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

Re: tense - why wrong?

Kooyeen — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:56:46 GMT

Applicant: Hello. I'm here for that job for which you need a technician. My grammar is good. For example, I never end a sentence with a preposition. *smile*
Employer: Oh, that don't matter. *smile* We gotta do some stuff with computers, websites, y'know, crap like that. *light a cigar* *cough* Really, that ain't no problem... *smile*

Anyway, the rule "no past perfect with a specific point in time" doesn't exist in any ESL book. The rule you usually find is actually "no present perfect with a specific point in time". Nothing is said about the past perfect, which is perfectly ok even when we want to refer to very specific points in time. Sometimes it's even necessary:

I was so shocked. I had just checked it a few seconds before, and it was there. Then I turned my head and it was gone. There's a ghost there, trust me.
If I'm not mistaken, you can't use a simple past there, and say "I just checked". I guess it's because of that "just". Right?

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: several grammar questions (2)

Avangi — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:45:23 GMT

Hela wrote:

Dear teachers,

1) How would you qualify this time of genitive, please? Which "title" would you give it? Is it some sort of "human activities"? but I don't really like this.

love's spirit, science's influence, my life's aim, duty's call . wow! I remember genitive as a Latin case 60 years ago. What do you mean by "time"? Your examples are all possessive. Joe's dog= the dog of Joe. Love's spirit=the spirit of love.   What am I missing?

2) Which tenses would you use in the following sentences and why?

a) Weather conditions have improved/improved (?) during the the last few days. Present perfect means the action has been [recently] completed. Simple past would mean it happened at some time in the past. The use of "during" means it was a continuing process. "Last few days" means it continued up to the present, at which time it was completed.(Present Perfect)

- Is it possible to say "the weather conditions" or is it definitely wrong? yes

- can we say "during the last days" = without "few"? yes, but it sometimes means the last days of the universe.

b)There has been / was (?) a real fall (?) in that town's population over/during (?) the last decade.Same tense situation as example 2.  Something happened over an extended period which just ended. "Over" and "during" both work, in my humble opinion.

c)He ~~should~~ showed/assured ??? him that he doesn't have the time / time (?) to pick up the children from/at (?) school. I say both choices are acceptable in both your red group and your black group.

Woops! where did the colors go?

- Would you please tell me if the article here is obligatory and why? Why not? the time=the time required / time=any time   Both work.

- which preposition should be used? are both possible? ANSWERED

3) âDid you do both maths exercises? The first was easier than the second.â âThat's right, the first was the easier of the two.â

- Is the "M" of math capitalized ? + should we say "math" or "maths" (with âsâ = Br. Eng ; without Â« s Â» = Am. Eng ?) Math would be capitalized if you said, "I just signed up for Math." I doubt "maths" would be used in this context in either domain, but I could be wrong.

- Would you please tell me when one should use âbothâ and âthe twoâ? Is it wrong to say âdid you do the two maths exercises...â and âthe first was the easier of bothâ ? Both choices work in the first example but only "the two" works in the second.

4) My mother left on her holiday/vacation (correct?)/ went on holiday(~~s?)~~/vacation a few weeks ago.

5) I have to pick her up at/from (?) the airport on her return / when she arrives (correct?).I think these are all okay. "From" would be questioned by some.

Many thanks,   Man, I needa break!

Hela

Re: 'in' or 'for'

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:06:10 GMT

Well, I didn't ask about all prepositions. I just wanted to know what was the difference between 'in' and 'for' using present perfect. You gave me really easy examples on using 'at' (11:41) and 'in' (1966) but that was basics. I still don't know if I can use 'in' and 'for' alternatively. I mean, I heard a phrase like "I haven't seen her in years". I guess I could say "I haven't seen her for years" with no change in meaning at all. Am I right?

Re: 'in' or 'for'

Avangi — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:45:55 GMT

I'm afraid sympathy is about all I have to offer. The problem isn't restricted to the present perfect. I've spent a lifetime learning which prepositions go with which other words on a case by case basis. My brief experience on this site has taught me how difficult it is to generalize about prepositions.

For example, you can reverse the prepositions in your two examples with no change in meaning. (I haven't seen her for a while. I haven't seen her in weeks.) Both are commonly used.

In other examples there might be a slight change in meaning. In still others, the switch would not be allowed, although logically you'd say it should. My feelings are the same as yours. My feelings are similar to yours. My feelings are the same to yours. My feelings are similar as yours. (The last pair would not be allowed.)

I think you just have to learn the applicatations one by one. Perhaps someone on the team can give you better advice.

- A.

Edit. (just saw GG's post) If you swap in and for in her last two examples, "I'll go away for a while" is a very common expression with a new meaning. "I'll be away in a while" is logically possible, but unheard of.

'in' or 'for'

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:00:29 GMT

Hi, I've this problem with prepositions used in present perfect. When do we use 'in' and 'for'? For example I can say "I haven't seen her in a while" but I can also say "I haven't seen her for weeks". Or maybe I'm wrong? What's the rule for these prepositions? Thanks

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: Prepositions! I hate 'em...

Kooyeen — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:42:44 GMT

CalifJim wrote:

I hate prepositions.
That's so sad, because they speak so highly of you.

LOL, what do you mean? Prepositions speak highly of me? Well, they sometimes/often give me trouble, but not very often, I have to say. So I don't really hate prepositions, after all. At least not as much as I hate the present perfect continuous! I guess that's my worst nightmare...

@Marius: yeah, maybe sometimes the general context could influence the choice. Anyway, Google results give you no context (unless you check 'em all), and by the way we all know that Google can't count at all, so those numbers don't tell us anything.

Anyway, thanks a lot.

Re: Check my mistakes,please

CalifJim — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:23:47 GMT

<<Do we have to use the definite article "the" for each tense or not? >>
To be very strict about it, yes, but we frequently write telegraphically and leave out the the, especially on this site, where we use the names of the tenses so often.

<<1.In the use of the Present Simple. I would use the here, yes.
2.The Present Perfect Tense or Present Perfect Tense. Either, as explained above.
3.Translate the following sentences into the Past Unreal Conditional. With the is better.
4.Complete the sentences using Past Simple or the Past Simple. Either. >>

Adding the the sounds better when the tense name comes after a preposition.
_____________

<<Check the following sentences,please:
   A: Why didn't you prepare anything yesterday? OK.
   B: Because I didn't know they ~~will~~ would come. (Sequence of tenses. did - would)
       If I had known that they would come, I would have prepared everything. OK.
    - If they had told me they would come, I would have prepared everything. OK.
>>

<<1. This program is on the air ~~everyday~~ every day except on Sundays.>>

<<Which one is correct?
1. Why ~~I couldn't~~ get in touch with you yesterday?
2. Why couldn't I get in touch with you yesterday? >>

Only the second. You have to invert subject and verb for a question unless the subject is being questioned.(Which came first? or Who did that?)
____________

In the future it would be more convenient if you made separate posts for each of your questions instead of putting so many different ones all in one post.

CJ