I have visited New York last year

emsr2d2 said:

As Tedmc said, when the timeframe is included, you use the simple past tense.

I have visited New York.
I visited New York last year.
I visited New York a decade ago.
I visited New York three times in 2009.
I visited New York for the first time in 1998.

There is a slight exception to this when the timeframe includes an implied "until now".

I have visited New York three times so far.
I have visited New York four times in my lifetime.

The suggestion is that you might go to New York again but, so far, you have only visited a certain number of times.

Click to expand...

keannu said:

I'm sorry but I asked why the two, past time frame and present perfect can't go together.

Click to expand...

tedtmc said:

I am not sure what you mean by the two tenses 'can't go together'.

As I said, if the time is stated, you use only the past tense.

But if the time is not stated, either tense can be use.

Ex. I went to New York.
I have gone to New York. This is incorrect.

I visited New York
I have visited New York.

Click to expand...

tedtmc said:

OK, I have been to New York.
'Have gone' does sound a bit unusual.

Bhai
Instead of just saying it is not correct, why don't you tell us why?

Click to expand...

keannu said:

I know that past adverbs can't go with present perfect like the following, but why is that? I think it's because present perfect is focused on the present, while past adverbs are focused on the past, so the two are contradicting each other.
And the other reason I learned in a grammar book is that if you use past adverbs, it's only restricted to a certain past point, while present perfect covers a longer period from the past point to the present time. What do you think is the primary reason?

Click to expand...

keannu said:

It's because if you went to New York, you are not here any more, how can you talk to someone here while you are away in New York?

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

I don't think it's as simple as giving two versions of the reason and asking which is primary. They seem to mean pretty much the same thing: you have a verb form (or tense if you prefer) that refers to one time, and an adverb that refers to another. So we don't use them together.
But some languages do use the cognate to our present perfect together with cognate past adverbs. So maybe the "primary reason" is that English is more rational. That's unlikely.
I feel there's a problem with the concept of there being "primary reasons" for things being the way they are in a natural language.

Click to expand...

keannu said:

By this, do you mean present perfect refers to the present? This is quite important for me....
you have a verb form (or tense if you prefer) that refers to one time,

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

What bhai said.
But I've always considered the present perfect to relate primarily to the present. It's about what is true in the present, and it mentions the past only insofar as it is relevant to whatever point is being made about the present.

A: "You would understand this if you had ever lived in poverty.
B: "I have been poor."

B is saying something about the present. When he was poor, and the past circumstances are not in focus. The relevance is in the presence. B is a person who now understands what it means to be poor. He is not making a point primarily about his own past poverty, but his current understanding.

Click to expand...