Search results for 'tag:Present perfect tag:Dynamic verbs' matching tags 'Present perfect' and 'Dynamic verbs'

Re: since I have written or wrote

Inchoateknowledge — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:39:07 GMT

It has been a while since I have been writing -- while = period of time in which I have put in posts in this forum. -- habitual present perfect. The time frame is leading up to the present

The action axpressed by the dynamic verb repeatedly occured up to and including the present.

Re: since I have written or wrote

Inchoateknowledge — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:46:14 GMT

Ant_222 wrote:
Yoong: do you think the following sentence is incorrect? Â«In 2002, Stricklin struggled mightily and was soon released. That was the last time he has driven a NASCAR race.Â»

The 3 chief uses of pp:

1 state present perfect

used with stative verb senses to refer to a state that began in the past and extends to the present and perhaps even further.

I have been learning English for four years.

2 the event present perfect

event(s) happened in a period leading up tho the present.
two subclasses:

a) recently happened

I have got a new pair of Nike air max 360 shoes.

b) some indefinite time in the past:

Have you seen my new shoes? (until this moment in the present?)
The implicit time frame leads up to the present

3 habitual pp

dynamic verb sense, events, happening many times, in the past and in the present.

I have been bed-ridden for four days

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

"In 2002, Stricklin struggled mightily and was soon released. That was the last time he has driven a NASCAR race"

correct, provided there are chances he will race again -- 2b category

It has been a while since I first/last wrote anything here -- while = the period of time that has passed since the last/first writing --

It has been a while since I have been writing -- while = period of time in which I have put in posts in this forum.

Re: Present Perfect Progressive

Ant_222 — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:45:01 GMT

Ok, HSS.

I have got your point now. Actions can affect present in two ways:
1. The action is finished, but the result remains.
2. The action is not finished.

Number one can occur for both statitive and dynamic varbs, whereas number two only for dynamic verbs.

Re: Present Perfect Progressive

HSS — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:35:54 GMT

Ant_222 wrote:
...your explanation through active and passive attributes. I don't know why you need this classification. Maybe it's correct, but I don't like it.

Hi, Ant_222.

It is not "active and passive attributes," but "active and static attributes." Perhaps I should have used the words "dynamic" instead of "active," and "stative" instead of "static." (I'm not a grammarian! I'm a cosmetic and food chemist, and interpreter. :-)) I looked at the present perfect continuous because the generic present perfect could be understood easily if you look at it through the verb's dynamic or statitive attribute.

Take this with a dynamic verb for example:

[1] Pete and we have signed the contract that states we hire him from April this year to March next year. We can't cancel it and hire another for his job. There is no article that allows us to cancel it before April.

[2] Pete and we signed the contract that stated we would hire him from April this year to March next year, but we have cancelled the contract, and now we are hiring another soon.

In [1] Pete and 'we' came to an agreement that 'we' are going to hire him, and the agreement is still valid. You can 'feel' it from 'have signed.' Here a supportive context is provided. However, in [2] the simple past gives you an impression that the speaker is not in the same time frame any more. The agreement could still be good, it could not any more.

With the present perfect the present is affected.

Now, with a stative verb ...

[3] This vast land has belonged to a local tribe. They use it mostly for growing their own food sources.

[4] This vast land belonged to a local tribe, but you now see a motorway running through it, and highrises springing up.

In [3] the land is still theirs, and [4] connotes the land is not theirs any more.

Here with the present perfect the present is directly affected. The word "affected" may not be too appropriate, but the land still belongs to them --- same environment.

Both dynamic verbs and stative verbs in the present perfect give you an impression that the present is still affected, or connected.

I've tried to look at the present perfect continuous in the same fashion, thiking the word 'raining' has both the dynamic attribute --- (of rain) to fall --- and the statitive attribute --- -ing (state of continuing), thus, either raining done but the present affected, or still raining (and, yes, the present affected).

Hiro

Sendai, Japan

Re: Present Perfect vs. Present Simple, once again

paco2004 — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:57:45 GMT

Hello Astraea

I too am a learner of English, but let me answer to your question.

Are you asking if the sentences like below are correct?
       I write a letter now.
       I just finish my assignment.
No, both are incorrect. ~~Do you ask why?~~ Are you asking why? It's because "write" and "finish" are dynamic verbs. You can say "I live now in Zagreb", because "live" is a stative verb. But in the case when the verb is dynamic, the simple present tense can be used only when you talk about some habitual activity. For example,
        I write a letter to my mother once a week.
        Every week I finish my assignment before Friday night.
If you want to say some one-time event using a dynamic verb, you have to say it in [1] the past tense, [2] the present perfect tense, [3] the present progressive tense, [4] or the future tense.
        [1] I wrote a letter to my mother yesterday.
        [2] I have written a letter to my mother now.
        [3] I am now writing a letter to my mother.
        [4] I will write a letter to my mother tomorrow.

paco

Re: Where have you been?

paco2004 — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:31:06 GMT

Hello Mowgli

Mowgli wrote:
I would prefer past simple "Where were you?" because B isnÂ´t abroad or away any more, they couldnÂ´t have this conversation otherwise.

To me, "I went to Malta for a 3 week holiday" sounds natural as the answer. I interpret A might ask "Where have you been?" because A doesn't know when B came back exactly. The use of present perfect tense is convenient when one cannot be sure when the past event happened. But, as for B, of course B knows well the time when B self returned (it might be three days ago, for example), and the use of the simple past in the answer suggests B has already a feeling the visit to Malta was a mere past event.

Mowgli wrote:
Compare present perfect in these sentences: I have lost my key. (I still don't have it.) She has been in Malta for two years. She is still there. However: x She has been to Malta. (She isnÂ´t there anymore. ?)

You are right. "Have been a place" (without "for a period")) is saying simply "have a past experience of staying the place". On the other hand, "have been a place for a period" is saying "have a past experience of staying the place and the experience is still continuing"). As you said, "I have lost my key" implies "I don't have the key", and "I have been there" (without a for-phrase) implies "I am not there now". The difference in the implication between "have lost something" and "have been somewhere" comes from the difference in the aspect nature between the verb "lose" and "be"; "lose" is a dynamic verb and "be" is a stative verb.

When present perfect tense applies to dynamic verbs, the sentence connotes the result of the action still exists. But if there are any word like 'ever', 'never', 'once', 'often', 'before', etc, the sentence is just saying a past experience. The time adverbial plays an important role in the meaning of the present perfect sentence. "I have lost my wallet yesterday" implies "I haven't still found it and I am worrying about it". But "I have my wallet several times" means just "I had several experiences of losing my wallet in the past". The time adverbial is also important in the present perfect sentence using a stative verb. "I have stayed here for two days" implies the state is still continuing. But "I have stayed in the hotel twice in my life" means "I" have two past experiences of staying in the hotel. Messy? Yes, to us learners, the present perfect sentences are really messy and tough to take the exact meaning.

paco

Re: Already

paco2004 — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 02:08:42 GMT

1. Is it OK to say: "I already have my ID number!" ?
I think OK.

2. Can we use already with the simple present tense? Could you give any other examples?
Yes, 'already' can go with the present tense when the verb is stative.
    (EX) I already know it.
    (EX) Here it's already winter.

3. Which are all the uses of "already"?
For dynamic verbs, 'already' is typically used with the present perfect tense.
But it is also used with the simple past tense, especially in AmE.
    (EX) I already gave you my best.

paco

Re: Earlier/before

CalifJim — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:54:52 GMT

Neither of your natural-sounding examples has an indefinite article followed by a time unit followed by "before" within an "if" clause. It seems to me that one or more of these factors must be contributing to the difference we sense.

"I think we have met before" has no article and time unit, so I think it's a different case of "before" meaning "on another (previous) occasion". There's no attempt to say how long before this utterance the meeting actually occurred.

"I think we have met a week before" is impossible (a definite time together with the present perfect tense), and "I think we had met a week before" again sounds strange in the way that "if you had left there an hour before" does, especially when contrasted with the better-sounding "I think we had met a week earlier" or "if you had left an hour earlier".

"It had been fine the week before" also differs from the strange examples. This time the difference is in the use of the definite article "the" rather than the indefinite "a(n)". "the week before" indicates a certain period of time during which it had been fine. Changing to "a week before" gives "It had been fine a week before", which indicates a point of time at which it had been fine.

Now "it had been fine a week before" may or may not sound as strange to your ear as the other examples. If not, then it may be due to the change from dynamic verbs (left, met) to a stative verb (been). Another puzzle to solve!

Generally, it seems to me that "the [day / week / ...] before" and "a [day / week / ...] earlier" are the pairings that work best, i.e., "during the previous period with a length of one [day / week / ...]" and "at a point in time one [day / week / ...] before the reference time".

This analysis has now, I think, reached the point of diminishing returns.