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

Re: use of wish

Huevos — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:54:15 GMT

CalifJim
The verb wish has a special grammar.

In BrE that is just the standard way to express a negative in the past. If it were a negative in the present we would use present perfect: I haven't been to see that film, but because what we are talking about is in the past we switch to past perfect. Maybe AmE is different.

chossing correct tense/tense consistency

MaxMaximus — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:08:59 GMT

Greetings,

I have a pretty big favour to ask.

I've been struggling with this topic for quite awhile now.It goes without saying that my English "leaves something to be desired".

Having in mind the subtle differences that occur from using particular tenses, I have often wondered how the authors of following exercises expect anyone to choose the correct form, without providing sound and unambiguous references.

I've uploaded 2 exercises that I stumbled upon :

1. http://rapidshare.com/files/138835945/HP.txt.html
and
2.http://rapidshare.com/files/138835946/redundancy.txt.html

I have converted them into .txt files to ease moderators' job.

They present the essence of my inability to comprehend and do right.

First text:
1. First sentence, adverb "always" stands before the verb (author did not bother to put it in the brackets (always/be)). If she is dead (we don't know that until we have finished reading) or if she is not "a fighter" anymore (we are clueless about that either), - we could use Past Simple. Of course, Present Perfect is more likely choice, but the position of adverb puzzles.

2."But, prior to..." - Past Continuous or Past Perfect?

3.The sentence : "it (be)__ slow to notice..".I'm not sure whether Past Simple or Past Perfect should be used here.There is no strong reference whether this "slow noticing" occurred prior to her arrival or about the time when she came on board.

4."Those three years are not over..". The starting point is present time, but, that has nothing to do with the moment when she realized how things stand, which I know nothing about.Even the Present Simple is possible if she keeps realizing everyday that things are harder than she expected.For the rest of the paragraph I'm not certain whether Present Perfect should be used.

5."Above all,.." - from Present Simple (finds, is trying, is going to embark)...to Present Perfect (has found, has tried/has been trying, has embarked)...The tenses chosen in these sentences determine the tenses of the last paragraph in the text.

Second text:
1. First sentence: we could use Future Simple as well as Present Simple for the verb "have to"?

2. "Although no business or industry..". If there was a recent survey - do interviewed subjects still claim what they have said - or the use of Past Tense is obligatory? The word "any" is used in interrogative or negative sentences - but here, no question is being asked nor it is possible to be negative. Instead, "some" should have been used, I think.

3. "Those who have..." - Present Continuous or Present Simple? Former is more likely choice although the latter is possible also.

4. "In the past.." - as far as I know this presents the "indefinite moment in time". The Present Perfect could be used - but the position of adverb "always" confuses, again.

I would be more than grateful to anyone who can shed some light on these issues.
If I could reach to any other decent credible source I wouldn't ask for help in this way.

Thanks in advance,
Georgie.

Can we mix the present perfect and the simple past?

YSchneider — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:39:10 GMT

Iâd like to know if we can mix the present perfect and the simple past and if itâs natural.

I noticed that the present simple itâs often used for sentences with already.

I already finished it! But not for it negative opposite I havenât finished it yet!

I think for questions both are common Did you finish it yet? Or Have you finished it yet?

So when I answer to Did you finished it yet? Can I say No I havenât finished it yet!

And the other way around can I answer I already finished to the question Have you finished it

yet?

Did I tell you that Iâll get promoted? â No, you havenât told me yet â Is this possible?

Did you eat yet? â No, I havenât eaten yet â possible?

(by the way Iâm just talking about US usage)

Re: Present perfect/simple past in since clause

Mr Wordy — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:43:01 GMT

Marius Hancu
The reason is that the use of the present perfect in English, in one
form or another, always indicates a connection with a present time.

I understand this objection, and I have a theory about this.

Originally (perhaps a hundred or two years ago), I speculate that, for example, "It's a long time since he's lived there", really would have meant "He's lived there for a long time", with the perfect tense indicating, as you say, a connection with the present. However, in modern usage it's impossible for "since" + "long time" to mean "for a long time", so that meaning is unavailable. Therefore, at some stage the meaning shifted to (almost the same as) "It's a long time since he lived there". Those people who find "It's a long time since he's lived there" unsatisfactory have not assimilated this change of meaning (and I don't in any way mean that in a negative or critical sense), and they are caught in the situation where neither the original meaning nor the everyday modern meaning works for them.

Re: Which sentence is correct?

Dawnstorm — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:18:42 GMT

Hi.

For the record, I agree with Clive, but I'd like to try a different analysis, just for the fun of it:

"With(out) Compaq, staying home has never been this fun."

Core sentence:

Staying home has never been this fun.

Look at two components and how they relate to the moment of speaking:

a) "has never been": present perfect. Something's in the past, but still - somehow - relevant to the present.

b) "this": Refers to the moment of speaking.

a+b) implies a disjunction between "tense" and "exophoric term 'this'" (exophoric = refering beyond the text to the real world; i.e. John? I know him. "him = endophoric." // While pointing at John: I know him. - "him" = exophoric): The "this" in "this fun" refers to the present; the "has never been" is in past, but it's being compared to present via the phrase "this fun".

Now add the condition:

"With(out) Compaq":

Do you align the phrase with the "this fun" part or with the "has never been" part?

Here, my intuition goes along with Clive:

"Without Compaq, staying at home has never been this fun," would instinctively make me align "Without Compaq" with "has never been". But I can kind of see how the newspaper editor comes up with "With Compaq," even though I don't think many people would have this as a first reaction, and it's really an editing artefact. All we have to do is find a way to align "with Compaq" with this. Let's try a change of punctuation:

"With Compaq! Staying at home has never been this fun."

Now, "with Compaq" on its own doesn't make much sense, but can somehow see it as short for something meaning "I'm at home with compaq now!" Again, I don't think that's a very natural interpretation (but people could prove me wrong). But if that's how the editor sees the sentence, then "With Compaq" would be aligned with "this", and the "this" would change from an "exophoric term" (referring to the situation) to an "endophoric term" (referring to the text); "this" would refer back to "(I'm at home) With Compaq!"

The interpretation of the whole sentence changes.

I would argue that this is a very unusual interpretation; but it could explain what the editor was thinking. (Still, the editing artefact caused by a confion about double negatives is probably more likely.)

Re: questions about logical sequence of the meanings of verb tenses

eagleflych — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:44:39 GMT

Hi,
I am afraid I didn't understand exactly what you wanted. Hopefully someone else will be able to understand and help you a little more. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a few opinions:

I have bought a book for a year. <-- No, this is not good, as you said.
You could say:
I have lived here for a couple of years.
I have bought five books in the past few months.

I have not bought any books for a year. <-- I think this is acceptable, but I suspect "for" is less common in negative sentences like that, and native speakers tend to use "in" instead:
I have not bought any books in a year.

That's my opinion.

Hi, Kooyeen:

Thank your for your reply.

My meaning is:

In the sentence of "I have not bought any books for a year" , the meaning of the Present Perfect tense is "to continue".

And there are two possible logic sequences relating to the arrangement of the meanings of all parts of the sentence.

1.the first logic sequence:

"the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to continue not buying any books for a year."

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "buying any books".

And "buying any book " is "buy any books". This is the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

2. the second logic sequence:

"not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year".

The logic sequence means "to negate the continuing of buying any books for a year"

In the logic sequence, "not" negates "the continuing of buying any book ".

And "the continuing of buying any book " is "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books". This is not the original meaning of the main verb "buy".

Well then, which logic sequence is right?

Is the logic sequence ("the meaning of the Present Perfect Tense"( namely, to continue ) + "not" + "buy any books" + "for a year".) right?

Or is the logic sequence("not" + "the meaning of the Present Perfect"( namely, to continue ) + "buy any books" + "for a year". ) right?

I think the first logic sequence is right, but I am not sure.

Through study of the Present Perfect Tense, I guess in all negative forms of all verb tenses, the objects modified by negations are always the original meanings of main verbs, not---"the meanings of verb tenses" + "the original meanings of main verbs"

questions about logical sequence of the meanings of verb tenses

eagleflych — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:46:30 GMT

Hi, everybody:

I have an idea about "the logical sequence of the meanings of all verb tenses" and I am not sure that I am right. Please help me.

I think:

In the negative forms of all verb tenses, the objects modified by the negative meanings are the original meanings of main verbs and the meanings of following words.

Afterward, the objects modified by the affirmative meanings of the verb tenses are the negative meanings, the original meanings of main verbs and the meanings of following words.

We can use the sequence formula to explain the negative forms of all verb tenses:

"the affirmative meanings of the verb tenses"---"the negative meanings" ---"the original meanings of main verbs and the meanings of following words"

For example, please watch the two sentences below:

I have bought a book for a year.

(In the sentence, the logical sequence is "the affirmative meaning of the verb tense"---"the original meanings of main verbs and the meanings of following words", namely, "the continuing"---"buying a book for a year". The sentence is wrong, because the action of "buying a book" can't continue for a year.)

I have not bought any books for a year.

(In the sentence, the logical sequence is "the affirmative meaning of the verb tenses"---"the negative meanings" ---"the original meanings of main verbs and the meanings of following words", namely, "the continuing"---"the negative meaning of 'not' "---"buying any books for a year". The sentence is right, because the state of "not buying any books" can continue for a year.)

Are my thoughts above right?

If the grammar rules that I said above are right, are the rules applicable to other verb tenses?

For example in the sentence of "She is not reading the book right now.", does the negative form of The Present Continuous tense have the same logical sequence as The Present Perfect Tense?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Re: Can I say it like these

Avangi — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:46:53 GMT

Anyway, I'm not going to write all those examples again, but the gist of it is that in the affirmative, you can explain a difference between present continuous and present perfect, but in the negative, when something doesn't happen, it doesn't make much difference if it doesn't happen continuously or if it hasn't happened at all.

The infinitive, to say, works with "do" for questions and other tenses. "What did they say about her?" "They did say bad things about her." "That person does say bad things about her."

"I / we / you / they say bad things about her all the time," is simple present. Unfortunately, third person singular switches to "says."

Re: adjective or part of a passive

CalifJim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:26:44 GMT

Believer
I have difficulty distinguishing between situations where a participle is used but ambiguous as to whether it is acting as an adjective or part of a passive. Do you have some guideline I can go by?

One wonders whether anything about your ability to use English in either its spoken or written form hinges on the ability to make such distinctions. Recognize that some cases are inherently ambiguous.

Nevertheless there are some guidelines if you wish to 'get into the weeds' of the various types of passive.

Believer
... things get confused when and where the 'by' seems to be almost impossible ... [as in] this case:
The work is finished.

Yes. I think I understand what you are getting at -- although for non-native speakers some of the guidelines may appear to be circular in nature.

According to Palmer (The English Verb), besides the plain vanilla 'passive' with an agent introduced by by (The man was killed by his wife.), which we may call the 'true passive', and the passive without an agent, or 'agentless passive' (The man was killed.), also a 'true passive', there are three other categories of passive -- the pseudo-passive, the semi-passive, and the statal passive. None of these three is a 'true passive'.

To understand the three types of 'false passive' (if you'd like to call them that!), it is first necessary to understand the tests for being an adjective, as enumerated by Palmer. These tests are as follows. An adjective generally can be used before a noun, after a linking verb, with the adverbs very, rather, more, or most, (sometimes with already), and coordinated with another adjective with and. Not all of these are possible for every adjective, but they are generally possible for most adjectives. The following examples show, with these tests, how finished is an adjective.

a finished product (use before a noun)

The work is finished. (use after a linking verb)

*very finished (not really possible, since finished is not gradable)

already finished (use with already)

It is finished and ready. (with and and another adjective)

________

Now for the categories.

The pseudo-passive has no corresponding active form and the past participle is completely adjectival.

The room seems very crowded. (Note the linking verb and very.)

The problem is complicated. (You could say very complicated or rather complicated. You could say difficult and complicated. You could say a complicated problem. These tests show that complicated is an adjective here.)

The semi-passive may appear to have a corresponding active form but is adjectival. Optionally, it may introduce the apparent agent with a preposition other than by, e.g., with or in. It may relate to emotional conditions. It may have negative forms with un-.

Jake was shocked by her behavior.

Roberta was worried about the exam.

Everyone was satisfied with the results.

We were quite uninterested in the presentation.

The statal passive is adjectival. The simple tense is very similar in meaning to the corresponding perfect tense, which (at least approximately) represents the corresponding agentless passive. Some examples can occur with already.

The glass is broken. (The glass has been broken.)

They were married for many years. ( They had been married for many years. Note married and happy, married couple, already married, unmarried -- signs of being an adjective.)

The exams are finished. (See the adjective tests for finished above.)

None of the three types discussed above are 'true passives'. It is often difficult to place a given usage exactly in one of the categories, so in spite of these guidelines, there are still ambiguous cases. Even some of the examples given above might be placed in a different category. Only context can resolve them.

Re: already + negatives

Kooyeen — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:49:29 GMT

This is a thread to exploit! I am interested in "already" too.

Grammar Geek
In the company example, that's present, not present perfect. Already is common with negative present. If you don't already have your books open to page 3, please do that now. If you don't already have your seatbelt on, please fasten it so we can get going.

Hi Barb,
I've always wondered if I could use "already" in negative sentences like those. I don't know why, I think I end up using "already" and in negative structures quite often. I always feel that "yet" conveys the idea that something is expected, so whenever my mind doesn't immediately feel that expectedness, I end up using "already" to refer to the past.

I bought you a DVD. Do you have it already? I hope you don't have it already!
We are going to watch Scary Movie 3. Have you already seen it? I hope you haven't seen it already!

In the above examples "yet" is what general rules suggest (in interrogatives and negatives), but if I try to use it there, I feel like there's something expected I don't want to imply (sounds like you are expected to buy or watch a certain movie sooner or later).
That's what makes me use "already"... What do you think? Thanks.