At least 90 people have died

[captain1]

Hello, I saw this on BBC:

At least 90 people have died
Landslide at jade mine in northern Myanmar


What is the reason for not writing it in the Past Simple tense?

"At least 90 people died"


1)People may say "because the mention to connect it to the future" - But what is the meaning of connecting the event to the future in this case?
2)Why not to write it in the Past Simple? after all, the event was in specific time - we know when the landslide was- today. After all, the definition of the Past Simple that is: Action completed at specific time.
Thanks.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In my opinion, either tense works. The past simple is OK with me.

 

[captain1]

Nobody will say that.

The time period in which the deaths have occurred extends up to the present moment.

What is the meaning here of "to extend to the present"?
Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

It means "starting at some point in the past and reaching up to, and including, now".

 

[captain1]

So, what is the meaning of "The time period in which the deaths" here? What was starting and keep going?

 

[emsr2d2]

It means that they died at some point in the past and the number of deaths is currently accurate. Of course, it's possible that more people might die or be found dead as a result of this disaster.

 

[captain1]

In my opinion, either tense works. The past simple is OK with me.

So, both are OK? they have the same meaning?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes. In both cases, the same number of people were dead.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Captain:

Some students say that they can better understand the present perfect if they remember this definition:

"It refers to something that happened in the past and still touches the present."

So I would say that "I have lived in my American city since the 1940s."

If I see a car accident on my way home, when I enter my house, I would say, "There's been an car accident on Maple Avenue." The accident still "touches" the present in the sense that it was very recent. The ambulance may not have arrived yet, and I have no idea of how many have been hurt in the accident. As far as I am concerned, the accident is not a closed case.

 

[captain1]

I have a question regarding - "still touches the present" - what is the difference between still touches the present here to still touches the present of "the present progressive (continuous)?
Please try to explain it via the example of TheParser(with the car accident).
Thank you for improving my English.

 

[captain1]

Sorry, I did a mistake. I meant to the differences between the present perfect(simple) to the present perfect(progressive).

 

[captain1]

Answer please?

 

[Raymott]

"At least 90 people have been dying" doesn't make sense. They either have died or they haven't.
However, you say that the event only happened 'today'. In that case, there will be many critically injured people who are dying, and who will die - sad to say. But that is the reality. So, "90 people have died" implies that more people may die.

"More than 90 people died" is true, but the implications are different, and I doubt whether many competent journalists would use such a sentence for this sort of disaster. When they write about the event in one month's time, this would be reasonable to say - with the number amended (even though "more then 90" will always be correct).

 

[captain1]

Thank you, I understand it now.

What about the previous example(#10)? https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...le-have-died?p=1203067&viewfull=1#post1203067

What is the difference between? There's been an car accident on Maple A and There's being a car accident on Maple A(progressive).

 

[emsr2d2]

"There is being ..." is not grammatical. We don't use "to be" in the progressive as part of "There is ...". We use it when talking about people. "He is being very silly", for example.