It is the most important invention in many years.

[diamondcutter]

The computer is a wonderful machine. It is the most important invention in many years. Today it is used a great deal in many ways.

Source: an English textbook for junior high school students in China, People’s Education Press, 1984

I don’t quite understand why the second sentence uses the simple present not the present perfect. Could you please enlighten me?

 

[emsr2d2]

What is the title of the textbook?

 

[diamondcutter]

It’s an very old book. The name of it is just one word “English”. This is the cover of it.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would say the title is clearly "English 6". It is presumably the sixth book in a series.

 

[jutfrank]

I strongly dislike the second sentence and would urge you to ignore it. Your suspicions about it are well-founded.

(I don't like the third sentence either. Do you have to use this resource?)

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, emsr2d2 and jutfrank.

I strongly dislike the second sentence and would urge you to ignore it. Your suspicions about it are well-founded.

(I don't like the third sentence either. Do you have to use this resource?)

Hi jutfrank, I see that you used ‘dislike’. Do you mean these two sentences are not wrong, but not good enough? Could you tell me how to improve them?

I don’t have to use this resource but want to learn more

 

[jutfrank]

You start by telling me—why do you prefer present perfect over present simple?

 

[diamondcutter]

The present perfect expresses a sense of ‘up to now’, which has the beginning point of time and the ending point--the time of speaking. As for the present simple, it indicates a present fact which doesn’t show when to begin and when to end. Speaking of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] sentence in # 1, the computer has been the most important invention up to when the author writes the sentence. So I prefer to use the present perfect tense to describe that.

 

[jutfrank]

The present perfect expresses a sense of ‘up to now’, which has the beginning point of time and the ending point--the time of speaking.

Okay, so what do you understand to be the beginning and end points of time in the case of this sentence? Why do you think an 'up to now' meaning is suitable here? Do you have anything to say about how the time phrase in many years relates to this? Is there another preposition that you could use?

As for the present simple, it indicates a present fact which doesn’t show when to begin and when to end.

Okay, so how would you explain clearly well-formed sentences such as the following?:

It is the most important invention of all time.
It is the best thing since sliced bread.

I hope you'll understand that I'm being deliberately oblique in my answer, and that I'm trying to help you think about this a little. I've noticed that your profile states you're an English teacher. Is this a new status or have I just failed to notice previously?

 

[tedmc]

The present perfect tense does not say anything more than the present tense. "In many years" does not mean much. We normally use the simple present tense to state a plain fact, unless it cannot express it adequately.

 

[diamondcutter]

Okay, so what do you understand to be the beginning and end points of time in the case of this sentence? Why do you think an 'up to now' meaning is suitable here? Do you have anything to say about how the time phrase in many years relates to this? Is there another preposition that you could use?

I think the beginning point of time is the time when the computer was invented and the end point of time is the time of the author writing. I think the author uses "in many years" to mean "for many years".

Okay, so how would you explain clearly well-formed sentences such as the following?:

It is the most important invention of all time.
It is the best thing since sliced bread.

These two sentences just talk about two facts, whose existing times are not important and not mentioned. And I think they could also be rewritten as follows.

It has been the most important invention of all time.
It has been the best thing since sliced bread.

Now I’ve begun to understand what’s wrong with the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] sentence in #1. Since it mentions "many years", it’s best to use the present perfect and use the time phrase "for many years" like this:

It has been the most important invention for many years.

And it could also be rewritten as follows.

It is the most important invention of all time.
It is the most important invention since the beginning of human history/since it was invented.

I hope you'll understand that I'm being deliberately oblique in my answer, and that I'm trying to help you think about this a little.

I quite understand what you’ve been doing.
Thank you so much for your kindness and patience.

I've noticed that your profile states you're an English teacher. Is this a new status or have I just failed to notice previously?

I teach kids English in China and I’m not an English native speaker. In this sense, I’m a life-long English learner. At first, I chose “learner or student” as my member type because I misunderstood the forum rules. I thought “English teacher” was the type for English teachers of native speakers. When I realized my mistake, I changed my member type. That was only a few weeks ago.

 

[jutfrank]

Thank you, diamondcutter. It's very useful for us to know what you already understand and to know how you're thinking.

It isn't necessary to use the perfect aspect to express what the writer means. You're right that the present perfect has a sense of 'up to now' but you should also remember that it also has a sense of completion that is not appropriate in this context. If the writer were to go on to say that computers have stopped being the most important invention because, say, a better invention has come along, then there would be a reason to use the present perfect.

As a statement of fact about a current state of affairs, the present simple It is the most important invention is adequate. My issue with the sentence is with the time phrase in many years, which I don't think goes very well with the preceding present simple clause. I have two reasons for thinking this. The first is that I dislike the use of in in time phrases that are meant to denote a pure duration. We normally use for to quantify duration, so a quick fix of the sentence as it is would be to replace in with for. To say that in is incorrect in such a phrase would be a claim of pedantry so I'd just like to say at the moment that for is preferable to express what the speaker means. A second issue that I have is with the very idea of using a duration phrase at all with the kind of meaning expressed by the main part of the sentence. We normally use superlatives like this with other kinds of preposition phrases, such as:

It is the best invention of all time.
It is the best invention of the last 200 years.
It is the best invention in the last 200 years.
It is the best invention in recent history.

None of the four time phrases above has a sense of pure duration as when we say, for example, for many years. Notice that there is a subtle difference in meaning between of and in in these time phrases.

I'll make sure to repeat that I agree it would be reasonable to object to both of these issues I have with the time phrase as pedantic. The purpose of this post is twofold: a) to explain why I dislike the original sentence, and b) to engage you as a teacher and learner in thinking more closely about use of language, whether you agree or disagree with what I've said.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thank you again for your detailed and illuminating replies, jutfrank.

It is the best invention of all time.
It is the best invention of the last 200 years.
It is the best invention in the last 200 years.
It is the best invention in recent history.
Notice that there is a subtle difference in meaning between of and in in these time phrases.

I thought and thought and consulted many books to find out the difference in meaning between of and in in these time phrases, but I failed. Would you please enlighten me?

 

[jutfrank]

I'd suggest you start by thinking more generally about the meaning/use of these prepositions. One way to do this is to look at contexts where for/in are not interchangeable.

a) Has anyone called ___ the last twenty minutes?
b) I've been waiting ___ the last twenty minutes.

Which preposition would you use in each case? Why? Does the other one work? If so, does it change the meaning? If not, why not?

 

[diamondcutter]

I’d use ‘in’ in sentence a) and ‘for’ in sentence b).

Has anyone called in the last twenty minutes?

This sentence asks if anyone called during the period of time.

I've been waiting for the last twenty minutes.

This sentence indicates how long the waiting has lasted.

The two prepositions in these two sentences are not exchangeable.

I don’t know if my understanding is correct. But what I want to know is the difference between ‘of’ and ‘in’ in these two sentences.:-D

It is the best invention of the last 200 years.
It is the best invention in the last 200 years.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, your understanding is correct, and I see now that I misread your question in post #13. My main purpose in this thread was essentially to point out that time phrases with in, which you quite rightly identify as meaning 'during a period of time' are used most properly where there is an event that is expressed elsewhere in the sentence. The problem I have with our original sentence is that the sentence does not clearly express an event, but rather a fact/opinion (in present simple), which means that neither a time phrase with for or one with in is strictly correct in very precise writing, if you want to be pedantic. I originally suspected, and still do, that you had also perceived a mismatch between the main part of the sentence and the time phrase, and that this was leading you to want to correct the present simple to present perfect to allow for an agreement, which it would have done.

Sorry to everyone for complicating things. I fear I've managed to sidetrack the thread too far from the original question, which I hope has been answered sufficiently.

Let's leave of alone here, as it's going to complicate the thread even more. If you have any further questions about prepositions, I'd ask you to start a new thread. Thanks.

 

[tedmc]

It is the best invention of (from) the last 200 years.

It is the best invention in (during) the last 200 years.

The above is how I understand the difference between the two prepositions, which is not siginificant.