EngLearner
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2023
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Ukrainian
- Home Country
- Ukraine
- Current Location
- Ukraine
I was watching a World War II documentary, and I came across this scenario (which I've now changed a little bit for the purpose of contrasting the present perfect with the simple past).
Context #1:
Imagine you're the commander of a combat unit in the German army in the Second World War. You and your unit invade Poland in 1939 and you have the order to get across the river Vistula. When you arrive at the site, you see that the bridge across the river has been partially destroyed, and that the Polish army has retreated from there. You report on the radio to your superior:
We have the following situation here. Retreating Polish troops blew up the bridge, but they were unable to ensure its complete destruction. We'll soon repair the damage and continue our advance.
Context #2:
When you arrive at the site, the Polish army is still at the bridge. You can't approach the bridge because they've put up fierce resistance. You look through your binoculars and see that they've partially destroyed it. You report to your superior on the radio:
We have the following situation here. Retreating Polish troops have blown up the bridge, but they've been unable to ensure its complete destruction. We can't advance because they've put up fierce resistance.
Question:
In scenario #1, the Polish troops are far from the bridge, so they no longer have the potential to do anything to it, and so I've used the simple past for both verbs. In scenario #2, they're still there and they still have the potential to completely destroy it, so I've used the present perfect (the situation is still current in this case).
Is my reasoning correct, and do the bolded tenses work in the examples I made up?
Context #1:
Imagine you're the commander of a combat unit in the German army in the Second World War. You and your unit invade Poland in 1939 and you have the order to get across the river Vistula. When you arrive at the site, you see that the bridge across the river has been partially destroyed, and that the Polish army has retreated from there. You report on the radio to your superior:
We have the following situation here. Retreating Polish troops blew up the bridge, but they were unable to ensure its complete destruction. We'll soon repair the damage and continue our advance.
Context #2:
When you arrive at the site, the Polish army is still at the bridge. You can't approach the bridge because they've put up fierce resistance. You look through your binoculars and see that they've partially destroyed it. You report to your superior on the radio:
We have the following situation here. Retreating Polish troops have blown up the bridge, but they've been unable to ensure its complete destruction. We can't advance because they've put up fierce resistance.
Question:
In scenario #1, the Polish troops are far from the bridge, so they no longer have the potential to do anything to it, and so I've used the simple past for both verbs. In scenario #2, they're still there and they still have the potential to completely destroy it, so I've used the present perfect (the situation is still current in this case).
Is my reasoning correct, and do the bolded tenses work in the examples I made up?
