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

Re: account for

CalifJim — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:40:38 GMT

Taka
Isn't this the same

Well, there's 'the same', and then there's 'the same', if you know what I mean. It's not exactly the same of course, but it's similar.

The -ing formulation, with its non-finite verb, has been changed to a present perfect, a finite verb form. This alone causes some of the meaning to be lost -- specifically the 'thereby' concept:

These ... have caught ..., thereby bringing out a wave of ...

These ... have caught .... In doing so, they have brought out a wave of ...

These ... have caught ..... As a consequence, they have brought out a wave of ...

As you see, above, other than dropping the 'thereby' concept, your paraphrase is 'the same' as the original.

Re: "If I were" in past

MrPedantic — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:56:39 GMT

I think the difference is that "be" is a main verb, in the original example; but in the "duelling" example, it is part of a compound passive construction.

(Also, in the original, you wouldn't say "If I were to be stronger,...". So there's no reason to use a present perfect version of the latter for the "past".)

MrP

Re: tense - presenting a person

Mister Micawber — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:11:00 GMT

.
All such uses, when correctly applied, relate the past event to the present situation in some way-- that is the general boundary of the use of the present perfect verb aspect.

The original poster wished to introduce a person, including indicating that the person was a college graduate: here,. simple past is appropriate. In the latest Anon post, the excerpts wish to stress that the person mentioned should have graduated by now (= the current point of reference in each case)-- thus relating the past event to the present. The same reasoning applies when present perfect is used to refer to a recent past event-- it is not simply that the event occurred not long ago, but that it occurred not long before now.

Does that help you understand, Anon?
.

Re: in Israeli prison

New2grammar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:17:29 GMT

I see the problem with my original now. the reason present perfect tense must be repeated is that the verbs are not parellel.

He has been sentenced (passive, a judge sentenced him)
He has served (active, he serves his sentence)

Re: Having done sth - only valid with Present Perfect?

CalifJim — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:22:02 GMT

paul_h
Is it valid to use "Having lived in the USA for x years" even though you don't live there anymore?

Yes. That's fine.

paul_h
"Having lived" is present perfect, but what would be the simple past form of that? Also, would you use that?

There's no corresponding form.

having lived is a participial expression, a non-finite form, so it can't express the full range of tenses that a finite verb form can.

(The same problem occurs with infinitives. The infinitives do not cover the full range of tenses.)

Re: Need help over here.

Mr Wordy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:08:00 GMT

1. Well, "had" is the past tense of the verb "have", but I think you're asking specifically about its use as an auxiliary to form the past perfect tense of other verbs:

I played -- simple past tense

I have played -- present perfect tense

I had played -- past perfect (or pluperfect) tense

So, even though "have" on its own is present tense, it forms a past tense with other verbs. If you do a Google search for these tense names then you will find tons of information on their uses. See, for example, http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html (this page describes the past perfect; all the other tenses are linked down the left hand side).

"I have played football yesterday" isn't right. "have played football" has the general sense of "played football on one or more unspecified occasions in the past", and it doesn't go with "yesterday", which is a specific occasion. Instead you would say "I played football yesterday".

2. "Never" can be used with a variety of different tenses, depending on when the thing in question wasn't/isn't done or didn't/doesn't happen. A couple of examples:

You never told me that you loved me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past, but you might tell me now (or in the future).

You never tell me that you love me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past and you don't tell me now. In other words, the absence of telling continues up to and including the present.

It's not possible to use the present tense with "never before", so "I never do that before" is wrong. It should be "I never did that before" (or "I have never done that before").

Re: transitive or intransitive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:30:57 GMT

Anonymous

Here, "is vanished", are we taking it as an intransitive?

If yes, then, are all intransitives be able to form present perfect sentences?

I'm not an expert on grammar or linguistics, but here are my thoughts as an ordinary native user of English. I hope I got all the grammatical terminology correct!

I think that all verbs -- transitive or intransitive -- are able to form present perfect sentences: "He has died", "It has vanished", "They've eaten all the pies". At least, I can't think of any verbs that can't, or any reason why they should exist.

"Is" (or, analogously, "are", "was" or "were") followed by the past participle of a transitive verb can range from a pure passive use ("I'd be astonished if that record is broken by an American") to an adjectival use ("This watch is broken."). In the latter case, the idea that the watch has been broken by something or someone, though in theory implied by the word "broken", is weak or non-existent, and "broken" behaves as an adjective that just describes the present state of the watch (just like "The watch is heavy"). Moreover it can be placed before the noun: "A broken watch".

"Is" followed by the past participle of an intransitive verb can't form an passive sentence in the usual sense: "He is/was died by a heart attack" is wrong. So, if the sentence "The watch is vanished" is interpreted as an ordinary passive then it must be the case that "vanished" is used transitively. (There is, however, something called the "impersonal passive". The usual examples are things like "it is believed", where we are not saying that the thing believed is "it" (ordinary passive), but just that there is a general sense of people believing. I'm not very clear if and how "is vanished" might fit this sense.)

The remaining possibility is that the past participles of intransitive verbs (such as, perhaps, "vanish") can, by analogy with the adjectival use of transitive past participles, be used adjectivally -- even though the "background" meaning that I mentioned earlier can't exist even in theory. Let's look at some examples. "It is existed" and "It is behaved" are completely wrong. "He is died" is not quite completely wrong but could (to me) only be used in certain special situations, such as jokey use or attempts at recreating or preserving archaic language. In most contexts it would sound unnatural. Are there any intransitive past participles that are natural adjectives in everyday language? One candidate that comes to mind is "fallen", in the sense of "fallen from a state of respectability". For example, "a fallen woman" is perfectly good English to me (though "she is fallen" still has a slight sense to me that it is an archaic form of "she has fallen").

conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:44:17 GMT

Hi,

A:How is it different? Is the zero conditional and the second and third ones type 1? I think CalifJim told us that the modal 'can' counts as present.

1.If you can make money, please use the money to help people.

2. If you can make money, use money to help people.

3. If you can make money, you will be able to help people.

Can we use a modal verb like can, may, should in the if-clause or the main clause, as well as going to future or present continuous future, as well as a present perfect in the if-clause for both zero and first conditionals? We can't seem to be able to use all those for type 2 and 3 conditionals. sorry for asking many questions.

B:Does this mixed conditional show ongoing circumstances in relation to a event happened in the past OR does it indicate a past result by a present hypothetical situation as I thought it was?

If you weren't such a bad singer, You would have gotten a job as a professional singer.

If you weren't so occupied with you work, you would have seen him trying to steal your money.

Re: future perfect progressive and present perfect

Clive — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:46:09 GMT

Hi,

1. Why does it have to be 'prior to the main narrative time frame' here? Can it be 'past the main narrative time frame'?

The future perfect progressive verb will have been listening suggests action that will begin in the time frame prior to the main narrative time frame and that will be still be underway when another action begins.

Consider this timeline for tomorrow.

6pm. I will start cooking dinner.

7pm I will finish cooking dinner.

If you call me at 6.60 pm tomorrow, I will have been cooking dinner for half an hour.

I don't understand your question, Can it be 'past the main narrative time frame'? Can you please provide a timeline similar to the above, to show what you are asking about?

2. Is this use of present perfect OK as part of what looks like instructions or a definition?

An electrical instrument that is heated and used to sooth clothes after you have dried them.

Yes. But the passive is often used in such a context to avoid the use of 'you', ie to avoid any reference to an agent.

An electrical instrument that is heated and used to ~~sooth~~ iron clothes after they have been dried.

Best wishes, Clive

mostly word usages

Anonymous — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:46:04 GMT

Hi,

I was looking at the Verb Tense Consistency section of the OWL Online Writing Lab and I have these doubts of word usages.

1. Do you have to make one word out the word or words 'time-distinction'? Why not 'time distinction'? It makes sense without a hyphen too to me?

..., but the differences between them make clear sense only in the context other sentences since the time-distinctions suggested by different tenses are ...

2. What difference would it make if it is written 'the pizzeria's window'?

... , which takes place (present) the day after Mookie has smashed (present perfect) the pizzeria window.

3. I thougt for the most part, the only time you use a counable 'development' is when talking about the addition or development to an physical structure. Is this use correct?

...entitles (biographical information about a historical figure or narration of developments in an author's idea over time).