to have been a part

[tkacka15]

I'm so happy to be a part of that process.

I'm so happy to have been a part of that process.

Is there any difference in meaning between above sentences?

Thank you.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The first refers to the present. The second refers to the past.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the second could refer to a period from the past to the present.

 

[tkacka15]

I think the second could refer to a period from the past to the present.

That's exactly as I've understood it but wasn't sure. It means that the subject ("I") was and still is "the part of that process" when saying I'm so happy to have been a part of that process.

 

[Matthew Wai]

It means that the subject ("I") was and still is ...

I think the above applies to the following, which does not suggest that the speaker and the listener are no longer friends IMO.

'I am so happy to have been your friend.'

 

[Tdol]

I think the second could refer to a period from the past to the present.

Possibly, but my default interpretation would be that the person is no longer a part of the process. If it included a time phrase like for the last three years, then my interpretation would change, but as it stands, I would expect them not to be a part, and even then they could be speaking on the occasion of their leaving.

 

[tkacka15]

Possibly, but my default interpretation would be that the person is no longer a part of the process. If it included a time phrase like for the last three years, then my interpretation would change, but as it stands, I would expect them not to be a part, and even then they could be speaking on the occasion of their leaving.

Thank you, Tdol, for your insightful comment.

For me, the non-native one, it is sometimes hard to be in tune with the correct reading the clauses or infinitives of the present perfect tense. The general idea that I've acquired is that the present perfect tense connect the past with the present but obviously it isn't true all the time. So my question is: is there any golden rule how to spot the clause/phrase expressed in present perfect as the one which is definitively buried in the past thus losing its grammatical connection with the present?

 

[Matthew Wai]

1. 'I'm so happy to have been a part of that process last year.'
2. 'I'm so happy to have been a part of that process for the last year.'

I think #1 and #2 refer to the past and a period from the past to the present respectively.

 

[tkacka15]

1. 'I'm so happy to have been a part of that process last year.'
2. 'I'm so happy to have been a part of that process for the last year.'

I think #1 and #2 refer to the past and a period from the past to the present respectively.

Hi Matthew.

In my opinion, the 1. refers to the past, i.e. now is 2015 so "last year" means 2014. The 2. connects past with the present.

I understand "for the last year" as the year expanding roughly from December 2014 till now.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"for the last year"

I take it to mean 'for the last 365 days'.

 

[tkacka15]

I take it to mean 'for the last 365 days'.

Yes, I take it like that: from the 7th of November 2014 till today.

 

[tkacka15]

I think part of your problem may be in associating the perfect infinitive with the present perfect tense/aspect.

I am happy that I have lived in Prague for 17 years.
I a happy to have lived in Prague for 17 years, ('perfect infinitive')

I am happy that I lived in Stuttgart for five years,
I am happy to have lived in Stuttgart for five years. ('past infintive')

Thank you, Piscean, for your excellent reply.

If I understood it correctly, we, nevertheless, need some sort of context to tell the difference between two infinitives, i.e. the perfect infinitive and the past infinitive of the "to have lived" here. Without the introductory (preceding sentences) "I have lived in..." and "I lived in..." it's impossible to tell the difference. Am I right?