Is it relevant that verb forms used in isolation have chronological
implications at that are routinely overridden by adverbs?  For example, I
think it is correct to say that "I'm eating," is a present progressive
tense in both form and meaning and implies that I am in the process of
eating at the present time, as I speak.  In "I'm eating at Dave's
tomorrow," the verb becomes future in meaning because of the adverb; in
"I'm eating at Dave's the other day when I guy comes up to me and says..."
it is past in meaning.  Ancient grammarians distinguished between the
proper meaning of words and the meanings that they acquired by the
logical implications of their contexts. Is it possible that this is the
underlying issue?




On Wed, 16 May 2001, shun Tang wrote:

> Dear Brock,
>
> Patsi wrote: "If a period of time reaches up to or into the present, or
> there is a possibility of continuation/repetition, you use present perfect."
>
> My reply: Simple Present "I live in Hong Kong" is, so to speak, a period of
> time reaches up to or into the present. (I do not suddenly live in here at
> the present.) According to Patsi, I have to use "I have lived in Hong Kong"
> instead. What would you or Patsi say?
> Did you or Patsi ever eat chicken? Yes? If so, does the Simple Past indicate
> "there is no possibility of continuation/repetition"? You will eat no more?
> Ridiculous. Since everything we did in the past will very probably repeat in
> the future, according to Patsi, the Simple Past will be used very very
> scarcely or be extinct.
> I can't find an iota of common sense in Patsi's careless note.
>
> You see, the commonly-known rule for Present Perfect is fundamentally a
> misleading guideline, designed for children or beginners in English. It
> depends on the biggest conspiracy, or biggest fault, in grammars: avoiding a
> group of time adverbs for the Present Perfect. In return, people wisely use
> the confusing guideline to conclude that we don't need to explain the group
> of neglected adverbs, because we have already explained the tense!!
>
> You are right that I am much frustrated. I cannot break into this vicious
> circle: hide away the adverbs, so that we may explain the tense. And then we
> don't need the adverbs, because we have already explained the tense. Since
> it is done collectively (by all grammars) and ingeniously, no one can break
> in.
>
> It is not up to me to provide solution for the family of 'IN THE PAST XX
> YEARS', which have various meanings and cannot be simplified into a few
> lines. As I have asked originally, is the avoidance a negligence or an
> intended avoidance? Or is it a kind of ritual? This is all I want to know at
> most.
>
> I am waiting the first grammar to talk about these adverbs.
>
> Shun
> englishtense.com
> ====================
> It is hard to maintain a long discussion via emails. Please post your
> message to the following address:
> http://www.englishtense.com/forum.asp
> under the subject question: "Is it a kind of ritual?"
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Haussamen>; "Brock" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:35 AM
> Subject: RE: Is it a kind of ritual?
>
>
> > Hi Shun,
> >     No need to get frustrated.  Some grammar topics bring out a lot of
> > responses on the listserv, others (including some of mine) fall quietly to
> > the wayside.  Perhaps you could fill us in a little more on what you would
> > like to know about such phrases.  Patsi's comment covers the basic
> > linguistic pattern, it seems to me.  As for the grammar books, there
> > sometimes is no hard-and-fast rule for seemingly important structures.  Do
> > you have any thoughts about how those adverbials are used, or should be
> > used, or why they are used the way they are?
> >
> > Brock Haussamen
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shun Tang [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:12 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Is it a kind of ritual?
> >
> >
> > So people have a good reason not to talk about the family of 'IN THE PAST
> XX
> > YEARS'. Not even a word?
> >
> > Shun Tang
> > englishtense.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patricia Reeve-De Becker" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Is it a kind of ritual?
> >
> >
> > > It's covered by the rule of present relevance.If a period of time
> reaches
> > upto or
> > > into the present, or there is a possibility of continuation/repetition,
> > you use
> > > present perfect. I'm sure the rule is there somewhere:-) It's just a
> > matter of
> > > interpreting it .
> > >
> > > Patsi
> > >
> > > shun Tang wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it a negligence or an intended avoidance?
> > > >
> > > > I am not talking of MANY. I am talking of ALL.
> > > >
> > > > In talking about English tenses, ALL grammar books are avoiding to
> talk
> > > > about the family of the frequently-used adverbial IN THE PAST XX YEARS
> > (such
> > > > as in the past, in the past year, in the past ten months, during the
> > past
> > > > two decades, over the past three weeks, for the past few years, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Is it a negligence or an intended avoidance? Or is it a kind of
> ritual?
> > > >
> > > > Your opinion is welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Shun
> > > > englishtense.com
> > > >
> > > > =========
> > > > Please post your message to the following address:
> > > > http://www.englishtense.com/forum.asp
> > > > under the subject question: "Is it a kind of ritual?"
> > > >
> > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> > interface at:
> > > >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > > > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > > >
> > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at:
> > >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > >
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> > at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> >      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> >
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/