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

Re: Which one is more correct? and what are the difference between them?

Nef — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:02:35 GMT

Encountered is much more formal than met, but both are correct in your sentence.

Ran into is not correct in your example, but run into (very informal) would work.

(Ran is simple past tense. Have run is an example of the present perfect tense.

You've is the contraction for You have.)

Re: question formula

Yankee — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:53:22 GMT

Hi Nader

Cool Breeze was explaining to you that the contractions for "Who is" and "Who has" are the same:

(present perfect continuous)
Jane has been talking to him. = Jane's been talking to him.
Who has Jane been talking to? = Who's Jane been talking to?

(present continuous)
Jane is talking to him. = Jane's talking to him.
Who is Jane talking to? = Who's Jane talking to?

EDIT:
Sorry CB. I didn't see your last post before I posted.

Re: What's the last movie you've seen?

Goodman — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:04:08 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
Dear Goodman,

I can see your argument.

Your example is about 'time', which could be either specific (simple past) or non-specified time in the past (present perfect).
However, the movie's title is ever-lasting. Could that make a little different? Do you mean we must go with #4 only ?

Thanks,
Hoa Thai

Hi Thai,

[What's] the last movie you saw?

The contraction of [what is] speaks in general term (what is the name of the movie ) you last saw. We can look at the [is] as reference to the name of the movie which is still the same, even though you saw the movie sometime ago. So to me [whatâs] is still correct, although others may not interpret it this way.

What was the last movie you saw?

This is no doubt simple past.

This sentence referred specifically to the past when you last remembered the title of the movie you saw .

As I mentioned earlier, only 2 and 4 are my choices.

Re: Frank Sinatra - My Way(present perfect vs. past perfect).

Bokeh — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:37:14 GMT

WesternAmerican wrote:
Why can't I say 'I had lived a life that's full'.

Because "that's" is a contraction of "that is" not "that was".

You could say "I had lived a life that was full" then X happened and life wasn't full anymore.

Re: Is or Has

Clive — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 03:59:38 GMT

Hi,

Yes, you're right in thinking that these phrases wouldn't usually sound natural to a native speaker. On the other hand, if two Asian people are having a conversation in English like this, and they understand each other, that's not a bad thing, is it?

Ok I'll try to illustrate base on this sentence. "Jim, you seemed to put on weight compared to last time."

> last time here could mean the last time I saw Jim (a time which is understood between me & Jim), I guess this would be OK if they both understood that.

> It could also mean when I couldn't remember the exact time when I saw Jim he was still thin, it could be couple of weeks ago, months or even years ago I think you'd more naturally just say something like 'You seem to have put on weight'.

>It could also use as a contraction of "............compared to last time when you were in high school". still sounds odd

Generally, 'last time' is quite commonly used in Asian countires to refer to a date when the speaker not sure about the exact date. Not very natural to a Western speaker. The past tense already places it in the past, as would present perfect.

e.g: I saw the movie last time. (I saw the movie some times back but I don't remember the exact date)

I remember lending you a novel last time.(= as above)

I saw this picture last time when I was in Paris. (= as above) the last time I was in Paris.Here, you are able to be specific.

Best wishes again, Clive

Re: It is... + since

just the truth — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:02:58 GMT

I am not surprised, but my primary reaction is that none of these numbers are statistically significant. Discard Google hit numbers entirely unless they are in the thousands, and ignore any apparent differences unless they are in the 500% range, e.g. --

I haven't seen it - 220,000
I ain't seen it - 3,350

Two postgraduate statistics courses and 50 years of common sense, Paco. How do you disprove it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm afraid to say that language disproves your contention, Mr M. Your numbers above don't exclude the possibility of in English, they only illustrate that one form is more prevalent than another. Not that I'm discounting prevalence for that's what we show our students daily, the more prevalent forms, the normal neutral which accounts for the vast majority of speech.

You probably said it best when you said,

"'Since' here indicates duration, so a perfect tense is called for"

So the norm and the neutral would no doubt be to use the present perfect. That doesn't mean it's the only possibility.

Mr M: What people will not say is the unreduced forms: 'It is / it has been fifteen years since I have eaten', because we then enter the unreduced realm of formal, written English, which permits only 'It has been fifteen years since I ate a hamburger'.

JTT: I have to disagree with you here, too, Sir. I contend that you should have said,

NORMALLY, "What people will not say is the unreduced forms".

The likelihood of this particular sentence ever being written as formal, let alone unreduced English is close to nil. In speech, if we want to be emphatic we change from reduced forms [contractions] to uncontracted speech and we even tend to emphasize/separate each word.

It - has - been - 15 - long - years - since - I - have - eaten - a - hamburger!!

Re: Negation

Mephorium — Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:19:15 GMT

Yes, without the contraction it would be "You have got questions. We have got answers."

Have is used to form the present perfect indicative forms of verbs. That is, to pair the past participle of the verb with either have or has. Got is the past indicative form of the verb get and, therefore, cannot be paired with have. Gotten is the past participle of the verb got, and can be paired with have:

"You have gotten questions. We have gotten answers."

This sentence sounds ungrammatical (or unattractive) to me, and leads me to believe that "have" should not be part of a verb phrase, but function as a transitive verb that takes "questions" as a direct object.

Re: Gotta

CalifJim — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:53:42 GMT

The idiom is "have got" in both American and British English. It is a purely idiomatic alternate for "have" and is not much used except in the present tense. That is, "have got" is the present tense of this idiom, even though "get" is the present tense form of "to get", and the past is "got". This is because "have got" is Present Perfect in form, though not in meaning. To be more specific, "have got" is the British Present Perfect, the American Present Perfect being "have gotten". So in American English we have "My brother has gotten up early this morning", whereas in British English we have "My brother has got up early this morning." Nevertheless, the idiom is "have got" in both AmEng and BrEng, not "have gotten", not even in American English.

I have got a pen. = I have a pen.
I have not got any money. = I do not have any money.

Using contractions:

I've got a pen. = I have a pen.
I haven't got any money. = I don't have any money.

The use of "have got" for "have" extends to the affirmative form of the semi-modal "have to", so that "have got to" is an idiomatic substitute for "have to" (meaning "must"). The negative form is rare.

I have got to meet my friend at 10 o'clock. =
I've got to meet my friend at 10 o'clock. = I have to meet my friend at 10 o'clock.

The full conjugation with contractions is:

I've got to ...; you've got to ...; he's (he has) got to ...; she's (she has) got to ... ; we've got to ... ; you've got to ...; they've got to ...;

In fast or less careful speech the contracted "have" ('ve) is glossed over and can barely be heard -- or may not be heard at all. Simultaneously, the "got to" collapses into "gotta". (In American English this is pronounced "godda".) The "z" sound in "he's got" and "she's got" (which stands for "has") remains, however. This leads to the following "conjugation" (using "go" as the complement verb):

I gotta go, you gotta go, he's gotta go, she's gotta go,
we gotta go, you gotta go, they gotta go

This is used in conversation only; it should never be used in formal writing under any circumstances!