1  3 4 5 6 7 8 10

You will simply not find many native speakers who will ever say this
Looks like I'm about to reveal you a huge truth: you will find as many as 4000+ instances of stative verbs used in progressive tenses (including 'been knowing' combinations) in the works of American authors.

That's always more fun!
That's what she said.

Also can you illustrate some of the things you claimed about Latin please? Having learned Latin for quite a long time, I am impressed to notice that I am unable to follow what you said about the perfect tense and it's comparison to Present Perfect in English.
That's incredible! You've managed in one post to:

a) offend me wih your arrogant tone (not substantiated by ANYTHING);

b) confess me that you don't read American literature;

c) reveal yourself as a bad Latin learner;

d) humbly ask me to share with my knowledge which, I bet, you will re-sell to our students for good money

You even don't know what I'm talking about. It's not Latin perfect tense. It's a specific tense not taught by Latin scholars in universities. Unlike you, I didn't learn Latin 'for quite a long time', but I had enough brains to find the Latin predecessor to Present Perfect myself in Latin texts. It doesn't seem to have an official name, I call it "habeo factum". You won't find it a lot, but it did exist. OK, you may tell that to your students, just tell them you learnt it from Rinoceronte.
Funny that I shhould think YOUR tone is arrogant all the way along.

Are there Any other alien tenses you have discovered in Latin that I should be aware of?

I am sure that if you knew anything about Latin, you wouldn't mind sharing your superior knowledge with us. You didn't mind sharing your "knowledge" in all the rants preceding this one.

Si non vis me dicere mihi non est necesse te audire...
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

Funny that I shhould think YOUR tone is arrogant all the way along.
Yes, that's funny indeed. I don't remember being arrogant to you for I have learnt about your existence just now.

Are there Any other alien tenses you have discovered in Latin that I should be aware of?
What do you mean by alien? Is it that you call everything that exists but you heard of alien?

No, I don't think you should be aware of anything.

I am sure that if you knew anything about Latin, you wouldn't mind sharing your superior knowledge with us. You didn't mind sharing your "knowledge" in all the rants preceding this one.
That's just unbelieveable. Five minutes ago you learnt from me that there had been a predecessor to Present Perfect tense in Latin. Something that you wouldn't hear from anybody else. And instead of thanking you question my knowledge. That's like biting a lump of my flesh off with simultaneous injection of poison into the wound. Not cool.
Well I do find it arrogant to strike a tone which assumes that someone knows less than you do, when in fact you have no idea what they know...and you just said yourself that you only just got to know me.

I also think it's rude to ignore what I said last in my post...(which should be all the reference you need to the fact that you haven't taught me anything, since I have no idea about this tense now...I can tell you that bees are helpful in pollination..that wouldn't make you understand what pollination is or how it works...so I haven't taught you anything either).
But I told you everything! There was a tense in Latin which was formed with the verb "have" (habere) in present time plus passive participle of the lexical verb. I call it "habeo factum", which is "I have done". The tense was borrowed by other European languages. Romanic languages preserved tense's essence (an action completed recently) and named it "past" (passé, preterito, passato). English for no reason named it "present". The mess began. End of story.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
rinoceronte This is just nonsense. I bet you don't follow the thoughts of your own. 'Earth' NEVER demands an article. It's unique.
Actually I have no trouble following my own train of thought.

In fact the articles in English aren't really all that difficult. Putting proper nouns aside for a bit and concentrating on common nouns only, the first decision that we make (subconsiously) about whether or not to use an article in front of a noun is based on whether the noun is unique in the given context, i.e. whether it is assumed that all the participants in the conversation or our readers know which common known we mean. If that is the case then we use the definite article 'the'. At this stage we don't care about whether the noun is countable or uncountable, plural or singlular. I.e. if it's a common noun and it's unique, i.e. has been contextually singled out, then it takes 'the'.

Now if you've noticed the word 'earth' is spelled in English either as 'earth', i.e. starting with a small letter e, in which case it takes 'the', i.e. when it is used as a common noun, or it can be spelled as 'Earth' with a capital E, in which case it's essentially treated as a proper noun, the name of our plant and is thus used without an artilce.

Look at the examples here

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/earth_1

the earth revolves around the sun (both 'earth' and 'sun' are used as common nouns)

the original of life on Earth (here Earth is a proper noun, no article)

Your proposition that unique nouns never take any articles is simply wrong. Sorry but there's no other way of saying this.


But you were arguing them furiously. You didn't know them.
what was I arguing?

I'm tired of you, Dwight. You know perfectly that I enumerated them a couple of days ago specifically for you, but you are still doing it. The languages that tell aspects are:
Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovakian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian, Belorussian, Romanian, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Finnish, Georgian, Armenian, Herbrew, Arabic, Algonquin, Hindi, Sanskrit, Ancient Indian, Yoruba and MANY MANY MANY MORE!
So tell me then are there languages out there that do not distinguish between perfective and imperfective aspects, like perhaps German, Dutch, Danish, Chinese, Japanese etc.

My point is that if such languages exist in principle and English just happens to fall into this other category of languages that have done away with the strict distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects, then just a fact of nature, if you will, arguing against it with such zeal is at the very least silly, it’s like arguing against the fact that the Americans call the bonnet ‘hood’ or some such thing.


I don't care. You can brush your teeth with your tail - I still won't care. I told you, you decided to hammer the nails with socks. It's all your own funeral. The point is in explaining HOW IT BECAME crooked, WHY and WHEN. It's no big deal to notice that it's stinking.
'I've come to this gym every week for the past two years'
Only idiots speak this way. Also some idiots eat ***, but that's not the reason for you to do the same.
You do realise that you’re essentially calling all the native speakers of English from the UK, North America, Australia, New Zealand etc idiots? And you’re doing that on the grounds that the way they use perfect tenses in their language, in the language that they were brought up speaking, does not conform to your ideas about how they should use it?

You are wrong There IS such special form, and it's called Perfect tenses. The fact that you use some perfect tense to describe an ongoing action is your own problem.
It would seem that it’s you who has a problem with me and millions other people using the present perfect to describe actions that are still true, I personally have no problem with that.


If you are calling 'sees' and 'asks' perfective, you are just TOTAL ZERO. You don't exist. All the communication with you is an unforgivable waste of time for which I deserve to burn in hell. 'Sees' is imperfect for being an ongoing present time action. Perfect actions in present time do not exist.
You simply don’t understand how the simple aspect works in English, I don’t think you deserve to burn in hell for that, I would advise doing some more research on how the English verb tenses actually work.


I not only accept this, I explain in what exactly they are different. For example, Romance languages are VERY different from Engish language in consistency. Both Romance languages and English language borrowed Present Perfect tense from Latin. But while Romance languages preserved its essence and called it what it had been - 'past', English language decided FOR NO REASONS OTHER THAN HEATHER ALE HANGOVER to call it 'present', having crooked thus everything. So, yes, languages are different.
Bro, this is some kind of linguisticism or languagism or I don’t know what you’d call discrimination and hatred against a particular languages based on some features of its grammar that you don’t like. English grammar is fairly consistent if viewed on its own. However, it is certainly not consistent with the grammar of Spanish, or Italian or French, guess why – because those are different languages than English so I totally fail to understand why you insist that English grammar must be consisted with the grammar of Spanish, Italian, French or Latin for that matter.

I totally fail to understand
That's what YOU said.

My point is that if such languages exist in principle and English just happens to fall into this other category of languages that have done away with the strict distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects, then just a fact of nature
English language may not want to tell aspects. That's respected (although, to be honest, not much. They still have aspects even if they don't have them). English language may want to walk head over heels. No problem. But what English language DEFINITELY may not, is misname a tense that it had borrowed from Latin with all the further grammatical conclusions derived from that new CROOKED name. What it DEFINITELY may not is insist that there are REASONS for Present Perfect to be called 'present'. If you want a fancy tense of your own, invent it yourself, don't borrow it from anywhere having replaced 'past' with 'present' in its name.

It's like borrowing an element from a German plane, which on a German drawing was named "Right Engine" for the reason that it was located on plane's right side, and installing it on an English plane on the same right side but with the name of "Left Engine". Would it lead to a mess now when the pilot gives an order "Start the right engine!"?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
You're talking about English as if it were a person.

Regarding the present perfect tense - it's a fact that in modern English (regardless of whether you think it's crooked, bad and what not), the present Perfect tense IS used to talk about actions/states that are still on-going at the time of speaking so I think the use of the word 'present' in the name of the tense is perfectly justified in English.

The term 'borrow' is a bit misleading when it comes to languages. Languages don't exactly borrowe things from each other, they take them from each other and make them their own. For example Russia 'borrowed' the word 'manager' from English however, today in Russian nine times out of ten 'manager' means a sales person or even a shop assistant. What this means in the context of our discussion is that it's really irrelevant where English may orignally have gotten its perfect tenses from, because it has since made them its own and now uses them in its own unique way that is different from how these tenses are used in other languages.

Your plane engine analogy is rather inacurate, because what actually happened with English and the perfect tenses is that the 'engine' that was originally the 'right engine' got installed on the 'left side' and got renamed 'the left engine' but you keep insisting that since it was on the right side in the original plane the English must move it to the right side of their plane and start calling it the right engine again.
Show more