[Grammar] Further implication of grammar tenses

[Esredux]

[FONT=&quot]What would be your immediate impression if you heard someone talking about their sailing experience:

"I managed to be lucky enough to sail in countries all around Europe. I’ve done it for my university, I did it for my country a few times."

I am particularly interested in what additional information could be inferred from the last sentence[/FONT].

 

[MikeNewYork]

What would be your immediate impression if you heard someone talking about their sailing experience:

"I managed to be lucky enough to sail in countries all around Europe. I’ve done it for my university, I did it for my country a few times."

I am particularly interested in what additional information could be inferred from the last sentence.

My impression is that the sailing was done competitively, on a university team and a national team. The last sentence is a comma splice, and the change of tenses between the two items is a bit strange.

 

[Tdol]

It's speech, where we make mistakes and say things we wouldn't write, but the use of the present perfect then the past in the second sentence is odd- there's no obvious reason for this.

 

[Esredux]

My impression is that the sailing was done competitively, on a university team and a national team. The last sentence is a comma splice, and the change of tenses between the two items is a bit strange.

Agree, the comma seems a bit out of place. Still, if you heard it said and were not distracted by punctuation?

It's speech, where we make mistakes and say things we wouldn't write, but the use of the present perfect then the past in the second sentence is odd- there's o obvious reason for this.

If it were not for the comma, if it were an utterance made with proper intonation (which I obviously cannot imitate in writing), would you also consider the choice of grammar tenses irrational?


Someone said that in spoken language, where a clash of overlapping ideas seems only natural, grammar doesn't work the same way it does in writing. From the learner's point of view, an attempt to reconstruct what the speaker might have had in mind could help to get a better understanding of how language works.

So, in terms of what might be implied, would you agree with the following:

“I have done it for my university” explains that you did it just once. But when you say “did it for my country a few times” … probably because it was more than once.

 

[Raymott]

“I have done it for my university” explains that you did it just once. But when you say “did it for my country a few times” … probably because it was more than once.

I'd say no. It makes as much sense to say "I did it for my university. I've done it for my country a few times."
This could imply that he's finished university, but hasn't finished competing for his country. This seems more natural.
Consider this: "I did it when I was a child and I've done it a few times as an adult." This would sound weird if the tenses were reversed.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Agree, the comma seems a bit out of place. Still, if you heard it said and were not distracted by punctuation?



If it were not for the comma, if it were an utterance made with proper intonation (which I obviously cannot imitate in writing), would you also consider the choice of grammar tenses irrational?


Someone said that in spoken language, where a clash of overlapping ideas seems only natural, grammar doesn't work the same way it does in writing. From the learner's point of view, an attempt to reconstruct what the speaker might have had in mind could help to get a better understanding of how language works.

So, in terms of what might be implied, would you agree with the following:

“I have done it for my university” explains that you did it just once. But when you say “did it for my country a few times” … probably because it was more than once.

There is nothing about "I have done it" that suggests it was one time.