did you hear, have you heard

[joham]

We're arguing about which tense to use in the following sentence:

_____ you ____ the 9 o'clock news? (suppose it is half past ten now)

I thought we could only ask 'Did you hear the 9 o'clock news?' just because of the time '9 o'clock'.
But someone else said we could use the past simple and could also say 'Have you heard the 9 o'clock news?' And still another said if we used 'listen to' instead of 'hear', then both ways were all right.

Could I ask native English teachers to help me with this question?
Thank you very much.

 

[shinji002]

We're arguing about which tense to use in the following sentence:

_____ you ____ the 9 o'clock news? (suppose it is half past ten now)

I thought we could only ask 'Did you hear the 9 o'clock news?' just because of the time '9 o'clock'.
But someone else said we could use the past simple and could also say 'Have you heard the 9 o'clock news?' And still another said if we used 'listen to' instead of 'hear', then both ways were all right.

Could I ask native English teachers to help me with this question?
Thank you very much.

If i were you, I prefer the first one,"'Did you hear the 9 o'clock news". as most of people use past simple focusing on when you did it, otherwise they focus on time, but for the second ,just focuses on the result.
[not a teacher]

 

[louhevly]

We're arguing about which tense to use in the following sentence:

_____ you ____ the 9 o'clock news? (suppose it is half past ten now)

I thought we could only ask 'Did you hear the 9 o'clock news?' just because of the time '9 o'clock'.
But someone else said we could use the past simple and could also say 'Have you heard the 9 o'clock news?' And still another said if we used 'listen to' instead of 'hear', then both ways were all right.

Could I ask native English teachers to help me with this question?
Thank you very much.

In your example, both are correct. American speakers might be more likely to use "Did you hear" whereas British speakers might prefer "Have you heard...".

In other contexts there is a nice difference: We use the present perfect when the finished action is relevant to the present. For example: If I'm working on the computer and my wife comes in and says "I've bought some cheese", I'll stop what I'm doing in anticipation of her relating this finished action to the present ("... and I want you to try it" or "... and now I'm going to make sandwiches", etc.). In fact, if she doesn't add anything else, after a second or two I'm likely to ask her "And?" or "So?".

On the other hand, if she uses the simple past: "I bought some cheese", I'll probably just say "Fine" and continue with what I'm doing.

In short, in many cases present perfect describes past actions that are somehow relevant to the present, whereas with simple past there isn't necessarily this connection. Remembering of course that AmE often doesn't honor this distinciton.

Lou

 

[joham]

In your example, both are correct. American speakers might be more likely to use "Did you hear" whereas British speakers might prefer "Have you heard...".

In other contexts there is a nice difference: We use the present perfect when the finished action is relevant to the present. For example: If I'm working on the computer and my wife comes in and says "I've bought some cheese", I'll stop what I'm doing in anticipation of her relating this finished action to the present ("... and I want you to try it" or "... and now I'm going to make sandwiches", etc.). In fact, if she doesn't add anything else, after a second or two I'm likely to ask her "And?" or "So?".

On the other hand, if she uses the simple past: "I bought some cheese", I'll probably just say "Fine" and continue with what I'm doing.

In short, in many cases present perfect describes past actions that are somehow relevant to the present, whereas with simple past there isn't necessarily this connection. Remembering of course that AmE often doesn't honor this distinciton.

Lou

My question is, since we include the time phrase '9 o'clock', can we still focus on the result of the action? And

According to your explanation, might I draw the conclusion that we could say "What has happened at yesterday's meeting?" if we want to focus the result that still exists now?

Thank you very much in advance.

 

[louhevly]

My question is, since we include the time phrase '9 o'clock', can we still focus on the result of the action? And

According to your explanation, might I draw the conclusion that we could say "What has happened at yesterday's meeting?" if we want to focus the result that still exists now?

Thank you very much in advance.

It's not "result", it's "relevance to the present" that is important. But this isn't the only factor. There is also an "indefiniteness" factor. You can say "I have lived in Paris", even if you lived there twenty years ago, because the statement is indefinite. But as soon as you specify "when", you have to use simple past: "I lived in Paris twenty years ago", "I lived in Paris in 1981", etc. My wife can say "I've bought some cheese" but she can't say «I've bought some cheese half an hour ago», even though both might have present relevance.

You can say "Have you heard the 9 o'clock news?" but you can't say «Have you heard the news at nine o'clock?». Note that the former is the same as "Are you aware [present] of what was [simple past] on the 9 o'clock news?". So the sentence has present meaning. You can't say «What has been on the nine o'clock news?».

For me, neither can it be «Are you aware of what has been on the 9 o'clock news», though an Englishman might find this acceptable.

You can't say «What has happened at yesterday's meeting?» because "yesterday" is definitely not in the present time frame. You can say "Have you heard [present perfect] what happened [simple past] at yesterday's meeting?"

So, in conclusion, remember that you generally can't use present perfect when there is definite reference to a finished action, even when that finished action has relevance in the present. You can use present perfect sometimes when referring to an indefinite finished action that has relevance in the present (I've bought some cheese, John has had an accident, We've finished our homework, etc.).

But you can't conjoin two finished indefinite actions even if separately they would have relevance in the present. You can't say «I've gone shopping and then have come here to show you my new dress». You can say: "I've gone shopping" or "I have come here to show you my new dress".

Isn't English wonderful?

Lou

 

[joham]

It's not "result", it's "relevance to the present" that is important. But this isn't the only factor. There is also an "indefiniteness" factor. You can say "I have lived in Paris", even if you lived there twenty years ago, because the statement is indefinite. But as soon as you specify "when", you have to use simple past: "I lived in Paris twenty years ago", "I lived in Paris in 1981", etc. My wife can say "I've bought some cheese" but she can't say «I've bought some cheese half an hour ago», even though both might have present relevance.

You can say "Have you heard the 9 o'clock news?" but you can't say «Have you heard the news at nine o'clock?». Note that the former is the same as "Are you aware [present] of what was [simple past] on the 9 o'clock news?". So the sentence has present meaning. You can't say «What has been on the nine o'clock news?».

For me, neither can it be «Are you aware of what has been on the 9 o'clock news», though an Englishman might find this acceptable.

You can't say «What has happened at yesterday's meeting?» because "yesterday" is definitely not in the present time frame. You can say "Have you heard [present perfect] what happened [simple past] at yesterday's meeting?"

So, in conclusion, remember that you generally can't use present perfect when there is definite reference to a finished action, even when that finished action has relevance in the present. You can use present perfect sometimes when referring to an indefinite finished action that has relevance in the present (I've bought some cheese, John has had an accident, We've finished our homework, etc.).

But you can't conjoin two finished indefinite actions even if separately they would have relevance in the present. You can't say «I've gone shopping and then have come here to show you my new dress». You can say: "I've gone shopping" or "I have come here to show you my new dress".

Isn't English wonderful?

Lou

Dear Louhevly,
Thank you very very much for the great trouble you've taken to answer my question! I'm a lot clearer now. Might I ask another question:

Could we say 'I've bought this dress for you at/ from Harrods?'
This time I 'm metioning the place where the 'buying' action took place, rather than the time when the 'buying' action took place. Then could we still use the present perfect if we focus on the relevence to the present?

 

[louhevly]

Dear Louhevly,
Thank you very very much for the great trouble you've taken to answer my question! I'm a lot clearer now. Might I ask another question:

Could we say 'I've bought this dress for you at/ from Harrods?'
This time I 'm metioning the place where the 'buying' action took place, rather than the time when the 'buying' action took place. Then could we still use the present perfect if we focus on the relevence to the present?

Yes indeed. But my American ear will still be waiting for the next sentence to connect this finished action to the present: ("Do you like it?", "... and I want you to try it on", etc.).

Lou