How would you define the future time?

Status
Not open for further replies.

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Risby said:
I make it 9:23 am but my watch may be a little slow.

My reply: Are you defining "9:23 am", or your watch, or "a little bit slow"?

What is the present time? Did you mention "is"or "the present time" at all?

You have a good sense of humor, but not of time.
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
riverkid said:
You really have this backassward, Shun. Nobody has used 'habit' to explain the present. It's only a name of a form of a verb that we use to denote habitual actions; I brush my teeth; I sometimes watch TV; I eat sushi 3 times per week.

These are all things that are done habitually and the habitual meaning can only be described by using the FORM, the present simple tense.
My reply: Do you mean "things that are done habitually" cannot be regarded as Habit? I am afraid you have an incorrect way of defining things. What will you call "I brush my teeth"? Is it a habit or a habitual action?

To be fair, people do use 'habit' to explain Simple Present:
Present tenses
Simple present (or simply "present"): "I listen." For many verbs, this is used to express habit or ability ("I play the guitar").
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar
I use Habit to stand for those which grammars use to describe the use of Simple Present, like Habitual Action, Routine, General Truth, Repeated Action, Permanency, etc. Are you sure we must use only "habitual action" to refer to Simple Present, instead of all other callings? Or will you insist that Simple Present denotes only habitual action, but not routine, nor General Truth, not Permanency?

Between Habit and Habitual Action, you are word-playing. If your sense of definition is that good, please try to define "present time". Maybe your wordplay is the best you can do to bypass its definition.

Most important, our examples are referring to the same kind of examples, like "I brush my teeth". We just use a calling to refer to all such examples. Must they be called only "habitual action"?

Actually, it is the sentence that expresses "habitual action, routine, or repeated action, or things that are done habitually". When the sentence denotes a Habit, various tenses also denote a habit, indicating different parts of time. If you have a habit "I brush my teeth", wouldn't Present Perfect "I have just brushed my teeth" be a habitual action also?

Actually, it is the sentence that expresses a meaning. As in the quoted example from wikipedia.org above, since the author takes up a Simple Present sentence that expresses ability "I play the guitar", he adds that the tense expresses also ability. How can you deny the expression of ability? You can't, because Simple Present can "express" any meanings.

People have always confused a sentence with a tense. And this is why they cannot define "the present time". They include you, of course.

Did you notice a correspondent here and I had discussed and concluded we use past tense, rather than present tense, to say past habitual actions? Will you add any different opinion?


 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
shun said:
If your sense of definition is that good, please try to define "present time". Maybe your wordplay is the best you can do to bypass its definition.

shun said:
People have always confused a sentence with a tense. And this is why they cannot define "the present time". They include you, of course.

Shun

Please refrain from directing unpleasant comments at the people who are trying to help you.

They create an unfriendly atmosphere and do nothing to further the discussion.

Many thanks,

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
Please refrain from directing unpleasant comments at the people who are trying to help you.
They create an unfriendly atmosphere and do nothing to further the discussion.
My reply: My words are responding Riverkid's "You really have this backassward, Shun". Did you remind him of the friendly atmosphere?
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Hello Shun

I've sent you a PM, which will give you a little more background.

I look forward to reading your further comments on the definition of "future time".

All the best,

MrP
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
My reply: My words are responding Riverkid's "You really have this backassward, Shun". Did you remind him of the friendly atmosphere?

Maybe you misunderstood, Shun. 'backassward' means nothing more than reversed or mixed up.

++++++++++++++++

http://psy.otago.ac.nz/r_oshea/FUN STUFF/slang.html#B

back assward a. (Intentional Spoonerism of ass backward) Reversed {arse about Charlie}. (s.a. bass ackward).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



My reply: Do you mean "things that are done habitually" cannot be regarded as Habit? I am afraid you have an incorrect way of defining things. What will you call "I brush my teeth"? Is it a habit or a habitual action?

It can easily be both. Grammatically, in English, it tells us of habitual action.

To be fair, people do use 'habit' to explain Simple Present:

I use Habit to stand for those which grammars use to describe the use of Simple Present, like Habitual Action, Routine, General Truth, Repeated Action, Permanency, etc. Are you sure we must use only "habitual action" to refer to Simple Present, instead of all other callings? Or will you insist that Simple Present denotes only habitual action, but not routine, nor General Truth, not Permanency?

No, you're right. We use the present simple tense FORM for all those things you've mentioned [OR you mentioned].

Between Habit and Habitual Action, you are word-playing. If your sense of definition is that good, please try to define "present time". Maybe your wordplay is the best you can do to bypass its definition.

If you're so set on a definition, define it yourself and then show us how it is used in relation to the various tense FORMS.

Most important, our examples are referring to the same kind of examples, like "I brush my teeth". We just use a calling to refer to all such examples. Must they be called only "habitual action"?

No, noted above.

Actually, it is the sentence that expresses "habitual action, routine, or repeated action, or things that are done habitually". When the sentence denotes a Habit, various tenses also denote a habit, indicating different parts of time. If you have a habit "I brush my teeth", wouldn't Present Perfect "I have just brushed my teeth" be a habitual action also?

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! "I have just brushed my teeth" does NOT describe an habitual action.

Actually, it is the sentence that expresses a meaning. As in the quoted example from wikipedia.org above, since the author takes up a Simple Present sentence that expresses ability "I play the guitar", he adds that the tense expresses also ability. How can you deny the expression of ability? You can't, because Simple Present can "express" any meanings.

You're seizing on a mistake to buttress your position. There is nothing inherent in "I play the guitar" that tells us of any ability. If that were so we could do without 'can/good at/ proficient/etc.

The guitarist in question may well be terrible. All it tells us is that that person makes a habit of playing the guitar.


People have always confused a sentence with a tense. And this is why they cannot define "the present time". They include you, of course.

Did you notice a correspondent here and I had discussed and concluded we use past tense, rather than present tense, to say past habitual actions? Will you add any different opinion?

No, I didn't notice, Shun. If you'd like me to comment on that in particular then you'll have to quote the dialogue involved.

But there is nothing remarkable about that. Habitual actions can most certainly end and when they do, they are no longer habitual actions that can be described by the present simple tense FORM. So of course, it makes perfect sense that language would have a way to discuss past habitual actions.

When "He lives in Tokyo" is no longer the case, that habitual action/routine/general truth cannot continue to be described by "He lives in Tokyo", ie. the present simple tense FORM.

Now we can use, "He used to live in Tokyo" or even "He lived in Tokyo".





#
 
Last edited:

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
riverkid said:
When "He lives in Tokyo" is no longer the case, that habitual action/routine/general truth cannot continue to be described by "He lives in Tokyo", ie. the present simple tense FORM.
Now we can use, "He used to live in Tokyo" or even "He lived in Tokyo".

My reply: That is what I want to tell you. Our past discussion you missed has arrived that past habit is expressed by Simple Past, as in your excellent example "He lived in Tokyo". If you had been there, it would have saved us a lot of trouble. Even "used to" is past form, I hope you would agree. In any forum, nevertheless, it would take me quite a time to convince readers Simple Past is used to express past habit. Though you can see the logic and examples so easily, some don't.

Mind you, it follows that Simple Present can express only present habitual action. Unfortunately, in explaining Simple Present, many grammars have forgot the important time notion: present. It is quite misleading to many readers.

But if different tenses express different parts of the habitual action, is tense related to the habitual action at all? You should think about that. If we compare tenses, it doesn't take deep thinking for anyone to see tense has nothing to do with habitual action.

--------------------
riverkid said:
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! "I have just brushed my teeth" does NOT describe an habitual action.

My reply: Now you have avoided talking of time, very unfortunately. No one tense is actually used to indicate a habitual action. As for describing, however, any tense can describe anything, if disregarding the element of time.

How absurd it is! If brushing teeth is our habitual action, then after finishing a case of it, we deny it is an habitual action, simply by using Present Perfect? It doesn't make any sense. Doesn't a habitual action include every time of doing it? If we don't count the habitual actions in the past -- with Present Perfect, do we have a habitual action at all?

I assume you must be also arguing that "I am smoking cigarette" also does NOT describe a habitual action, mustn't you? This is why I have jokingly promised one can quit smoking instantly: Smoke it now!! As you are smoking, because of the tense, it is not regarded as a habit. Isn't it easy to quite the habitual smoking?

Likewise, after you have finished smoking, admit "I have just smoked". Because of the tense, again, it is NOT a habit/habitual action anymore. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Isn't it easy to quite smoking?

What I mean is, using tense to judge whether it is a Habit or not, is illogical and impossible. Using tense this way is to preach false statements (denying a habit).

Oh, by the way, my friend John doesn't have the habit of smoking, because he has been smoking for half the century. But as I don't say it in Simple Present or Simple Past, I do not describe a habit/habitual action, do I? We are not sure if "he smokes" at all, are we?

------------------
riverkid said:
There is nothing inherent in "I play the guitar" that tells us of any ability.

My reply: Wordplay again: "Inherent". What is the standard of being "inherent"? As I say, people will not use Time to explain tense anymore. If any problem, one will promptly adopt Meanings like "inherent".

To any audience, "I play the guitar" does indicate an ability. If you now introduce a new standard of being "inherent", then I must point out, in your words: There is nothing inherent in "I brush my teeth" that tells us of any Habit.

I don't think you can find a substantial way to prove "I play the guitar" doesn't say an ability. However, should you find out the way, I will use your exact words to prove that "I brush my teeth" doesn't express habitual action. Will you try?

I don't think the author from wikipedia.org has less understanding of Simple Present than you do. However, the confusion is the same. English grammars do have a confusion between sentence and tense.
If you can see the tense in "I brush my teeth" expresses a habitual action,
can't you see the sentence in "I brush my teeth" also expresses a habitual action?
Can't you see the conventional way of explaining tense will always be eclipsed by the sentence? With only one sentence and one tense, you can't never prove whether it is the sentence or the tense that expresses a Meaning.

This is why I have designed a method to avoid the role of the sentence. I put different tenses together, without displaying their sentences:
Ex: <in 1997 + Simple Past> + Present Perfect + Simple Present + Simple Past
== The leading Simple Past is used because of "in 1997". It happens within 1997.
Present Perfect indicates the action finished outside 1997, in the nameless time span between 1997 and Now.
Simple Present indicates the action is outside 1997 and continues up to the present.
The latter Simple Past indicates it happens within the same timeframe of the former Simple Past. Only can Simple Past indicate a link to a former action.

This sentence-free method compares the three tenses all at once, and gets rid of the interference of the Meanings from sentences. As above, I use Time alone to explain tense. I am the one who keeps to the agreement that tense is used to express Time, while others are breaking the agreement without hesitation, once they meet a problem in explaining tense.

 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
My reply: That is what I want to tell you. Our past discussion you missed has arrived that past habit is expressed by Simple Past, as in your excellent example "He lived in Tokyo". If you had been there, it would have saved us a lot of trouble. Even "used to" is past form, I hope you would agree. In any forum, nevertheless, it would take me quite a time to convince readers Simple Past is used to express past habit. Though you can see the logic and examples so easily, some don't.

It seems to me that the implication of "habit" in "He lived in Tokyo" resides in the meaning of the verb "to live", rather than the choice of tense.

Compare:

1. He walked to the shops.
2. She ate baked beans garnished with finely grated mozzarella.
3. He caught a bus to Clapham Junction.

Without further context, these suggest "a particular incident", rather than "a habitual occurrence". But the contrary is true of the simple present tense.

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Go to yahoo now and you will see today's main news points:
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Baghdad shut down on suspicion of attack
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Israel completes pullout from Lebanon
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] No sign of survivors from Brazil plane
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Afghanistan mulls herbicide in drug war
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Scalia begins third decade on Supreme Court
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Laura Bush hosts National Book Festival
[FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#26032]‧[/FONT][/FONT] Officials explore turning humidity into drinking water

Simple Present also suggests "a particular incident", rather than "a habitual occurrence". Its indication is simply "the present time", if we know what is the definition of the present time.

 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Though people have openly agreed that tense is used to express Time, they unknowinglyviolate the agreement. For example, they argue Simple Present expresses Meanings like Habit/Habitual Action.

I keep to the agreement and explain tense with Time alone.
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Go to yahoo now and you will see today's main news points:

Simple Present also suggests "a particular incident", rather than "a habitual occurrence". Its indication is simply "the present time", if we know what is the definition of the present time.


This clearly illustrates your confusion, Shun. You have confused a special use of the present simple tense in these "news points". In the vast vast majority of uses in ENGLISH, the simple present DOES NOT suggest a particular incident.

Provide some examples if you want where English speakers use the present simple to describe particular incidents.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Go to yahoo now and you will see today's main news points:

Simple Present also suggests "a particular incident", rather than "a habitual occurrence". Its indication is simply "the present time", if we know what is the definition of the present time.

As Riverkid has mentioned, this is "headline English", which is a very different thing from ordinary English. (Note the lack of definite and indefinite articles.)

For instance, no one would say "Afghanistan mulls herbicide in drug war" in conversation. You'd say "Afghanistan is considering using herbicide in the war on drugs".

And for "Israel completes pullout from Lebanon", you'd say "Israel has completed its pullout (or withdrawal) from Lebanon".

MrP
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
As Riverkid has mentioned, this is "headline English", which is a very different thing from ordinary English. (Note the lack of definite and indefinite articles.)

My reply: If you are correct, in newspapers, other than headlines, they don't use Simple Present anymore. Do you believe it yourself?

In the past I have collected Simple Present examples from news for discussion. Here are some of them, which are not news headlines. Please understand some Simple Present should be in Simple Past for today, but they are correct Simple Present for "the present time" of those days.

Ex1: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.
Ex2: The reality remains that Tung will be at the helm until and unless Beijing leaders think otherwise.
Ex3: The 30 new candidates come from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.
Ex4: The Israeli government says it needs the new buildings because of the "natural growth" of the settlements. However, the "road map" does not take that into account in its blanket building freeze.
Ex5: A final vote in the U.S. Senate B remains before Congress sends the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) to President Bush for his signature. The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
Ex6: Nevertheless, some Democratic senators who oppose the bill, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), prevented the vote from occurring before the Senate began a 10-day recess on October 3. This means that the necessary Senate vote cannot occur earlier than mid-October.
Ex7: Seventy percent of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex8: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country holds the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......
Ex9: The U.S.-backed "road map" plan requires a freeze on construction in the roughly 150 Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians hope to establish an independent state in the two territories, which Israel captured during the 1967 Middle East war.
Ex10: It warns that "a new boom and bust is in the making and will likely start to show up at the end of next year or the beginning of 2005".
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
riverkid said:
This clearly illustrates your confusion, Shun. You have confused a special use of the present simple tense in these "news points". In the vast vast majority of uses in ENGLISH, the simple present DOES NOT suggest a particular incident.
My reply: A new term again: special use. I have never expected special use can be an explanation at all. You have supported my belief: If we don't know how to define the present time, we need to keep on creating endless terms to meet endless Simple Present sentences.

Really, do you agree or not that tense is used to express time? Which one tense is used to express time, in your belief? How to prove it? I will use your method to prove Simple Present says present time.

--------------------
riverkid said:
Provide some examples if you want where English speakers use the present simple to describe particular incidents.
[FONT=&#26032]My reply: [/FONT]So you may call it "particular use" of present simple tense?

Nevertheless, here are some examples:
Ex: You do as I say.
Ex: Please pass me the salt.
Ex: Go in and take a look.
Ex: I now put the chicken into the oven.

Examples are endless. For instance, Armstrong's landing on the moon is a particular incident. But please think about this: During the whole landing, would they use Simple Present at all to communicate? I think they do. What is the use of Simple Present, if not for "the present time" of that incident.

Many movies are demonstrating particular incidents. Do you notice they use Simple Present also?

I am surprised if you really need examples at all. Really, do you agree or not that tense is used to express time? Which one tense is used to express time, in your belief? How to prove a tense, any tense at all, expresses time?
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
My reply: A new term again: special use. I have never expected special use can be an explanation at all. You have supported my belief: If we don't know how to define the present time, we need to keep on creating endless terms to meet endless Simple Present sentences.

Really, do you agree or not that tense is used to express time? Which one tense is used to express time, in your belief? How to prove it? I will use your method to prove Simple Present says present time.

I'm quite sure that Mr Pedantic pointed out this special use of the present simple tense so there's no need to go into it any further.

--------------------

[FONT=&#26032]My reply: [/FONT]So you may call it "particular use" of present simple tense?

Nevertheless, here are some examples:
Ex: You do as I say.
Ex: Please pass me the salt.
Ex: Go in and take a look.
Ex: I now put the chicken into the oven.

Can you explain the differences between these examples?

Examples are endless.

No one has said that there aren't some special uses for the present simple, Shun. Clearly there are.

For instance, Armstrong's landing on the moon is a particular incident. But please think about this: During the whole landing, would they HAVE used Simple Present at all to communicate? I think they do. What is the use of Simple Present, if not for "the present time" of that incident.

[COLOR="red[/COLOR]Don't just tell us that they would HAVE used it, give us some examples, Shun.

Many movies are demonstrating [B][I][COLOR=blue][COLOR=blue][B][I]particular incidents[/I][/B][/COLOR][/COLOR][/I][/B]. Do you notice they use Simple Present also?

I am surprised if you really need examples at all. Really, do you agree or not that tense is used to express time? Which one tense is used to express time, in your belief? How to prove a tense, any tense at all, expresses time?[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="red"]Again, give us some examples from the movies you have in mind. Tense is sometimes used to express time. But English also uses tense to express other emotive aspects of language.[/COLOR]
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
MrPedantic said:
For instance, no one would say "Afghanistan mulls herbicide in drug war" in conversation. You'd say "Afghanistan is considering using herbicide in the war on drugs".

My reply: Please be informed that Present Progressive is seldom used in news, if compared with Simple Present. Below is present-day news from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5410066.stm
Russians 'in N Korea test talks'

Russia says it is in direct contact with North Korea to try to prevent it from carrying out its plan to test a nuclear weapon.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was talking to the North Korean leadership in an attempt to dissuade it from conducting a test.

It comes two days after North Korea said it would test a nuclear weapon.

The announcement drew warnings from the international community to North Korea not to take such a step.

The secretive communist regime says it possesses nuclear weapons, but this has not been independently verified.

Pyongyang has been involved in on-off six-party talks with Russia, the US, China, Japan and South Korea to resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme.

Aid deal
Earlier this week, US nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill said a nuclear test by North Korea would be regarded as a provocative act.

Speaking to reporters while on a visit to Warsaw, Poland, Mr Lavrov said that in the interests of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and security on the Korean peninsular, it was important that North Korea returned to the six-party negotiations.

Mr Lavrov said he believed there were possibilities to get North Korea back to the negotiating table.

The most recent round of talks ended in September 2005, with a deal which promised economic aid in return for Pyongyang scrapping its nuclear ambitions.

That agreement, however, appears to have fallen apart over disagreements on its implementation.

Please noted that says and said are used in the same context. Why, if not for indicating time?
 

shun

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
I asked: Really, do you agree or not that tense is used to express time? Which one tense is used to express time, in your belief? How to prove it? I will use your method to prove Simple Present says present time.

riverkid said:
I'm quite sure that Mr Pedantic pointed out this special use of the present simple tense so there's no need to go into it any further.

My reply: I am afraid you have skipped a lot of important questions. Did Mr Pedantic say what you will agree or not? Did Mr Pedantic mention how you will prove it at all? I have listed a lot of Simple Present examples from newspapers. We have to go into these examples further, because you asked me to provide such examples.

----------------------
You challenged me to "Provide some examples if you want where English speakers use the present simple to describe particular incidents." Therefore I provided some Simple Present examples:
Nevertheless, here are some examples:
Ex: You do as I say.
Ex: Please pass me the salt.
Ex: Go in and take a look.
Ex: I now put the chicken into the oven.

You then wrote: Can you explain the differences between these examples?

My reply: Why shall I explain the difference? I am pointing out the sameness in them, their characteristic. These Simple Present examples are not habitual actions, aren't they? Every day we would make countless Simple Present statements like these. They prove Simple Present doesn't relate habitual actions.

-------------------
riverkid said:
Again, give us some examples from the movies you have in mind. Tense is sometimes used to express time. But English also uses tense to express modality.

My reply: Examples are like what I have said above. I guess you want to say you haven't seen any Simple Present use at all in movies, so you can't think of any by yourself.

We talk about Simple Present actions like these:
Ex: You do as I say.
Ex: Please pass me the salt.
Ex: Go in and take a look.
Ex: I now put the chicken into the oven.
== They are also said in movies!!!

Newspapers do use Simple Present, actually much more often than Present Progressive:
Ex1: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.
Ex2: The reality remains that Tung will be at the helm until and unless Beijing leaders think otherwise.
Ex3: The 30 new candidates come from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.
Ex4: The Israeli government says it needs the new buildings because of the "natural growth" of the settlements. However, the "road map" does not take that into account in its blanket building freeze.
Ex5: A final vote in the U.S. Senate B remains before Congress sends the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) to President Bush for his signature. The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
Ex6: Nevertheless, some Democratic senators who oppose the bill, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), prevented the vote from occurring before the Senate began a 10-day recess on October 3. This means that the necessary Senate vote cannot occur earlier than mid-October.
Ex7: Seventy percent of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ex8: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country holds the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......
Ex9: The U.S.-backed "road map" plan requires a freeze on construction in the roughly 150 Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians hope to establish an independent state in the two territories, which Israel captured during the 1967 Middle East war.
Ex10: It warns that "a new boom and bust is in the making and will likely start to show up at the end of next year or the beginning of 2005".

I don't understand why you keep asking me to provide examples to you. After I have provided some, you say "there's no need to go into it any further", and then ask me to provide more. This confuses me.
 

riverkid

Key Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
----------------------
You challenged me to "Provide some examples if you want where English speakers use the present simple to describe particular incidents." Therefore I provided some Simple Present examples:


You then wrote: Can you explain the differences between these examples?

My reply: Why shall I explain the difference? I am pointing out the sameness in them, their characteristic. These Simple Present examples are not habitual actions, aren't they? Every day we would make countless Simple Present statements like these. They prove Simple Present doesn't relate habitual actions.

-------------------


That you aren't able to perceive the differences tells me that you have a very superficial understanding of English and how it works, Shun.


My reply: Examples are like what I have said above. I guess you want to say you haven't seen any Simple Present use at all in movies, so you can't think of any by yourself.

We talk about Simple Present actions like these:
Ex: You do as I say.
Ex: Please pass me the salt.
Ex: Go in and take a look.
Ex: I now put the chicken into the oven.
== They are also said in movies!!!

You have missed both the wider meaning and the nuances that are available to speakers of English.

Newspapers do use Simple Present, actually much more often than Present Progressive:

Newspapers are NOT English speakers. The difference is not one that you'll be able to discern for yourself, caught up as you are with this nonsensical theory.

#
 
Last edited:

rewboss

Key Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
I haven't read the entire thread (14 pages!), but...

Generally speaking, the news is about what is happening now. We're not talking about the philosophical notion of an infinitesimally small amount of time, we're talking of a definition of "now" which is useful to human beings in everyday life.

Headline English uses the simple present or incomplete verb phrases because headlines have to convey a lot of information in a very few words.

In the main article, though, you will find an abundance of present tenses, whether simple, progressive or (very often) perfect.

I don't know if these have been tackled before, but let's look, shun, at the examples you give:

Ex1: Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law.

This is indeed not the usual formulation ("are planning" would be expected), but the use of the present simple here emphasises the fact that it is a long process. They may not actually be sitting together planning the whole thing as you read the report, but generally they do quite a lot of planning. This would be unusual in most domains, but in the domain of journalism, it's quite normal. You will, however, often see this in the present progressive; both forms are possible (and common).

Ex2: The reality remains that Tung will be at the helm until and unless Beijing leaders think otherwise.

"Remain" is one of those verbs that is very often used in the simple present where the present progressive would normally be used. It indicates a state of affairs rather than describing an action.

Ex3: The 30 new candidates come from around the world, from Australia to Zagreb, Vietnam to Venice, and on the whole follow John Paul's conservative bent.

Again, this is a state of affairs. "Come" is always used in the present simple when used to indicate someone's origins: I come from England, but I live in Germany.

Ex4: The Israeli government says it needs the new buildings because of the "natural growth" of the settlements. However, the "road map" does not take that into account in its blanket building freeze.

When "say" carries the meaning of "be of the opinion of", it is used in the present simple. It indicates that whenever you care to ask them why they need the new buildings, they will always say, "Because of the natural growth of the settlements". "Need" is a verb that is only seldom used in the present progressive and again indicates a state of affairs, not an action. "Take into account" is very often used in the present simple, but especially when, as here, the subject is an inanimate object -- it is not performing an action, it is simply there, and whenever you study it you will notice that it doesn't take the blanket building freeze into account.

Ex5: A final vote in the U.S. Senate B remains before Congress sends the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) to President Bush for his signature. The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.

We've already dealt with "remain". And with "represent" we have, once again, an inanimate object.

Ex6: Nevertheless, some Democratic senators who oppose the bill, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), prevented the vote from occurring before the Senate began a 10-day recess on October 3. This means that the necessary Senate vote cannot occur earlier than mid-October.

Pushing a bill through takes a lot of time and effort. During this whole process -- and, if the bill is passed, for ever afterwards -- some senators may oppose it. If the present progressive were used here, it would mean that they are opposing it now, but they might not have been opposing it on October 3rd. The author wishes to make it clear that the opposing was happening on October 3rd, it is still happening now and will continue into the future. "Mean", in its usual sense, is another verb that is seldom used in the present progressive -- we ask "What does this word mean?", not "*What is this word meaning?"

Ex7: Seventy percent of Americans support a ban on partial-birth abortion.

See "oppose" above.

Ex8: Italy's U.N. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, whose country holds the EU presidency, moved between the two groups, sometimes with the British or French ambassadors alongside......

This describes a state of affairs, not an action.

Ex9: The U.S.-backed "road map" plan requires a freeze on construction in the roughly 150 Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians hope to establish an independent state in the two territories, which Israel captured during the 1967 Middle East war.

With "require", we again have an inanimate object. With "hope" we have a state of mind which is not limited in time; the Palestinians hoped in the past, they are hoping now and they will continue to hope. We only use "hope" in the present progressive when the hope is expected to be short-lived: "I am hoping for rain tomorrow" is OK because, whether or not it rains tomorrow, the hoping will be over the day after tomorrow.

Ex10: It warns that "a new boom and bust is in the making and will likely start to show up at the end of next year or the beginning of 2005".

This is quite normal in journalism; it's like "say", in that, for an extended period at least, any time you go to "it" (whatever "it" is), "it" will warn you of a new boom and bust in the making.

Most of these examples are actually standard formal English in any domain; only a very few appear to break the rules, and they do so with good reason. But if an action is actually taking place at the time and is clearly (or hopefully) of limited duration, the present progressive is often used. Here are some random examples I found:

"The five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany are meeting after the EU said it had failed to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium."

"They are demanding a complete ban on fishing, arguing that there would be plenty of alternative areas to satisfy fishermen and women."

"West African leaders are meeting in Nigeria to discuss the crisis in Ivory Coast."

"The Bolivian government is sending 700 troops to a tin mine as clashes between rival miners enter a second day."

"The EU is placing a tariff of 16.5% on leather shoes imported from China over the next two years."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top