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

present perfect & past perfect

edwardfung — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:33:20 GMT

Hi,

i have a question about the following paragraph:

Thinking she must have decided to continue without her, sally had gone on to Craydon herself, only to discover that Alice hadn't arrived at their friend's house and no one had seen her.

I am wondering the highlighted action happened before the other action "sally had gone on to craydon", but why they use 'have decided' instead of had decided.

can anyone help me with this question?

thank you

edward

Re: simple past tense vs present perfect

Fandorin — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:14:06 GMT

Hi there. Welcome to EF.

guzhao67

Hello, everyone: I don't understand the following paragraph, cited from a grammar book, could you help me please?
"there is an idiomatic exception to the rule that the simple past tense indicates definite meaning: this is the construction with "always" illustrated by
"I always said he would end up in jail; Timothy always was a man of peace".
it is simply a colloquial variant of the present perfect with 'state verbs', and can always be replaced by the equivalent present perfect form. there are equivalent question and negative forms with "ever" and "never": "Did you ever see such a mess? I never met such an important person before."
what's the point here? And what would be the equivalent present perfect form of
"I always said he would end up in jail; (he's in jail now)
I've always said he ends up in jail. (I keep on repeating this because it's likely for him to be jailed and I'm sure of that)
Timothy always was a man of peace"? (Now he isn't. He might be die change his mind)
thank you.

The differense between them happens to be interchangeable in some informal way or in narratives. We use Past Simple along with Present Perfect when we're talking about events happened in the past, but Present Perfect points that event may occur in the present again.

He has written three novels (He perhaps will write another one)
He wrote three novels. (He won't write, because he is gone).

If the situation has changed we use Past Simple.

I have owned three restaraunts. ( I own now )
I owned three restaraunts now (Now I don't, because I've sold them).

Sometimes in papers and news we can see Past Simple is used along with Perfect Tense without changing the gist. The event is introduced by Present Perfect and another background is described by Past Simple.

The famous artist John Cramp has died of cancer. He was 50 and had two children. (the children are alive)

simple past tense vs present perfect

guzhao67 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:25:41 GMT

Hello, everyone: I don't understand the following paragraph, cited from a grammar book, could you help me please?
"there is an idiomatic exception to the rule that the simple past tense indicates definite meaning: this is the construction with "always" illustrated by "I always said he would end up in jail; Timothy always was a man of peace". it is simply a colloquial variant of the present perfect with 'state verbs', and can always be replaced by the equivalent present perfect form. there are equivalent question and negative forms with "ever" and "never": "Did you ever see such a mess? I never met such an important person before."
what's the point here? And what would be the equivalent present perfect form of "I always said he would end up in jail; Timothy always was a man of peace"?
thank you.

Re: tense checking

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:39:27 GMT

Thank you so much.

How would you divide this type of writing (diary or reflection piece?) into paragraphs, especially when the content of a possible paragraph is two or thre sentences long?

You asked:

I am starting to work on my two-month project on ~~today~~ this afternoon;, and when my nephew gets here, I will probably have finished half the project.Tenses are okay. You can finish half of a two-month project in one day?

I think the probable date I noted for his visit is one month from the day of writing and I think I also have noted that the probable period of completion will last two months. What made you think the writing gives out an idea that I will try to finish the project in one day?

You changed the tense of the last sentence to present perfect; (semicolon OK?) but I don't think a past is wrong but a present tense is better because the choice made is current and currently related.

Last sentence that you made a change:

Yes, I have made the choice and that is to finish the project on time.

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.

until now

Tuongvan — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:59:51 GMT

Hi teachers,
I don't understand why the past continuous is used with 'until now 'in the paragraph below:

Inner Sanctum: Now you're a rich man thanks to your paintings. Why don't you live in a magnificent house, or a palace with luxurious furniture, instead of resigning yourself to living in an apartment where you have so little space you have to put your easel at the head of your bed?

-I'm often asked that question but can never give a clear answer. I did have a villa once, but that has been sold. I also own a piece of land where I asked an architect to design a house, but it has never been built.

That is why, until now, I was still living in an apartment I inherited from my parents. I am well-to-do, but I don't know why I can't live like I am! Perhaps it's my destiny!

I would appreciate it very much if you could explain why the past continuous ,not the present perfect continuos ,is used here.

Best wishes

Re: Do you mean to say

bhikkhu1991 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:14:23 GMT

Mister Micawber,

I would like to thank you for the explanation.However, I have found one example of the present perfect tense which used the word "now" in the

British council grammar test(http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-grammar-present-perfect-past-simple.htm).

The example under the third paragraph of the Present perfect vs.past simple is:

" I haven't got my books now."

Could you tell me why this sentence can be used?

Is the sentence "Do you mean to say she has not come now? " informal or something else?

Thank you.

With best wishes.

Re: Please check this paragraph for me

Spides — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:48:58 GMT

This is a good paragraph and the tenses of your verbs are consistent. The only sentence that has a problem is, "We had worked together...and have always had good relationships...even after I have left... That first verb, had worked, is past perfect tense. The rest of the paragraph is simple past tense ~~so this one should be, too. That is, "We worked together..." The second and third verbs~~have always had and have left--are present perfect, and should also be just simple past tense. That is, "...always had..."and "...left..." So the sentence should read, "We worked together...and always had...even after I left the school."

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Ant_222 — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:51:41 GMT

Hello, Hoa Thai.

Although Goodman outstripped me and deserved the brave one's laurels, I'd like to add some of the comments which I had started typing yesterday in the university, but hadn't time to finish...

Your reasonong is interesting but not fault-less.

«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.»

There's more to these tenses than this specifity/non-specifity dichotomy. I really prefer to do use actuality (connection of the action, or of a result there of, to the present) as the main (but not the only) difference.

This famous rule requireing Past Simple when a time is declared follows from it, because declaration of time indicates the speaker's focus on time rather than result.

«However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does (Ant: I'd say "may include") include a âspecific time elementâ»

Don't get you.
1. In 1999 (is it specific?)
2. Since last month (specific?)
Which includes which?

«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.»

Is the word "far" so important?

1. We have been friends since 1995
2. I found it two minutes ago.

«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;»

But only the word "last" deals with time. Is that an important difference?

«However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!»

Yes!

I had started commenting this paragraph but suddenly found that your following paragraph tells the same:

«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.»

Fully agree, but asking "which one is the best" is also OK, and then it's not an inclusion...

«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»

From the standpoint of formal logic, yes. I don't completely understand Goodman's opinion that "among" may allow for several alternatives. There can be only one last movie (unless one's watching several movies simultaneously...)

If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?»

Well, as Goodman already said, "ever" doesn't work here. But it would work with "the best", "the most scary", e.t.c. Again, I don't understand Goodman's comment: «"Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective» â they all are superlative adjectives, aren't they?

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Using your logic, it does seem correct, but somehow I can't accept it. The very structure of this sentence with Past Simple in the main clause somehow forces a conflict with the Present Present in the subordinate clause.

The "was" in the main clause imposes a past time frame onto everything subordinated to it.

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

«As you might have noticed, even a reputable site like BBCâs teaching English, which I cited earlier in our previous thread, posed the question in a different way: âThink of a film you have seen recently, what was it called?â»

It's a pretty good sentence. They probably want the reader to focus on his/her impressions of the movie and they use Past Simple to help him/her "travel" back in time! It's neither bad nor an exception. I'll even say it's a nice example of your term "inclusion".

I wound't like "... what is it called" at all in this case!

Re: Conditional dilemma I

CalifJim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:28:37 GMT

I think the following would be considered a typical Type 3 Conditional.

If I had studied hard in college, I would have become a successful person. Yes. This is a typical Type 3 conditional. If ... had ..., would have ....

Here, I think would is a modal verb for a clause that states the result of an imaginary situation that could have happened in the past yes, and it wouldn't be a fargone idea to say that it mainly deals with the tone of the clause, not the 'timing' or 'time' aspect of it. It deals with both past time and the 'tone', i.e., counterfactual.

have become in the main clause is present perfect No, this should be regarded as a modal perfect, which is not the same as saying it's present perfect. and IMO, the present perfect is used to note the fact that something has some kind of relevance to the present Yes, the present perfect is used this way, but here we don't have a true present perfect. A modal perfect is quite different in function. and would wouldn't affect that aspect of the sentence in any way. Yes, the fact that would is there makes a big difference.

What I am rather puzzled by is the timing aspect of it. The dependent clause 'If I had studied hard in college' indicates the time for its action is before another time and in comparison, the main clause 'I would have become a successful person' (in present perfect) indicates the time for its result that has some kind of 'live' relevance to the present. Doesn't that create a friction in one's mind as he tries to figure out and reconcile nicely the timing sequence of the clauses involved. You will have to rethink this whole paragraph in light of what I have pointed out earlier. The friction does not exist once you realize that this is not at all the same as a non-modal present perfect.

_______________

The modal non-perfect and modal perfect tenses should not be confused with the non-modal non-perfect and the non-modal perfect tenses. A modal tense applies to non-past situations. A modal perfect tense applies to past situations. The use of have after a modal makes a "modal perfect" tense, but that's just a way of putting the statement in the past, compared to the corresponding modal non-perfect statement.

It might be raining. [It is possible that it is or will be raining.]
It might have been raining.   [It is possible that it was raining.]

I should go.               [It is advisable for me to go.]
I should have gone.   [It was advisable for me to go.]

I would jump from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge now or in the future, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I will jump. Until now, I have not done so. Maybe I will never get the opportunity to do so.]
I would have jumped from that ledge. [Imagining myself on that ledge at some time in the past, I can imagine myself jumping from it without any problem, i.e., being willing to jump.] [This does not say that I did jump. In fact, I didn't -- perhaps because I never had the opportunity to do so.]

So have does not have the same function after a modal as it has when used as the only auxiliary verb to create a perfect tense.

CJ