We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the trout
+
99132
Sat, 14 May 05 04:39 AM
"I've seen you somewhere before" is a common phrase.
I think English "before" should include "now" when it stands alone. This is a bit confusing to me, because the Japanese equivalent to "before" excludes "now".
paco |
|
Paco,
The present perfect, for many of its uses, has a meaning of "up to now" but "now" isn't necessarily included.
PP used for experience obviously doesn't include "now" because no one would ever say,
"Have you ever skied?", if the questioner and the respondent were standing on skis, making their way down a mountain.
Words like 'recently' and 'before', used in this PP fashion, just have a collective time feel to them.
Joined on
Mon, May 2 2005
New Member
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the trout
+
99133
Sat, 14 May 05 04:53 AM
i) 'During the last 20 years, he has sometimes got up at 5 o'clock.'
ii) 'For the last 20 years, he's usually got up at 5 o'clock.'
The 'progressive' version sounds slightly awkward, though:
iii) ??'He's been getting up usually at five o'clock for the last 20 years.'
I would say that they're not particularly natural sentences; it would be unusual to find an opportunity of using them! |
|
The present progressive is not used in English to talk about events that have a long timespan.
*He is riding his bicycle to work for ten years now.*
That's why it sounds awkward.
For i) and ii), while the content may not be very natural, ie. common, the structure is. These two sentences relate the experiences of this person and their frequency of use has NOTHING to do with their grammaticality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
khoff
+
99134
Sat, 14 May 05 04:53 AM
I've never seen Tony Blair cited as an authority for accurate linguistic usage before...
I've never seen Mr Pedantic cited as an authority for accurate linguistic usage before... |
|
My comment was simply a repeat of the inane comment from Mr Pedantic which "seems to indicate that the poster is unable to defeat the other party's line of argument (thus resorting to personal comments)" |
|
In fact, Trout, Mr. Pedantic's status as moderator indicates that within the English Forum community, he is recognized as "an authority for accurate linguistic usage." You won't win friends and influence people here by calling his comments inane. I think his point was just that not everything said by public figures can be taken as a model of correct usage.
As for Tony Blair's remark, I would agree that viewing "last year" as a parenthetical afterthought makes the sentence easier on the ear.
-khoff
Joined on
Sun, Mar 6 2005
Senior Member
3,278
Native speaker of American English (but not a grammar expert)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
99135
Sat, 14 May 05 04:54 AM
| "It's great to be back on terra cotta." |
|
Ah, yes. Your equivalent to the former Mayor Daley of Chicago: "In my administration I promise we will rise to higher and higher platitudes".
CJ
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member
22,465
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Roro,
4 yr 197 days ago
Does this sentence sound odd to you? Just from a curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the trout
+
99143
Sat, 14 May 05 05:24 AM
I would take the 'last year' here as an afterthought, that clarifies 'already':
1. I've already discussed that (last year).
Ergo, the collocation sometimes exists. What both Swan and the CGEL are pointing up is how prescriptive grammars and prescriptive grammarians, largely through their own ignorance, have misled students. The structure can be and is used as an afterthought but it doesn't neccessarily have to be so.
CAVEAT REPEATED:
Swan - "In fact, such structures are unusual but not impossible (though learners should avoid them). "
JTT - "ENLs NORMALLY, ALMOST NEVER use the present perfect with past time adjuncts."
The CGEL example would be more natural if expanded:
2. He has got up at five o'clock for the last 20 years.
2a. He's been getting up at five o'clock for the last 20 years.
Of course, that follows Mr Pedantic, because what we have here is a very uncommon collocation. Even a simple experential perfect shows it's possible.
A: Has he ever got up at five o'clock?
B: Yes, he's got up at five o'clock.
In the 2nd CGEL example, there seems to be a conflict between the adverbs, unless we treat the 2nd as a clarification:
3. We've already discussed this – yesterday.
In the initial example from the CGEL and in the Blair example, the CGEL states;
"In {the example} the 'already' indicates that I'm concerned with the occurrence of the situation of our discussing it within a time-span up to now and cancels the normally excluding effect of 'yesterday' ... "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
julielai
+
99146
Sat, 14 May 05 05:36 AM
None of us has to be an authority to cite commonly known things about public figures. Comments like that aren't targeted against the other party in the argument.
Of course, authority is in the eyes of the beholder. But that applies to everybody on this board, including you and me. (Which means no one has to pay heed to what you or I have said thus far.)
Whether each of us has "stature" is decided by the mass and not by one or two individuals. More authoritative sources (like OED) simply get consulted more often (than, say, Mr. Prescott). Considering how little I am consulted, I can safely say that I'm no authority (compared to some other posters and mods). ![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
Having said that, I'll leave the whole authority question for the English forums collective to decide. ![Big Smile [:D]](/emoticons/emotion-2.gif)
Joined on
Sun, Oct 24 2004
Senior Member
3,829
Just another blogger (http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/julie-lai)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the trout
+
99151
Sat, 14 May 05 06:12 AM
| None of us has to be an authority to cite commonly known things about public figures. Comments like that aren't targeted against the other party in the argument. |
|
Comments like that should, one, have a degree of truthfulness to them. I'm not aware of any "commonly known things" that would lead one to suggest Mr Blair's speech is anything but normal. And two, what's raised should have something to do with the issue at hand. Mr Pedantic targeted the argument and sought to derail it.
Did everyone miss Mr Pedantic's sleight of hand?
The net result, after all the song and dance, is that sometimes, not often, the present perfect is used with past time adjuncts BUT learners should avoid these and treat them as part of their passive language, ie. they should be aware of its existence but refrain from using it until they are competent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paco2004
+
99162
Sat, 14 May 05 07:46 AM
Hello Roro
Does this sentence sound odd to you? Just from a curiosity. |
|
As no native speaker has answered to your question, I will show you the numbers of Google's hits for two sentences.
[1] The Earth revolves around the Sun. 27,800
[2] The Earth is revolving around the Sun. 307
I don't know whether the sentence #2 is ungrammatical or not, but it may be true that the sentence is rarely used. The sentence #1 would belong to what grammars call as the use of the present tense for "permanent truth". The present progress tense is used to describe an event on-going at the speaker's utterance time, but its use somehow connotes the event will eventually end.
paco
Joined on
Wed, Nov 17 2004
Senior Member
4,095
In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|