Search results for 'tag:Dates tag:Present perfect' matching tags 'Dates' and 'Present perfect'

Re: "Has gone to" in AmEng.

Grammar Geek — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:28:18 GMT

Anonymous

In AmEng, does "nobody has gone to jail" mean "nobody is in jail" in a context such as the above?

It means no one has been convicted and sent to jail (as of the date this statement was made). No one is (yet) in jail over these wrong-doings.

Anonymous

In AmEng, could "have gone to war twice" be used even if the country is no longer at war or not presently planning to go to war?

Using the present perfect (has gone) leaves open the possibility that they will go to war again.

The use with "gone" makes it no different than any other use of the present perfect.

I had three candy bars today - it's over and I won't have any more.
I've had three candy bars today - I may eat more

They went to war twice in the decade - you are fairly certin they will not be going to war again (not simply that they are not currently plannign to)
They have gone to war twice in the decade - it's possible they may do so again.

Re: Written english vs spoken english

Avangi — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:56:08 GMT

YSchneider
Many people from US companys often aswer me in the present perfect like:
Thank you, I've received your e-mail OR Yves, I've spoken to my boss and he...or Yves, I've forwarded your mail to our finance department and it will be processed soon!

Am I wrong or would you use simple past at least in spoken english? Like: Thank you, I got you mail(I received your mail) or Yves, I spoke to my boss and he said...

What's your opinion on this?

Hi,
I was surprised by the variety of responses this generated. In cases where the tense difference serves no useful purpose, I've always taken it as a difference in register (probably ill-advised though well-intentioned) and by extension a difference in spoken vs. written, and casual vs. formal.

Even in business correspondence there are huge differences in the degree of formality one encounters (company A vs. company B; A addressing B; A addressing C; A addressing a stranger in company D, etc.). In general, I think Americans with modest educations tend to use the perfect when they feel the need to sound correct. A particular secretary may feel the need to use it in all her business correspondence, so that it becomes part of her style. At the bar she may speak differently.

I can certainly understand why a non-native would raise the question.

- A.

Edit. Sorry, didn't notice the date.

Re: re: the use of present perfect sentence

Huevos — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:42:55 GMT

It's hard to know what you are asking. First, the present perfect is only used with current temporal markers, not dates. Obviously the court made the ruling at some time in the past so you either use the simple past + the date, or just the present perfect.

On the 25th of September 2008 the Court ruled that ***.
The Court has ruled that ***.

Re: tense checking

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:39:27 GMT

Thank you so much.

How would you divide this type of writing (diary or reflection piece?) into paragraphs, especially when the content of a possible paragraph is two or thre sentences long?

You asked:

I am starting to work on my two-month project on ~~today~~ this afternoon;, and when my nephew gets here, I will probably have finished half the project.Tenses are okay. You can finish half of a two-month project in one day?

I think the probable date I noted for his visit is one month from the day of writing and I think I also have noted that the probable period of completion will last two months. What made you think the writing gives out an idea that I will try to finish the project in one day?

You changed the tense of the last sentence to present perfect; (semicolon OK?) but I don't think a past is wrong but a present tense is better because the choice made is current and currently related.

Last sentence that you made a change:

Yes, I have made the choice and that is to finish the project on time.

questions on tenses

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:58:23 GMT

Hi,
1. Would you say it is appropriate to use the present perfect "have loosened" here (sort of an amusement park report) in a subordinate clause?

With a small hiccup, the ride tilts to the side and *** young ones who have loosened their grip are send sliding into the center of ..

2. Can you correct tenses here? Or for that matter, correct everything written if possible. Thanks.

I did great in my middle school. Few things I remember most about my days at school so far are my great teachers and the fun we had together. But now, I have to graduate. I have only a month before graduation. I remember Sue, who transferred to another school just two monthes before this graduation date. Had she stayed in our school, she would be expecting to graduate in a month like me. I miss her. She had great humor that could liven up the classroom atmosphere as quicky as a blink of an eye (with some exaggeration, ha, ha...). Anyway, after a month, I will be sitting in my house, sipping a cool lemondate, thinking of days I will be spending at *** High School and students and teachers I will be meeting. Before then, I should be enjoying (I should enjoy??) this time of remembrance and expectations.

Re: Since... In... further... or From... to... In...

Grammar Geek — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:56:54 GMT

I'm honestly not clear of the author's intention. I would have used present perfect: Since 1985, they've opened...

Usually, if you read "Since [date]," your assumption would be from that date until the present. If the author wished to specify the period 1985 through 1990, then your rewrite (and the use of the simple past) is correct.

Re: "When have you had enough?"

jazzmaster — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:11:17 GMT

CalifJim
But when? has another meaning: during what period of time? In this case when? can be used with the present perfect. Also, the addition of ever often helps to suggest the durative meaning of when.
When (=During what periods in our lives) have we (ever) gone on a shopping spree? (Never. We're always broke!)
But if I want to know in what situation(s) she has called, for example, when she has been bored and had no one to talk to, I can ask When has she called? True, we often add an adverb like usually or typically: When has she usually called? but it's not absolutely required. I don't doubt that with imagination the sentence can be successfully contextualized without the adverb.

Thanks for coming back with another clear answer.

Yes, my question was concisely answered by your second presentation of "when" usage; during what period of time? I am glad to hear that "when ... ?" can be used with the present perfect.

Your example "When has she usually called?" served its purpose well. If a guy complain that his girl friend does not call him like she used to, I would ask this question. Because I am not interested in a specific date she called but frequency and/or timing of her call. Then I can clearly tell him, "you are being dumped, my friend, I am sorry."

Thanks for your input.

Re: transitive or intransitive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:30:57 GMT

Anonymous

Here, "is vanished", are we taking it as an intransitive?

If yes, then, are all intransitives be able to form present perfect sentences?

I'm not an expert on grammar or linguistics, but here are my thoughts as an ordinary native user of English. I hope I got all the grammatical terminology correct!

I think that all verbs -- transitive or intransitive -- are able to form present perfect sentences: "He has died", "It has vanished", "They've eaten all the pies". At least, I can't think of any verbs that can't, or any reason why they should exist.

"Is" (or, analogously, "are", "was" or "were") followed by the past participle of a transitive verb can range from a pure passive use ("I'd be astonished if that record is broken by an American") to an adjectival use ("This watch is broken."). In the latter case, the idea that the watch has been broken by something or someone, though in theory implied by the word "broken", is weak or non-existent, and "broken" behaves as an adjective that just describes the present state of the watch (just like "The watch is heavy"). Moreover it can be placed before the noun: "A broken watch".

"Is" followed by the past participle of an intransitive verb can't form an passive sentence in the usual sense: "He is/was died by a heart attack" is wrong. So, if the sentence "The watch is vanished" is interpreted as an ordinary passive then it must be the case that "vanished" is used transitively. (There is, however, something called the "impersonal passive". The usual examples are things like "it is believed", where we are not saying that the thing believed is "it" (ordinary passive), but just that there is a general sense of people believing. I'm not very clear if and how "is vanished" might fit this sense.)

The remaining possibility is that the past participles of intransitive verbs (such as, perhaps, "vanish") can, by analogy with the adjectival use of transitive past participles, be used adjectivally -- even though the "background" meaning that I mentioned earlier can't exist even in theory. Let's look at some examples. "It is existed" and "It is behaved" are completely wrong. "He is died" is not quite completely wrong but could (to me) only be used in certain special situations, such as jokey use or attempts at recreating or preserving archaic language. In most contexts it would sound unnatural. Are there any intransitive past participles that are natural adjectives in everyday language? One candidate that comes to mind is "fallen", in the sense of "fallen from a state of respectability". For example, "a fallen woman" is perfectly good English to me (though "she is fallen" still has a slight sense to me that it is an archaic form of "she has fallen").

Re: tense - why wrong?

CalifJim — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:41:04 GMT

Anonymous
How about this: "The World Court today threw out the conviction of a minor and ordered his immediate release. The High Court had on July 1, 2003, found the boy, then aged 12, guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002"

Perfectly grammatical. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, the past perfect is the tense for cases when the events are not being told in the order in which they occurred.

Actual order of events: The High Court found the boy guilty. (Later,) the World Court threw out the conviction.

Told in reverse order:

The World Court today threw out the conviction of a 12-year-old boy. The High Court had found the boy guilty on July 1, 2003.

That the exact date is mentioned in the same clause as the past perfect tense is irrelevant. It's "before today". That's all that counts.

The restriction to cases where an exact time is not mentioned applies to the present perfect, not to the past perfect. For example, the following is incorrect:

*The High Court has found the boy guilty on July 1, 2003.

Re: Reported Speech

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:47 GMT

Hello. Sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable with this type of activity. But you're not alone: I would be, too!

The sentences lack context, which makes it difficult to tell when tense changes are necessary and when they are not (among other things).

There is one sentence that is wrong without a doubt: # 7. The sentence in direct speech uses the present continuous, and the reporting verb (added) is in the past tense, so it really makes no sense to use a construction with "will" to report that statement. You should either keep the same tense (present continuous) or change to past continuous. Sentence #6 has a similar mistake. The decision, however, is sometimes difficult to make since I have no idea when the original statements were made, when they are/were reported, and, also important, whether what was said still applies at the time of reporting or it doesn't.

The rest of the sentences seem OK in general, except for a few details, such as dates and time references, and person changes. For example, in # 8 you retain "a year ago" instead of changing it to some other expression like "the year before" or "the previous year". Again, though, that would depend on several variables, the moment of reporting among them. Also, in #10 you changed "our customers" to "his customers" (why not "their" customers?).

And you're not consistent with verb changes. In # 1, you shifted from the present perfect to the past perfect. But then, in other sentences, such as # 2, you retained the tense from the sentence in direct speech.

I know this isn't much help, but it will -hopefully- point you in the direction of your mistakes and/or inconsistencies.

When we're taught indirect speech, we're told to remember the "golden rule": change verb tenses. But the truth is that it always depends on the context and the content itself, on the people speaking and the time of speaking.

Give these sentences another try, please, and let's see what happens?

Miriam