I received a call from a friend. She was hoping for a place on a TEFL Certificate course, and she had a problem. 'Help me' she said. 'I can't get my head round the present perfect.' Easy, I thought. I was wrong. 'But everything has current relevance' she protested. 'Otherwise we wouldn't bother saying it...
== http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/pp4_sarn.htm

My three habits in three tenses above are used to point out that people have no idea of defining either present time or habit. More precisely, it is "every day" that expresses habit or routine. Habit or routine has nothing to do with tenses.

Any tense can express Habit, and Simple Present can express any meanings like Love. Can you see something here? The tense has nothing to do with any meanings.

Please understand that "I have been walking 3 miles every day" can be conversed in a restaurant to a friend who claims "I walk 3 miles every day". That is to say, their actions are NOT necessarily in progress. All three examples can be said while in the walking or not.

Please be reminded that all three habits "began in the past, and has some relation to the present". It is absurd to claim that the habit in Simple Present and the one in Present Progressive have no relation to the present. This reasoning is obviously illogical and not true.

Again, what is the term for the habit in Present Perfect Progressive? Why did you avoid it? If something in Perfect Progressive is done every day and "began in the past, and has some relation to the present", is it a routine or aspect that is "habitual"? You didn't speak out clearly. Or do you think it is neither a habit nor routine? How will you call Ex3, if it is not a habit nor a routine?

In a nutshell, I am afraid that, by way of Meanings like habit or routine, you have totally failed to tell the nuances between the three tenses.

-------------------
MrPedantic said:
You might use it in this context, for instance:
4. I've been walking three miles every day, but my doctor says it's making my knee worse. So I may have to stop.

My reply: Are you telling me that in this example we might not use Simple Present or Present Progressive? Or what is the point of the example?

------------------
MrPedantic said:
So your Ex2 might occur in this context, for instance:
3. I'm walking three miles every day at the moment; but when my knee gets better, I hope to do ten.

My reply: Do you mean we might not use Simple Present or Present Progressive here instead? If all three tenses are allowed here, as they are, what is the point of the example showing only one of them? Any difference between the three tenses in the three examples?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Whitemoon said:
Don't compare the week with the day, the hour, the year, the century and so on.
Don't compare the day with the week, the hour, the year, the century and so on.
When you compare the hour with the day, you will be complicated because you are sure to see that tomorrow is future time and next second is future time and you say "What is future time?"

My reply: This is to say, if I compare them, you cannot explain it, because you will be complicated by them.
This is to say, you can see by yourself clearly the fault of your explanation, even though it is the best you can define.
This is to say, you cannot tell the difference between the three of them correctly – the past, the present, and the future.

Why don't you suggest we should not explain time, because doing so will complicate us?
Why don't you suggest we should not open the forum, because it will allow us to ask questions and thus complicate English?

I cannot follow you and I will compare Week with Day as in the following.

------------------
Whitemoon said:
When we see the week, last week is past time, present week is present time and next week is future time.

My reply: Within the present week, there is Yesterday and Tomorrow, so the present time includes the past time and future time.

If you can explain time correctly and tell the difference, present time doesn't contain past time, and past time doesn't include future time, etc.

-------------------
If you fail to define present time, you cannot explain Simple Present, and you will have to use Meanings like "habit" to explain Simple Present. As any tense can express "habit", however, you cannot explain either Simple Present or "habit". Actually, you may claim Simple Present expresses other meanings like "love". It doesn't matter, as no one can deny it.

You cannot explain "habit" to the degree that we don't have past habit and future habit. Will you use Simple Present to say a past habit? No, certainly not. Even "used to" is a past tense. Then you will understand grammars have always made fool of you. Actually, as I have pointed out, Simple Present expresses only PRESENT habit.

Simple Present can express any kinds of meaning. Do you know of any meaning that cannot be expressed by Simple Present?
 

whitemoon

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Burmese
Home Country
Myanmar
Current Location
Myanmar
Your topic is "How would you define the future time?"
You told me Simple present, habit , past tense....and so I don't know exactly and clearly what you want to know.
Actually we have only "present time", which is "NOW" and we don't have past time and future time, which are "imaginative things or romatic things or abstract things".
FUTURE is thing which will become PRESENT and
PAST is thing which has become PRESENT.
WE HAVE ONLY PRESENT,WHICH IS NOW.
 
Last edited:

whitemoon

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Burmese
Home Country
Myanmar
Current Location
Myanmar
Dad: Aunt Lee visits us today.
Son: No, she says she visit us in the future.
Dad: No, she said "today".
Son: No, she said "two o'clock this afternoon", so it is future.
Dad: Where did you learn this? Two o'clock this afternoon is within today, so it is today, OK?

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

Your logic is good.
Between Dad and Son there is difference. Dad sees day and so he assumes yesterday is past time, today is present time and tomorrow is future time. Son sees hour or watch and so he assumes last hour is past time, this hour is present time and next hour is future time. They are different in assuming the time and so they are not compatible with each other.But they both are right and they two are in the same present time, which is NOW.
 
Last edited:

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
whitemoon said:
Actually we have only "present time", which is "NOW" and we don't have past time and future time, which are "imgaminative things or romatic things or abstract things".
FUTURE is thing which will become PRESENT and
PAST is thing which has become PRESENT.
WE HAVE ONLY PRESENT,WHICH IS NOW.

Then your words will be final.:up:
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
My reply: I am afraid this is not realistic. As the late grammarian Otto Jespersen pointed out, the earth is rotating around the sun, but we say only "The earth rotates around the sun". He sensed there must be some reason to use Present Progressive. He theorized Present Progressive is used because of a contrast with other tenses. I have accepted this theory and applies it also to all kinds of tenses. I have furthered that tenses are used to tell the time relations between actions. On one-sentence basis such as your example "I go to work by train", you cannot explain any tense.

As I am living in Hong Kong, I can say I live in Hong Kong, "while in Hong Kong".

If someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train.

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

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me.

I said you would not expect to say "I go to work by train" while on the train.

By this I mean, you would expect to say "I go to work by train" at a party, or when answering a questionnaire; but on the whole, people don't ask you how you get to work when you're sitting on a train.

(Trust me. I've gone to work by train very nearly since the age of steam. No one has ever asked me such a question.)

MrP
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
We have often heard that there are continuous aspect and perfective aspect, but when have they started to claim Simple Present to be an aspect? Can you quote any sources on the web that claim Simple Present is "aspect"?
As for English tense, aspect is a special word and "habitual" is not an aspect.
1. I haven't claimed that the simple present is an aspect.
2. The simple present can indeed have habitual aspect. See:
http://www.mfi.uni-miskolc.hu/toltessy/aspects.htm
3. Here is a site which explains habitual aspect:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsHabitualAspect.htm
MrP
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Why will you repeatedly stay on "used to" alone? One habit must have its details and it is foolish to claim we can always use one sentence to encompass any habit. If a writer uses a few sentences to describe a past habit, will he use "used to" in all the sentences, as in the following?

Ex: ?"He used to sit in the balcony for the early morning. He used to enjoy the morning sun and take a cup of coffee. He used to read newspapers and listen to the radio music."

== I don't think one will describe it all the way with "used to".

Various structures are possible, e.g.

1. "He used to sit on the balcony in the early morning, enjoying the morning sun, drinking a cup of coffee, reading newspapers and listening to the music on the radio."

2. "He would sit on the balcony in the early morning. He would enjoy the morning sun, drink a cup of coffee, read newspapers and listen to the music on the radio."

Rather, Simple Past has to be used:
Ex: "He used to sit in the balcony for the early morning. He enjoyed the morning sun and took a cup of coffee. He read newspapers and listen to the radio music."

This does not sound entirely idiomatic to me.

MrP
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
As for Ex2 ("I am walking 3 miles every day"), you wrote:
<<Ex2: This draws attention to the nature of the routine. The present progressive conveys an action in progress; it does not in itself suggest habit (unless habit is part of the verb's meaning).

My reply: What a confusion it is! If it is not a routine or habit, how can we draw attention to the routine or habit? Or do you mean Habit is not Routine at all? Are we using tenses to tell such a nuance between routine and habit? I can't believe my eyes even I have seen your words.

I'm sorry, Shun, you have mostly misunderstood my meaning in that post. I'm afraid my explanations were insufficiently clear.

Ex 2 presents a routine/habitual occurrence: the routine/habit is expressed by "every day".

The "nature of the routine" (or habit) is "walking 3 miles".

The present progressive does not itself express habit/routine.

Have a good weekend,

MrP
 

Genius86

New member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
hi everybody..:-D
actually it depends on what you have in mind when you hear the word "TIME"...
to clarify more, if you put in your mind a watch when you hear the word time then you are concerning with hours... the present time then the time in the watch and the future is the next milliseconds as it's the case in past.
while if you think of a day as a measurement fo time then you have yeasterday which is past , today which is present and tomorrow which is future...
the same procedure is followed if you have a year as a time measurement or any other means....
I hope that my idea is clear and meaningful
Best WISHES,
Genius86

PHP:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Genius86 said:
actually it depends on what you have in mind when you hear the word "TIME"...
to clarify more, if you put in your mind a watch when you hear the word time then you are concerning with hours... the present time then the time in the watch and the future is the next milliseconds as it's the case in past.
while if you think of a day as a measurement fo time then you have yeasterday which is past , today which is present and tomorrow which is future...
the same procedure is followed if you have a year as a time measurement or any other means....

My reply: So, you also don't believe their ways of defining time, so you try yours. Your way is a magical way.

It depends on whom listen to you. I am afraid you might show your magical procedure to a kindergarten boy or girl and get passed, but not here.

In TV programs, I was much surprised by the trick with which magicians make a tank or an elephant disappear. Now dear Genius86 you are the greatest magician I have ever seen, because you can make the past time of today disappear. How? Think of a day, and all you can see is Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, but you will not see the past/future of today itself.

Your procedure has not all failed and can actually apply to the shortest instant of time. You may have the shortest past instant, the shortest present instant, and the shortest future instant. As you see, they are now 'pure', and the present doesn't contain past or future. They each are different.

However, any time bigger than the smallest present instant, like a present second, can be still split into its smaller parts: its past part, the present part, and future part. If anyone knows this, your magic fails.

Therefore, you had better improve your theory by adding more condition to it: "If we think of a day that cannot be split, you have yesterday which is past, today which is present and tomorrow which is future..."

But the bad thing is, now I have specially pointed out the simple fact that any measurement of time can be split. This year can be split into past/future months; this month into past/future weeks; and this week into past/future days; and so on. In other words, you cannot define the present time so pure that it doesn't contain past and future. Much like theirs, your way of defining has also failed to tell the difference between past, present, and future. As I have said, if one succeeds, three kinds of time doesn't contain each other.

Nevertheless, I didn't say there is no way of defining time to the degree they are not confused with each other. I just want to point out, it is funny that people who use tense to express time don't know how to define time at first.

---------------------------
My own interpretations for the three often-used tenses are very simple:
-- Simple Present expresses present time
-- Simple Past expresses past time.
-- Present Perfect expresses the time between present time and past time.

It is said on the assumption that you can define time.

It is also said on the condition we know there is a nameless time span between past and present, as I have explained the nameless time span around here:

"A Nameless Time Span -- Few can explain Present Perfect because people have missed a kind of nameless time: the time between the past and the present. It is neither past or present. For example, if Last Week is past and Today (Wednesday) is present, there is a time span between past and present. English has Present Perfect designed to express this kind of time."

I use Time to explain Tense; I don't use Meanings at all to explain Tense.

Tense is indeed very simple, but people have made it complicated because they haven't spent time to define Time first. They don't know how to define past, present, and future.

-------------------
How to define time: the past, the present, and the future?

I would like to give a big hint: why will we need to mention "present time" at all? If you know why you need it, you may know how to define it. After defining the present, you know how to define past and future.

There is another big hint: actually, old English has defined time correctly. They have defined time before explaining tenses. Strange, nowadays English users have missed the power of defining time.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I said: If someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train.

MrPedantic said:
I'm afraid you've misunderstood me.
I said you would not expect to say "I go to work by train" while on the train.
By this I mean, you would expect to say "I go to work by train" at a party, or when answering a questionnaire; but on the whole, people don't ask you how you get to work when you're sitting on a train.
(Trust me. I've gone to work by train very nearly since the age of steam. No one has ever asked me such a question.)

My reply: I am afraid you have stated it very clearly and there is no misunderstanding. What you have said is exactly what I mean. And you are wrong. We say it that way.

You are now arguing against yourself. You have answered why you haven't said "I go to work by train" while on the train: because no one has ever asked you such a question.

But trust me: IF someone asks you why you are on the train, you may of course tell him "I go to work by train", while on the train. It is absurd to claim that one cannot say a habit while one is doing the habit. Tell me again to say so is a mistake and you have found the first rule to guide students not to use Simple Present.

People don't know how to differentiate my three examples of expressing routines.

What do you say about my example "I live in Hong Kong" while in Hong Kong? Am I wrong? Isn't it same as saying "I go to work by train" while on the train?

----------------------
Without explanation, you have combined my example of using many sentences into one sentence, in order to keep "used to":
MrPedantic said:
1. "He used to sit on the balcony in the early morning, enjoying the morning sun, drinking a cup of coffee, reading newspapers and listening to the music on the radio."
2. "He would sit on the balcony in the early morning. He would enjoy the morning sun, drink a cup of coffee, read newspapers and listen to the music on the radio."

My reply: I have deliberately shown you the example of not using "used to" and you shall not reconstruct it, in order to keep using "used to".

Are you announcing using many Simple Past sentences to say a habit is wrong, as in the following example?
Ex: "He would sit on the balcony in the early morning. He enjoyed the morning sun and drank a cup of coffee. He read newspapers and listened to the music on the radio."
== Tell me again it is wrong to use Simple Past here and I will end the discussion. But please don't reconstruct and combine it, so as to use "used to".

I have often accepted the opinion of my correspondents as the final say. But please don't avoid MY example of using many sentences to express a habit or routine.

---------------
I have shown you an example of using Simple Past sentences to say a past habit, and you said:

MrPedantic said:
This does not sound entirely idiomatic to me.

My reply: Actually, if you search "he was often", or "she did often", or "he usually liked" and see into the examples, you will see a past habit expressed in Simple Past. Do they all not sound entirely idiomatic to you?

Other than "used to", there are actually many ways to express a past habit. At least, "used to" itself is a Simple Past expression.

---------------
MrPedantic said:
I'm sorry, Shun, you have mostly misunderstood my meaning in that post. I'm afraid my explanations were insufficiently clear.
Ex 2 presents a routine/habitual occurrence: the routine/habit is expressed by "every day".

My reply: I am afraid it is clear enough. You have now admitted that the routine/habit is expressed by "every day". If so, Simple Present doesn't need to express routine/habit.

Simple Present at best describes a present habit. As for a past habit, you still use past tense. I am glad you have not denied "used to" as past tense, after all. You have finally accepted we use past tense to say a past habit.

Furthermore, you didn't deny every tense can say a habit, and Simple Present can express any Meanings such as "love". If knowing this, any young students may understand Simple Present has nothing to do with habit.

----------------
It is strange. Every time you said I have misunderstood you, your clarification is exactly what I wanted to tell you. What a wonderful misunderstanding I have made!! Actually, we understand each other very well.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
My reply: I am afraid it is clear enough. You have now admitted that the routine/habit is expressed by "every day". If so, Simple Present doesn't need to express routine/habit.

Simple Present at best describes a present habit. As for a past habit, you still use past tense. I am glad you have not denied "used to" as past tense, after all. You have finally accepted we use past tense to say a past habit.

Hello Shun

If I were to go out into the street now, and approach a perfect stranger, and say (without any preamble) "I go to work by train", the perfect stranger would interpret it as follows:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is as I have stated.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
If I were to go out into the street now, and approach a perfect stranger, and say (without any preamble) "I go to work by train", the perfect stranger would interpret it as follows:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is as I have stated.

My reply: On one-sentence basis, no one has ever succeeded in defining any one tense without getting confusion with another.

You may say in Present Perfect "I have gone to work by train since I got the job", the perfect stranger would interpret it as same as above.

Every word you say to your Simple Present can be said to my Present Perfect. "I have gone to work by train since I got the job" means:

1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future.

As you can see, there is no "every day" in the phrase. Nonetheless, the default interpretation is the same.
 

Philly

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
comparing apples with apples...

.
Just out of curiosity, Shun, what do you suppose the "default" interpretation of "I have gone to work by train" would be? :roll:
.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Re: comparing apples with apples...

.
Just out of curiosity, Shun, what do you suppose the "default" interpretation of "I have gone to work by train" would be? :roll:
.
See above. "My own interpretations for the three often-used tenses are very simple..."
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Hello Shun

1. I've gone to work by train since I got the job.
2. I go to work by train.

#1 makes a statement about your commuting habits from the moment when you got the job until now.

#2 makes a statement about your commuting habits in the past and the present. It also implies that the speaker expects those habits to continue into the future.

As Philly's post suggests, the two sentences are not equivalent. Cf.

3. I have gone to work by train.
4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.

#3 does not express a habit. It might conceivably occur in a context where you wanted to describe your recent journey to work.

#4 is not idiomatic. Change to either #1, or:

5. I've been going to work by train since I got the job.

All the best,

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.
#4 is not idiomatic. Change to either #1, or:
5. I've been going to work by train since I got the job.
My reply: How do you know about Present Perfect Progressive?

I may reply other questions later, but the following example of using Present Perfect Progressive "have been pushing" should be noticed now, as you may still check the news today:

Senators ask for $6 billion in farm aid
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 6, 7:49 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Farm-state senators are increasing their request for drought relief dollars by half, saying the nation's farmers now need an estimated $6 billion or more in assistance.

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been pushing a package that included $4 billion to help farmers and ranchers weather a devastating drought that has set records in many parts of the country. The package stalled earlier this year as House Republicans and the White House said it was too expensive and would unfairly distribute the money.

Since then, says Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, conditions have worsened. Along with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and 10 other senators, Conrad introduced a bill Wednesday asking for additional help. The bill is expected to exceed $6 billion and covers losses from both 2005 and 2006.

== http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060906/ap_on_el_se/drought_farmers

Does Present Perfect Progressive mean a finish or not? According to the news, it means a finish. The old package has been now replaced by a new bill. So, why is your Present Perfect Progressive #5 compatible with Since?



 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
1. I've gone to work by train since I got the job.
2. I go to work by train.
#1 makes a statement about your commuting habits from the moment when you got the job until now.
#2 makes a statement about your commuting habits in the past and the present. It also implies that the speaker expects those habits to continue into the future.
My reply: I agree. But both of our examples are fit with your earlier conditions:
"1. He has gone to work by train in the past, he goes to work by train at present, and he expects to go to work by train in the future."

You would not deny it, will you? Or do you mean that in #1 here, the speaker doesn't expect those habits to continue into the future?

-----------------------
MrPedantic said:
3. I have gone to work by train.
4. ?I go to work by train since I got the job.
#3 does not express a habit. It might conceivably occur in a context where you wanted to describe your recent journey to work.
I didn't say #3, did I? How can you change my example with Since into the one without Since? What kind of argument is that?

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

MrPedantic said:
As Philly's post suggests, the two sentences are not equivalent.
My reply: How will anyone expect the following two examples are equivalent?
Ex: I've gone to work by train since I got the job. (an unfinished action)
Ex: I've gone to work by train. (a finished action)

They are totally different, so one should not change my example with Since into the one without it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top