Does tense cause a change in meaning?
- Thread starter blacknomi
- Start date
They are the same. 'after' is the reason.blacknomi said:
Both 'after' and the Perfect mark the order of the events, but 'after' is required as a subordinating conjunction, whereas the Perfect 'have -ed' is not required because the meaning it expresses is carried by the subordinator, and given that semantic redundancy, some speakers will omit the Perfect marking, notably 'had', which in the case of an irregular verb like 'leave, left' also involves changing to irregular form 'left' back to its regular form 'leave', and go with the Simple Present:
Present Perfect: You will have time after they have left.
Simple Present: You will have time after they leave.
Moshi moshi, Lady in Japan,
I'm not 100% sure if I get your grammatical explanation.
You mean the subordinating conjunction "after" carries the "perfect mark", so that the have -ed form can be omitted. I see "after" a subordinator as it is, and I would't think it has to carry the perfect meaning. Its main function and meaning is to indicate the order of two events. Here's my perception,
[You'll have time] after [they leave home.]
[An event] after [a general event.]
So If I am stating a general event at present, I'll just keep the present tense in the subordinating clause. Then, the event of the main clause, occuring after a general event, is considered to be happened at a point in future. So using a future tense would make perfect sense here.
What do you think? Cass?
All the best,
Blacknomi :-D
I'm not 100% sure if I get your grammatical explanation.
You mean the subordinating conjunction "after" carries the "perfect mark", so that the have -ed form can be omitted. I see "after" a subordinator as it is, and I would't think it has to carry the perfect meaning. Its main function and meaning is to indicate the order of two events. Here's my perception,[You'll have time] after [they leave home.]
[An event] after [a general event.]
So If I am stating a general event at present, I'll just keep the present tense in the subordinating clause. Then, the event of the main clause, occuring after a general event, is considered to be happened at a point in future. So using a future tense would make perfect sense here.
What do you think? Cass?
All the best,
Blacknomi :-D
Allow me to try again. 1) After they leave
The subordinator 'after' signals the first event (they leave).
2) After they have left
The perfect morphology 'have -t' signals the first event (they have left).
In short,
Both the subordinator 'After' and the perfect morphology 'have left' signal the first event. Given that (semantic) redundancy, speakers will often replace the Present Perfect with the Simple Past as a means of reducing the redundancy. So After they've left becomes After they leave, without a change in meaning. 'After' expresses the order of events.
Personally, I prefer 2), but that's beside the point. The question was whether 1) and 2) carry the same meaning, and they do.
Really!!!!! :lol:
<Sigh> I was about to bid on priceline for 10-day stays at NYC during X'mas. But I don't think there is any chance to get the bid. Woo woo woo woo woo...
Wish me luck!
With eye circles,
Blacknomi :shock:
<Sigh> I was about to bid on priceline for 10-day stays at NYC during X'mas. But I don't think there is any chance to get the bid. Woo woo woo woo woo...
Wish me luck!
With eye circles,
Blacknomi :shock:
- Status