[Grammar] I have a small problem with Present Perfect and Past Simple

[Xenon]

Hi guys !

I have a small problem with past simple and present perfect tenses. I asked in may forums, watched many movied, read books etc. And there are a lot of examples where past simple doesn't have time reference like present perfect. So I tried to interpretate it.

Present perfect (past action that has some result in present) - many people told me that result isn't a good way to think about it because, every past action has it's result.
I can understand some description like "we use present perfect to talk about past action and continues in the present"
But I have problem if I want to use those examples .

Example from the movie:

"I took a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." - (should I interpretate it as something happened in the past but now we talk about what happened because of this action or what we know from this action ?)

and

"I have taken a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." (I think this means that we checked the damaged parts, and he is still doing it)

Example from the book:

We've been through some bad things on this trip, but now that we see hope I'm starting to feel like this trip isn't so bad.

If I use past simple instead of Present perfect, would it change anything ?

Or last example :

They have vetted him. (he is sitting in his room talking with his friend, far from the action that has probably happened.)



Ty guys for any info, and help.

 

[teechar]

Hi Xenon, and welcome to the forum.
Note that "interpretate" is not a word in English; "interpret" is.

Note also that in many cases, either the present perfect or the past simple can be used to describe a situation. However, in many other cases, only one of those tenses really works. It's those clear-cut situations that you should first spot, understand and focus on. That (with practice) will help you decide which (if any) is a better tense for your sentences.

Finally, I strongly encourage you to use the search facility on this site to read similar threads on this topic. Do that, and post below if you still need help.

 

[Xenon]

Hi Xenon, and welcome to the forum.
Note that "interpretate" is not a word in English; "interpret" is.

Note also that in many cases, either the present perfect or the past simple can be used to describe a situation. However, in many other cases, only one of those tenses really works. It's those clear-cut situations that you should first spot, understand and focus on. That (with practice) will help you decide which (if any) is a better tense for your sentences.

Finally, I strongly encourage you to use the search facility on this site to read similar threads on this topic. Do that, and post below if you still need help.

Thanks for correcting

But this is so wierd when I see in movie or in book that somebody uses present simple while he see the results or something like that.
I know that result isn't approriate.
I understand the term where present perfect is used to talk about past action that continoues even now.
For example "This city has been devastated" (it was devastated and it's still devastating).

But the problem is with this term ...

You must always use the Present perfect when the time of an action is not important or not specified.
You must always use the Simple past when details about the time or place that an action occured are given or requested.

About practicing it. Well the only way I can do it is watching some movies or read a book. And those 2 tenses confuses me. I often ask my self (why he used this tense instead of another ?). It was pretty okey with other tenses instead of Present perfect sentences.

Sorry if my English isn't good enough.

Cheers
Xenon

 

[jutfrank]

A couple more pointers:

Present perfect (past action that has some result in present) - many people told me that result isn't a good way to think about it because, every past action has it's result.

I think the word 'result' has perhaps confused you. It might help to replace the word 'result' with 'relevance'. In present perfect sentences, there is always a relevance to the present.

I can understand some description like "we use present perfect to talk about past action and continues in the present"

I don't like this explanation because I think it's inaccurate and misleading. Essentially, it is not the action that continues up to the present (although it can be in some cases), it is the timeframe within which the action occurs. This is a key point, which many people (including a lot of teachers) fail to see.

 

[Xenon]

That needs to be repeated. It is very important.

The present perfect is very often used for situations that do not continue up to the present moment. Even the progressive form does not necessarily denote a situation continuing up to the present moment.

A couple more pointers:


I think the word 'result' has perhaps confused you. It might help to replace the word 'result' with 'relevance'. In present perfect sentences, there is always a relevance to the present.



I don't like this explanation because I think it's inaccurate and misleading. Essentially, it is not the action that continues up to the present (although it can be in some cases), it is the timeframe within which the action occurs. This is a key point, which many people (including a lot of teachers) fail to see.

So then how should I interpret my examples with this "timeframe" and "relevance" ?

Like :

What have you done ? - that now an action from the past is relevant ?

with answear

I've dropped my transponder, but don't worry I've got it. (I know that "have got" isn't correct, just example from movie)


So yea trying to learn the difference that can help me understand why they used this tense or another.

 

[Xenon]

You have picked an unnatural example. If the transponder is back where it was, then the natural response would be "I dropped my transponder, ..." We say "I've dropped ... only if it it still not in your hands.

I thought I could use present perfect according to this example (3rd example)

-"I took a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." - (should I interpretate it as something happened in the past but now we talk about what happened because of this action or what we know from this action ?)

and

-"I have taken a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." (I think this means that we checked the damaged parts, and he is still doing it)

Example from the book:

-We've been through some bad things on this trip, but now that we see hope I'm starting to feel like this trip isn't so bad.

If I use past simple instead of Present perfect, would it change anything ?

By the way how should I interpret this discription ?

Could you give me some examples or correct my ?

A couple more pointers:


I think the word 'result' has perhaps confused you. It might help to replace the word 'result' with 'relevance'. In present perfect sentences, there is always a relevance to the present.



I don't like this explanation because I think it's inaccurate and misleading. Essentially, it is not the action that continues up to the present (although it can be in some cases), it is the timeframe within which the action occurs. This is a key point, which many people (including a lot of teachers) fail to see.

That needs to be repeated. It is very important.

The present perfect is very often used for situations that do not continue up to the present moment. Even the progressive form does not necessarily denote a situation continuing up to the present moment.

I often hear that I can in some situation use both of them. It confuses me even more ...

 

[Xenon]

You have picked an unnatural example. If the transponder is back where it was, then the natural response would be "I dropped my transponder, ..." We say "I've dropped ... only if it it still not in your hands.

I thought I could use Present perfect according to those examples :

Example from the movie:

-"I took a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." - (should I interpretate it as something happened in the past but now we talk about what happened because of this action or what we know from this action ?)

and

-"I have taken a look at the damaged parts. The bridge and the aft engines are fine. It can fly a little." (I think this means that we checked the damaged parts, and he is still doing it)

Example from the book:

-We've been through some bad things on this trip, but now that we see hope I'm starting to feel like this trip isn't so bad.

If I use past simple instead of Present perfect, would it change anything ?

And by the way how should I interpret this discription ?

Can you give me some examples or correct my if they are wrong ?

A couple more pointers:


I think the word 'result' has perhaps confused you. It might help to replace the word 'result' with 'relevance'. In present perfect sentences, there is always a relevance to the present.



I don't like this explanation because I think it's inaccurate and misleading. Essentially, it is not the action that continues up to the present (although it can be in some cases), it is the timeframe within which the action occurs. This is a key point, which many people (including a lot of teachers) fail to see.

That needs to be repeated. It is very important.

The present perfect is very often used for situations that do not continue up to the present moment. Even the progressive form does not necessarily denote a situation continuing up to the present moment.

P.S I often hear from other people that past simple and present perfect can be used interchangable, I often see them randomly putted (I guess maybe I'm wrong), but i don't get the meaning behind it at first. I want to use properly Present perfect and past simple, but I want to have some way (10-20 even 100 ways to interpret them which doesn't have any relationship connection with past simple).

Or I hear that some situation can give us the same meaning for past simple and present perfect (close to sam, there are small difference that doesn't have a huge relevance)

 

[abaka]

Let me say something that I think has helped people on occasion.

The present perfect is a present tense. When you use it, you are speaking about the present, not the past.
The simple past is a past tense. When you use it, you are speaking about the past, not the present.

"I have done it" is a statement about the state of affairs now, not in the past. "I did it" is about the past.

I've put the basic difference in italics. Keep it in mind and say what you have to say, with confidence. If you are corrected -- and a present perfect is switched for a simple past or vice versa -- keep this basic difference in mind also, before you look for any other explanation of why you have been corrected.

 

[Xenon]

Let me say something that I think has helped people on occasion.

The present perfect is a present tense. When you use it, you are speaking about the present, not the past.
The simple past is a past tense. When you use it, you are speaking about the past, not the present.

"I have done it" is a statement about the state of affairs now, not in the past. "I did it" is about the past.

I've put the basic difference in italics. Keep it in mind and say what you have to say, with confidence. If you are corrected -- and a present perfect is switched for a simple past or vice versa -- keep this basic difference in mind also, before you look for any other explanation of why you have been corrected.

So if I'll say :

-You did a great job ! (it would mean that you did this job in the past, even when we see it now, we emphesis the past action which is "his work")

*Is it ready ?
*Yea, I've done it. (Like he did his job in the past but he emphesize the present situation which is that they have it now).


Or like those previous examples ?
Is it correct ?

 

[Xenon]

Or this example :

Where did I go ? (he is talking about past action which was his decicion, even when how he is in bad situation)

with

Where have I gone ? (it means that he is now in bad situation)

Something like that ? Am I a bit correct ?

 

[abaka]

You are quite correct.

Except that if you are now in a bad situation, you should use the present perfect. And if you use the simple past, you mean you were in a bad situation.

 

[GoesStation]

Or this example:

Where did I go? (he is talking about past action which was his decision, even when now he is in a bad situation)

with

Where have I gone? (it means that he is now in a bad situation)

These two questions don't make any sense. Can you think of some different examples?

Don't put a space before a colon or a question mark.

 

[Xenon]

Yea I guess I get it.

I just see in a lot of movies in cinema or in youtube from UK or US channels when thay say "Damn, where did I go ? Is it a china market or what ?" (while they are in bad situation right now).

it also happens in books that confuses me even more than helps. But I guess this way of interpret is kind a ok.

Like "Don't worry I gave him the keys" (I did it in the past, so I don't know what he is doing right now, emphesize of the past action)
or "Be carefull, this city has been devastated" (looking at the situation right now, it is just in bad condition).

 

[GoesStation]

"Damn, where did I go?"

That's not at all natural. Are you sure you heard it correctly?

 

[Xenon]

Yup, it's pretty often I guess. I hear it in many videos on youtube or in sitcom.

 

[GoesStation]

Yup, it's pretty often I guess. I hear it in many videos on youtube or in sitcom.

In what situation does a character say that? People normally know where they have been.

 

[Xenon]

Ok example from Youtube:

Youtuber is playing a video game, his character went in wrong place "Where did I go ?" while he is in this place. So yea, something like that

 

[abaka]

I don't know anyone who speaks like movie or video-game characters, except as a deliberate joke -- sometimes. Making a habit of speaking like that in real life would usually be quite offensive -- and in certain situations, positively dangerous.

As regards the present perfect, somehow Americans do seem to substitute the simple past for it more often than anyone else, including Canadians.

 

[GoesStation]

When the YouTuber says "I", he means "the character I'm manipulating". This isn't natural in other contexts.

 

[jutfrank]

Youtuber is playing a video game, his character went in wrong place "Where did I go ?" while he is in this place.

Right, this finally makes sense now. GoesStation is of course correct—the I refers to the onscreen avatar, whom at the moment of speaking the player has for whatever reason temporarily lost track of.

In this very special situation, I'd say it's more or less equally natural to say any of the following:

Where have I gone?
Where did I go?
Where am I?