The Hidden Evidence: The Past Family

Status
Not open for further replies.

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL wrote:

If the time is specific and unfinished (since 1987) then the present perfect is used.

My reply:
:eyes: 1. What time do you mean? Yes, 1987 is specific. But please tell me how it is unfinished. I thought 1987 is finished, by 2003.

:eyes: 2. Are we talking of the Past Family?

:eyes: 3. What happens to the ordinary Present Perfect which is without a time, like "He has lived in Japan"? It seems to be a finish. Perhaps your assumption now has clouded those ordinary Present Perfect structures. Would you do some clarification?

:eyes: 4. Please understand that even your presumption here still makes the common rule invalid that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time. But this has already been our conclusion from my previous long comment. The issue is rather clarified than clouded. Can you say your new discovery doesn't depend on what I have concluded?
:?
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
1987 is finished, but in this time pharse it merely marks the beginning- there is no cut-off point because 'since' brings us up to the present. ;-)
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL explained "since 1987":

1987 is finished, but in this time pharse it merely marks the beginning- there is no cut-off point because 'since' brings us up to the present.

:roll: Dear TDOL, if it is really as you said, we were just mentioning the beginning of the finished 1987, which is possible, and we brought the time up to the present by 'since', which is unlikely. In your because, 'since' doesn't bring us up to the present, as it is not "since us".

I hope we may try again and also other questions above, which are more related to our topic.
:popcorn:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
:lilangel: I revisited the search of "specific past time present perfect" in yahoo, and I found just how common the rule is.

:B-fly: From The Linguistics Department of Stanford University:

The present perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting a specific past time.
:painting:
http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/linguistics/semgroup/archive/1999/sf_kiparsky.html

:fadein: As we now must agree, this common rule doesn't really work. It only works by hiding the Past Family. Think of our days of discussion that can rectify so many erroneous statements from around the world!! We should be proud of ourselves here.
:eek:lympic:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Shun:
More evidence is that Cas wrote:

Quote:
That’s why *"I have lived in Japan in the past week" is ungrammatical.

If according to Cas, Present Perfect is ungrammatical staying with "in the past week", why then it is grammatical with "in the past two weeks"?

:D

"I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks" is ungrammatical. for the past two weeks modifies 'have lived' quite nicely.

:wink:
 

Red5

Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Cas wrote:

"I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks" is ungrammatical. for the past two weeks modifies 'have lived' quite nicely.

:rocol: My reply: It is inexcusable for me not to have discussed about the prepositions used in the pattern of the Past Family.

:idea: IN is dynamic, meaning sometimes there, and sometimes not there.

:idea: FOR is static, meaning most, if not all, of the time.

:multi: But in past discussions (in other forums) we agreed that they are so only when the pattern is without the adjective 'past'.

Ex: *I have lived in Japan in two weeks.
Ex: I have lived in Japan for two weeks.

Actually, in the pattern without 'past', many other prepositions should not work, either:

Ex: *I have lived in Japan during two weeks.
Ex: *I have lived in Japan over two weeks.
Ex: *I have lived in Japan within two weeks.

:agrue: But I want to report to you, as we agreed then, both in opinion and evidence, when there is the adjective 'past', most prepositions are acceptable:
Ex: I have lived in Japan in/within/during/over/for/etc. the past two weeks.
== Only God knows the difference. ALL are frequent in the format of the Past Family.

:) But I agree you may now argue instead whether we should use LIVE, rather than STAY, to describe a period of staying there for two weeks. I want to skip the discussion of the preference in LIVE or STAY, with "in two weeks". Nevertheless, I predict you have a keen eye on this matter. :up:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL,

:D I agree that "SINCE 1987" is the key to solve the problem of the Past Family (in the past, in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc."), because it is actually one of its member, though it doesn't harbor the adjective "past".
:icecream: If this year is 2003, then SINCE 1987 equates "in the past 16 years" (2003-1987=16). That is to say, like the Past Family, SINCE 1987 refers to a specific past time but uses Present Perfect:
Ex: They has worked here since 1987.


:arrow: The usage of SINCE 1987, if analyzed, again, violates the golden rule that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time.
:( While grammar writers have to hide away the Past Family in their books, however, because SINCE 1987 doesn't contain 'past', some grammar writers would venture to put it in grammar books. It usually works because as students learn English tenses, the basic part of English, they in their age don't ask much. Also, they don't know much. :oops: They cannot see any error in a statement "last week refers to a past time, and since 1997 refers to the present". Actually, to be frank, since 1987 refers to 1987, a past time.

:shock: If we think it doesn't matter, grammar writers believe the other way. Aware of the problem, sincere grammar writers nowadays talk about only SINCE, rather than SINCE 1987, in explaining tenses. Usually they will explain FOR and SINCE together, and hence they don't need to clearly state the embarrassing SINCE 1987, like this:

PRESENT PERFECT + FOR, SINCE
Using the present perfect, we can define a period of time before now by considering its duration, with for + a period of time, or by considering its starting point, with since + a point in time.
For + a period of time:
for six years, for a week, for a month, for hours, for two hours.
I have worked here for five years.
Since + a point in time:
since this morning, since last week, since yesterday,
since I was a child, since Wednesday, since 2 o'clock.
I have worked here since 1990.
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Tenses7.cfm
:up: If they state cleverly, few persons will notice they have already legalized the combination of Present Perfect with a specific past time, progressing against many grammars.

:eek: SINCE is a good concept indicating "a past time up to the present moment", thus coinciding with the 'normal' use of Present Perfect. If we focus on SINCE alone, it can even be nominated a present time adverbial. Unlike SINCE, however, SINCE 1987 is a potential threat to Present Perfect it has to work with.

:rainbowa: To sum up, SINCE 1987 is a time referring to a specific past but stays with Present Perfect. To successfully explain SINCE 1987 will successfully explain the Past Family.
:eek:nfire:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Casiopea said:
Shun:
Please teach us how to make a span of time circular.

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl :cry:

:wink: The "circular span" is as fragile as we don't use Present Perfect with specific past time. My hope of returning to 21 is vinished. :cry:
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
:scramble: I have studied English tenses for a long time. I know there was only one rule in explaining, or supporting, the three tenses: Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present. The rule was that Present Perfect doesn't stay with specific past time. Now it is over, as we have all agreed.

Then sad to day, there is no rule any more. To prove that, now I promise this: Whatever you say to Present Perfect, can be said again word for word to either Simple Present or Simple Past.

:crazyeye: Or I may say, no matter how carefully you define the use of a tense, the definition can be said again word for word to another tense. What I mean is, your definition must be so vague that it must be applied also to another tense. In other words, we can define nothing about any tense.

It seems that I am doomed to lose and I cannot keep my stupid promise. But the truth is, the promise has never been broken by anyone.

My promise is actually part of the answer to the perplexity we are now in, so play it fair. Keep out of personal matters.

:eyes: For a start, one may say Simple Past can stay with specific past time.
Then I shall reply: Present Perfect can also stay with specific past time.

Any more definitions? :cheers:
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Casiopea said:
Shun:
Please teach us how to make a span of time circular.

That's quantum. Physics.

I'm just a girl :cry:

I think I must be one, too. ;-)
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
:? Why do we sometimes treat Present Perfect differently, because of the different members of the Past Family?

:!: Ex1: He has lived in Japan in the past. (a finish)
:!: Ex2: he has lived in Japan in the past five years. (a continuity)


It seems that we have no control over any concept about the tense. We may call the tense a finish or a continuity, at our own free will. We see a finished time, and we call Present Perfect a finish. While we see a continuity of time, we call Present Perfect a continuity. Is there any grammar, or rule here?
:eek:
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The second isn't a continuity- the time is, but he is very unlikely to be there now. ;-)
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
TDOL,

:cry: You wrote about "Ex2: he has lived in Japan in the past five years":

The second isn't a continuity- the time is, but he is very unlikely to be there now.

My reply: I am afraid I cannot follow you here. A few days ago, it was you who understood and said:

:wink: Ex: *They worked here for the past five years.
Do they still work here? Yes, so the past is innapropriate.

The second quote here means you are aware that, because of "for the past five years", they still work here and Present Perfect shall be appropriate. This is agreed to most of us here. And then in a very similar example Ex2, with correct Present Perfect tense, why do you suddenly have such a conclusion: he is not there? This time, no one will agree with you, I fear.
:?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Casiopea said:
Cas:

  • :( "I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks." specific
    :D "I have lived in Japan for the past two weeks." non-specific

Shun:

Cas,

I am afraid we should not depend our discussion solely on icons. :?:

If the icon implies something, please say it. I don't even know whether you agreed to your examples or not. Or do you imply that your examples violate the quotation, or what?
:cry:

But the quotation has been repudiated by us, for quite some time now. Then what is the result if a bad example is violating a bad statement? Can this result be expressed by an icon?
:cry:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other

  • ungrammatical (PP with specfic past time adverbial (see Kiparsky))
    "I have lived in Japan in the past two weeks." specific

    Grammatical: (PP with non-specific past time adverbial)
    "I have lived in Japan for the past two weeks." non-specific
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
:? Now you seemed to agree to such a rule, quoted from The Linguistics Department of Stanford University:

The present perfect is not compatible with adverbials denoting a specific past time.

http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu/linguistics/semgroup/archive/1999/sf_kiparsky.html

:eek: But the quotations such as this have been repudiated by us, for quite some time now. Do you now want to say you want to go back from the beginning, and agree to the "golden rule":

NOTE: We do NOT use specific time expressions with the Present Perfect. We cannot say, for example, "I have eaten spaghetti yesterday."

http://conversa1.com/presentperfectpastsimple.htm

Also even this:

You CANNOT use the Present Perfect with time expressions such as "yesterday," "one year ago," "last week," "when I was a chlid," "when I lived in Japan," "at that moment," "that day" or "one day."

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html


:shock: Is that what you wanted to say? If not, how can we depend on a wrong rule to support our discussion?
:?:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
Shun:
....the Past Family are quite compatible with Present Perfect:

Ex: I have seen him in the past few days.

There's no argument there. Adverbs denoting unspecified time are compatible with the Present Perfect. (i.e., "in the past few days" denotes an unknown time within the past few days.)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top