[Grammar] Past or present tense

[Oilheater]

Hello, i am new here

I was watching a TV drama, and one of the actors there said "I'm sure she told you that"

or at least i think that's what he said.

Isn't that sentence should be "I am sure she has told you that" ?


Thanks in advance

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the board, Oilheater.

The original sentence is fine as it is.

Your version is fine too as a more formal way of saying the same thing.

Rover

 

[2006]

Welcome to the board, Oilheater.

The original sentence is fine as it is.

Your version is fine too as a more formal way of saying the same thing.

Rover

I am at a loss to understand how the presence of an unnecessary word makes the sentence "more formal".

 

[Raymott]

I am at a loss to understand how the presence of an unnecessary word makes the sentence "more formal".

I agree. I don't think there's a difference in formality. Either tense is possible.

 

[5jj]

I agree with Raymott. Either tense is possible.

However, there is a slight difference in meaning.

"I'm sure she told you" that draws attention to her act of telling in the past.

"I am sure she has told you that" has more of an implication that you should know (present) as a result of her telling (past).

 

[Rover_KE]

I am at a loss to understand how the presence of an unnecessary word makes the sentence "more formal".

It's more formal because you replaced 'I'm' with 'I am'.

Rover

 

[5jj]

Oops. Thanks for spotting that, Rover K E. My comments in my previous post were concerned with the verb forms not with the I'm/I am difference. To avoid any possible confusion, I should have made both examples begin with the same. Except for the issue of formality, both I'm and I am work in my examples.

 

[2006]

I agree with Raymott. Either tense is possible.

However, there is a slight difference in meaning.

"I'm sure she told you" that draws attention to her act of telling in the past.

"I am sure she has told you that" has more of an implication that you should know (present) as a result of her telling (past).

The above claim of the difference between present perfect and simple past is often made, especially by speakers of British English. All one has to say to refute that, in this example and many others, is to say that neither sentence would have been uttered at that moment unless there was some relevance to the present.

Of course there are times when present perfect has a particular relevance to the present that simple past does not.

I have worked for Toyota for 3 years. (presently working for Toyota)
I worked for Toyota for 3 years. (in the past)

The mistake is made in claiming that only present perfect can show relevance to the present.

 

[lauralie2]

Welcome Oilheater,

I agree with the other posters:

• I'm sure she told you that. :tick: <simple past>
• I'm sure she's told you that. :tick: <present perfect>

If there is a difference in meaning in that context, it's minimal and of no consequence, and the reason Present Perfect is merging with simple past in English, at least in the variety spoken in the USA.

 

[5jj]

The above claim of the difference between present perfect and simple past is often made, especially by speakers of British English. All one has to say to refute that, in this example and many others, is to say that neither sentence would have been uttered at that moment unless there was some relevance to the present.
.

Quite. Note that I said: 'there is a slight difference in meaning' and that the present perfect sentence has 'more of an implication' about reference to the present than the past simple one (emphasis added in both.)

It would be a mistake to claim 'that only present perfect can show relevance to the present', but I didn't - and I don't know anybody who does.

 

[2006]

It would be a mistake to claim 'that only present perfect can show relevance to the present', but I didn't - and I don't know anybody who does.

There was a British English speaker here a year or so ago who quite strongly claimed just that, specifically that simple past tense can/does not have/show relevance to the present. Unfortunately I can't find that thread.

And some others here have a similar bias, that in sentence pairs similar to the ones in the OP the present perfect sentence is the only really correct choice.

 

[lauralie2]

There was a British English speaker here a year or so ago who quite strongly claimed just that, specifically that simple past tense can/does not have/show relevance to the present. Unfortunately I can't find that thread.

And some others here have a similar bias, that in sentence pairs similar to the ones in the OP the present perfect sentence is the only really correct choice.

I'm not sure if this is applies or not, but isn't it that the Present Perfect tells us that an event happened recently?

• Have you eaten (recently)? Yes, I have (eaten recently).
  • with focus on when the event happened

• Did you eat? Yes, I did eat.
  • (with focus on the act)

 

[5jj]

in BrE the Present Perfect is indeed used for a very recent past, as in your:

Have you eaten (recently)? Yes, I have (eaten recently),

but the emphasis is not on when the event happened but on the relevance to the present - the speaker is probably wanting to know if 'you' woulf like to be offered something to eat.

In your second example;

Did you eat? Yes, I did eat,

the speaker is probably referring to a past time known to both speaker and listener, and locating the act of eating in that time.

Another possibility is that the first example was uttered by a speaker of BrE, the second by a speaker of AmE. For situations occurring in what is perceived as a very recent past, BrE speakers normally use the Present Perfect, most AmE speakers normally use the Past Simple.

 

[2006]

I'm not sure if this is applies or not, but isn't it that the Present Perfect tells us that an event happened recently? "recently" is often cited, but what is the time limit of "recently"? The word "recently" seems to be a poor guide by which to set grammar rules.

• Have you eaten (recently)? Yes, I have (eaten recently).
  • with focus on when the event happened

• Did you eat? Yes, I did eat.
  • (with focus on the act)
• But one could also say 'Did you eat recently?' While, by habit, that may be much less common than 'Have you eaten recently?', it would be hard to say that the past tense question is wrong. It's not grammatically incorrect, unless arbitrarily defined to be so, and the meaning is clear.
• Of course, again by habit, since most of us would use the perfect tense, it may sound more correct. But that doesn't make the other choice wrong.

2006

 

[5jj]

2006 writes: but what is the time limit of "recently"? The word "recently" seems to be a poor guide by which to set grammar rules.

My understanding is that descriptive grammarians do not 'set' grammar rules. A grammar 'rule' is an attempt to describe what has been observed, as in: The form of the indefinite article is a before vowel sounds and an before consonant sounds. Nobody prescribed this - it is just what happens.

Recently is indeed open to subjective interpretation. And that is why it is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy which tense any particular individual will choose with regard to a particular time. We can report only what the majority of people have been heard to say, or seen to write, in similar circumstances.

2006 goes on: Have you eaten (recently)? Yes, I have (eaten recently).

• But one could also say 'Did you eat recently?' While, by habit, that may be much less common than 'Have you eaten recently?', it would be hard to say that the past tense question is wrong. It's not grammatically incorrect, unless arbitrarily defined to be so, and the meaning is clear.
• Of course, again by habit, since most of us would use the perfect tense, it may sound more correct. But that doesn't make the other choice wrong.

I agree. But then I don't think many people would claim that 'the other choice' is wrong. Even what many would consider clear-cut cases of wrong usage may turn out to be acceptable, in conversation at least. I once heard a lecturer state categorically that the Present Perfect is not used in BrE with an adverbial of past time. Literally seconds later he said, in an aside: "I have heard Chomsky speak ten years ago." When challenged, he said that, while he would never have written this, in speaking naturally he must have combined the two almost simutlaneous thoughts: 1." I have heard Chomsky speak"; and 2. "This happened ten years ago". This seems to me to be a plausible explanation. His listeners picked it up only because he appeared to be giving, in his own speech, clear proof either that the 'rule' he had just given was wrong or that he spoke ungrammatically.

Since then I have heard such 'mistakes' quite often, from educated people. They are natural. The 'rule' is still basically sound.