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

Re: Quoted from Practical English Usage, 2nd edition

Wampum — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:30:51 GMT

Native speakers studiously avoid using the present perfect with adjuncts denoting past time because one of the main purposes of the present perfect is to highlight a past action, to make a past action seem important. That's why it is seldom done.

But it is not a complete impossibility. It does happen.

Re: I have eaten lunch/ direct translation

just the trout — Sat, 14 May 2005 05:12:50 GMT

None of us has to be an authority to cite commonly known things about public figures. Comments like that aren't targeted against the other party in the argument.

Comments like that should, one, have a degree of truthfulness to them. I'm not aware of any "commonly known things" that would lead one to suggest Mr Blair's speech is anything but normal. And two, what's raised should have something to do with the issue at hand. Mr Pedantic targeted the argument and sought to derail it.

Did everyone miss Mr Pedantic's sleight of hand?

The net result, after all the song and dance, is that sometimes, not often, the present perfect is used with past time adjuncts BUT learners should avoid these and treat them as part of their passive language, ie. they should be aware of its existence but refrain from using it until they are competent.

Re: I have eaten lunch/ direct translation

just the trout — Sat, 14 May 2005 04:24:51 GMT

I would take the 'last year' here as an afterthought, that clarifies 'already':

1. I've already discussed that (last year).

Ergo, the collocation sometimes exists. What both Swan and the CGEL are pointing up is how prescriptive grammars and prescriptive grammarians, largely through their own ignorance, have misled students. The structure can be and is used as an afterthought but it doesn't neccessarily have to be so.

CAVEAT REPEATED:

Swan - "In fact, such structures are unusual but not impossible (though learners should avoid them). "

JTT - "ENLs NORMALLY, ALMOST NEVER use the present perfect with past time adjuncts."

The CGEL example would be more natural if expanded:

2. He has got up at five o'clock for the last 20 years.
2a. He's been getting up at five o'clock for the last 20 years.

Of course, that follows Mr Pedantic, because what we have here is a very uncommon collocation. Even a simple experential perfect shows it's possible.

A: Has he ever got up at five o'clock?

B: Yes, he's got up at five o'clock.

In the 2nd CGEL example, there seems to be a conflict between the adverbs, unless we treat the 2nd as a clarification:

3. We've already discussed this â yesterday.

In the initial example from the CGEL and in the Blair example, the CGEL states;

"In {the example} the 'already' indicates that I'm concerned with the occurrence of the situation of our discussing it within a time-span up to now and cancels the normally excluding effect of 'yesterday' ... "

Re: I have eaten lunch/ direct translation

just the trout — Fri, 13 May 2005 07:05:19 GMT

Michael Swan - Practical English Usage

419-3 Grammars usually say that the present perfect cannot be used together with expressions of finished time. ... In fact, such structures are unusual but not impossible (though learners should avoid them).

==================

CGEL:
Past time adjuncts in experential perfects

This use of the present perfect allows for the inclusion, under restrictive conditions, of a past time adjunct:

[13]

i. a. He has got up at five o'clock. b. He got up at five o'clock.
ii. a. We've already discussed this yesterday. b. We discussed this yesterday.

==============

JTT:

In the newspaper, just a few weeks ago, Tony Blair, in reference to the WMDs stated,

"I've already discussed that last year."

ENLs NORMALLY, ALMOST NEVER use the present perfect with past time adjuncts. There are a few exceptions as noted by Swan and the CGEL.

Re: Grammar Mistakes

just the truth — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:35:07 GMT

All the following exchanges contain "mistakes". I am finding it incredibly difficualt to explain what these mistakes are, as I dont fully understand them to BE mistakes. Can anybody help me solve these problems? I would greatly appreciate all help given (I certainly need it!)

1 "Have you got any money"
"Yes, I've been to the bank yesterday"

JTT: We almost never use the present perfect with a past time adjunct, in this case, .

2 "Is John ill? He's lost a lot of weight"
"Yes, he is rather slender these days, isn't he?"

JTT: I can't see anything wrong with this one. Oops, yes, I see it now. You forgot the period at the end of the second sentence.

3 "Why didn't you answer the telephone?"
"Because I had a bath"

"Because I was having a bath". This is a durative action so the past progressive/continuous is in order.

Re: Tenses

just the truth — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:53:01 GMT

And a good day to you, Mr P. I see your point. But they are different situations. It's not logical to suggest that one grammar pattern can extend to all situations; there are obvious semantic considerations.

Allow me to explain and then please point out where you feel Iâve erred.

As Iâve often mentioned; what is important to language choice; CONTEXT-CONTEXT-CONTEXT.

I cannot stress enough how important this is. But Iâm sure you already know this. Itâs important for ESLs to realize this, fed as they all were/are, with context poor example sentences.

The difference between your 1. & 2. is, âbeing the oldest can only be a singularity that occurs once at a given moment. Each of those moments represent a single instance. These separate instances cannot be gathered into a collective sense in the same way as the ânice things she has doneâ can be. âMy oldest moments have been ... â ????

Sentence 2 never happens because, though it is grammatical in form, it is ungrammatical in use. Itâs a semantic absurdity. Well, one might suggest - indeed Mr P has - that the same applies to example 1. And you have a point, Sir, but only for some contexts.

Situation 1:
1A. I realized {THEN}/ you were the best thing / that HAD ever happened to me.

If this were written or if the speaker added a specific time adjunct, eg. âthenâ, the likelihood would be that or a simple past tense would be chosen.

{A little aside BUT NOTE WELL: either past perfect or simple past would work, yet many ESL sudents operate under the mistaken belief that when there are two past tense actions, one has to be marked by past perfect, [which one is it? I always forget. ]

Situation 2:
The speaker is face to face with his lady, holding her hands, gazing deeply into her eyes, expressing his deepest emotions.

1. I realized/ you were the best thing / that HAS ever happened to me.

makes the collection of things, all the things that have continued to reinforce that belief, and which collectively at the moment of speaking, could cause him to say,

1B. I realized (epiphany) {because of all you had been doing} you were the best thing {these things havenât stopped} that HAS ever happened to me.

Using a in such a situation may well elicit a "Did you say 'had'?", from the lady, causing the speaker to immediately clarify that âsheâ is indeed, still the best thing.

In speech, tense choice is much more fluid, because the context is much much richer and therefore, much easier to understand. Using is almost as if the speaker did insert a after , as in,

1B. I realized (epiphany) {because of all you had been doing} you were, ARE the best thing {these things havenât stopped} that HAS ever happened to me.

A past tense can often be used where a present perfect can be used, more especially so in NaE but also in BrE.

CalifJim, I think, has helped to point this up. {see Jim's post} His confusion came [I believe] because he thought I should have used instead of what I did use, .

Jim stated, âI think, JT, that you meant to write the following, didn't you?â The âfollowingâ referred to Jim's thinking that I should have, given my reasoning, chosen the present perfect, .

Since the only difference [SOMETIMES] between choosing a simple past tense or a present perfect is one of greater or lesser emotion/importance, my choice reflected that there was no need for me to add any importance to a simple statement of fact, a fact, it must be remembered, that is being VIEWED thru my eyes.

The âaspectâ choice [and it is more a choice of âaspectâ rather than âtenseâ] differs because of the situation, because of the relative importance of the finished action TO THE SPEAKER.

"I finished my homework." & "I've finished my homework." both describe the same finished event.

How do they differ? Consider;

Anne: [the sweater is Anneâs, and sheâs warned her sister, time and again, not to wear it. She registers her displeasure with her Mom]
Maaaaaommm, sheâs worn my sweater again. Iâm gonna kill her!

But the 'aspect' differs if I comment of this situation.

JJT: [I donât even know these folks, Iâve simply overheard the conversation and what Anneâs sister did {OR has done} is of little consequence to me]

Choice 1. JTT: That girlâs sister wore her sweater.

Choice 2. JTT: That girlâs sister has worn her sweater. ???

Choice 2 is definitely strange because my interest in this affair is miniscule. BrE speakers make much greater use of the present perfect to discuss recent past events, but I will suggest that it may well be strange even for a BrE speaker to choose 2 given the circumstances.

{if it isn't strange to BrE speakers, then they sure don't know how to use the English language.