BestBuddy
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2022
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Ukrainian
- Home Country
- Ukraine
- Current Location
- Ukraine
I've learned that the past simple doesn't necessarily mean completion of the object (only the action that took place in the past), while the perfect aspect 99% imply completion of the object. So I want to ask a question about the language logic. The key word is logic.
A: Alex read a book while Amy watched TV. (not the whole one)
B: What book did Alex read? (The "B" may not know that it was not the whole book, he just heard what "A" said)
A: He read War and Peace.
B: He shouldn't have read that book without me! I'll accuse him of having read that book! He won't be able to pretend not to have read that book!
If those perfect constructions are wrong, what should we change them to?
If they are not wrong, why do everybody say that the perfect aspect always about completion without specifying that it is necessary to separate the action from the object?
A: Alex read a book while Amy watched TV. (not the whole one)
B: What book did Alex read? (The "B" may not know that it was not the whole book, he just heard what "A" said)
A: He read War and Peace.
B: He shouldn't have read that book without me! I'll accuse him of having read that book! He won't be able to pretend not to have read that book!
If those perfect constructions are wrong, what should we change them to?
If they are not wrong, why do everybody say that the perfect aspect always about completion without specifying that it is necessary to separate the action from the object?