1 2 3 4  6 7 8 10

OK, English nation did not invent the tense, known as Present Perfect in English grammar.

If I tell you that in Latin there was an identical tense formed with the verb "to have" in present simple tense form plus Participle II, will you agree that English grammarians borrowed this tense from Latin?
No, I wouldn't, even if the present perfect was borrowed from Latin, it wasn't borrowed by English grammarians, it was borrwed by English people, plus I actually don't know how perfect tenses made it into English, so I can either accept your word for it, which I'm disinclined to do at this stage, or alternative I have to dig up some some more info on it first. For all I know at this stage, the form may have originated in some proto-Indo-European language that both Latin and English evolved from.

Again anticipating your next argument, I want to say that even if we assume that English borrwed perfect tenses form Latin, it doesn't follow from this fact that the have + participle II form must be used in English in exactly the same way as it was used in Latin.
There is no need in anticipating anything. We are in no rush.

So, thank you for agreeing that English language (people, grammarians, scholar, whosoever) borrowed the tense from Latin.

If I tell you that:

a) the tense meant past completed actions in Latin;

b) Romance languages borrowed this tense from Latin too;

c) Romance languages named this tense 'past'

would you agree that to name this same tense 'present' there should have been reasons?

Yes or no?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
yes there should have been reasons but I would imagine that there were reasons.
Thank you. Now we know that English people should have had their reasons to name the tense 'present' while the rest of languages named it what it had been in Latin - 'past'.

Now name the reasons.
I can think of just one; they must have misunderstood the perfect tenses, thinking that they referred not to 'completed' actions in the past but rather to any sort of action that has taken place in the period between now and some point in the past, and since it's a period between now and some point in the past, it can occasionally include 'now' i.e. the present so they started using it to talk not only about things that happened at some indifinte time in the past, but also about things that have gone on for some time and are still true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you believe that first the tense was misnamed because in the present perfect the auxiliary 'have' is technically in the present tense and only after the tense had been given the 'wrong' name, did the English people start using it to refer to actions/states that were still true at the time of speaking.

The truth is, however, that whatever the actual reason for this use may have been, it must have happened a very long time ago, and the English have used the present perfect to talk about on-going actions/situations for at least two hundred years (far as I know).
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you believe that first the tense was misnamed because in the present perfect the auxiliary 'have' is technically in the present tense and only after the tense had been given the 'wrong' name, did the English people start using it to refer to actions/states that were still true at the time of speaking.
Absolutely. The name was misnamed (and I'm pretty sure the reason was the one that you gave) and after that people logically started to try the tense on ongoing actions.

The truth is, however, that whatever the actual reason for this use may have been, it must have happened a very long time ago, and the English have used the present perfect to talk about on-going actions/situations for at least two hundred years (far as I know).
It doesn't matter at all. If you teach the tenses to people you are simply obliged to tell all that story. People will understand the tense system much better (or, more exactly, just understand it). After you have explained everything the way we've just done, nobody would mind if you go on explaining how Present Perfect is used today and why. People will be very grateful, believe me, I've done it many times. One very practical advantage of this method is in that you'll stop justifying the presence of the word 'present' in 'Present Perfect'.

they must have misunderstood the perfect tenses
I hope, this is the end of story, huh?
well, if what you're talking about is the origins of the perfect tenses in English and how they could be used today if they had evovled in English the same way they had evolved in Spanish, Italian etc, then I have no problem with that, as long as you realise and tell your students that in modern English perfect tenses are used differently than they would be used had English developed 'properly'.

I mean if you think that English has bastardised and butchered the perfect tenses, that's your opinion and everybody's entitled to an opinion. I do think, however, that for practical purposes, beginning sutdents of English should first be taught how the English tenses are used by the majority of native speakers today and but once they've gotten past the basics I see no harm in telling them a bit about the histroy of the language. If that's what you're trying to do.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

It doesn't matter at all. If you teach the tenses to people you are simply obliged to tell all that story. People will understand the tense system much better (or, more exactly, just understand it). After you have explained everything the way we've just done, nobody would mind if you go on explaining how Present Perfect is used today and why. People will be very grateful, believe me, I've done it many times. One very practical advantage of this method is in that you'll stop justifying the presence of the word 'present' in 'Present Perfect'.
you can certainly tell the story, however I doubt if it will necessarily help them better understand the verb tenses in modern English, it's interesting background information.

I don't think that in modern English the word 'present' in the name 'present perfect' really needs to be justified since the tense is used quote often to talk about events and situations that are still going on at the time of speaking, despite the fact that such use may be viewed as a grammatical aberation by some people.
Show more