|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the truth
#88204 Fri, 08 Apr 05 04:40 PM
|
|
CJim wrote:
One big difference is that you can add information about the exact time of the event when you use "He didn't come", but not when you use "He hasn't come".
JTT: I'll suggest that that points up one of the PP's characteristics. It's used to set up a "hot topic"
but it isn't used to further discuss it.
==================
Is it true that in American English, there is a tendency to use the past tense instead of the present perfective, for example:
'Did you go there.' instead of 'Have you gone there'
or 'you told me already' for 'You have told me already'
JTT: Mr/Ms Mehrdad,
In North American English {not sure about Australia/New Zealand} the tendency is to use the simple past more so than the PP.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Dec 27 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
x.mehrdad
#88226 Fri, 08 Apr 05 05:28 PM
|
|
Dear just the truth,
Is it that difficult to know the difference between X andY. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Fri, Mar 4 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
#88368 Sat, 09 Apr 05 03:54 AM
|
|
Re: using "perfect" and "pluperfect" as tenses based on Latin.
Sorry, merhdad, I don't quite seize your point. Normally we say "present perfect" and "past perfect" for these tenses, not "pluperfect". But regardless of the names, yes, it's true that English is much more dominated by analytic formations than by inflections.
I grant you that Latin-bashing is now in vogue in linguistic circles and has been for some time, bu there isn't much point in changing all the names of tenses just to spite Latin, is there? I mean no one is stupid enough to think that if the names for the grammatical machinery are similar or even the same, that English is just some sort of variant of Latin, are they?
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
|
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
x.mehrdad
#88379 Sat, 09 Apr 05 06:26 AM
|
|
Hello CalifJim,
As you know Calif, I am not a native speaker, and whatever I say here, in a way or other,is a kind of repetition of what I have learned from the books, and if I ask a question, my only intention is to assimilate, and understand what I have learned. I am not the one to tell what is wrong or right, becouse this language is not yet my home. It is left to you to give me the necessary confidence by your arguments, and this is the only way for me to obtaine a sort of certitude enabling me for a better performance, and I know it's not the easiest thing to deal with the scatterbraineds like me.Believe me I have the highest regards for what you are doing here. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
#88654 Sun, 10 Apr 05 04:59 PM
|
|
mehrdad,
From the tone of your response I take it you may have misinterpreted my response! My apologies! I had absolutely no intention of intimating that you were a scatterbrain!
I was simply railing against those linguists and grammarians who want to reinvent English grammar because they believe that scholars of the past have based too much of their argumentation on the structure of Latin.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|