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

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: saddening/seeing

Clive — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:23:24 GMT

HI again,

Thanks Clive for your reply.But I am not convinced with your answer.I read this link posted on this site itself - http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/stat.htm . I can't open your link, although I can imagine what it says.
Here its mentioned we can not use "see" and "sadden" (which are stative verbs) in the progressive tense.
I wouldn't say that stative verbs can never take the progressive. However, I would say that they rarely do. In addition, verbs that are usually stative often also have non-stative meanings, in which case the progressive is OK.

The verb 'see' is an example of this.
If a lion walks into the room, you might say 'Oh, I see a lion', but you wouldn't say 'Oh, I am seeing a lion'.

However, there are other meanings of see that do not relate to perception. Look in your dictionary. eg
A: Is Mary seeing anyone special?
B: Yes, she's seeing Tom.
Here, the verb 'see' mean 'date', 'go out with'. The two people (A and B) are talking about whether Mary has a boyfriend.

eg 'I am seeing the doctor tomorrow' means I am visiting the doctor tomorrow, I have an appointment arranged with the doctor tomorrow.

So you are contradicting what I have learnt earlier from this forum itself,making me confused. One more question - You have mentioned an example "Marry is seeing the doctor tomorow". Is not "Marry will visit the doctor tomorow" a more correct way of expressing? Please explain See my comment above. Both my way (using 'see', and your way using 'visit') are fine. My way is probably much more commonly said. You can say things in English in a variety of ways.

'I am going to see/visit the doctor tomorrow' indicates a plan. (I suggest you have a look at the differences between future with 'will' and future with 'going to'.)
'I am seeing the doctor tomorrow' indicates that the arrangements are settled, eg I probably have already made an appointment.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: saddening/seeing

MaverickK — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:24 GMT

Thanks Clive for your reply.But I am not convinced with your answer.I read this link posted on this site itself - http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/stat.htm . Here its mentioned we can not use "see" and "sad" (which are stative verbs) in the progressive tense.
So you are contradicting what I have learnt earlier from this forum itself,making me confused. One more question - You have mentioned an example "Marry is seeing the doctor tomorow". Is not "Marry will visit the doctor tomorow" a more correct way of expressing? Please explain

Re: saddening/seeing

Clive — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:34:28 GMT

Hi,
I think the following 2 sentences are incorrect - No, they are fine. Not all -ing words involve a progressive verb tense.

1) It is saddening to see that people die of hunger even after 60 years of independence. 'Saddening' here is used as an adjective. eg it is a saddening sight . . .

2) It is high time the common man is disabused of his illusive hope of seeing India as a developed nation. 'Seeing' here is used as a gerund.

"Sad" is a state and therefore a stative verb. "See" is a verb of perception. Therefore both should not be used in the progressive tense.
'Mary is saddening because of all her problems' certainly sounds odd, as does 'Her problems are saddening Mary'.

However, 'Mary is seeing the doctor tomorrow' sounds fine. You could argue that this does not mean 'Mary is perceiving the doctor tomorrow'. But it also sounds OK to say
'Mary is intoxicated. She says that she is seeing double'.

Best wishes. Clive

saddening/seeing

MaverickK — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:20:47 GMT

Hi,

I think the following 2 sentences are incorrect -

1) It is saddening to see that people die of hunger even after 60 years of independence.

2) It is high time the common man is disabused of his illusive hope of seeing India as a developed nation.

"Sad" is a state and therefore a stative verb. "See" is a verb of perception. Therefore both should not be used in the progressive tense.
Please tell me if the above 2 sentences are correct.

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: Martha has lived in Europe and Asia when she was little

Goodman — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:59:43 GMT

Amy,

Thank you for taking the time for the detailed explanation. I understand and in principle agree with almost everything you said. However, there is still some kind of glitch in our thoughts interpreting that particular sentence. Either my head is so thick that the signals from you can not penetrate, or I learned my English with the wrong book. we are still far apart from agreeing. So I searched for the answers. Keep in mind this is the questioned sentence.

<<She [had lived] in Europe and Asia with her family [when she was a little girl] >>

I am not advocating the use of past perfect. Rather proposing if it would be a more logical choice at the beginning. Of course a simple past would do the job but that was not the question. This is what I found:

http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/pastperfect01.html

The past perfect can serve the same purpose as conjunctions of time such as when, after and before:

My proposed sentence in debate:

When she (had) finished her work she left the office.
After Jimmy (had) arrived, the party became really good.
Before he retired my father (had) worked in the post office.

Notice that it is not normally necessary to use the past perfect in these situations, but it is quite common to do so, especially with the conjunction when, which has several different meanings and may need to be clarified.

By using a combination of these conjunctions and different tenses we can not only explain ourselves more precisely, but also be less repetitive.

As with most verb tenses, the past perfect has both a simple and a continuous form:

I had talked to all of the candidates by lunchtime.
I had been talking so much that I was starting to go hoarse.

While the simple form is used to stress the fact that the action was finished (i.e. there were no more candidates to talk to), the continuous form stresses the continuation of the activity (i.e. I would (probably) talk some more).

Another difference is that we tend to use the past perfect simple to speak about situations that lasted a long time, or were permanent, while the past perfect continuous is for more temporary or short-term situations or actions:

By that time the Moors had lived in southern Spain for over 700 years.
I had only been living in London for a week when I found a job.

There are also some verbs (called stative verbs) that are not usually used in the continuous form, even though that tense would seem to be more appropriate.

We also use the past perfect tense with verb

Despites all the words said and used in the exchanges of this discussion, I do appreacite all the responses sincerely!

Re: Tesnses

Ant_222 — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:03:09 GMT

«Tom is being a rich student. vs Tom will have been being a rich student. vs Tom will be being a rich student.»

As you should have read, the Present Continuous tense is used to express an on-going (active) process, that is happening at the moment of speech (the present).

But being a student is not a process at all. Intutively people perceive it as a state. Tom is a student. The car is white. Neither Tom nor the car are not doing anything to be a student and white accordingly. They just are so. Tom can sleep, eat, play The Dig! and still be a student. The car may stand in the garage or cruise across America, but it still will be white. There's no need in a certain _process_ for the car to remain white.

Of course, Tom should study well and the car should be taken care of, but those are processes are only supporting the corresponding states. If Tom stops to do homework he'll be expelled from his university, but it won't happen right at the moment he've decided to stop doing university tasks.

Same goes to the car: if its owner stops washing it and protecting against corrosion it'll take a considerable time for the car to get rusted all over and through, so it can no longer be called a white car.

That's why progressive tenses usually don't work with the so-called stative verbs.

But you can say:

1. Tom is a student â Now he is a student
2. Tom will be student (sometime in the future)
3. Tom was a student (when he was young)

About verbs expressing processes:

Let's take a very simple process â that of playing a game.

A process is not a state, some activity is required for the process to keep going on.

So, you can say: "I am playing a game now."
If tomorrow, say at 18:00 this process will be active, you can say: "Tomorrow at six I will be playing footbal with friends, so I will not be able (to be able â a state) to receive the parcel"

And if you say: "I play footbal" â you again express a state not a process. What state can that be? Only one â your state of being a regular footbal player. If you play footbal every Friday and Sunday, you can say on some Thursday evening: "I play footbal. And tommorow I'll be playing the final game for the cup of..."

But how to express that you became a student 3 years ago and are still a student?

"I have been a student for three years" â this Perfect tense syas that the action of your being a student began in the past (3 years ago) and is still not finished. It's called perfect because it considers a time interval up to now.

One year before you would say: "In a year I'll have been a student for three years." (Future Perfect)

And For years later you would say: "One year ago I had been a student for three years" (Past Perfect).

In the above sentences Past Pefrect expresses an unfinished (by some past moment) action, Future Perfect â an action that will be unfinished (but will have begun) at some moment in the future.

Now you can see that there's certain logic behind the names of tenses. The first word describes the time (Future, Present, Past), and the second reports the type of the action (Perfect â up to some moment, simple â a state, progressive â on-going process)

In addition to expressing states, Simple tenses are used to describe actions which are fully located in the past (Past Simple) or in the future (Future Simple):

"I will read you letter tomorrow"
"Yesterday I killed a fly"

There are also other usages of Past and Present Perfect, which you'll easily find well described in many books on grammar. I
explained only a few of them to see whether it helps at all.

P.S.: And beware, Tom: I am not an English teacher!