Search results for 'tag:Simple past tag:Dynamic verbs' matching tags 'Simple past' and '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: when/while/as

Diamondrg — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:57:12 GMT

CalifJim wrote:

PS. I'm late for work, so I'll see you on the Forums later.

Thank you, Jim. By the way, what is your job?

Now, to sum up,

I understand that

1- "when-while//past continuous":

"The accident happened when they were going to school." This can be interpreted in two ways: a) a one-time activity: the underlined part refers to a specific activity (but this interpretation is rare and in this sense "when" is almost the same as "while".)

b) a habitual activity: the underlined part refers to a past habitual activity. [this is the preferred (at least by you) interpretation and here "when"is not the same as "while"]

"The accident happened while they were going to school." This can be interpreted in one way.

The underlined part refers to a one-time activity. (And you added that it is really hard to find instances in which the underlined part is used as a habitual activity.)

and now I understand that. It took a while, but finally I got it. Really thank you.

2- When-While//simple past:

this is a bit problematic. I didn't understand the post below. What is the difference between these three: 1- "While I washed the dishes, Mary cleaned the stove." 2- While I was washing the dishes, Mary was cleaning the stove. (actually I know this, two spontaneous activities) 3- When I washed the dishes, Mary cleaned the stove. (I know this too, first I washed the dishes, then Mary cleaned the stove) What I don't understand is 1. and its difference with 2 and 3?

[quote user=CalifJim]

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable generalization.

Nevertheless, dynamic verbs might be used after "while", but they would then have to be interpretable in a non-event sort of way. This pattern occurs with activities:

While I washed the dishes, Mary cleaned the stove.
= While I was washing the dishes, Mary was cleaning the stove.
= While Mary cleaned the stove, I washed the dishes.
= While Mary was cleaning the stove, I was washing the dishes.

The activities proceeded in parallel. "to wash dishes" can be an event, but in these sentences, it is an activity, not an event.

CJ

Re: tenses

Clive — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:17:50 GMT

Hi Paco,

Here are some comments.

(1) (x) I knew her five years ago.
This is wrong. "Five years ago" is a point-time adverbial and so it can't go with a stative verb "know". It sounds OK to me. My understanding is that you have lost contact with her, thus you don't know her now, you don't have a relationship now..
(2) (o) I've known her for five years.
This is right. It means we got acquainted with each other five years ago and still now we keep an intimate relationship. Sounds fine. The term 'intimate relationship' is one you need to be careful with, though!
(3) (o) I knew her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago.
This is right. As the state of my knowing her is now a past event, we can describe it in simple past tense. Yes. It could be rewritten like below.
"I had known her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago." Yes.

You also say that ...I thought previously "know someone" could be a dynamic verb Well, I know you are interested in the history of language, its development and archaic expressions. So, I want to point out an archaic usage of 'know someone' that is extremely dynamic, at least if you do it right.

'Tom went into Mary's bedroom and knew her' is an archaic way of saying they had sex. The Christian Bible, in the Old Testament, is full of this usage. It's not even that long ago that people spoke of 'carnal knowledge'. In Britain, people would be (perhaps still are) charged with the crime of 'unlawful carnal knowledge' (of a minor, for example, to be more serious).

So, as I said, 'to know' has a dynamic history!

It makes you think again about some of the well-known sayings about knowledge, eg

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

or 'It's not what you know, it's who you know'.

Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of knowledge.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: tenses

paco2004 — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:42:00 GMT

Hello guys

I come to feel I have misunderstood the usage of "know". I thought previously "know someone" could be a dynamic verb to mean "get acquainted with someone", but now I understand "know someone" can be only a stative verb to mean "be acquainted with someone" or "keep a relationship with someone". So let me confirm on this occasion whether my current understanding is right or not.

(1) (x) I knew her five years ago.
This is wrong. "Five years ago" is a point-time adverbial and so it can't go with a stative verb "know".
(2) (o) I've known her for five years.
This is right. It means we got acquainted with each other five years ago and still now we keep an intimate relationship.
(3) (o) I knew her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago.
This is right. As the state of my knowing her is now a past event, we can describe it in simple past tense. It could be rewritten like below.
"I had known her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago."

Is this understanding of mine right?

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