"Present perfect simple" is a misnomer

[Glizdka]

Can I say that present perfect simple is a misnomer if I think that simple means there is no aspect, and perfect is an aspect?

I understand that it's meant to help distinguish this structure from the present perfect continuous/progressive.

 

[Glizdka]

For me there are only two simple forms, present and past.

Would you agree that forms with modal verbs without an aspect (perfect, progressive) could be called simple forms, but they deserve a third, separate group?

 

[jutfrank]

Would you agree that forms with modal verbs without an aspect (perfect, progressive) could be called simple forms, but they deserve a third, separate group?

I don't think I've understood the question. What are 'modal verbs without an aspect'?

 

[Glizdka]

I don't think I've understood the question. What are 'modal verbs without an aspect'?

The way I like to think of modal verbs is that they are separate from the rest because sentences with them don't follow the usual patterns. For example, if I want to use the perfect aspect with a modal verb, inversion and negation behave differently from normal verbs.

Normal verbs:
Affirmative: subject → have → past participle
Negative: subject → have → not → past participle
Interrogative: have → subject → past participle

Modal verbs:
Affirmative: subject → modal → have → past participle
Negative: subject → modal → not → past participle
Interrogative: modal → subject → have → past participle

There's something that I've noticed in some learners. They learn that, say, the present perfect uses haven't for negation, and they try to do that with modal verbs.

I could haven't done it ↔ I couldn't have done it

The analogous happens for some learners when they try to use inversion.

Have I could done it? ↔ Could I have done it?

This makes me think that modal verbs should deserve their own, separate group, as in calling "I could have done it" a past perfect construction is confusing for many learners because the construction doesn't follow the pattern learners get familiar with when learning about the past perfect in case of non-modal verbs.

I believe that constructions with modal verbs are neither present nor past constructions, or at least they shouldn't be called as such because it's confusing for learners; they're their own thing. Can I think of it like that? Can I think of "I could have done it" as a modal perfect construction, rather than a [tense] perfect construction? If so, can I think of a construction with a modal verb but without an aspect as a modal simple construction?

 

[jutfrank]

But we don't call them 'past perfect constructions'. Who says we do?

We might call them 'perfect modals' or 'past modals'.

 

[Glizdka]

I found a high school English teacher in Poland who teaches their students that could is the past simple form of can, and could have past participle is the past perfect simple form of can.

I have many problems with that line of thinking.

 

[Tdol]

Can I say that present perfect simple is a misnomer if I think that simple means there is no aspect, and perfect is an aspect?

I understand that it's meant to help distinguish this structure from the present perfect continuous/progressive.

Yes, you can, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. Naming verb forms in English is one of the quickest ways to start an online fight. ;-)

 

[GoesStation]

Balderdash!

I'm upset about this, too — but of course, you're both wrong.

 

[Tdol]

Balderdash!

Quite right, sir- squabbling about aitch and haitch comes before any discussion of whether there is a future tense in English. And you are quite right about your being quite right about everything. My apologies. ;-)

 

[Tdol]

I found a high school English teacher in Poland who teaches their students that could is the past simple form of can, and could have past participle is the past perfect simple form of can.

Do they unlink tense from time in English- you can use could for present and future time.

 

[Glizdka]

Do they unlink tense from time in English- you can use could for present and future time.

It's complicated. The grammatical term for tense in Polish is the same as the word for time. Many students confuse the two, especially that most English teachers in Poland teach English using the Polish language, including the one Polish word for both time and tense.

English teachers in Poland seem to prefer the approach that each combination of tense and aspect is a separate structure that has nothing to do with other combinations of the two. I don't know if it's meant to make the appearance that the English language is absurdly complicated and has a ridiculous number of tenses, discouraging learners from learning it, and making it seem alien, but that's the effect they achieve by doing so.

Most learners when asked what they struggle with say that it's the tenses. When asked how many tenses there are in the English language, students typically say either 12 or 16 because that's how they were taught. At the same time, when asked how many tenses there are in the Polish language, they almost uniformly say 3 (which is bollocks; Polish has an aspect almost equivalent to the continuous/progressive aspect). It's not uncommon to meet with the opinion along the lines of "Why the bad word does this language have so many tenses? Polish has just 3 and it's enough."

I don't know if the fact that people aren't taught squat about how even their native language works at all has anything to do with it, but I believe it does contribute to the confusion quite a lot.

Language education in Poland is a mess, and by all means, this mess is about as effective in helping people learn a foreign language as a fork is effective in letting you eat soup.

I'm done with my rant for a moment.

 

[GoesStation]

Language education in Poland is a mess, and by all means, this mess is about as effective in helping people learn a foreign language as a fork is effective in letting you eat soup.

I wonder how much it's changed over the years. My maternal grandmother learned French as a schoolgirl in Łodz over a hundred years ago and became fluent enough to have no problems with the language when she lived in Paris and then Montreal after WWII. My mother always said she had a terrible accent, though, and attributed it to Polish teaching practices which she said paid no attention at all to the spoken language.

Institutions move very slowly, but one can hope Polish teachers have learned at least a little in more than a century.

 

[Glizdka]

English, as a school subject in Poland, doesn't even come close to teaching anything about pronunciation.

My favorite example of how bad our school system is at teaching pronunciation is that majority of English teachers in Poland pronounce the word continuous (which, for obvious reasons, they use on a daily basis, in front of their students) the way you would expect them to pronounce the word continues. Some time ago, I wrote a post on this forum because an English teacher in Poland mocked me for pronouncing the word correctly.

If my frustration reaches the sufficient levels, and I organize my thoughts to something more readable than a rant, I might write a post about "Why I think language education in Poland is fruitless". The best evidence of it is how absolutely terrified most students are when I just want to casually talk to them in this language (deer in the headlights).

 

[Tdol]

It's complicated. The grammatical term for tense in Polish is the same as the word for time. Many students confuse the two, especially that most English teachers in Poland teach English using the Polish language, including the one Polish word for both time and tense.

That's a common problem and affects our understanding of English verbs badly.

 

[Glizdka]

We need a love button...