Mount Jiree is thought/has been thought ...

[Ola Swensson]

Dear all,
I have a sentence in my Workbook:

Mount Jiree has been thought to be thousands of years old, but no one is sure.

I have to find the mistake in it (if there are any) related to the passive form of the verb.
The correct answer is "Mount Jiree is thought to be thousands of years old, but no one is sure".
I don't undestand why. As I see it, the present perfect here refers to the action of thinking that has continually happened up to now. That is to say, people was thinking this way and they are still thinking that Mount Jiree is thounsands of years old.
Could you be so kind as to explain me why "has been thought" would not be the correct answer here?

Thank you very much in advance!

 

[emsr2d2]

When do you have to submit your homework/assignment?

 

[Ola Swensson]

Thank you emsr2d2, for your reply!
I would like to have an answer not so much for my homework as for my understanding.
I'm really puzzled.

 

[Flask]

Mount Jiree has been thought to be thousands of years old, but no one is sure.

I have to find the mistake in it (if there are any) related to the passive form of the verb.
The correct answer is "Mount Jiree is thought to be thousands of years old, but no one is sure".
I don't undestand why.

I don't find the sentence grammatically incorrect with the present perfect passive ("has been thought to be") rather than the present simple passive ("is thought to be"); however, the latter is more natural, since the the present simple is used in the second independent clause ("but no one is sure"). Here is a context in which the present perfect would be natural:

Mount Jiree has long been thought to be thousands of years old, but no one has ever been sure. Now we know otherwise.

 

[teechar]

Hi Ola, and welcome to the forum.

I have a sentence in my workbook:

Can you please tell us the book's title, author, and publisher?

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear Flask,
Thank you so much for your reply!
Mount Jiree has long been thought to be thousands of years old.
Mount Jiree has for centuries been thought to be thousands of years old.
If I understand correctly, "has been thought" in both these sentences has no implication that people are still thinking?
But why not?
If I say "Mount Jiree has been known for ages", this sentence does imply that Mount Jiree is still known today?
Both verbs "to think"and "to know" are in present perfect.
What's the difference then?
Thank you in advance.

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear teechar,
The book title is the following:
Cambridge English, Complete Advanced (C1), 2nd edition by Guy Brook-Hart and Simon Haines, Workbook, p. 14.

 

[emsr2d2]

Dear teechar,
The book title is the following:
Cambridge English, Complete Advanced (C1), 2nd edition by Guy Brook-Hart and Simon Haines, Workbook, p. 14.

Please remember to put this information in post #1 every time.

 

[jutfrank]

As I see it, the present perfect here refers to the action of thinking that has continually happened up to now.

Yes.

That is to say, people was thinking this way and they are still thinking that Mount Jiree is thounsands of years old.

No. If anything, the sense of 'up to now' that is carried by the present perfect implies that people no longer think it. The idea expressed by the present simple is that people think it now.

Very basically speaking, we use the present perfect to show we're thinking of the completion of a time period, not the continuation of an action (as you seem to think). The idea of 'until now' has an implicit idea of 'not any more'.

 

[Ola Swensson]

Thank you so much jutfrank, for your reply!
I see what you mean. But I still have a question.
If I say "Mount Jiree has been known for ages", this sentence doesn't imply either that Mount Jiree is still known today?

 

[Rover_KE]

@Ola Swensson, I see that you posted the same thread in WRForums.

Please do not post the same question simultaneously to more than one forum. Doing so wastes our valuable time. Instead, post your question to one forum and wait for replies. If you're not satisfied with those replies, you can try another forum, but please indicate in your thread that you've already asked the same question elsewhere (provide a link), and outline why you were not satisfied with the answers you received already.

(teechar)

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear Rover_KE,
Please excuse me.
I will never do this again.
The thing is it's the first time that I have asked a question in a forum, so I did not know the rules. It's my fault, I had to study them more carefully.

 

[Tarheel]

@Ola Swensson Please note that using a question mark does not change something that is otherwise not a question into a question. (They won't tell you that on WR.) If I say "I'm turning the heat on" putting a question mark after "on" does not make it a question.

 

[jutfrank]

If I say "Mount Jiree has been known for ages", this sentence doesn't imply either that Mount Jiree is still known today?

Yes, it does imply that it is still known today. I don't understand how you could imagine Mount Jiree to be unknown. How could that be possible? How can somebody talk about something that is unknown?

 

[Ola Swensson]

Thank you jutfrank!

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear jutfrank,
Sorry to bother you. I asked you so evident question - you must have been indignant (#14).
But the reason why I asked it is because I see some disparities in the use of two verbs - to think and to know.
When we say -
Mount Jiree has for centuries been thought to be thousands of years old. -
There is no clear implication that people are still thinking that today. All depend on the context.
While when we say -
"Mount Jiree has been known for ages" -
it does imply that it is still known today, as you have put it.
How come?
Could you explain me the difference in these two cases?
Thank you for your patience.

 

[jutfrank]

Mount Jiree has for centuries been thought to be thousands of years old. -
There is no clear implication that people are still thinking that today. All depend on the context.

Forget about this sentence, Ola. The correct sentence is:

Mount Jiree is thought to be thousands of years old, but no one is sure.

Focus your studies on real, authentic sentences, in plenty of context.

While when we say -
"Mount Jiree has been known for ages" -
it does imply that it is still known today, as you have put it.

First of all, we don't say that. This is an artificial sentence that you made up yourself.

Implication comes from all kinds of things—including aspect, choice of verb, and context. If you want to ask about implication, make sure you either ask about real sentences spoken or written by real users of the language, or ask one of the teachers or expert users here to create a natural context for you.

I see some disparities in the use of two verbs - to think and to know.

'Thinking something', in the sense of having a certain belief, is something that you can easily stop doing:

I've always thought her name was Charlie!

Without giving you any more context, what do you think could be the implication here? What do you imagine the context to be? Does the speaker continue thinking the same thing?

By contrast, 'knowing something' (in the sense of 'knowing that') is not something that we can really stop doing. Think about the following utterance:

I've always known that my daughter is different from other children.

What do you think the implication here is? Apart from the verbs 'thought' and 'known', what else helps you understand the meaning of these sentences?

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear jutfrank,
You have explained me so well! That is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much!
I will now stop thinking about that sentence.

Your examples are quite interesting.
I think
I've always thought her name was Charlie!
does not automatically imply that I still think that. Yes, it could be used in that scenario, but it could also be used in the opposite case – for example, it could be followed by the clause “but now I understand I was mistaken”.
On the other hand,
I've always known that my daughter is different from other children.
means that I still know it today. ...and, frankly speaking, I can't find here any context which would imply that I don't know it any more...

 

[jutfrank]

I've always thought her name was Charlie!
does not automatically imply that I still think that. Yes, it could be used in that scenario, but it could also be used in the opposite case – for example, it could be followed by the clause “but now I understand I was mistaken”.

Right. The context that I had in mind when I wrote it was this:

I've always thought her name was Charlie! And now you're telling me her name is Brenda? How have I been wrong all these years?

I've always known that my daughter is different from other children.
means that I still know it today. ...and, frankly speaking, I can't find here any context which would imply that I don't know it any more...

Right.

 

[Ola Swensson]

Dear, jutfrank!
Thank you so much!
Best wishes,
Ola