What does it mean to teach bad? It means, in particular, that you are unable to answer...

1) ... why Harriet Beecher Stowe did not follow in her Uncle Tom's Cabin the so called 'state verbs rule' with such a brilliant phrase as:
"...if I should only tell what I've seen and been knowing to..."
2) ... why the articleless combination 'from moon' can be found in American literature 19 times, 'from sun' - 141 times, and 'from earth' - 1120 times; 3) ... why such writers as Philippe Roth, Shirley Ann Grau and Ernest J. Gaynes (among many others) ignore so blatantly the order not to use Perfect Continuous in Passive Voice feeling pretty well with 'been being' combination;
4) ... why Lord Shaftsbury in North American Review: October 1860: 385-421 uses Future Perfect tense in a context that has nothing to do with 'traditional' markers for that tense ('before' and 'by'):
"...I wonder when he will have done preaching," one of them whispered to a neighbor...", and why 100 years later Lucille deView in Christian Science Monitor: 1981-12-17: Pg. B18 is doing the same:
"...I will have done what I want to do with my life...";
5) why the state verb 'to know' is forbidden so strongly to be used in continuous tenses, while a way more stative verb 'to wait' is used in continuous forms more than abundantly (2433 instances of 'been waiting' in American writers' works).

Those few paragraphs are enough to send most grammar books to trash and to understand that real knowledge could be obtained only by thinking.
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
Looks like the subscribers to this thread are waiting for answers 
and explanations. OK, here they are.
 
1) Edward P. Jones ignores the state verbs rule because he either 
knows about the category of aspect, or suspects it. 
Also he understands theta 'state' itself is very continuity, 
i.e., imperfect aspect. To forbid state verbs from being used in 
continuous tenses is the same as to forbid scuba in scuba diving. 
Scuba diving is scuba's essence! The same was obviously understood 
by Whitney Houston which gave some guru on this forum reasons for comments 
like "Afro-Americans! What do you expect from them!". The observation 
is cool since it proves that Afro-Americans feel aspects pretty well.
Should be the heritage of Yoruba or other African languages. 
Although, Harriet Beecher Stowe fall out of this logical row, for 
feeling aspect as perfectly while being white;
 
2) because neither Moon, nor Sun, nor Earth (the first two if used outside of 
astronomical contexts that imply many moons and suns) need any article for being unique nouns;

3) because these (and other) writers understand the reason to exist for both
Perfect Continuous Tenses and Passive Voice. The essence of Perfect Continuous is in rendering 
continuous actions of imperfect aspect, while the essence of Passive Voice is in absence of doer of the action. 
Those who call for not to use Perfect Continuous tenses in Passive Voice, do not understand the essence of either. 
The preparedness to use the "been being" combination and ability to defend it are a sign if great grammatical 
knowledge indeed;
 
4) because in English language there is no other unversal tool to render perfect aspect actions, but Perfect tenses. 
There is no need for anyone to stick Perfect tenses to 'before' and 'by' markers, because Simple tenses don't tell aspects;
 
5) because the prohibition to use state verbs in continuous tenses was introduced by a grammarian who was not 
really smart, and was followed by even stupider followers of this rule that slaughters English grammar. 
Those who follow the rule of state verbs, have no clue about English grammar.
1) using stative verbs in progressive tenses is like putting a scuba on a fish - it doesn't make sense, the fish already has gills and so it doesn't need to lug an oxigen tank on its back.

2)the definite article 'the' is used for common nouns that are unique in the given context. There are many suns, thus if you want to talk about our sun, the one you can see in the sky, you use it with the article 'the', same rules apply to the moon.

3) there is no ban on perfect passive progressive tenses, people do use them occasionally so I don't know what you're on about, mate.

4) the English perfect aspect is totally different than the perfective aspect in Russian and some other languages so I'm afraid you completely misunderstand your own examples.

5) You seem to completely misunderstand the way languages evolve, natural languages don't follow arbitrary rules concocted by grammarians, it's the other way around, grammarians observe languages in use and then generalise the usages they observe into 'rules'. There is no formal prohibition against using state verbs in continious tenses, it's just that native speakers generally tend not to use them in continues tenses, because applying the contiuous aspect to a stative verb would be redundant and superfluous, like making fish swim with scubas on their back.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
That's hilarious!

There are many suns, thus if you want to talk about our sun, the one you can see in the sky, you use it with the article 'the', same rules apply to the moon.
You learnt this a couple of days ago from me on another forum! You are unbelieveable... What about Earth then, by the way? Are there many Earthes? Why do you apply 'the' to it too?

there is no ban on perfect passive progressive tenses
Hey, native people, is he right?

the English perfect aspect is totally different than the perfective aspect in Russian and some other languages
It's not 'some' other languages. It's virtually all other languages. Yes, English perfect aspect is totally identical to the perfect aspect in Russian and other languages. It's not such in the heads of those who don't understand anything about grammar. Besides, there is no such thing as 'perfective' aspect. It's just perfect. In all languages.
Don't flatter yourself I'd known these things long before we had that discussion in the other forum you mention.

Regarding Earth, you can use it without an article if you mean it as a proper noun, the name of the planet we live in, however, if you view it as a common noun meaning an earth-like planet then the definite article is appropriate to point out that you're talking about this earth.

What are those 'all other languages' you're talking about? Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish and Portugese?

You're obviously in total denial when it comes to the use of the perfect aspect in English. The truth is however, whether you like it or not, it IS used differently in English today. You may blame some grammarians of Hungarian descent for this or native English speakers' general ignorance of grammar but the fact remains that in modern English people will say things like

'I've come to this gym every week for the past two years'

without giving it a second thought, as well as things like

'I've known her for years'

both of which describe actions/states that started at some point in the past and have continued into the present and which are denoted using imperfective verbs in languages like Russian.

My point is that it is a fact of life now. Modern english lacks the sort of perfective aspect that Russian has, i.e. there is no special form to denote completed actions. The simple aspect is normally used for that, and unlike Russian, in English you can use the simple present tense to tell jokes, for example, in which everything takes place as you tell the joke as in 'a man is walking(imperfective) past a tree and sees(perfective) that there's a cow climbing into the tree, so he asks (perfective) the cow, what are you climbing into that teee for?...etc'

Why can't you just accept the fact that languages are different.
igorfazlyevWhy can't you just accept the fact that languages are different.
[Y] [Y] [Y] [Y] [Y]
Natural languages are not rigid; they evolve. English is particularly subject to dynamic forces of change, especially since modern communications have spread the language to every nook and cranny of the planet.

There is no rigid language compiler in the ether that spits out "stative verb error! stative verb error! stative verb Error!" when some speaker or writer violates some perceived theoretical rule or other.

There is no big brother "Academy" that claims dictatorial authority over the syntax, structure, and lexicon.

Great use of language is like great art or great music. It changes with public sentiment. It changes with technology. No one can give you any rigid hard-and-fast rules governing it.

But I know great art when I see (or hear) it.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

if you view it as a common noun meaning an earth-like planet then the definite article is appropriate to point out that you're talking about this earth.
This is just nonsense. I bet you don't follow the thoughts of your own. 'Earth' NEVER demands an article. It's unique.

Don't flatter yourself I'd known these things long before we had that discussion in the other forum you mention.
But you were arguing them furiously. You didn't know them.

What are those 'all other languages' you're talking about? Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish and Portugese?
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!

it IS used differently in English today
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 shit, but that's not the reason for you to do the same.

Modern english lacks the sort of perfective aspect that Russian has, i.e. there is no special form to denote completed actions.
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.

'a man is walking(imperfective) past a tree and sees(perfective) that there's a cow climbing into the tree, so he asks (perfective)
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.

Why can't you just accept the fact that languages are different.
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.

There is no rigid language compiler in the ether that spits out "stative verb error!
This is not really true. There are tests and exams which you will fail for writing "I have been knowing him for years". Let's ask people here who teach English, how many of them would consider this phrase a mistake. Come on, people, tell us!
Well for one thing I do! You will simply not find many native speakers who will ever say this. If you want to produce your own language that doesn't follow the rules and ideas of other people, fine, but I suggest you walk a bit further away from English and try to construct it more independently. That's always more fun!

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.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more