1 2  4 5 6 7 8 10

You're talking about English as if it were a person.
No.

the present Perfect tense IS used to talk about actions/states that are still on-going at the time
Not by everyone. And the point is that it became possible EXACTLY after the tense had been misnamed. If they kept it what it actually had been (and what it actually is in English itself!) - the past - no one would ever want to use it for ongoing actions.

I think the use of the word 'present' in the name of the tense is perfectly justified in English.
That's what you think. It is not.

The term 'borrow' is a bit misleading when it comes to languages
It is not.

Languages don't exactly borrowe things from each other, they take them from each other and make them their own
If you 'make them your own', explain your reasons. If you replace 'right' with 'left' within the same name, the reasons must be huge. If you replace 'past' with 'present' within the same name, the reasons must be as huge. What are they? There are none.

the word 'manager' from English however, today in Russian nine times out of ten 'manager' means a sales person
No. It still means 'sales manager' unless the person is dumb.

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 demagogy impresses. The steadier you call white black, the quicker people are supposed to believe that.

How can the origin of ANYTHING be irrelevant, let alone the origin of such an ambiguous tense? How does a blatant misunderstanding of what you borrow make it 'your own'? How hammering of nails with a tennis racket can be called 'unique way'?

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'
You are annoying me, man. Three days ago you did not know anything about all that stuff, and now you are acting like an academician. The engine was never installed on the left side. In English language 'Present' Perfect in 99% of instances is used for past completed actions. Period.
rinoceronteNot by everyone. And the point is that it became possible EXACTLY after the tense had been misnamed. If they kept it what it actually had been (and what it actually is in English itself!) - the past - no one would ever want to use it for ongoing actions.
I'm pretty sure that every single native speaker of English, i.e. a person brought up speaking English as their first language, will have used the Present perfect to talk about actions/states that are still going on by the time they are 10, people ask questions like, 'how long have you lived here?', 'how long have you known this person?' etc. You can dispair over this fact all you want but the fact remains that the vast majority of native speakers have no idea where English got perfect tenses from in the first place so they don't care what perfect tenses may have meant or how they may have been used in Latin or wherever. Thus, if you want to study how English is used today, going back and looking at how one tense or another may have been used or is still used in some other language that English supposedly borrwed that tense from doesn't make much sense from a purely practical viewpoint. It's pretty much like trying to insist that people should say 'I know not' instead of 'I don't know' because that's how negatives were formed a few hundred years ago in English and that's how they are still formed today in German.


That's what you think. It is not.
I can explain why I think that calling the present perfect a present tense is justified in English - because it IS USED all the time to describe states and actions that are still the case in the present, when you say that you've known somebody for thirty years, it means you still know them, when you say you've lived somewhere for 20 years, you still live there, thus the word 'present' in the name of the tense. The fact that in some other languages similar tenses are never used to talk about states/actions that are still going on is totally beside the point here. It's English that people discuss in these forums, not French, or Spanish or Italian.

If you 'make them your own', explain your reasons. If you replace 'right' with 'left' within the same name, the reasons must be huge. If you replace 'past' with 'present' within the same name, the reasons must be as huge. What are they? There are none.
For one, you should realise, that quite often things change in languages for no apparent reason; someone starts a trend, someone makes a mistake and it catches on, not because there is some logical explanation behind it or some grand design at work, but just because people are herd animals and they have a tendency to copycat each other, so if a popular kid in school starts saying things like, 'I aint done nothing, officer' pretty soon everybody esle will be talking like that. English is a natural language and that's how natural languages evolve, it's not like there is some committee who decide these things and then pass down their rules to the masses. So yeah, there is no reason but none is needed.
No. It still means 'sales manager' unless the person is dumb.
yeah and what exactly is a sales manager? In Russian today it means somebody who sells things, but in English if you're a manager it means that you manage other people, this meaning has been completely lost in Russian, since people still prefer to use the Russian words rukovoditel/director for this.

Your demagogy impresses. The steadier you call white black, the quicker people are supposed to believe that.
How can the origin of ANYTHING be irrelevant, let alone the origin of such an ambiguous tense? How does a blatant misunderstanding of what you borrow make it 'your own'? How hammering of nails with a tennis racket can be called 'unique way'?
It's not demagogy, I'm simply explaining the facts of life about how natural languages evolve to you. I mean I'm really surprised by your attitute, after all you claim to be some sort of a linguist and not only in the sense of someone who knows a lot of languages but also in the sense of someone who studies languages and even teaches them and yet you seem to completely ignore the simple fact that natural languages are not planned languages, they evovle, they borrow things from each other and make them their own, changing the pronunciaion and changing the meaning in the process. I bet you know about the so called false friends in translation, words that sound and look almost exactly the same and yet whose meanings are completley different in different languages. Did you ever think about why is it that in English we say, 'I went to the grocery store to get some supplies' and not 'I went to the magazine to buy some products'? And not only that, the meaning of the same grammatical form/word often changes drastically over time. In the King Jamese bible Jesus says, as he hangs on the cross, 'Forgive them Father for they known not what they do', in modern translations of the bible he says, 'Forgive them Father for they don't know what they are doing'. As recently as 50 years ago you could say that you had a gay party last night and nobody would think much of it, if you say that today people will think that you're an aspiring homosexual or something. I mean I can go on, such examples are practically endless, the language is changing even as we speak.

You are annoying me, man. Three days ago you did not know anything about all that stuff, and now you are acting like an academician. The engine was never installed on the left side. In English language 'Present' Perfect in 99% of instances is used for past completed actions. Period.
Why do you always go jumping to conclusions about people you hardly know? I knew about this stuff three days ago, I knew abou it long before that. You say that 99% of the time the present perfect in English is used for past completed actions, my question is where did you get that figure? Did you count every occurrence of the present perfect in modern English and then calculate how many of those were past completed actions and how many were ongoing situations/actions?

What about uses like, 'Let's ask Peter about that restaurant, he's lived in London' - the action is neither completed nor ongoing it's your run-of-the-mill simple aspect refering to an indifnite (simple) action that has taken place at an indefinite time before now.(which may have been last month or ten years ago)

Or examples like, 'When they went into battle against the 3rd Panzer army they knew what to expect because they had fought that unit before' - again 'they had fought them before' simply refers to the fact that they had experience of fighting that particular unit, they had faced off with them before that moment so they knew what to expect, the action in 'they had fought them' is not completed in the sense of the Russian perfective aspect, in fact, if you were translating it into Russian you would use an imperfective verb for 'they had fought them before'

So I wonder how your hypothesis explains uses like these?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

if you want to study how English is used today
Who told you that I wanted to do that? I don't care how English is used today.

I understand that your aim is to overwhelm me with the rubbish. You won't get away with the last word. I'm patient.

when you say you've lived somewhere for 20 years, you still live there
By using this FAKE phrase you undermine the existence of Present Perfect Continuous tense. If you still live there you have to say "I've BEEN LIVING somewhere for 20 years". Having equalled those two phrases now you won't be able to explain the reason for Present Perfect Continuous at all. Or even worse, you'll be inventing new false explanation for it. By being lazy to think but stubborn and overpersistent in not admiting that, you ruin the grammar. Actually English grammar was ruined by people like you.

quite often things change in languages for no apparent reason
Stop playing deaf. Naming 'present' what in fact is 'past' is not 'for no apparent reason'. The reason is obvious - mistake, error, stupidity.

natural languages are not planned languages, they evovle
We go in circles. I told you already that getting rotten does not mean evolving. Things evolve and progress when cultivated by smart people. When taken care of by fools they get spoiled, they don't evolve.

they had fought them before
The verb in this phrase should be translated into Russian in perfect aspect: "сразились". When you sometimes render a clearly completed action with imperfect aspect in Russian, that's your problem. If you insist that this should be translated as "сражались", you mislead people, since they would assume that the action was repeated several times (several battles took place). While in fact 'they had fought them before' by default implies a singular action.

Who told you that I wanted to do that? I don't care how English is used today.
so what is it tou want then? Confuse ordinary learners of English?

I understand that your aim is to overwhelm me with the rubbish. You won't get away with the last word. I'm patient.
from where I stand there's a lot more sense to what I've said so far than to your irrational attacks on the use of the present perfect in modern English.

By using this FAKE phrase you undermine the existence of Present Perfect Continuous tense. If you still live there you have to say "I've BEEN LIVING somewhere for 20 years". Having equalled those two phrases now you won't be able to explain the reason for Present Perfect Continuous at all. Or even worse, you'll be inventing new false explanation for it. By being lazy to think but stubborn and overpersistent in not admiting that, you ruin the grammar. Actually English grammar was ruined by people like you.
First of all there is nothing fake the phrase,'I've lived here for thirty years', people say that all the time.

Second, you're forgetting about the difference between the contious and the simple aspects in English. Essentially the difference between 'I've lived here for thirty years' and I've been living here for thirty years' is the same as the difference between 'I live in Moscow' and 'I'm living in Moscow'. In the first instance the situation is viewed by the speaker as a more or less permanent arrangement while in the second case, with the continious aspect, it's viewed as a temporary state of affairs limited in time. I don't equate present perfect and present perfect continious any more than I equate simple verb tenses and continious verb tenses. In other words if you tell somebody that you live in Dnepropetrovsk, they may ask you how long you have lived there, using the present perfect simple tense, however if you say that you live in Dnepropetrovs but at the moment you're living in Moscow, they might ask you how long you have been living in Moscow, using the present perfect contious tense.

The fact that you, for some reason, refuse to understand certain things about English grammar doesn't mean that it's ruined.


We go in circles. I told you already that getting rotten does not mean evolving. Things evolve and progress when cultivated by smart people. When taken care of by fools they get spoiled, they don't evolve.
Evolution is pretty much a random process, that's actually how it's defined. Evolution is what happens when things are left to their own devices and nobody takes care of anything. And guess what, there is ample historical evidence that, surprising though it may seem to some people, in the long run evolution beats planned progress practically every time. More chaotic, evolutionary systems tend to triumph over carefully planned and orchestrated endeveours, look at what happened to the USSR with its rigidly planned economy while nations with market economies are still alive and kicking.

The verb in this phrase should be translated into Russian in perfect aspect: "сразились". When you sometimes render a clearly completed action with imperfect aspect in Russian, that's your problem. If you insist that this should be translated as "сражались", you mislead people, since they would assume that the action was repeated several times (several battles took place). While in fact 'they had fought them before' by default implies a singular action.
ok, and what if I say, they had fought them before on several occasions?

If you say that something has happened before it doesn't, as you suggest, mean it has only happened once.

so what is it tou want then?
That's none of your business.

Essentially the difference between 'I've lived here for thirty years' and I've been living here for thirty years' is the same as the difference between 'I live in Moscow' and 'I'm living in Moscow'.
You've got no clue. Clear off.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
whatever your goal or hidden agenda it's obviously got nothing to do with the real English language as it is spoken by native speakers

You're right in that I've got no clue as to your agenda, but it's little wonder since you refuse to reveal it, however, as far as English grammar is concenred, and I'm talking here about the real English grammar, not about some fantasy grammar, I'm pretty sure I have quite a bit more clues than you since you obviosly choose to ignore the clues one can get from the way English is actually sponek and used by native speakers, opting instead for some dubious theories of your own concoction.

But like I said, everybody's got their own poison, some of your theories are rather amusing, just don't call it English because it ain't
You don't even understand what 'clear off' means. How can you talk about big stuff?

it's little wonder since you refuse to reveal it
That's what she said.
Know what? On a second thought I changed my mind. You indeed might be an elf or something who just doesn't want me to give up and helps me to carry the torch through the wall of demagogy training my oratorical skills. Actually, anyone would be saying things that you do.

So, we'll be doing it once again, gradually. One thought at a time. Shhhhh....

Imagine you are James Bond from my book you advertised so fervently. A question:

Was that you, the English nation, who invented the tense that consists of a verb 'to have' in present simple tense form plus the Participle II of the lexical verb?

You answer: yes/no

(to be continued)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I understand what clear off means, it's just that I don't take orders you.

And speaking of the Office, you know which Office character you remind me of? - Michael Scott in his improv class where he keeps pulling an imaginary gun on everyone, always hopelessly out of context.
Show more