have/had and did

rafeezah said:

I want to know how to use have/had and did...I am so confused....here are some examples:

Did you do your homework?
Have you done your homework?

What is the difference between the two sentences?
Is it right that we can use both in the same sense?

Click to expand...

gauri_agr said:

I always have this confusion. Thanks for (the) clarification.

Can I use "the" before "clarification"

Click to expand...

Nightmare85 said:

The difference is if this homework can still be done.

Click to expand...

2006 said:

Sorry, I don't agree with that statement.

Your mother knows you had some homework to do this evening, and it is getting closer to your bedtime.

She can say 'Did you do your homework?' or 'Have you done your homework?'

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

I agree. The simple past is used in this context in parts of North America by some people.
Elsewhere, the present perfect is almost invariably used for sentences of this type.

Click to expand...

2006 said:

But you make it sound like using the simple past in this context is barely acceptable and is only used by a few fringe groups.

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

I'm not very surprised at your response, but I was hoping that you would have a better understanding of simple past tense. My goal is not to change your way of thinking but I will, for the others who read this, continue.

I was going to write: "some people, such as 2006, prefer the simple past in this context"; I didn't say I prefer the simple past; I said the simple past is equally as good as the present perfect in the context of the "homework" question. And those of us who use both tenses in contexts similar to that of this thread could be said to have a better understanding of the (relationship between the) two tenses.

but I've given you the benefit of the doubt and accepted that perhaps your opinion is based on a population wider than just yourself. Thanks a lot! Are you sure that could be possible? :shock:

So, I think the geographical region I mentioned would cover it, unless you have evidence of more widespread usage. I don't just listen to people who live within a few kilometers of me. I do listen to national American and Canadian programs.

PS: Yes, I do consider the simple past to be inherently inferior to the present perfect for this context because the focus is on the present
Well now you have firmly planted yourself in with the crowd that has arbitrarily and unjustifiably defined simple past tense as having no relevance to the present. What nonsense that is!

(Is the homework done now?; Has the homework been done?) not on the past (Did you do the homework? Was the homework done at some time in the past?) Obviously if the homework (is)(was)(has been) done, it had to be done "at some time in the past". When else could it have been done? Could it have been done in the future or in the present?
The past is not a number of (years)(weeks)(hours) ago. A minute or second ago is also the past!

Perhaps you mean to say that the simple past tense (does)(can) not have relevance to the present. That's more nonsense that those of you who are, in my opinion, overly fond of perfect tense espouse.

a similar question from the past on usingenglish.com
Which is correct?

a) My stomach hurts. I have eaten too much.
b) My stomach hurts. I ate too much.

The answer is that both sentences are equally correct. In both second sentences the grammar is correct and the meaning is very clear. So how can either one be wrong?
My stomach hurts because I (have eaten)(ate) too much.

Of course someone answered that only a) is correct because simple past has no relevance to the present. That's the same as you are saying now, and it's still wrong.

I don't know why some of you choose to put such a restriction on the simple past tense. But whatever reason you have is not justified by any kind of logic that I can see. I think you just don't understand the simple past tense.

Lastly, one result of the above is that the learning of perfect tense is made even harder for students than it already is.
The overselling of perfect tense leads to many examples of inappropriate and/or incorrect use of perfect tense, a least partly because of the erroneous notion that the simple past tense has no relevance to the present. It not only steers students' sentences away from simple past but also away from present tense.

'I've been at home last night.'
'I've been here for the first time.'

Click to expand...

ymnisky said:

I just wish the posters kept a somewhat friendlier and respectful attitude, concerning with their clear high-level knowledge of the English language.

Click to expand...

2006:
Perhaps you mean to say that the simple past tense (does)(can) not have relevance to the present. That's more nonsense that those of you who are, in my opinion, overly fond of perfect tense espouse.

No, I don't mean to say that. What I mean is that the way I learnt the language, the present perfect was used in this context. I believe it is by far the most common use in non-American English, and also in use in America, thereby making it universally used apart from in regional or idiosyncratic contexts. Not that there's anything wrong with minority usages.

a similar question from the past on usingenglish.com
Which is correct?

a) My stomach hurts. I have eaten too much.
b) My stomach hurts. I ate too much.

The answer is that both sentences are equally correct. In both second sentences the grammar is correct and the meaning is very clear. So how can either one be wrong?
Neither is wrong. As in all of these questions, you have to pick the most correct answer. The most correct in standard English is a). A regional variant might be also correct, but is not the answer to choose on a test, unless you know your marker is from that region, and perhaps not even then.

Of course someone answered that only a) is correct because simple past has no relevance to the present. That's the same as you are saying now, and it's still wrong.
I didn't claim that the past had no relevance to the presence. That would be silly.

I don't know why some of you choose to put such a restriction on the simple past tense. But whatever reason you have is not justified by any kind of logic that I can see. I think you just don't understand the simple past tense.
It's based on usage, as I've always said.
Are you trying to make the argument that the simple past is more correct?

Lastly, one result of the above is that the learning of perfect tense is made even harder for students than it already is.
English is hard. Could we simplify it? Sure. Should we?

The overselling of perfect tense leads to many examples of inappropriate and/or incorrect use of perfect tense, a least partly because of the erroneous notion that the simple past tense has no relevance to the present.
I'm sure you don't believe that any of us think the past has no relationship to the present. Therefore, I'm sure that you know this can't be the reason that people use it and teach it (or oversell it).

It not only steers students' sentences away from simple past but also away from present tense.
Hmm, no it tells students how English-speaking people talk. Artificially constructed Simple Englishes have been tried in the past (were tried in the past?), but students want to know how we speak.
My argument is that the present perfect in this context is universally accepted as being correct, even if other variants could also be considered correct. Would you agree with this?
If not, do you know any group of people who say that the use of the present perfect is wrong in this context?

Click to expand...

ymnisky said:

It is always very instructive for us learners/students to read such rich discussions.
I just wish the posters kept a somewhat friendlier and respectful attitude, concerning with their clear high-level knowledge of the English language.

I agree. I'm not being unfriendly or disrespectful, and I don't think 2006 is.

I am new to the field of linguistics, but one of the things I have learned is that there is no such thing as "wrong" or "right" in language.
That's probably overstating the case. There are a lot of things that are demonstrably right or wrong in language, especially in descriptive linguistics.
"That is a apple." Wrong
"That is an apple." Right.
It's true that right and wrong usually don't have moral values in language. 'Wrong' here means "The sentence is incorrect for standard English".

Click to expand...

ymnisky said:

The first time I knew English is not a "regulated" language (contrary to many others as Portuguese for instance) I thought it strange...

Click to expand...

IHIVG said:

I know what you mean. The diversity of the English language may seem unusual indeed, especially if your 1st language, like mine, is pretty homogeneous and does not possess such (if any!) regional varieties.

Naturally, opinions can differ on some of the aspects of, I believe, every language, but having read through this thread I was thinking that I will never see Russian-speaking people not being on the same page about what seems to be the very rudiments of the grammar. Most likely, the disagreement on the aspects of English would be a much less frequent phenomenon if we had only one English-speaking country. But it still doesn't negate the fact that some people may have a bit of a hard time understanding the accent (or dialects) of the fellow denizens within the same country!!
For me, this makes the English language even more interesting.

(On a by-the-way note: How much does Brazilian Portuguese differ from that spoken in Portugal?)

Click to expand...

ymnisky said:

I don't know if I made myself clear when I referred to a "regulated" language.
By that I meant the respective entry which can be found, for instance, in the language wikipedia pages:
Russian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portuguese language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
English language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As an example, the Russian language is regulated by the Russian Academic Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences (according to wikipedia).

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

2006: Hi Raymott
Perhaps you mean to say that the simple past tense (does)(can) not have relevance to the present. That's more nonsense that those of you who are, in my opinion, overly fond of perfect tense espouse.

No, I don't mean to say that. What I mean is that the way I learnt the language, the present perfect was used in this context. I believe it is by far the most common use in non-American English, and also in use in America, thereby making it universally used apart from in regional or idiosyncratic contexts. Not that there's anything wrong with minority usages.
What I am curious about is why the present perfect in our context is so strongly preferred outside North America, with the reciprocal equally strong bias against the simple past, when no one can show why simple past is supposedly wrong. Of course the pertinent point here is that our students on usingenglish.com come from 'everywhere'.
a similar question from the past on usingenglish.com
Which is correct?

a) My stomach hurts. I have eaten too much.
b) My stomach hurts. I ate too much.

The answer is that both sentences are equally correct. In both second sentences the grammar is correct and the meaning is very clear. So how can either one be wrong?
Neither is wrong. I agree, but you'll get an argument from others about that. As in all of these questions, you have to pick the most correct answer. The most correct in standard English is a). A regional variant might be also correct, but is not the answer to choose on a test, unless you know your marker is from that region, and perhaps not even then. Obviously I don't agree that one is more correct. a) may be thought to be most correct for God-knows-what reason in some places, but again no one has shown me why.

Of course someone answered that only a) is correct because simple past has no relevance to the present. That's the same as you are saying now, and it's still wrong.
I didn't claim that the past had no relevance to the presence. That would be silly. It sure as heck has been claimed by others though, and the fact that simple past is 'not used' in our context outside North America must have some 'reasoning' behind it.

I don't know why some of you choose to put such a restriction on the simple past tense. But whatever reason you have is not justified by any kind of logic that I can see. I think you just don't understand the simple past tense.
It's based on usage, as I've always said. Yes, but why? You yourself claimed in the previous post that "the simple past....inherently inferior...because the focus is on the present".
Are you trying to make the argument that the simple past is more correct?
No, I am not; but you claimed that for present perfect without any good reason that I noticed. I think someone has to come up with a reason for saying that present perfect is better or else the proponents of present perfect should stop claiming it is better, not to mention claims that present perfect is the only correct tense in our context.
Lastly, one result of the above is that the learning of perfect tense is made even harder for students than it already is.
English is hard. Could we simplify it? Sure. Should we?

The overselling of perfect tense leads to many examples of inappropriate and/or incorrect use of perfect tense, a least partly because of the erroneous notion that the simple past tense has no relevance to the present.
I'm sure you don't believe that any of us think the (? simple) past has no relationship to the present. It's been claimed more than once or twice on this site. Therefore, I'm sure that you know this can't be the reason that people use it and teach it (or oversell it).

It not only steers students' sentences away from simple past but also away from present tense.
Hmm, no it tells students how English-speaking people talk. Artificially constructed Simple Englishes have been tried in the past (were tried in the past?), but students want to know how we speak. I'm not sure what you mean here?
My argument is that the present perfect in this context is universally accepted as being correct, even if other variants could also be considered correct. Would you agree with this? What I would say is that those of us who use both and think both are correct have a more balanced view on this topic. On the other hand, proponents of the use of present perfect only seem to be bullying the rest of us and the students and other undecided people into using only present perfect. So it comes back to my puzzlement as to where the selling force behind presnt perfect comes from in the light of no demonstrated superiority of p p over simple past.
If not, do you know any group of people who say that the use of the present perfect is wrong in this context? I didn't say that and that's not the point.
I hope to have nothing more to say on this thread, but time will tell.

Click to expand...

2006

Click to expand...

Raymott said:

2006 went:

What I am curious about is why the present perfect in our context is so strongly preferred outside North America, with the reciprocal equally strong bias against the simple past, when no one can show why simple past is supposedly wrong. Of course the pertinent point here is that our students on usingenglish.com come from 'everywhere'.

I guess it’s because that’s how our parents spoke, and that’s how we speak. The present perfect is used for certain things, and this is one of them. When a student asks, “What tense do you use here?”
Do you mean what tense Raymott uses, or what tense should/can be used? Students usually mean 'What tense can/should I use here?' , why would I suggest the simple past? The very obvious answer is that simple past is also correct. Do you not think that you are obliged to indicate all the correct choices? It is just wrong and dishonest to suggest, however forcefully or not, that there is only one correct answer. It is a great disservice to students when one misleads them! If you want to indicate why you prefer one correct choice over other correct choices, you can.

In Australia, there are several ways to say this:
I done me homework. (You grew up in a caravan park (trailer park), or similar). No one would suggest that that is correct English.
I did my homework [STRIKE]already[/STRIKE]. (Not common). but correct
I’ve done my homework. (You’ve been to a proper school and have learnt good English). not only an unjustified comment but also a snobbish one
And remember that the two sentences we are talking about are "Did you do your homework?" and "Have you done your homework?"
Here, it could be considered as substandard, because it is demographically associated with lower socioeconomic groups. I assume you are talking about simple past here. That might be one factor in the prejudice against it if this is also the case elsewhere. "prejudice" is the right word.

Naturally, it might be different in the US and elsewhere. But one thing that concerns me is that whenever this argument has come up, there are very few, if any, other native speakers who speak up in support of your alternative. Who knows why they don't. Maybe they think I can take care of myself. Maybe I'm not the most popular person here because I am not afraid to point out what I think is inferior English no matter who writes it.
It doesn't really matter how many people support you or me. Show me how simple past is wrong! I can't find the place now but I think that even you said it is not wrong. But then you can't help falling back to your belief that, for some unexplained reason, present perfect is superior. More commonly used, at least where you are, does not mean superior.

No one else seems to want to admit to using the simple past. Your use of the word "admit" shows your prejudice against a perfectly correct option. What are you so afraid of?
I know this group isn't necessarily representative, but isn’t this a concern if you’re claiming that the simple past should be taught as being an alternative? Not at all, correct English isn't necessarily decided by a poular vote. I repeat; show me how the simple past version is wrong!

There have also been no grammar books mentioned that suggest using the simple past here. Overall, there is a dearth of educated opinion suggesting that we should teach the simple past as being equally good. Show me how it is inferior to p p. Perhaps that evidence is coming, and I might change my opinion one day.
Are there any noted American authors who use the simple past in this way (apart from dialogue, obviously)? I don't know and I really don't care; it's not relevant. Show me how it's grammatically wrong or how its meaning is faulty.

In any case, I’ve now admitted that some Australians use it, just as some say "I done it" - which is possibly also just as good inherently. That's a very questionable thing to say. Your argument must be pretty weak if you have to lump the grammatically correct simple past in the OP in with "I done it."

Are you trying to make the argument that the simple past is more correct?
No, I am not; but you claimed that for present perfect without any good reason that I noticed.
OK, the inherent superiority of the present perfect here is only my opinion. I'm glad you admit that. :up: My argument doesn’t rest on it. The present perfect is unequivocally correct – you agree to this. Present perfect is not incorrect, and I haven't till now pointed out any possible downside. I'm not trying to be as disagreeable as possible. (and I am not saying you are) It’s universally acknowledged to be correct. This is not the case with the simple past. Again you're talking about majority rules, rather than saying why simple past is not as good.
Why do you want to complicate things by presenting the simple past as an equally good alternative, Simply because it is! only to have students learn it and find that most natives don’t use it as an equally good alternative? That's irrelevant; give them a choice and let them decide. Or tell them how the simple past version is wrong.

There is something to be said for simplicity.
Why use a more complicated tense when a simple one will do? It's
the same idea as asking 'Why use 10 words to express something when it can be done with 6 or 7 words?' (not necessarily related to the tense point)

I want to end with a point that I believe I already mentioned. But I don't remember how far I went into it, and it's easier to have some repetition than to go back and check the long posts.

I have a very strong objection to teaching students that present perfect is the only correct tense in our context. Since p p is not the only correct choice, telling them that it is is dishonest and, even worse, it inappropriately colors the whole foundation of their understanding of both present perfect tense and simple past tense, and therefore their interrelationship plus their relationships with other tenses. That does a great disservice to students.


Hmm, no it tells students how English-speaking people talk. Artificially constructed Simple Englishes have been tried in the past (were tried in the past?), but students want to know how we speak. I'm not sure what you mean here?
Students want to learn not only what is grammatical, but also what is actually used. The vast majority of native English speakers, I believe, use the present perfect. That is really my only argument with you – that you present the simple past in this context to ESL students as being an equal alternative, whereas it’s a relatively uncommon regional or sociocultural variant – at least as far as you’ve demonstrated.
"equal alternative" means equally correct. "relatively uncommon" has nothing to do with correctness. Why bully them? Let them decide which tense to use.
What I would say is that those of us who use both and think both are correct have a more balanced view on this topic.
That may be true. I guess people who say “I done me homework already” must be even more ‘balanced’ than either of us. That's a silly thing to say.

Click to expand...