Search results for 'tag:Stative verbs tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Stative verbs' and 'Constructions'

Re: I have hoped that

CalifJim — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:42:55 GMT

Velimir
unjustly buried for a long time

That's a matter of opinion!

Velimir
" I have thought it is ..but it has just proved otherwise"

Right. It seems that with many mental stative verbs the present perfect is not used as expected.

Velimir
what would I say now, after a year of waiting, given that I've never lost hope of getting the answer in the meantime

I thought you would respond.

I thought you would have responded (by now).

The present perfect typically goes with always, and not with the would have construction.

I've always thought you would respond. [Unlike the examples above, this suggests 'ever-present thought' -- never stopped thinking ...]

The same patterns are used for the verbs believe, hope, fear, be afraid.

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: Let's see who finishes/will finish first.

CalifJim — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:03:49 GMT

Only one s in present!!!

You can't use will with the stative verbs in this construction: [Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] plus an indirect question. I would not call these relative clauses.

to finish first - an action.

how you are - a state - not an action.

get there first - same as arrive first - an action.

you think - an internal activity; having an opinion - not an action.

_______

Thus, with the indirect question in brackets { }, ungrammatical choices prefixed with asterisk *:

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {who [finishes / will finish / gets there / will get there] first}.

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {how [you are / *you will be / what you think / *what you will think]}

_______

Your example with make sure does not belong to the pattern above. There's no indirect question.

Make sure (that) you come back soon.

A make sure that pattern is not followed by a future (will).

______

You can save yourself a lot of headaches by using the present tense for all of these. Even in cases where will is possible, it's almost always the inferior choice.

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:54 GMT

They won't smoke ever since they saw a film on lung cancer.

What does "won't" mean here?

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:49 GMT

http://forums.eslcafe.com/student/viewtopic.php?t=22113&highlight=

Re: Question aboue state verbs

CalifJim — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:07:53 GMT

I know that "be" is a ~~state~~ stative verb.

Look at this one:

- I'm being asked.

If "be" is a ~~state~~ stative verb, we shouldn't put it in continuous tense.

be is not always a stative verb or a linking verb. Here it is an auxiliary verb in a passive construction.

Linking:

He is sick. (Not He is being sick.)
She is happy. (Not She is being happy.)
They are poor. (Not They are being poor.)

Auxiliary in a passive construction.

He is being teased. (From (Someone) is teasing him.)
She is being harmed. (From (Someone) is harming her.)
They are being broken. (From (Someone) is breaking them.)

CJ

Re: Confused

Bird Of Paradise — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:14:27 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
I take it, these sentences are correct.
That's a (somewhat) safe assumption if you found them already formed by native speakers. So now the problem is to find an interpretation that makes them correct.

First of all, while stative verbs don't go well in this sort of construction with would, stative verbs can be combined with other sentence elements to make them non-stative (dynamic). It's not the stative verb that's the problem; it's the entire stative expression, allowing for context. A stative verb in the right context becomes a dynamic expression.

So -- in what way are these verbs combined with other elements in a way that makes them non-stative?

we would believe anyone who was older does not concern stative believing; it is the event of coming to believe something told by someone older the moment it was told. For this reason, would should be fine here. I see no objection to it. It's quite similar to we would imitate anyone who was older.

we would own pointy shoes with Cuban heels does seem awkward. To interpret this, we need to think of it as the event of coming to own the shoes, as in ?we came to own pointy shoes, that is, we would buy pointy shoes or we would make sure that we had pointy shoes to wear. I would not personally use would here, but I do see that it is a possibility.

we would live our lives like there was no tomorrow is somewhat less problematic, perhaps, because here the paraphrase might be we would behave like there was no tomorrow. In any case, living, in the sense of carrying on the activities of daily life, is not nearly so stative as it might first appear.

CJ

Would can also be used to indicate future time, e.g. i would like to know about it. Is it also incorrect to use would with stative verbs in futute time reference.

Re: Confused

CalifJim — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:38:50 GMT

I take it, these sentences are correct.

That's a (somewhat) safe assumption if you found them already formed by native speakers. So now the problem is to find an interpretation that makes them correct.

First of all, while stative verbs don't go well in this sort of construction with would, stative verbs can be combined with other sentence elements to make them non-stative (dynamic). It's not the stative verb that's the problem; it's the entire stative expression, allowing for context. A stative verb in the right context becomes a dynamic expression.

So -- in what way are these verbs combined with other elements in a way that makes them non-stative?

we would believe anyone who was older does not concern stative believing; it is the event of coming to believe something told by someone older the moment it was told. For this reason, would should be fine here. I see no objection to it. It's quite similar to we would imitate anyone who was older.

we would own pointy shoes with Cuban heels does seem awkward. To interpret this, we need to think of it as the event of coming to own the shoes, as in ?we came to own pointy shoes, that is, we would buy pointy shoes or we would make sure that we had pointy shoes to wear. I would not personally use would here, but I do see that it is a possibility.

we would live our lives like there was no tomorrow is somewhat less problematic, perhaps, because here the paraphrase might be we would behave like there was no tomorrow. In any case, living, in the sense of carrying on the activities of daily life, is not nearly so stative as it might first appear.

CJ

Re: Present perfect tense question

Diamondrg — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:07:20 GMT

Paco2004 wrote:
Hello Chang

The usage and meaning of the present perfect tense depends on the kind of the verb and the time adverbial used with it. For example, if you say "I have already finished the work", it means "I have now the result of <finished the work>". You can say also "I have graduated from Harvard University". We take it that you are saying "I have now the result of <graduated from Harvard University>", or, in another phrases, "I am a graduate from Harvard University". But you cannot say either "I have finished the work for three hours" to mean "I finished the work three hours ago" or "I have graduated Harvard University for ten years" to mean "I graduated Harvard University ten years ago".

The construction like "Subject has V-ed for X-period" is only possible when the verb V can have a sense of continuous state or a sense of repetitive/habitual activity. For example, "live" is a stative verb, so you can say "I have lived in Taipei for ten years". "Eat sushi" can be used to mean a repetitive/habitual activity, so you can say "I have eaten sushi for ten years". But "finish the work" or "graduate Harvard" is a singular punctual (= one-time) activity, so that you can say neither "I finished the work three hours ago" nor "I have graduated Harvard University for ten years"

paco

Hi, paco. I think the highlighted part needs an alteration, doesn't it?

Re: Present perfect tense question

paco2004 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:16:50 GMT

Hello Chang

The usage and meaning of the present perfect tense depends on the kind of the verb and the time adverbial used with it. For example, if you say "I have already finished the work", it means "I have now the result of <finished the work>". You can say also "I have graduated from Harvard University". We take it that you are saying "I have now the result of <graduated from Harvard University>", or, in another words, "I am a graduate from Harvard University". But you cannot say either "I have finished the work for three hours" to mean "I finished the work three hours ago" or "I have graduated Harvard University for ten years" to mean "I graduated Harvard University ten years ago".

The construction like "Subject has V-ed for X-period" is only possible when the verb V can have a sense of continuous state or a sense of repetitive/habitual activity. For example, "live" is a stative verb, so you can say "I have lived in Taipei for ten years". "Eat sushi" can be used to mean a repetitive/habitual activity, so you can say "I have eaten sushi for ten years". But "finish the work" or "graduate Harvard" is a singular punctual (= one-time) activity, so that you can say neither "I have finished the work for three hours" nor "I have graduated Harvard University for ten years"

paco