no such accident took place / has taken place

[JACEK1]

Hello users!

I wonder whether Simple Past Tense or Present Perfect Tense should be used in the sentence under discussion.

Given the fact that lack of an accident has continued until now / for the last ten years, Present Perfect Tense should be used.

During the last 10 years, no such accident has taken place on the premises of this company.

Thank you.

 

[bhaisahab]

"During the last 10 years, no such accident has taken place on the premises of this company." This is correct.

 

[2006]

Hello users!



During the last 10 years, no such accident has taken place on the premises of this company.

The simple past tense is also correct.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would use the present perfect because of the phrase "during the last 10 years".

 

[2006]

I would use the present perfect because of the phrase "during the last 10 years".

You can use that if that is your preference, but you will have a very hard time trying to convince me that the simple past is wrong.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I have no interest in trying. Use whatever usage you like.

 

[2006]

I have no interest in trying. Use whatever usage you like.

That doesn't tell anyone if you agree, don't agree, or couldn't care less! It's not a useful comment.

 

[bhaisahab]

That doesn't tell anyone if you agree, don't agree, or couldn't care less! It's not a useful comment.

To make my position clear; I couldn't care less what form you use. In my opinion the present perfect is appropriate in the given context.

 

[2006]

To make my position clear; I couldn't care less what form you use. In my opinion the present perfect is appropriate in the given context.

But why are you afraid to give your opinion about using simple past in that sentence. That was part of the original question, although (s)he favored the present perfect tense.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That doesn't tell anyone if you agree, don't agree, or couldn't care less! It's not a useful comment.

When someone posts "you will have a very hard time trying to convince me that the simple past is wrong", it is the equivalent of "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." What useful comment can one post after that? As Mark Twain said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

 

[2006]

When someone posts "you will have a very hard time trying to convince me that the simple past is wrong", it is the equivalent of "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." What nonsense that is! What useful comment can one post after that? Well, if you think I am wrong, you owe it to the students to show them how I am wrong! (or do you think that they should just automatically believe you?) Otherwise, your posts are rather empty of anything helpful.
Finally, this is not the first time this topic has been discussed on the internet, and there are things to be said in favor of using simple past tense there..

....

 

[MikeNewYork]

You say. Am I supposed to automatically believe you? Provide some evidence.

 

[Raymott]

It's been discussed here many times in the past when 2006 was here before. The American use of the simple past where most other people use the present perfect is one of his favourite causes.
Didn't you see any of his previous posts yet? [sic]

 

[2006]

It's been discussed here many times in the past when 2006 was here before. The American use of the simple past where most other people use the present perfect is one of his favourite causes. Do you think that Australian English or British English is the gospel? Just because someone is used to using present perfect, does not mean that perfect is the only correct tense. Don't confuse your preference with being the only correct way.
If you are interested, some time I will give you my interpretation of the situation in which only present perfect tense is correct.
And to Mike's point, it seems more logical that he should show me how simple past is wrong. But if he wishes, I can try to show him how simple past is not wrong.

...

 

[MikeNewYork]

No I hadn't. I am an AmE speaker and, as such, use the perfect tenses less often that BrE speakers. But this is a case where I believe the present perfect tense is indicated. 2006 can use whatever tense he'she wants. It makes no difference to me.

 

[MikeNewYork]

2006, the assertion was yours. So the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Raymott]

No, I've debated this with you too many times. My argument has never been the superiority of BrE or AusE. Largely, it's been based on i) the fact that most Americans (as well as all non-Americans) here don't agree with you, and ii) it's best to teach students what is overwhelmingly considered to be correct rather than what could theoretically be correct if people actually used it.
I'm sure you can make an excellent case for the simple past not being wrong - to which the response of an ESL teacher would be, "Yes, but we don't use it that way, so we don't teach it that way.
I've always accepted that a minority of Americans use the simple past here. Learners finding themselves in a region where this occurs will adjust accordingly, as they do to any non-standard dialect they need to deal with.
I'll leave it to others to continue the debate. I really said all I want to when you were here last.

 

[2006]

No I hadn't. I am an AmE speaker and, as such, use the perfect tenses less often that BrE speakers. But this is a case where I believe the present perfect tense is indicated. 2006 can use whatever tense he'she wants. It makes no difference to me.

You are not the important one here, as I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am just trying to bring some balance to the discussion. But when I give you my opinion of the situation in which only the present perfect tense is correct, you might understand how the sentence in question is not one in which only present perfect tense is correct.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 

[2006]

'During the last 10 years, no such accident (took place)(has taken place) place on the premises of this company'. Both are correct.

The only situation I know of that absolutely requires present perfect tense is the one that denotes a continuing positive action or situation.
'She has studied English for seven years.' = still studying English
'They have lived in London for twenty years.' = still living there
The corresponding simple past tense versions describe a past action or situation.

Some people vigorously contend that only present perfect tense can show 'relevance to the present' , but that is just not so. Such a statement is completely arbitrary.

'Grandpa's knee hurts. He has walked too far.'
'Grandpa's knee hurts. He walked too far.
Both are correct; the fact that the statement is being made, in either tense, shows relevance to the presence. And simple past has the advantage of being able to accept a 'time' addition.
Having a preference for a particular tense does not equate to that tense being the only correct one!