How would you define the future time?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MrPedantic

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



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?




The "since" clause is fine with the present perfect progressive in my example. The structure is indeed very common:

1. I've been living here since 1962.
2. I've been avoiding British beef since the BSE crisis.

As for your example, the essence of the old package is in the new bill. The new bill has only been "introduced". The process is not yet complete:

Conrad said the senators will try to attach the package to one of a few bills before the November election, when voters in hard-hit states may have drought on their minds. But he acknowledged that will be difficult with few legislative days left before Congress adjourns.
The use of the present perfect progressive in this example relates to a process that began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking.

All the best,

MrP
 

MrPedantic

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



No, I mean that the verb form in #1 doesn't tell us anything about the speaker's expectations.

The verb form in #2 does.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
The use of the present perfect progressive in this example relates to a process that began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking.
My reply: This murmur can apply to any tense. Do you think the time of a present habit is not "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking"?

Can you tell me this murmur CANNOT apply to which one tense?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
The use of the present perfect progressive in this example relates to a process that began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking.

My reply: This murmur can apply to any tense. Do you think the time of a present habit is not regarded as "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking"?

If one has a routine of "He goes to school every day", then using any tense to describe it is still a routine. For example, "He went to school yesterday" is also part of the routine. If yesterday's going to school is not part of routine, does he have a routine of "going to school every day" at all? Will anyone be so foolish to claim that the everyday habit doesn't include the one happened yesterday?
Does Simple Past prove the habit is over and he will not continue to do it in the future? I really don't think so, what do you think? But if you agree Simple Past can speak of the routine and doesn't prove the routine is finished, the tense relates to a process that "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking".

If I quote some opinion you SAID or WROTE, must I presume you will not say or write it anymore? It is ridiculous. Even I mention your opinion in Simple Past, I have to assume your opinion "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking".

Likewise, if he is doing the routine "He is going to school" now, how can one argue it is not a routine? To argue so doesn't make any sense. If one is doing the habit, how can it not be regarded as "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking"? Pointing at a perfect stranger who is smoking, a mother teaches her son and says "It is a bad habit". Isn't doing the habit is not a habit anymore? I have often joked at some learners' argument that Present Progressive does not express a habit. I put on an irony: "It is easy to quit the habit of smoking. Smoke it now. As you are smoking now, because of the tense, it is no longer regarded as a habit anymore."

Again, if one emphasizes he does have the routine for quite a time "He has gone to school every day since 1997", how can you claim he says nothing about a routine at all, because of using Present Perfect? Needless to say, anyone will agree the mumble "began in the past, and continued to the moment of speaking" can apply to Present Perfect. With such murmur, what is the difference between Present Perfect and Present Perfect Progressive?

Can you tell me this all-applicable murmur CANNOT apply to which one tense?


 

MrPedantic

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

If I approach a perfect stranger in the street and say, without preamble,

1. "I go to work by train."

the perfect stranger may reasonably infer that the routine relates to the past, the present, and the expected future. The utterance does not focus on any particular time.

If however I say (again, without preamble):

2. "I have gone to work by train."

the stranger may not reasonably infer a routine. Indeed, the stranger's natural inference would be "on some particular occasion, perhaps today, or perhaps on a few occasions in the past, he has gone to work by train".

And if I say, yet again without preamble,

3. "I have been going to work by train."

the stranger may infer a routine, but may not infer that I intend to maintain that routine.

The question is not whether the action itself is a routine. It's whether that particular verb form expresses a routine.

In other words, the choice of verb form is a question of focus.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
If I approach a perfect stranger in the street and say, without preamble,
1. I go to work by train.
the perfect stranger may reasonably infer that the routine relates to the past, the present, and the expected future. The utterance does not focus on any particular time.
My reply: In the quote there are many weak points here.

First, as you guess correctly, the perfect stranger MAY do it, but only MAY. He very probably asks, "What do you want to say?"
Or he may ask, "Every day?"
Or more often: "Sorry, I don't know you."

It is rather odd for a perfect stranger to accept openly your utterance without preamble. I don't believe you may go to a perfect stranger, say one sentence, and end the talking. It is unbelievable.

I have been preaching to explain tense by the paragraph, but everywhere people try to point out we use tense in unbelievable situations – just one sentence. As for you, there is one sentence said to a perfect stranger, without preamble, and without time. What kind of situation is this?

Here is the real situation: A stranger looked helplessly at you as you failed to start your car, you got out of it and murmured, "I go to work by train". The perfect stranger understood and would agree. May I ask, will he infer that your utterance "I go to work by train" is a routine at all?

Where on earth does the sentence "I go to work by train" come from? Every writing or book has been dated and can be dated. However, from such a writing or book a guy cuts up only one sentence and claim it "does not focus on any particular time". Will you believe him? A kindergarten pupil will, but not us.

I have seen enough people using interesting and cunning way of making up a sentence for discussion, and I know the reason. People don't know how to define the present time, so they choose Meanings like Habit for convenience. If you know how to define "the present time", you will agree Simple Present expresses present time.

----------------
MrPedantic said:
2. "I have gone to work by train.
the stranger may not reasonably infer a routine.
My reply: What about "I have gone to work by train since I got the job"? You still can't see the routine?

As for your example, if you have a routine of going to work by train every day, and you told your friend on the phone: "I have gone to work by train". May I ask is this Present Perfect sentence a routine or not? I have posted many similar examples in the previous message. Many other tenses can also say a habit. Did you talk about them?

Because you have just finished a case of routine, it is not a routine anymore? Is this your logic? Does "I have gone to work by train" mean the routine is finished and you will not go to work by train anymore?

-------------------
MrPedantic said:
3. I have been going to work by train.
the stranger may infer a routine, but may not infer that I intend to maintain that routine.
My reply: It is not true. I live in Hong Kong and I can tell you that I have been living in Hong Kong. It is completely normal. In the quote you are only guessing with MAY.

-------------------
In your reply, as we can see, you use 'may' repeatedly to guess what the stranger may think. Is tense used just because such guesses?

I don't think I shall follow your so many mays. Some fellows in my home town thought that English expresses time a lot more precisely than Chinese, because English has tense. I explained to them they are wrong. English users cannot explain any tense, and they just guess. You have now proven I am right. Even without tense, my mother tongue doesn't have to guess the time as often as you do.

If English tense is used to express a habit, can't a language without tense express a habit also?
If English tense expresses "may infer a routine", can't a language without tense guess the same?

Really, can you define any tense with a certainty, so it goes without confusion with another tense?

Can't you see, we have to find out a way to reasonably separate all the tense at once? How about the time relations in a paragraph? There are nearly a dozen of time relations in various paragraphs. And there are nearly a dozen of tenses. The number matches!!

As for Meaning, there is only one meaning of Habit but there are so many tenses. The number doesn't match! How can you share one meaning to so many tenses? Now all you want to do is prove other tenses don't express Habit. How, if not by guessing?


 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
First, as you guess correctly, the perfect stranger MAY do it, but only MAY. He very probably asks, "What do you want to say?"
Or he may ask, "Every day?"
Or more often: "Sorry, I don't know you."
These replies do not preclude the inference I suggested.

(You've forgotten the most likely responses, by the way: "Do you?"; or "Really?")

It is rather odd for a perfect stranger to accept openly your utterance without preamble. I don't believe you may go to a perfect stranger, say one sentence, and end the talking. It is unbelievable.
I didn't say it was necessary to conclude the conversation after the utterance.

Why not try it, when you next encounter a perfect stranger whose first language is English?

Here is the real situation: A stranger looked helplessly at you as you failed to start your car, you got out of it and murmured, "I go to work by train". The perfect stranger understood and would agree. May I ask, will he infer that your utterance "I go to work by train" is a routine at all?
No; he'll infer that my first language isn't English.

"I go to work by train" is not the natural utterance, in this context.

Some possibilities:

1. ...I'll have to go to work by train.
2. ...I'm going to have to go to work by train.
3. ...I'm going to work by train.

But not "I go to work by train".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPedantic
2. "I have gone to work by train.
the stranger may not reasonably infer a routine.
My reply: What about "I have gone to work by train since I got the job"? You still can't see the routine?
The routine resides in "since I got the job", which is not included in my example.

From "I have gone to work by train", without preamble, the stranger may not reasonably infer a routine.


-------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPedantic
3. I have been going to work by train.
the stranger may infer a routine, but may not infer that I intend to maintain that routine.
My reply: It is not true. I live in Hong Kong and I can tell you that I have been living in Hong Kong. It is completely normal. In the quote you are only guessing with MAY.

-------------------
From your statement that you have been living in Hong Kong, I am unable to infer with certainty that you live in HK at the moment, or that you expect to live in HK in the future. I can only infer with certainty a routine in the recent past.

As for your other comments: I'm very sorry if my explanations do not accord with what you expect from the English language, but I'm afraid I can only tell you how English works, not how English ought to work!

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
I'm very sorry if my explanations do not accord with what you expect from the English language, but I'm afraid I can only tell you how English works, not how English ought to work!

My reply: Yes, you did tell me how English works: Go to a perfect stranger, and without preamble, say one sentence and end the talking:
If I approach a perfect stranger in the street and say, without preamble,
1. I go to work by train.
the perfect stranger may reasonably infer that the routine relates to the past, the present, and the expected future. The utterance does not focus on any particular time.

What I have seen in newspapers and books and writings, with a paragraph of sentences, is not real English, at least not from English native speakers.

I am impressed. :up:
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
You're welcome, Shun. :up: :up:

I'm glad I could be of assistance.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I just brag of your way of avoidance. If of any assistance to me, will you define 'the present time' now?
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I just brag of your way of avoidance. If of any assistance to me, will you define 'the present time' now?

I'll certainly try.

What context did you have in mind?

All the best,

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
I'll certainly try.
What context did you have in mind?
My reply: Context? You are again arguing against yourself.

If you had noticed the importance the context, you would not have claimed "without preamble":
MrPedantic said:
If I approach a perfect stranger in the street and say, without preamble,
1. I go to work by train.
the perfect stranger may reasonably infer that the routine relates to the past, the present, and the expected future. The utterance does not focus on any particular time.

Tense is used to express time. If you now know the importance of the context, you will now be aware of the importance of the preamble.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
On the contrary. The simple present tense without context doesn't suggest present time, which is what you wanted to know about.

With context, or in the case of the present progressive, it's a different matter.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
:up:
MrPedantic said:
The simple present tense without context doesn't suggest present time.....

My reply: It is your vicious circle. You don't know how to define the present time, but will claim that Simple Present doesn't suggest the present time.

Simple Present doesn't suggest what you don't know. So, you don't know what it suggests. :-?
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Tense is used to express time.

I disagree with this- tense can be used to express time, but it can do many other things in English- I can use the present to talk about past, present or future time.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Tdol said:
I disagree with this- tense can be used to express time, but it can do many other things in English- I can use the present to talk about past, present or future time.
My reply: If we should be able to "use the present to talk about past, present or future time", are you sure we cannot use the past or the future to talk about the present? If we really can, what a mess in time expression.

Actually, we don't use the present second to talk about the past second.
Also, we don't use Today to talk about Yesterday.
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
My reply: If we should be able to "use the present to talk about past, present or future time", are you sure we cannot use the past or the future to talk about the present? If we really can, what a mess in time expression.

Actually, we don't use the present second to talk about the past second.
Also, we don't use Today to talk about Yesterday.

There's a good reason that we don't use today to talk about yesterday, Shun. The reason is, they have different meanings. But we do use different tense FORMS to create nuances in language.

We can use the present tense to talk about a past event. It's called the Historical Present and as much as you seek to deny these things with your theories, ENLs do it all the time.

Try googling "so I walk into this bar" and you'll see 61 pages where ENLs relate stories, in the present tense, that are over, finished, finito.

Here are a few examples:

so I walk into this bar in Laredo (sse cash, john r.) and I see all these girls, latinas...right.. you know where this is going, but Imma keep going for the ...

Ok, so I walk into this bar.. I sit down on the south end of the bar, and wave the barkeeper over for some ale. I notice two guys braging and telling ...

So I walk into this bar and I head straight for the bathroom to see what my night may consist of. I open a stall and I see Gary Busey. ...

Next try, "this duck walks into a bar" and you'll see 3643 pages of ENLs relating past time events in, what else, the present simple, in the Historical Present.

So this duck walks into a bar and says to the bartender, “Man, do I have an amazing talent act. I’m telling you, it could fill Broadway for months! ...


A duck walks into a bar...
This duck walks into a bar and asks the bartender, "Do you have any grapes?"
The bartender says no, and the duck leaves.
The next day, the duck returns and asks, "Do you have any grapes?" The bartender again says no, and the duck leaves.
Two days later the duck returns walks up to the bar and asks the bartender, "Do you have any grapes?"
The bartender, losing his patience, screams at the duck, "I told you duck, I don't have any grapes and if you ask me again I will nail your feet to the floor!!"
The duck looked startled and leaves.
Two days later the duck returns walks up to the bar and asks the bartender, "Do you have any nails?"
The bartender replied, "No," and the duck said, "Good! Got any grapes?"
 

MrPedantic

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

My reply: It is your vicious circle. You don't know how to define the present time, but will claim that Simple Present doesn't suggest the present time.

Simple Present doesn't suggest what you don't know. So, you don't know what it suggests. :-?

Hello Shun

Suppose I'm writing a letter to President Bush.

Someone says to me: "Who are you writing to, MrP?"

In your opinion, should I reply:

1. I write a letter to the President of the United States of America.

Or:

2. I'm writing a letter to the President of the United States of America.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
riverkid said:
There's a good reason that we don't use today to talk about yesterday, Shun.
My reply: Thank you for agreeing with me.

How will you define "the present time"?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
Suppose I'm writing a letter to President Bush.
Someone says to me: "Who are you writing to, MrP?"
In your opinion, should I reply:
1. I write a letter to the President of the United States of America.
Or:
2. I'm writing a letter to the President of the United States of America.
My reply: I will choose #2. What do you want to say?

Now you have a context, will you define "the present time"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top