Search results for 'tag:Simple past tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Simple past' and 'Constructions'

Re: Present Perfect (americans)

Diamondrg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:40:10 GMT

Hi, YSchneider. I am not a native speaker and this is indeed a tough grammar point for non-native speakers.

Here is an extract from CGEL*:

Did you lock the front door? [5]

in a domestic situation where it is known that the front door is locked at bedtime every night. In that case, [5] is more or less equivalent to Did you
lock the front door at bedtime? (Incidentally, in [5], "the" in "the front door" is another case of situational definiteness; cfS.Uff.)

--

The ATTITUDINAL PAST, used with verbs expressing volition or mental state, reflects the tentative attitude of the speaker, rather than past time.
In the following pairs, both the present and past tenses refer to a present state of mind, but the latter is somewhat more polite:

Do/Did you want to see me now?
I wonder/wondered if you could help us.

--

Where did you put my purse ? [ 1 ]
Where have you put my purse? [2]

The purpose of both of these questions may be to find the purse; but in [1] the speaker seems to ask the addressee to remember a past action; while in [2] the speaker apparently concentrates on the purse's present whereabouts. There are many such cases.

--

Leaving aside such virtual equivalences, we may now focus on the difference between the two constructions, contrasting the meanings of the simple past given in 4.14 with the following meanings of the simple present perfective:

(a) STATE LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

That house has been empty for ages.
Have you known my sister for long?

(b) INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Have you (ever) been to Florence?
All our children have had measles.

(c) HABIT (ie recurrent event) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Mr Terry has sung in this choir ever since he was a boy.
The province has suffered from disastrous floods throughout its history.

Of these meanings, (a) corresponds to the 'state past' use of the simple past, but differs from it in specifying that the state continues at least up to the present moment (cf: That house was empty for ages - but now it's been sold); (b) corresponds to the 'event past', but differs from it in that the past time in question is indefinite rather than definite (cf: Did you go to Florence (last summer) ?); (c) corresponds to the 'habitual past', but, as with (a), the period identified must continue up to the present.

Note In AmE there is a tendency to use the past tense in preference to the present perfective, especially for the indefinite past; eg: Did you ever go to Florence ? (c/4.13 Note lb], 4.22 Note [a ]).

--

Have you seen the Javanese Art Exhibition? [yet]
Did you see the Javanese Art Exhibition? [when it was here]

The first of these implies that the Exhibition is still open; the second that the Exhibition has finished. From this concern with a period still existing at the present time, it is only a short step to the second implication often associated with the present perfective, viz that the event is recent. The simple present perfective is often used to report a piece of news:

_., , > the news? The president has resigned.

Because of this connotation of recency, B's reply in the following exchange must be considered absurdly inappropriate:

A: Has the postman left any letters? B: Yes, he did six months ago.

Since postmen in general deliver letters daily, the implicit time zone in this case would be no longer than a day.

[Note] In AmE, the simple past is often preferred to the present perfective for the variants of the indefinite past discussed in this section. Compare [6 ], for example, with Did the children come home yet? <esp AmE). Other AmE examples are: I just came back; You told me already; and without an adverb: /*m tired -1 had a long day.

* A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al.]

Re: until now

Mr Wordy — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:34:03 GMT

Tuongvan
To sum up, can we say as follows?:

Until now + present perfect(continuous) : the action in the present perfect (continuous) in still continuing at the present moment .

-He is incorruptible .That 's why ,Until now ,he has been living in that rickety house (He is still living in it now )

Until now+ simple past (continuous): the action in the simple past(continuous) is not continuing at the present moment.' Until now 'in this case is similar in meaning to 'until recently'.

-He is incorruptible .That 's why ,Until now (=until recently) ,he was still living in that rickety house (He is not living in it now ).

I would appreciate it very much if you give your comments

In this context, "until now" strongly suggests that he has just moved, is in the process of moving, or is just about to move. So, the question is: does the choice of "was" or "has been" influence this range of possibilities? The presence or absence of "still" is another complicating factor.

I think I might have looked at this construction so much now that I no longer actually know what I think, but here's my best shot. Others may take a different view!

1. Until now, he has been living... -- allows all possibilities (just moved, moving, just about to move).

2. Until now, he has still been living... -- could allow all possibilities, the same as (1), with "still" suggesting that he stayed in the old house longer than might have been expected; or "still" could be emphasising that he is living there up to and including the present moment.

3. Until now, he was living... -- I guess this must, as you say, mean that he has already (recently) moved, but it doesn't sound quite right to me.

4. Until now, he was still living... -- same as (3), except "still" presumably must mean that he stayed in the old house longer than might have been expected (because of "was", it can't mean that he is still living there up to and including the present moment).

To me, there is an awkwardness about using "until now" with "living", which is more pronounced with versions (3) and (4). In fact, version (4) really just sounds like bad English to me.

Re: He said that the train had left before he arrived at the station.

Goodman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:35:26 GMT

Hi Anon,

We are not particularly interested in finding if someone is happy with our answers. SoâIâd be happy ifâ¦â does sound aweful to my ears. I had made this comment before and I am not sure you were the same poster. But I would make another attempt to make this point. If you want to be polite, Just say something likeâ I will appreciate anyoneâs help on my questionsâ or something in that effect.

Here are my comments relating to your questions.

Mainly, all 3 bear the same core meaning without the nitty gritty on tense and indirectness.

It would be correct If the sentence was â The train had left the staion before he arrived atâ¦â.

All 3 are correct in the sense that they are grammatical, but B, with a double past perfect construction is unneccesary. Itâs good enough to say âHe said that the train had left before he had arrived at the stationâ, or use simple use simple past tense.

I'd be happy if someone would answer my question- not a good phrase to use! IMO.

Re: Simple Past vs Pluperfect

Philip — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:12:03 GMT

You will often hear the construction of the first sentence; I prefer the second, as you do.

Re: simple past vs present perfect

Goodman — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:16:27 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:

Because with words like "should" - realize that how English is used will vary, without one being wrong and one being right. It seems that Americans are more likely to use simple past when either would do, but the present perfect is alive and well.

So, that said, where have you heard simple past used with "yet"? It would sound quite odd to my ears. Especially beacause "yet" is often used in the negative: I haven't seen that movie yet. How can you have possible heard that used in the simple past? I ain't saw that movie yet?

Does simple past with already sound so odd to everyone? I already fed the dog today; don't give him more food now.

Hi Barb,

<<where have you heard simple past used with "yet"? It would sound quite odd to my ears.>>> I have to agree with you on this!

But "yet" is often used in positive context as well, and the construction should be present perfect. Consider the following:

"Have you been to his house yet?"

"Have you eaten yet?"

"Has she arrived yet, her speech is up next!"

Re: Passive

Yankee — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:32:19 GMT

Lin1978 wrote:
Thank you, Master Yankee. Your answer is quite clear. But I still have one small question. Last time my teacher told me that, "if I have two different subjects in a main clause and in a conditional, and I want to use the participle phrase, I have to keep both two subjects or change it into possessive case to avoid getting confused." That sounds about right, except that you cannnot simply insert the subject into a participle phrase. You must also change the participle to the appropriate verb tense.

In this sentence, there is no need to add "we" or "they" in the conditional (1), like "after we repeating the experiments and tests, PS3 has finally been successfully produced,"(2) or change it into "after our repeating experiments and tests, PS3 has finally been successfully produced." (3) Because the subject is clear and no one will get confused. Am I right?

Hi Lin1978

(1) The sentence you are referring to is not a conditional sentence.

(2) "after we repeating the experiments and tests,..." ==> This is never grammatical!

"After repeating the experiments and tests" is grammatical" and it means:
- "After the experiments and tests were repeated, ..." (simple past tense, passive voice)
OR
- "After I/you/he/she/we/they/ repeated the experiments and tests, ..." (simple past tense, active voice)

The passive voice is frequently used when it is not important or not known who performed the action. In the active sentence above, I don't know who repeated the experiments and tests. However, I assume it was the same person or people who produced PS3.

(3) In a passive sentence, the subject is usually unknown or not important. As I mentioned above, in your sentence it can be assumed that the same person or people who produced PS3 also performed the experiments and test. But there is no way for me to know exactly who that person or those people were.

Inserting a possessive adjective before a gerund does not always result in a natural construction.
"After our repeating the experiments and tests" is extremely awkard. Your sentence is not a good candidate for the insertion of the possessive adjective.

Re: Do I have to swear? - Past perfect (Test)

Kooyeen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:23:42 GMT

Well, I was saying that according to that explanation the simple past would always be wrong in that construction. But that's not true, because if I add some info, the simple past is ok:

Three years had passed since we had seen each other. <--- past perfect
Three years had passed since we [saw/had seen] each other at that party in LA <--- both should be ok here, right?

Thanks

Re: used not to be/were not

Bokeh — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:11:09 GMT

Milky wrote:

I was asking about the difference between the two regarding Aspect.

I thought I'd answered that above. "Used to" is imperfect, or if you want to use the word aspect, imperfective aspect, used in this case to denote an ongoing state (not being allowed to drink coffee). "Were" on the other hand is the simple past or preterite which may be used (in English) to represent both the imperfective aspect and the perfective aspect.

Since the verb phrases in both your constructions represent the imperfective aspect there is no significant difference between the two.

Re: dual-function of would

CalifJim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:50:21 GMT

Which of the two would you say is in use here? ??? Is this a Type 2 Conditional? Yes. ... would ... if [past] ...

1. It would be better/nicer if you spent your time studying rather than idling around.

I am not sure if the above sentence is correct It's fine. but I think I am hearing a similar sentential construction. I think it is better if written like this:

It would be better if you start spending your time studying rather than idling around. Also OK.

Or,

It would be better if you spend your time studying rather than idling around. Also OK.

How about this? A Type 2 Conditional? No, because the if clause doesn't contain the simple past. (I'm assuming you are referring to the sentence above, not the one below.)

2. It would be better/nicer if you got your money out and helped that homeless man soaking in rain.
This is a Type 2 conditional.

For the two sentences above, marked 1 and 2, am I making a gentle supplication to another party or am I stating a result of what might have happened if something in a conditional term (in the past in time) were to be met (realized??)? There's no contradiction in doing both. You're doing both. You are using your statement of a result that would obtain if time was spent a certain way in order to make a gentle request, in order to give a hint about your opinion.

Re: present simple after adjective

Yankee — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:13:58 GMT

Hi Musesun

"This forbidden to make money in the university" is not a correct sentence. The word "forbidden" is not a tense at all -- it is just the past participle (V3) of the verb 'forbid'. You can say "This is forbidden", but you cannot say "This forbidden".

Have you learned how to make passive sentences yet? That seems to be what is confusing you.
The following pairs of sentences have the same meanings. The second sentence in each pair is the passive form of the first sentence:

Cowboys ride horses. = simple present tense, active voice
Horses are ridden by cowboys. = simple present tense, passive voice

He wrote that book. = simple past tense, active voice
That book was written by him. = simple past tense, passive voice

In addition to what I've written above, the past participle can also be used as an adjective. For example:
That is a forbidden activity. = That activity is forbidden.

Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether a past participle has been used as an adjective or is part of a passive verb construction.