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

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Hoa Thai — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:07:52 GMT

Dear all,

For whatever its worth â Here is my opinion as I promised to deliver:

The issue we have been dealing with here boils down to one question â âIn one sentence, grammatically and semantically, could we use both simple past and present perfect for one item?â

Evidently, the example from BBCâs Teaching English site, âThink about a film you have seen recently, what was it called?â, affirmatively answers that question. The non-definitive âa filmâ associates well with the present perfect âhave seenâ; and it is all right to use âwasâ to pin down an instance in the past once our mind fixes on the selected item (i.e., simple past).

Since the above sentence is okay, then we can deduct that âthe verb see or whatever it isâ and the âfilmâ do not contribute to the confusion of our mind. Thus, in the sentence âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â, the culprit must be the superlative âthe lastâ!

When we use the superlative âthe â¦â , it does not matter what adjective we attach to it - be it âlastâ, âbestâ, âworstâ, âthe most..â, etcâ¦ we ask our mind to lock on to a moment in time (i.e., simple past). If we follow immediately with a present perfect tense, our minds would usually cry foul! - Why usually but not always?

Apparently, millions of hits from a simple Google search prove that some minds do accept such ungrammatical construct without any reservation. As an example, âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â could be seen in many forumsâ questions, blogs, and at Yahooâs Answer site.

If we accept that the word âeverâ , which could mean âat any timeâ per American Heritage dictionary, could we then see the stressing intention of the minds when they detect a possible time conflict and insert that word between âhaveâ and âbeenâ while âamong all the moviesâ becomes ellipsis (as an after thought)? This is what I think they mean to say: âWhat was the best movie among all the movies you have ever seen?â

From the naturalness point of view, people donât pause to think much about grammar, if âthe bestâ is okay then âthe lastâ seems to pose no problem - although the later clearly shows its time-biased nature. However, that naturalness - albeit seemingly ungrammatical - must have been ever permitted unless we find an opportunity to re-validate its correctness. Once we realize that it might cause confusion, we find a different way to clarify / say it and hold on to the refinement. Thus, when the rejected construct is heard / seen again, we raise the flag.

Having thought about this for the last few days, I now tell myself that:

1. The rule that raises the validity (or rather invalidity) of the marriage between simple past and present perfect in one sentence for one item must be re-examined, augmented, and complemented for specific cases. Its generalization fails to include sensible sentences.

2. Sentences that use superlative âthe â¦â in this type of construct must not be over-elliptical. (Isnât that true with every sentence?)

Thank you all,
Hoa Thai

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Goodman — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:13:52 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Hi Hoa Thai,

Let me be the brave one in the attempt to tackle this long thread, if no one already posts a reply by the time I am done with writing You obviously have a high degree of the English language and I can comfortably say most will agree. But you seem to have been bothered by what had been said in the previous posts about the mixed usage of simple past and present perfect. The problem to me really has more to do with one's logic and persepctive, rather than his grammatical knowledge, and you seems to be stuck at the sentence which you posted 2 days ago. "What was the last movie you have seen?â can not be a viably grammatical sentence no matter how we dress it. The rules I learned told me that simple past and present perfect just can't be married and expected to sound happily together. Consider this sentence "when was the last time you have talked to your ex-husband?". Do you agree or not agree that this is not a sound sentence? If you say "I haven't talked my your ex-husband after the devorce but I e-mailed him", then the conjunction [but] will validate the use of mixed tenses. But they can not exist in the same frame of sentence sturcture.

Your questions:

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â I don't think so, "what" usually requires a defined answer and "among" offers alternatives in my opinion. If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation? "Ever" in this context does not sound right. "Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective as in "What was / is the most scary/ borning/ bloody movie [that] you have ever seen?" Because we are associating movies by their names which do not change even as time passed, we can use either past or present [was/ is] to refer to the movies with resepct to the rest of the context in present perfect.

By the same token, we often hear people say soemthing like: "what was the lady's name we have just met?" which is fine either with [was / is] becasue "was" paints a picture of the time she was introduced to you, and "is" paints a picture of her face with her name in general.

Other than that, I really don't know how to break it down further.

And regarding â recentlyââ¦

Itâs not a proprietary word to mean present perfect, if there is any hint / notion that this is the case, itâs not true.

"I recently took a business trip to Washington DC". Simple past with no defined time. âRecentlyâ here defined it only as short time ago.âOk

inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Hoa Thai — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:07:10 GMT

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Yankee — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:45:51 GMT

Hi Hela

First of all, the most common verb tense to use with since (temporal) is the present perfect (or present perfect continuous). This is a well-known rule and also works most of the time. However, ruling out all other verb tenses completely would be a mistake.

The four sentences you've now added are also fine.

As I see it, in 1) you are describing a perceived permanent change in state (appearance) -- a fact as it is peceived now. Using 'since' simply gives you a reference point for the time when this permanent change in state took place. Sentences 3 and 4 are similar.

There are some common usages of 'since' where the present perfect would not be used:
My kids think that the cell phone is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Since when do you have the right to tell me what to do?

In your sentence 'She no longer visits since she got married', you would lose some of the meaning if you used the present perfect (i.e. the sense of a regular, repeated past activity -- a past habit -- would be lost):

She hasn't visited since she got married. --> This sentence simply states that there has not been one visit since her marriage. There is no indication of a change in habitual activity and a 'new habitual state'.

Again, I agree that the present perfect and the present perfect continuous are the most frequent partners with the temporal 'since', but exceptions do exist and I think you've done a good job sensing where those exceptions might come into play.

Re: Answers in a questionnaire

Goodman — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:43:49 GMT

Pastsimple wrote:
Hi,

one of the questions you can often find in a questionnaire is "What is your greatest achievement?" People use different grammar structures/tenses etc. when they're answering, e.g.:

gerund: losing weight / surviving a tough childhood / etc...

present perfect: (that) I've lost weight / (that) I've...

past simple: I was accepted as a student at ... / I was accepted as...

Could you please answer the following questions?

1. Does the last example imply that the person's days at university are over? I'd say so.

2. Would you write "I survived a tough childhood" or "I've survived a tough childhood"? I'd go for the former. (To me "I survived a tough childhood" is just a fact about the past (i.e. I survived and it's over) whereas "I've survived a tough childhood", if correct, means "Look, I'm here and I'm alive" to me in the context of this questionnaire)

3. Would "I lost weight" sound odd? I'd say so - to me, it implies that the person has put on weight again. Therefore, losing weight couldn't be considered an achievement here.
(note on 2 and 3: if you lose weight, you can put it on again BUT when you survive your childhood, you can't "unsurvive" it - i.e. die in your childhood)

4. What about "being accepted as a student at..."? Sounds completely OK to me.

5. If you were still studying at that university, would you always use the present perfect version - "I've been accepted"? Would the past simple be possible at all here in this case? To be honest, it doesn't sound that bad to me.

6. What would be your general guidelines as to when to use the gerund / past simple / present perfect in the answer? I'd say:
a. gerund - universal
b. past perfect - in achievements like losing weight , i.e. the achievement may not be permament, it's still valid
c. past simple - all except b.

I'm not sure how the "accepted as a student" example would fit in, though.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I've just reread my post. How come the "be" precedes the subject in my question (#6)? I'm quite sure it's OK that way.

By the way, I've heard people say:

"What would/will be the result if.... ?" and "What would/will the result be if...?"

It's indeed a strange thing this position of "be" in questions with the future simple / present perfect simple / conditional....

gerund: losing weight could be a great achievement for someone weighing a quarter of a tone!

present perfect: I've lost a little weight lately. This implies he is not as heavy as before. Perfect tense is fine.

past simple: I was accepted as a student at UCLA before I graduated high school. âok to me.

Could you please answer the following questions?

1. Does the last example imply that the person's days at university are over? I'd say so.

I disagree. Consider this: what if the person was making this statement while he is in his second year of college? To determine the right answer to your question, it would have to depend on the full context.

2. Would you write "I survived a tough childhood" or "I've survived a tough childhood"?

I survived / suffered a tough childhood. This implied you are now an adult. Childhood is over. Unless you have additional events tied to your childhood. i.e. I had survived / suffered a tough childhood between my parentsâ devoice and remarriage.

3. Would "I lost weight" sound odd? I'd say so - to me, it implies that the person has put on weight again. Not necessarily true. Consider this: Mary started a dietary and exercise program 3 months ago. Yesterday, she weighed and found herself 25 pounds lighter. She could say â I lost weigh!â. Thatâs why we canât determine the right answer with a one-liner.

4. What about "being accepted as a student at..."? Sounds completely OK to me.

Ok to me tooâ¦

5. If you were still studying at that university, would you always use the present perfect version - "I've been accepted"? Would the past simple be possible at all here in this case? To be honest, it doesn't sound that bad to me. " src="/emoticons/emotion-5.gif">

If you are still in high school and you are telling your friend that you have been accepted by UCLA, itâs perfectly fine. In fact, past simple wonât work well in this case.

6. What would be your general guidelines as to when to use the gerund / past simple / present perfect in the answer? I'd say:
a. gerund - universal
b. past perfect - in achievements like losing weight , i.e. the achievement may not be permament, it's still valid
c. past simple - all except b.

Itâs not a simple answer. You have to put the gerund or questions about the tense in context with the sentence. Itâs not possible to give you a guideline. Itâs too vague.

Re: "Since" with present tense??

Yoong Liat — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:13:43 GMT

Geniseta wrote:

Hello,

"She doesn't come to see us since her marriage."

What I think: The use of the present tense here is absolutely incorrect. We should say: "She hasn't come to see us since her marriage." Or at least: "She doesnât come to see us now that she is married".

But some persons argued that we CAN use the present tense, meaning she didnât come anymore to see us after her marriage, she changed her habits...

What do you think, please? So as to make things clear once and for all.

Thanks a lot.

I agree with you. The word 'since' should be used with a verb in the present perfect tense because it refers to the fact that her not coming to see us started since her marriage and has not ended.

She doesnât come to see us now that she is married. I also agree this is correct English.

Antonia: patch up

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:25:55 GMT

hello!

Is everything OK here? What about the present perfect tense?

Unhappily married women suffer from prejudice that they can patch their marriage up like they would a scratch on their elbow after they have fallen from their bicycle.

Thank you

Re: I have vs I have been

paco2004 — Wed, 04 May 2005 13:36:07 GMT

Hello Roro

As you know I'm an English learner and I myself am not so confident about between the simple tense and the progressive tense. So please use the following as something like junk food for your thought until native speakers give you more decisive answers.

Q.1)
I think you should change the tense of at least the second main clause into the past perfect. The revised version could be either;
[1]. "We have been married for three years, and had been very happy until I had some trouble with some very nasty loan-sharks about a month ago."
This one obligatorily implies you are still married. The duration you are married is 36 months and that you were happy was 35 months.

[2]. "We had been married and very happy for three years until I had some trouble with some very nasty loan-sharks about a month ago."
This one does not state anything about whether you are still married or not. What it is saying is only that you got married 37 months ago and you had enjoyed a happy marriage for 36 months before the troble started.

Q. 2) I would rather say ;
"My husband is sleeping. He has worked for all day long".
To me, sounds

Q.3).
"We have lived in Moscow for three years now."
As is a stative verb, you don't need to use a present perfect progressive tense unless you want to emphasize that you will live in Moscow furthermore.

Q 4).
"We lived in Moscow for three years before."
The word "before" indicates the event finished in the past. So in this case you don't need to use the past perfective sentence. But if you say "We had lived in Moscow for three years before we moved here", you'd better use .

This is my humble thought. Please wait until Ms Khoff or other native speakers come to give you better ansers.

paco