[Grammar] Present Perfect

[Will17]

Hello!

Is the use of the PP correct in these cases:

-I had to make and choice and that's it, I've made it! (before announcing it)


-We've had many problems, again!

-What kind of nice party have you prepared for her? (this is at the very very beginning of the party).

-I've had many problems that's why I didn't check my emails. (Is the sequence of tenses correct, here?).

-I've had many problems that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?).

-I've created my own company!

-oh, you've changed the colour of your living-room!! (could we also use the Past Simple in this case?)

-That's it, I've signed the contract! (putting the pen down).

-I've booked two rooms. (before going to that hotel). Could we also use the Past Simple in this case?



Thanks a lot
W

 

[bhaisahab]

Hello!

Is the use of the PP correct in these cases:

-I had to make a choice and that's it, I've made it! (before announcing it) OK


-We've had many problems, again! OK

-What kind of nice party have you prepared for her? (this is at the very very beginning of the party).OK, the "nice" is not very natural though.[/COLOR]

-I've had many problems that's why I didn't check my emails. (Is the sequence of tenses correct, here?). It's fine.

-I've had many problems that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?). You could but it would have a different meaning.

-I've created my own company! [OK

-oh, you've changed the colour of your living-room!! (could we also use the Past Simple in this case?) Yes, you could.

-That's it, I've signed the contract! (putting the pen down).OK

-I've booked two rooms. (before going to that hotel). Could we also use the Past Simple in this case? Yes, you could.



Thanks a lot
W

.

 

[Raymott]

-I've had many problems that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?).
You could but it would have a different meaning.

I agree, except for in those pockets of North America where the simple past often does for the present perfect.

 

[2006]

-I've had many problems; that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?). You could but it would have a different meaning.

What would the difference be in the other "pockets"?

 

[Barb_D]

To me, if you say you didn't have time, the opportunity for doing it is past.

If you say that you haven't had time, you can still do it.

I find the mixture of the PP and simple past jarring.

I had some problems (then) so I couldn't (then)
I've had some problems, so I haven't been able to (yet).

 

[2006]

To me, if you say you didn't have time, the opportunity for doing it is past.

If you say that you haven't had time, you can still do it.

I find the mixture of the PP and simple past jarring. But however one feels about the mixture of tenses, the question is whether there is a difference in meaning between "haven't had" and "didn't have" in the sentence in question.

I had some problems (then) so I couldn't (then)
I've had some problems, so I haven't been able to (yet).

But the first part of the original sentence says "I've" had, not 'I had'. So to me that says that the day, or whatever time period, isn't over yet. The sentence is saying that up to the time just now ended, I (haven't had)(didn't have) time to check my emails. I still could have time to check them later.

 

[Raymott]

-I've had many problems; that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?). You could but it would have a different meaning.

What would the difference be in the other "pockets"?

Do you mean in standard non-pocket English?
"I haven't had time" means up until now and continuing; I might still find the time. That is, it implies "I haven't had time yet."
"I didn't have time" means in the past; it could possibly extend up to now, but it implies nothing about a future possibility.

 

[2006]

"I haven't had time" means up until now and continuing; I might still find the time. That is, it implies "I haven't had time yet."
"I didn't have time" means in the past; it could possibly extend up to now, but it implies nothing about a future possibility. So are you disagreeing with Barb's statement that "didn't" means that the opportunity for checking the emails has passed?
And the question still is what the difference in meaning between the two tenses in the sentence in question is.

2006

 

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by Raymott
"I haven't had time" means up until now and continuing; I might still find the time. That is, it implies "I haven't had time yet."
"I didn't have time" means in the past; it could possibly extend up to now, but it implies nothing about a future possibility. So are you disagreeing with Barb's statement that "didn't" means that the opportunity for checking the emails has passed?
I don't think that "didn't" means that semantically. In ordinary usage it would tend to imply that, but the implication is linguistic, not logical.

And the question still is what the difference in meaning between the two tenses in the sentence in question is.
This was my answer to that question. What is lacking?

R.

 

[2006]

R.

I'll take your answer to mean that there is no 'real difference' in meaning between the two tenses in the sentence in question.

Another thing, after I responded to Barb I noticed the sentence in the OP immediately before the one we just talked about, the one bhai said "It's fine."
Do you agree that it's fine? I do, except for some lack of punctuation.
I am not trying to start an argument between you two.

Thanks!

 

[Raymott]

I'll take your answer to mean that there is no 'real difference' in meaning between the two tenses in the sentence in question.
That wasn't my intended meaning. But you know that.
I'll take it that you agree that there is a difference, even though you're not willing to admit that it's 'real'.

Another thing, after I responded to Barb I noticed the sentence in the OP immediately before the one we just talked about, the one bhai said "It's fine." Do you agree that it's fine?
Yes, I do.

I do, except for some lack of punctuation.
So do I.

I am not trying to start an argument between you two.
I think that bhai and I obviously agree that both sentences are 'fine', but that they have different meanings. I'm not interested in the argument about whether that difference is 'real' or not.
Thanks!

R.

 

[bhaisahab]

-I've had many problems that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?). You could but it would have a different meaning.

Can you see why it would have a different meaning, Will17? What do you think the difference might be?
Raymott and 2006 are right about the punctuation by the way.

 

[2006]

Raymott posted. (my original black, Raymott's green, my response in blue)
___________________________
I'll take your answer to mean that there is no 'real difference' in meaning between the two tenses in the sentence in question.
That wasn't my intended meaning. But you know that. No, I don't know that. I'll take it that you agree that there is a difference, even though you're not willing to admit that it's 'real'. No, I don't agree! My unfortunate ill-advised use of 'real difference' came from your reference to linguistics and semantics. What I want to hear from you in very simple words that anyone can understand is what the diifference in meaning between those two tenses, present perfect and simple past, in the sentence in question is. How do the meanings differ?

present perfect meaning is ...
simple past meaning is ...


Another thing, after I responded to Barb I noticed the sentence in the OP immediately before the one we just talked about, the one bhai said "It's fine." Do you agree that it's fine?
Yes, I do.

I do, except for some lack of punctuation.
So do I.

I am not trying to start an argument between you two.
I think that bhai and I obviously agree that both sentences are 'fine', but that they have different meanings. I'm not interested in the argument about whether that difference is 'real' or not. Again, I regret using 'real'. What is the difference in meaning?
Thanks!
R.
___________

2006

 

[2006]

"I haven't had time" means up until now and continuing; I might still find the time. That is, it implies "I haven't had time yet." One could also say, 'I didn't have time yet.' Perhaps you might not say that, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
another example... I haven't done it yet. = I didn't do it yet.


"I didn't have time" means in the past; it could possibly extend up to now, but it implies nothing about a future possibility. Right, specifically it doesn't preclude the possibility of having time in the future. With either tense, you might or might not have time later. The two tenses only address the situation to now.

Sorry for my belated full response to this earlier post. But the pertinent point still is that no one has convinced me of the difference in meaning of the two tenses.

 

[Raymott]

Sorry for my belated full response to this earlier post. But the pertinent point still is that no one has convinced me of the difference in meaning of the two tenses.

Ah, now on that we can agree.
So it is not so much that no one has told you what the difference is (I have, and so have others); it's just that you don't accept that the difference you are told about actually exists.
Where all other commentators see a difference, you don't perceive one. I don't think this requires further explanation beyond pointing out that not everyone has the same sensibilities.

 

[2006]

Ah, now on that we can agree.
So it is not so much that no one has told you what the difference is (I have, and so have others); it's just that you don't accept that the difference you are told about actually exists. There could be a good reason I don't accept the supposed difference. I stated my objections to your argument. If you think you made a convincing case, you're deluding yourself.
Where all other commentators see a difference, you don't perceive one. I don't think this requires further explanation beyond pointing out that not everyone has the same sensibilities. Actually, only you have directly addressed the issue. Barb didn't seem to be talking about the same sentence, while bhai hasn't said what the supposed difference is.

I think it's the same old situation of arbitrarily deciding what the meaning of a certain tense is without thinking about what the words actually mean. It's not surprising that we come to the same old disagreement.

 

[Raymott]

If you think you made a convincing case, you're deluding yourself.
I [STRIKE]haven't been trying[/STRIKE] didn't try to convince you.

Where all other commentators see a difference, you don't perceive one. I don't think this requires further explanation beyond pointing out that not everyone has the same sensibilities. Actually, only you have directly addressed the issue. Barb didn't seem to be talking about the same sentence, while bhai hasn't said what the supposed difference is.
I don't mean just in this thread. I meant over the last few years, whenever this has come up.

It's not surprising that we come to the same old disagreement.
Again, something we agree on.

 

[2006]

tomorrow, actually later today, hopefully my last post on this thread

 

[2006]

If you think you made a convincing case, you're deluding yourself.
I [STRIKE]haven't been trying[/STRIKE] didn't try to convince you.
That's a bit strange. Normally when someone makes an assertion and someone else challenges that assertion, the person who made the assertion would feel it useful and appropriate to defend the assertion as vigorously as necessary. And if you don't need to convince me, what about the others who are reading this thread, especially the person who started it.

Where all other commentators see a difference, you don't perceive one. I don't think this requires further explanation beyond pointing out that not everyone has the same sensibilities. Actually, only you have directly addressed the issue. Barb didn't seem to be talking about the same sentence, while bhai hasn't said what the supposed difference is.
I don't mean just in this thread. I meant over the last few years, whenever this has come up.
As I recall, the past threads have mostly not talked about the two tenses in question having different meanings. Although there certainly have been some of those, as in the following two sentences.

I have lived in X for two years.
I lived in X for two years.

And we agree that the two sentences do have different meanings. (lacking any unusual context)

I think that most of the past threads have involved a disagreement about whether only present perfect tense is correct in certain sentences or whether both it and simple past tense are correct.

It's not surprising that we come to the same old disagreement.
Again, something we agree on.

I really hope to have nothing more to say on this thread.

 

[Will17]

-I've had many problems that's why I haven't had time to check my emails (could we say "didn't have time"?). You could but it would have a different meaning.

Can you see why it would have a different meaning, Will17? What do you think the difference might be?
Raymott and 2006 are right about the punctuation by the way.

Hello Bhaisahab!

Thanks for your answer!!

This is what I understand:

1)I've had many problems, that's why I haven't had time to check my emails.=> But I'm going to do it as soon as I can.

2)I've had many problems, that's why I didn't have time to check my emails. => In this case, we could be referring to a past period of time (eg yesterday). But I think I would also use it the same way as 1), maybe influenced by "American" English. Would it be a big mistake for a British ?

Thank you
W