1 2 3 4  6 7 » 40
Actually, it was directed towards you when I said 'all due respect'. And I was referring mainly to you when I said "(they) made me want to enroll in a crash course in linguistics". I had never really given enough thought terms such as 'subjunctive', 'conditional', 'indicative' ' mood', 'aspect' and all those jargons before I landed on this thread. It made me realize how limited my knowledge of English grammar is. And it somehow made me feel that knowledge of those terms is vital if I am to engage in a discourse on grammar.
So thanks to you!
Thank you for thanking me and thank you again for you good words! Emotion: smile)))))
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
rinoceronte1. Replacing the word "present" in "Present Perfect". Reason: this tense is not present.
2. Replacing the word "perfect" in "Perfect Continuous". Reason: these tenses are not perfect.

Hi Rinoceronte:

When I hear the word "perfect," I think of the auxiliary verb "have."

The present perfect to me only means:
that verb form that is composed of the simple present of the auxiliary "have" plus the past participle of the main verb.
The past perfect is then, by extension, composed of the simple past of the auxilliary "have" + present participle.
etc.

When I hear the term "progressive," (some sources use "continuous") I know that the present participle of the main verb is going to be a component in the verb phrase.

When I hear the words "perfect" and "progressive" together, I expect a verb phrase construction using the the auxiliary (have) and the present participle.

To me, the tense names emphasize the form (construction) of a tense (the mechanics), and that comes at the expense of being somewhat lax about the usage (function). The convenience of a form-based naming system has its drawback when the resulting names are taken too literally: it might not correspond precisely to the verb's "aspects" (duration, completeness or incompleteness, relative time) as compared to these definitions in other languages. So I understand why it would be irksome.

Still I do not consider this a grievous "system error" at all. You just have to accept that it is a form-based naming convention, not a function-based one.
The function (usage) of the forms then has to be learned apart from the names. At least, they come out as an approximation! Emotion: smile The present perfect, after all, does refer to an action that is of interest in the current time frame.

Regards,
A-Emotion: stars

AlpheccaStarsThe convenience of a form-based naming system has its drawback when the resulting names are taken too literally: it might not correspond precisely to the verb's "aspects" (duration, completeness or incompleteness, relative time) as compared to these definitions in other languages. So I understand why it would be irksome.

Still I do not consider this a grievous "system error" at all. You just have to accept that it is a form-based naming convention, not a function-based one.
[Y][Y][Y]

CJ
rinoceronte1. Replacing the word "present" in "Present Perfect". Reason: this tense is not present.
2. Replacing the word "perfect" in "Perfect Continuous". Reason: these tenses are not perfect.
These are complaints against traditional terminology. True, the traditional terminology of English grammar does have its share of misnomers. But no harm is done once you realize this.

"present", for example, refers to a present point of view, not to present time itself. The only other point of view in English is the past point of view.

You can see from this chart of tenses that the construction with will may as well be called the present future and the one with would may as well be called the past future.

Time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Present point of view.
..............present perfect tense ..........present tense ...................... (will) ..............
(past of the present) (future of the present)
(present anterior) (present posterior)

Past point of view.
.............past perfect tense ................past tense ......................(would)................
(past of the past) (future of the past)
(past anterior) (past posterior)

"perfect" refers only to the use of the auxiliary "have", which marks anteriority of action or state with respect to a certain point of view. It should in no way be considered to have anything to do with the perfective aspect of Slavic languages. That's why many of us insist on using the English word "perfective", not "perfect", when considering this aspect in Russian. If there is some overlap, it should be seen as pure coincidence, because the "perfect" tenses of English do not neatly correspond to the "perfective" verbs of Russian.

Obviously, what is continuous (imperfective) is not perfective (They're opposites), but what is continuous can be anterior with respect to a given viewpoint, and that's all that a combination like "perfect" (anterior) and "continuous" means.

I don't think there is anything more harmful to the understanding of the English tense system for speakers of Slavic languages than the mistaken idea that "perfect" means "perfective". It is preferable to equate "perfect" with "anterior" to avoid such misunderstandings. And there is no reason why your textbooks in the Russian-speaking world cannot translate our word "perfect" as "anterior". If it is being translated as "perfective" in such books, then maybe the translation is wrong.

CJ
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
rinoceronteRenaming Continuous aspect. Reason: it does not reflect continuity.
I don't quite see your point here. Both "progressive" and "continuous" seem to me to represent the progression or continuousness of a situation, whether as a continued activity or a continued state.

He was jumping up and down.
He was living in Detroit.

CJ
rinoceronteAbolishing stative verbs rule.
I am not familiar with any "stative verbs rule". What does it consist of?

Might you be referring to the fact that certain verbs don't occur in the continuous tenses? For example, we don't say "He is knowing the truth" or "The box was containing two apples", and so on.

CJ
AlpheccaStarsThe present perfect to me only means: that verb form that is composed of the simple present of the auxiliary "have" plus the past participle of the main verb....
When I hear the words "perfect" and "progressive" together, I expect a verb phrase construction using the the auxiliary (have) and the present participle
Thank you, Alphecca, for shedding so much light on the issue.

You have described exactly what I have been telling my students as my hunch for the reasons for the words "perfect" and "perfect" to appear in the tenses' names. When they ask me, "why did they put the word "present" there?", I answer: "Perhaps, they saw that the auxiliary verb "have" is used here in present, and hence misconcluded, that the tense could be called present as well". But this tense exists in Roman languages too, the auxiliary verb is used there in present too, but the "Romans" did not consider this a reason to call the tense present. Look:
English: I have done. "Have" is in present, the tense in called Present.
Spanish: Yo he hecho. "He" (haber) is in present, the tense is called Pretérito (past)
Portugues: Eu tenho feito. "Tenho" (ter) is in present, the tense is called Pretérito (past)
French: Je ai fait. "Ai" (avoire) is in present, the tense is called Passé (past)
Italian: Io ho fatto. "Ho" (avere) is in present, the tense is called Passato (past)
And now, the most important, Latin, which was the source for both you and Roman languages to borrow this tense:
Latin: Ego habeō factum. "Habeō" (habere) is in present, the tense is called Perfect, interpreted as a Recent-Past.

So, as you see, the rest of the world indeed proceeds from the tense's function, while you proceed from the form. And that's why I call this a system error - only few people care about the stuff we are talking about. Most proceed from the tense's name: "if it's called "present", assumably I can use it for ongoing actions".

The same situation with Perfect Continuous. You called it "Perfect" for only reason, that it's formed similarly with Perfect tenses (both are formed with the help of "have"). But not because these tenses are perfect. They are not. They are continuous (which is, imperfect).

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
CalifJim"perfect" refers only to the use of the auxiliary "have", which marks anteriority of action or state with respect to a certain point of view. It should in no way be considered to have anything to do with the perfective aspect of Slavic languages. That's why many of us insist on using the English word "perfective", not "perfect", when considering this aspect in Russian. If there is some overlap, it should be seen as pure coincidence, because the "perfect" tenses of English do not neatly correspond to the "perfective" verbs of Russian.Obviously, what is continuous (imperfective) is not perfective (They're opposites), but what is continuous can be anterior with respect to a given viewpoint, and that's all that a combination like "perfect" (anterior) and "continuous" means.I don't think there is anything more harmful to the understanding of the English tense system for speakers of Slavic languages than the mistaken idea that "perfect" means "perfective". It is preferable to equate "perfect" with "anterior" to avoid such misunderstandings. And there is no reason why your textbooks in the Russian-speaking world cannot translate our word "perfect" as "anterior". If it is being translated as "perfective" in such books, then maybe the translation is wrong.CJ
Jim, don't let yourself repeat the mistake of Zeno Wendler. You too make conclusions about aspects without knowing what they are (not your fault, English grammar just doesn't have this category). The first thing not to do is to attribute the aspects exclusively to Russian. The same system perfectly exists in Roman languages as well. For that reason we have, say, in Spanish TWO past simple tenses, where you have only ONE: "Yo hacía" and "Yo hice" are both translated into English as "I did", while each of them represents a distinct aspect ("Yo hacía" - imperfect, "Yo hice" - perfect). Hence, the second thing not to do is to call for equating "perfect" to "anterior". As you see, from our point of view (which is Russian point of view, Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Polish, Greek, Turkish, Georgian, Armenian, Indian and many more points of view) "anterior" includes both aspects: "perfect" and "imperfect" as any anterior action can be either a completed action with a result (perfect aspect) or a resultless process (imperfect aspect). And the last, please, don't insist on inventing more terms, like "perfective" or so. All the world's actions feel wonderfully under a simple 2-aspect verb system, no matter what language they belong to, even if it's English.
Show more