Dear Shun,
I'm all empathy! I fully agree
that expressions such as `the
present-tense sentence' lie to
the effect that tense is capable of
typifying sentences. Tense does
nothing more than perform some
sort of location in time.

Efforts to typify sentences must
address their syntactic and semantic
procedures.

Sadly, there is no hope of abstracting
any sort of rule about English tense.
This is because tense rendition cannot
yield any sort of linguistic universal: its
rendition is language-specific habit, or
convention.

For example, the French `Je suis ici
il y a deux ans' expresses exactly the
same sense that English does with:
`I have been here for two years'.

That the French version renders tense with
the present and the English with a past-like tense
is just a fact about these two language-specific
ways of rendering tense.

Most pedagogical grammars that address learners of English
fudge the language-specific nature of tense rendition
by pretending to come up with `rules'. Their effort serves only
to confuse and irritate learners.

Never mind: When I am dictator I shall outlaw all TEFL/TESL
kinds of grammars and allow English to be taught to learners
only through Comparative grammars! (Please note `when I
am dictator': a present-tense form in a `future' sense! Sock
that to creepy rule makers!)
Sophie

----- Original Message -----
From: shun Tang <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 5:07 PM
Subject: How long shall we keep the lie going?


> Dear Sophie,
>
> Please agree with me also with the following subject. Thank you very much!
>
> Subject: As for English tense, how long shall we keep the lie going?
>
> Before you find the question offensive, please see my evidence.
>
> Now we strive to make clear a sentence from a tense. Needless to say, each
> of both has its own kind of duty to serve. But one may prompt to ask, what
> are you talking about? Difference between a sentence and a tense? Everyone
> knows that they are different!!
>
> Or do we really so? In fact, we have seen frequently this confusion, and
do
> not know or want to do anything about it.
>
> Generally, nearly without exception, when a sentence expresses a meaning,
> grammars say the tense expresses it. Take a look at some quotations from
> different sources:
> (1) The basic meaning of the simple past tense is to denote definite past
> time..... It is found with adverbs referring to past time: "I spoke to him
> last week."
> (2) The main use of the simple present tense is to express habitual
actions.
> e.g. He smokes. Dogs bark. Cats drink milk. Birds fly.
> (3)"If you want to say that something is always or generally true, you use
> the simple present, e.g. "Near the equator, the sun evaporates greater
> quantities of water."
>
> What do we see here? Grammars say that some tense denotes, or expresses,
or
> says some meaning. Clear enough. But don't you think we should instead say
> 'simple-past-tense sentence', or 'simple-present-tense sentence', etc.?
> Shall we skip 'sentence' just for the sake of convenience?
>
> Or perhaps they are explaining that, when the sentence expresses a habit,
we
> use the simple present? If so, we use the simple present tense to do what?
>
> Or are they telling us the right thing: it is the tense alone that does
the
> expression? It is absurd, since the tense denotes nothing without
sentence.
>
> To tell the truth, when grammars say the Simple Present expresses a
meaning,
> it is in fact the Simple-Present sentence expresses the meaning. And more
> precisely, to our concern, it is the sentence alone that expresses the
> meaning. The examples from grammars above will have the same meaning if
rid
> of the tense, though it is hard for some people to see through a tenseless
> sentence. In contrast, if we try to communicate with tenses only, without
> the sentences, we will soon see how difficult it is. It is in fact
> impossible.
>
> So we may see now, if we just say Simple Present expresses permanency as
in
> "The earth revolves around the sun", everything turns topsy-turvy. We
don't
> know what a tense is, and we don't know what a sentence is.
>
> Because of this sentence-tense confusion, all the time as we muse on the
> tense, we are in fact searching for the meaning of a sentence.
Consequently,
> we don't even have a rule for English tense. Maybe we have one: Present
> Perfect does not stay with past time adverb. But this rule depends on
> grammarian's effort to hide away, from their grammar books, the past time
> adverbs for Present Perfect, like "in the past week", etc.
>
> The alarming truth is, ALL grammar books avoid 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.) So that grammar may say we
> have one rule, or rules, in English tense.
>
> What do you think? How long shall we keep the lie going?
>
> Shun
> englishtense.com
> ================
> Please post your message to the following address:
> http://www.englishtense.com/forum.asp
> under the subject question: How long shall we keep the lie going?
>
> N.B. Answers directed to me will be reposted to the above address and
> discussed by all.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sophie Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: All for one and one for all
>
>
> > Shun, I agree with you. Syntax is logical: it's just that we are good
> > at obscuring this fact with silly terminology. For instance,
> > does it make sense to say of this sentence that `lives' denotes habit
> > and `has been' result:
> >
> > He lives in Hong Kong even though he has been in New York for years' ?
> >
> > I urge that it does not: the foregoing sentence lives sensibly as a
claim
> to
> > the
> > effect that someone remains (attitudinally, etc.) a Hong Kong dweller
> > despite his
> > long location in New York.
> >
> > Besides, how can something be called a `result' when it has no cause?
> >
> > Sophie
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: shun Tang <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:28 PM
> > Subject: All for one and one for all
> >
> >
> > > Hello Sophie,
> > >
> > > All for one and one for all
> > >
> > > If we say that "He lives in Hong Kong" is some kind of action such as
> > habit,
> > > eternity, repeated action, endless action, you-name-it. We may use any
> > other
> > > tense to describe the action:
> > > Ex: He has lived in Hong Kong for 18 years. He is still living there.
He
> > > said that he will live there for some more years and then go back to
> > > Australia.
> > >
> > > All the tenses here are in fact describing the same action. Different
> > tenses
> > > describe different part, that is, time of the action. All tenses are
for
> > the
> > > same action, and so the same action is for all the tenses.
> > >
> > > This is therefore very different to the conventional view that we use
> > Simple
> > > Present to describe habit, and Present Perfect to describe result.
> > Actually,
> > > every tense can denote habit, or result.
> > >
> > > What do you say to this new idea?
> > >
> > > Shun
> > > englishtense.com
> > > ================
> > > Please post your message to the following address:
> > > http://www.englishtense.com/forum.asp
> > > under the subject question: "All for one and one for all"
> > >
> > > N.B. Answers directed to me will be reposted to the above address and
> > > discussed by all.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Sophie Johnson
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:48 AM
> > > Subject: Re: `Clause' in TG
> > >
> > >
> > > My many thanks for Jeff's encouragement. Typically, I shall
> > > take unfair advantage of it, together with a walloping load of cheek,
> > > like this: Please will anyone who has nothing better to do visit the
> > > page `Introduction' on my site: http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/ .
> > > I ply an earnest argument for dropping the notion `clause' from TG's
> > > terminology. No-one so far has so much as cocked a snook at it.
> > > I am deadly serious but beginning to fear I might have misfired.
> > > Sophie
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Glauner, Jeff
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 2:23 AM
> > > Subject: Re: `Clause' in TG
> > >
> > >
> > > Sophie,
> > >
> > > Don't be too good.  You won't fit in.  Throw your bait in the water.
> See
> > if
> > > anyone bites.
> > >
> > > Jeff Glauner
> > > Associate Professor of English
> > > Park University, Box 1303
> > > 8700 River Park Drive
> > > Parkville MO 64152
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > http://www.park.edu/jglauner/index.htm
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sophie Johnson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:23 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: `Clause' in TG
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello! I have just been admitted to your list and
> > > I am quite sure I sound like someone who walks into
> > > a room and bellows. Please forgive me, but I am anxious
> > > to find out what you are all talking about, and more anxious still
> > > to off-load my thoughts on the notion `clause' in Trad Gram's system.
> > > But promise: I shall be good hereafter.
> > >
> > > Sophie Johnson
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > English Grammar Tutor
> > > http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/
> > >
> > > 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/