1 5 6 7  9 10 » 40
CalifJim
rinoceronteAgain, no. "Perfective" and "perfect" are the same thing. The same aspect. Those who insists they are not, do it for one reason: to justify the presence of the word "present" in Present Perfect.
You are repeating the same thing again and again. You have made up your mind to the point that I don't believe the most rational argument could ever disabuse you of your mistaken views. With that attitude you will never understand how English works.I have no more to say, so there is no need for you to reply.CJ
If you want to cut the conversation, don't call my views mistaken.
rinoceronteYou have made up your mind to the point that I don't believe the most rational argument could ever disabuse you of your mistaken view
I must have been not clear enough, so I would like to make it a bit clearer.

The native speakers who do not have the category of aspect in their grammar, and hence, logically enough, do not understand what it is (in particular, they don't know that aspect is half a definition of such a notion as tense). Nevertheless, they insist that there are more aspects than just perfect and imperfect. They insist there is perfective aspect which is different from perfect.

While indeed there are more than two aspects (which will be discussed one day thoroughly), the invention of "perfective" aspect different from perfect, is a big problem.

It's insisted, in particular, in the article in Wikipedia. The same Wikipedia which honestly confesses than "aspect is somewhat difficult category for German languages speakers to grasp". Let's try to understand what the reason for inventing "perfective" aspect is.

It's in desire to separate English perfect tenses from internationally accepted perfect aspect. Why would they want to do that? Because they had allowed Present Perfect to crookedly render the ongoing actions once. Since an ongoing action can't be perfect under any circumstances, they decided to justify it by mere invention of a myth that "our Perfect is not your perfect. Ours is perfect, yours is perfective".

No. Both ours and yours are simply perfect, while using Present Perfect for ongoing actions is a grammatical crime.

Does understanding of this give me a chance to "understand how English works"? Thank you.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
rinoceronteThe native speakers who do not have the category of aspect in their grammar, and hence, logically enough, do not understand what it is.

It's in desire to separate English perfect tenses from internationally accepted perfect aspect.
Rino - So I ask the rhetorical questions, "Why?" and "So what?"
99.9% of native speakers don't consciously know or are aware of their grammar or rules, they just communicate. English is capable of expressing everything that I have required over my life, so why do I need to be concerned about some esoteric linguistic theory? Why do I need to be concerned or aware that the Germanic concept of perfect is different from that of Russian?

I understand the blacks when they speak the African American Veracular (formerly ebonics), the Brits when they speak the British dialect, and those from the Indian subcontinent. Their grammar rules, pronunciation, and vocabulary vary from mine, but we are mutually intelligible. Great literature and poetry can be written elegantly and expressively in any of these dialects. Look at Mark Twain, as well as the author you cited. If someone posting to EnglishForward wants to apply my dialect, American English, in their speaking or writing, I am happy to tell them the way in which we express ourselves. Our British mods do the same for the BE dialect. Even so, we Americans sometimes differ in our advice because of our own backgrounds and regional variations. Language is a reflection of history and culture.

I also don't understand at all what you mean by some "international standard" of grammar. I've never heard or read about any such thing. Even linguists debate on many points of grammar among the academic community. Likewise, textbooks have changed over the years in how they present a study of the language. Some educators and linguists disparage Strunk and White (1918) now, but it was the "bible" for many years.

I also don't understand you when you say that some guy named Vendel made a pronouncement in 1959 about some rule regarding stative verbs. And this was wrong, but accepted and that event ruined my language. What is your source for this?

I have found no scintilla of evidence that this was true. My parents, friends, grandparents, distant relative, and teachers spoke and wrote no differently in the years following 1959 than they did in the years prior to 1959. I can read books published before and after 1959 and detect no effect of such a rule being adopted.

Regards,
A-Emotion: stars
AlpheccaStarsRino - So I ask the rhetorical questions, "Why?" and "So what?"

99.9% of native speakers don't consciously know or are aware of their grammar or rules, they just communicate...

So, let's abolish English grammar as such? Ask the question on this forum: "Do you want the English grammar to be cancelled?". I wonder what the answers might be.
AlpheccaStarsWhy do I need to be concerned or aware that the Germanic concept of perfect is different from that of Russian?

I don't know if you are a teacher of just a native speaker. If the Germanic concept of any language category differs from the Russian one, and you are teaching English to both, how can you teach without taking into consideration those differences? Especially, if they are diametrical?
AlpheccaStarsI also don't understand at all what you mean by some "international standard" of grammar
The one that regards the world's verb systems through the prism of not only time, but also aspect.
AlpheccaStarsI also don't understand you when you say that some guy named Vendel made a pronouncement in 1959 about some rule regarding stative verbs. And this was wrong, but accepted and that event ruined my language. What is your source for this? I have found no scintilla of evidence that this was true. My parents, friends, grandparents, distant relative, and teachers spoke and wrote no differently in the years following 1959 than they did in the years prior to 1959. I can read books published before and after 1959 and detect no effect of such a rule being adopted.Regards,A-s
It's Pretzel in fact.
Look, the world follows the rule which prohibits the phrases like "I have been knowing him for years". Instead you should say "I have known him for years". If I don't follow this demand I will fail any exam or test. I will be expelled from the university, lose a chance to find a good job and eventually die under a bridge. The official wording of this rule says: "The stative verbs can not be used in continuous tenses". The verbs were split into active and stative by that guy Zeno Krendel as recently as in 1959. So, the rule, which is a derivative of that split, is even younger. Now you say that your parents had been following the Rule long before it was introduced into English language. How does it contradict to the fact that the world should follow the rule, that the rule is phrased the way I mentioned above, and that Zeno Wendler introduced this rule in 1959 or later? The only thing I can say here is that it's very interesting for me why you parents had been doing so; what their reasons were, since the rule which would instruct them to do so, did not exist back then. Why did they use the verbs like "to know" in Present Perfect or Past Perfect tenses for ongoing actions? Why did not they use proper for such cases Perfect Continuous tenses? What were the reasons for Afro-Americans and Indians NOT to do so? (the latter one is rethorical, I know the answer. So do you). Regards, AI

Hi Rino, You have raised many points, and I am short on time. But I will give some comments on several as time permits.

The first is "Pretzel's Rule."
rinoceronteIt's Pretzel in fact.
Look, the world follows the rule which prohibits the phrases like "I have been knowing him for years". Instead you should say "I have known him for years"....
"The stative verbs can not be used in continuous tenses".

Actually, I googled Vendler, and found an early publication from 1957. Since he earned his Ph.D in 1959, your source is probably derived from his thesis, which further develops his ideas from 1957.

The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No. 2. (Apr., 1957), pp. 143-160.

The article is a philosophy of sematics regarding certain classes of verbs and their "time schema". He clarifies his position in the introduction "I do not claim that they represent all possible ways in which verbs can be used correctly... nor that a verb exhibiting a use fairly covered by one schema cannot have divergent uses..."

The body begins with "I start with the well-known difference between verbs that possess continuous tenses and verbs that do not."

So this distinction was well-known at the time, and could have been present in the language since Old English, Middle English or Early Modern English. You would have to do some research on the history of language to trace the origins of this distinction.

The analogy is Sir. Isaac Newton who starts with "Let's consider the observation that when you release an object from a height, it will fall to earth." Newton develops his theory of gravity and mathematical equations from careful study of falling objects. Did Newton invent gravity? Did gravity just suddenly happen because Newton decided to study it?

Apparently Vendler studied these classes of verbs as they were represented by educated, mainstream usage and codified some some conclusions. That does not mean that he invented these features in the language.

So scientists and engineers used Newton's laws in the first calculators of WWII, to determine the trajectories of projectiles. These calculations were used on warships to have a higher probablility of striking a distant target.

Vendler's codification thus gives the student a simple rule of thumb to hit the target of "mainstream usage."
Such usage might be an idiosyncracy of English, but it is something needs to be learned on the way to proficiency in passing tests...

Regards,
A-Emotion: stars
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
My second comment regards teaching English.
rinoceronteI don't know if you are a teacher of just a native speaker. If the Germanic concept of any language category differs from the Russian one, and you are teaching English to both, how can you teach without taking into consideration those differences?
I will give you some personal observations on teaching English and formal grammar instruction.

First, a close family member of mine married a Ukrainian lady. In 2001, she came to the US with her 12-year-old daughter, Anna. Anna was enrolled in the local school and put in the 7th grade bilingual class. This class was 95% Hispanic. There were a couple of Chinese. But Anna immediately made American friends and socialized with them. The next year she was in the mainstream American class. She had no formal grammar instruction, and certainly no lessons comparing English grammar with Ukrainian grammar!
Last spring, she graduated almost straight A's from a top-level university, and she is as fluent as anyone who had learned English as a native language. She has no accent and says she now thinks and dreams in English.

Second, in my teaching, I once had an ESL intermediate class with members who spoke these (native) languages: Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, French, Korean, Polish, German and Spanish. I had no trouble teaching them basic grammar, vocabulary, reading and writing. The Polish man (of the couple) went on to publish a book of poetry in English and Polish. The Hispanic couple's children all graduated cum laude from university. The couple never became fluent in English (they were domestic workers and did not have the time for immersion), but they had a devotion to education and perserverance that rewarded my teaching beyond description.

Third, this was my most challenging position as a teacher. I had a class of wonderful, gentle, beautiful women resettled to the US from a UN refugee camp in Tanzania. They had lived there since escaping from the first Rwandan genocide in 1974. They had no home to return to, and the UN agreed to resettle the entire population to the West. They were housed in apartments, so vastly different from their village life in Tanzania, that they were in culture shock. None of the ladies had ever seen the inside of a classroom. They were illiterate (and innumerate) in their own language (Kirundi). They spoke not a word of English, and I had no resources in Kirundi.... English grammar??? Rules of stative verbs??? These were light-years distant from these learners.

Regards,
A-Emotion: stars
rinoceronte"Do you want the English grammar to be cancelled?".
The final remarks are on your question, and I have to be brief.

The truth is that a lot of grammars are being cancelled, according to National Geographic linguistic researchers.

Here is a recent BBC news item:

In the midst of a period of rapid language extinction, with a language estimated to die every two weeks, linguists have found a small ray of hope, a language previously unknown to science in far northeastern India.

Koro is so different from other Tibeto-Burman languages that the researchers have not been able to identify any in the language family that are closely related to it. The people who live in the area speak Aka languages, also very rare, and learn Hindi and English to speak to outsiders.....

Koro was discovered when the research team went to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in 2008 to find out more about two poorly documented languages, Aka and Miji. To their surprise, they also began to hear a third, unknown language, Koro, which was not listed in any of the scientific literature....

Every time a language is lost, a complex and ancient constellation of stories, poems, myths and legends also dies, especially in smaller languages that are often unwritten, Garrett says. "It's as if we suddenly lost Greek and all the literature associated with it."

Every language has an innate grammar. To extinguish the language is to cancel the grammar. Since English is well documented and has more than a few thousand speakers, it would take quite a global catastrophe to extinguish it.

That being said, the language will continue to evolve. If it changed as much in the next 1500 years as it has in the past 1500 years, what we call English today might become unintelligible to these future generations. But like Hittite and ancient Greek, it will still be alive in the hallways of linguists and pedagogues.

Regards,
A-Emotion: stars
AlpheccaStarsHi Rino, You have raised many points, and I am short on time. But I will give some comments on several as time permits.The first is "Pretzel's Rule.
Hi Alphecca. First, thank you for addressing this issue so thoughtfully and carefully. It's a pleasure talking to you.

The thing seems to be getting an interesting twist. Vendler himself says that "it was not him", and that "verbs that possess continuous tenses and verbs that do not" existed in Middle Ages or so. That's where the most mystery lies.

What two groups of verbs is he talking about? It's clear. He is talking about ACTIVE AND STATIVE verbs. But that was VENDLER who was the first to split the verbs into these groups, be it in 1957 or 1959! That's what he is famous for. He is sending us to Middle Ages to look for two verb categories that he himself invented in 1959! Back to the future, indeed...

No matter if it was in Middle Ages of in Cainozoe, the stative verbs can't be forbidden from being used in imperfect tenses, be it an official rule, or an ancient legend passed from lips to lips. It comes from the nature of stative verbs.

Our beloved Wikipedia gives such a definition of state: a synonym for a moment in time, a point in time. Isn't that EXACTLY the definition of Continuous tenses, which Vendler forbade to use with stative verbs?

I have been seeing him for two years.

I have been knowing him for two years.

What so different do you find between those two pairs, except for the fact that you are not used to the latter? "To know" is as perfect a process or continuity as any other verb.

By the way, what about the verb "to wait"? Isn't "waiting" a state? It's as a state as Pope is Catholic. It's the stativest of all the stative verbs. Don't you use it in Perfect Continuous?

"I've Been Waiting for You". A song. Aha... ABBA (not Afro-Americans, but neither natives), OK... Neil Young (not an Afro-American, but if he is Algonquin is hard to tell from his face), well, who else... Pixies (definitely not Afro-Americans), David Bowie (the last on the planet to be confused with Afro-Americans)... Dannii Minogue (not Afro-American)... Christopher Leitch (director of a film with the same name, not Afro-American). Google gives 63,800,000 results for "I have been waiting". Do you yourself say "I have been waiting for you", or do you say "I have waited for you"?

Did you ever google for stative verbs used in continuous tenses? Do you know that this search will give you millions of results? Do you know that all those millions are not illiteral people, but quite vice versa? All of them know that stative verbs gravitate to IMPERFECTNESS. The Slavic people will always say something like "Я всегда это знал" , the Roman people would say something like "Lo sabía siempre" (the underlined is the verb "to know" in imperfect aspect). It's only you (not you personally) who says "I have always known" (although, the search string "always been knowing" gives an optimistic number of 132,000 results).
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
AlpheccaStarsMy second comment regards teaching English.
Alphecca, I'm sorry for having seemed to question your teaching experience. I didn't mean it, and believe me, they way you communicate leaves no doubts as to your highest language qualifications. But they can be even higher, if you take into consideration the aspect issue.

An example of yours. A mixed class. Do you know what was there in the minds of a German guy and the Polish one when they were listening to you teaching them English language? When you told them about Past Perfect? The German guy was calm, because in his native language the situation with this tense is similar - German language does not have aspects. But the Polish guy was nervous, because for every English Past Perfect phrase there are two variants in Polish language, quite diametrical in their meanings. You did not tell him what the difference was, and he had to find it out himself. That's what we all are doing after we have learnt the basic English course - we self-educate to fill that aspect difference vacuum that is always present. Did you ever tell the Hispanics that "yo hacía" = "I did" and "yo hice" = I did"? While "yo hacía" is very far for them to be equal to "yo hice". How are they supposed to find that out?

After all, what's the point of teaching English tenses to foreigners? The point is for them to be able to find ALL the correspondences between English tenses and the tenses of languages of their own. In both directions. Can you imagine now faces of both German and Polish guys who find themselves trying to find correspondences between different sets of tenses, since Polish tenses and German tenses do not correspond?
Show more