It seems that you two don't have a consistent view to endlessness.

David wrote:
> It seems to me that the simple present tense is endless unless we give
> some indication to the contrary.  The indication, however, may reside
> in common knowledge about the circumstnces described.
>
My reply: Example for endlessness/truth such as "Two and two IS four" has
been put to me by another reader. You might be right, "Mr. B IS the
president" is a rare indication to the contrary.

Paticia wrote:
> Although he knows this will change at another stage of his life. The
regularity with
> which this takes place is over such a period of time that it, as any
school kid will tell
> you, seems endless subjectively!
>
My reply: If you call this endless, then I accept it. If what SEEMS endless
is endless, then everything is endless.
Objectively, your recognition of endlessness is not close to David's ("two
and two IS four") at all. And for certain, you will not argue with David
about the difference, will you?

As a whole, however, this is what I maintain in my website, people mistake
sentence for tense. Here we are always arguing about the meaning of
sentence, not the tense. Sentences denote the same even if we get rid of the
tense. "Two and two BE four" gives us the endlessness. "Mr. B BE the
president" doesn't. (Few English learners recognize a tenseless sentence.)
From them, therefore, we cannot connect Simple Present to anything.
But the bad thing is, we have to explain how to use a tense. Then here comes
the conclusion: the tense repeats what the sentence says. Originally a
useful tool, tenses are explained as practically a redundancy.

IS Mr. B the president now? If so, then he must endlessly be -- no matter
what 'endless' means. The tense says so. You have to accept this conclusion
from English native speakers. For the non-native speakers, it is not only
redundant, it is wrong.

Shun
englishtense.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Reeve-De Becker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: How to define a 'present action'?


> Dear shun,
> My comments are below and within
>
> shun Tang wrote:
>
> > Dear Paticia,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > > To my mind Simple would be what seems 'endless
> > > present time' and Progressive, the present action which
> > > 'has to have an end..'
> > > They feed the lions at quarter past two every day.
> > >
> > My reply: We know that when the park closes within next four years, we
will
> > not feed them any more. At this situation, shall we use the Simple
Present?
> > Personally, I think we do.
>
> ANSWER: We do, because it's organized,  a regular timetable, compare with
other
> timetables for buses and planes etc.
>                     buses run every 5 mins/ the flight to Paris takes
off....
>
> >
> >
> > For another example, now I live in Hong Kong. But when I am old I will
go to
> > Australia to live with my family. Knowing my living in HK has an end,
shall
> > I say "I am living in Hong Kong"?
>
> ANSWER: No, because when you are old is a different period of time or time
of your
> life. At this stage you live in Hong Kong and use Simple, just like a kid
says 'I
> go to school from Monday to Friday and live in New York.' Although he
knows this
> will change at another stage of his life.The regularity with which this
takes
> place is over such a period of time that it, as any school kid will tell
you,
> seems endless subjectively!
>
> This also covers your comments about the baby in your last mail,
>
> < mother says, "My baby eats 5 bottles of milk every day." Because she
uses
> Simple Present, according to Patricia, the baby eats the amount of milk,
for
> the rest of his endless life. Where do we go wrong? How many times we use
> Simple Present in one day? How many times we check if it is endless? Would
> Patricia tell us how to check?>
>
> At this baby stage of life the child drinks 5 bottles of milk a day. If I
may
> allow myself to correct you. 'eats' would imply consuming the entire
bottle,
> glass, plastic or whatever. Simple implies 'normally','usually' at this
stage of
> life, or at present.
> If I'm sitting in a restaurant and hear someone say 'I'm drinking coffee',
I can
> assume they will be drinking coffee even if I don't see them. If  I hear
they say
> 'I drink coffee', it implies they generally, normally, ususally drink
coffee. I
> won't know for sure what they are drinking at that moment but I know it's
a
> habitual action for this person to drink coffee. We also use logic and
common
> sense applicable to the situation. By the way, as the mother of 5,  I can
assure
> you I am no longer forcing 5 bottles of milk down the throats of 16 - 24
year
> olds. My common sense told me when the baby days were over.
>
> >
> > Logically, everything will have an end,
>
> COMMENT: this is a philosophical question.
>
> > which is known by normal persons.
>
> NO COMMENT.
>
> > In
> > this case, we will not use Simple Present at all?
>
> IS this a question?
>
> >
> >
> > You seem to replace the difficulty with impossibility, replacing the
> > question of present with that of endless.
>
> COMMENT: I seem to remember I picked up 'endless' from your mail and used
your
> words as I felt you were near to a definition. I'm not too sure of that
now. I
> would prefer to use a word something like habitual.As you once said
>
> <I hope you have seen the heading question.>
>
> You wanted to define a present action. A pure, observable present action
is
> described with progressive, 'He is talking' Our knowledge can put it into
Simple,
> 'He talks on the radio', if I know it's his job, at the present time,
(which you
> defined as endless and I prefer to see in stages)
>
> > But how to define 'endless'? How
> > do native English speakers predict the action is endless?
>
> ANSWER: Predictions usually begin with 'will' or 'going to'. If you visit
a
> fortune teller you might hear  'You will be a rich man' or ' You are going
to meet
> a tall, dark stranger and live a life of luxury'
> Endless: Simple! 'He talks and talks and talks' implies endlessly.
> 'He's always talking' would imply some annoyance on the part of the
speaker as the
> regular rule is Simple with the adverb 'always'
>
> You wrote:
> < Or does the present action have nothing to do with Simple Present tense
at all?>
>
> Prabably right if you mean the observable action at a certain moment,
unless we go
> into dramatic descriptions like the commentaries of football games.
> However, there are a great many finer points to any language. My children
speak
> English, German, Russian and Dutch and I just make sure they spend as much
time as
> they can in those countries to perfect their feeling for the language as
it is
> spoken and understood by the inhabitants. School rules helped them to
begin with,
> then total immersion in the language and culture to broaden their
mentality ( my
> son can laugh at Russian jokes which I can't understand, however finely
translated
> or described!). My daughter is now studying in Holland. However, she is
using the
> language not studying it. She probably accepted a lot of the new 'rules'
she
> learned in the country without much philosophizing as her main aim is to
> communicate. If she were to study the language in depth, it would be
easier for
> her now as she has a greater understanding, not only of the language but
of the
> people and the way they think.
>
> Patsi
>
>
> >
> >
> > Since emails cannot handle a long discussion, you are invited to use the
> > following forum:
> > http://www.englishtense.com/forum.asp
> >
> > Shun
> > englishtense.com
> > ===========
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patricia Reeve-De Becker" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 2:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: How to define a 'present action'?
> >
> > > Dear shun,
> > > Quote:
> > > <(For the time being, shall we skip the difference between Simple
Present
> > and
> > > Present Progressive for a while?)>
> > >
> > > There's no need to skip the difference as I feel you've just defined
it.
> > >
> > > <"Most confusing, 'present time' seems endless, but present action has
to
> > have
> > > an end..">
> > > To my mind
> > > Simple would be what seems 'endless present time' and
> > > Progressive, the present action which 'has to have an end..'
> > > e.g.
> > > It's quarter past two and they're feeding the lions at the Zoo - Let's
> > go...
> > > They feed the lions at quarter past two every day. Let's go tomorrow.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > > Or have I misunderstood you
> > >
> > > shun Tang wrote:
> > >
> > > > How to define a 'present action'?
> > > >
> > > > My reason why I ask is, if we can define it, we may explain the
Simple
> > > > Present tense.
> > > > (For the time being, shall we skip the difference between Simple
Present
> > and
> > > > Present Progressive for a while?)
> > > > A present action seems to be very basic knowledge, but it is most
> > puzzling.
> > > > We would say that, logically, the present action happens at the
present.
> > > > Since the present time is moving continually, however, it is totally
> > > > uncertain. So, a present action is very hard to define.
> > > >
> > > > Most confusing, 'present time' seems endless, but present action has
to
> > have
> > > > an end. Therefore, a present time is different to a present action.
> > > >
> > > > How do English native speakers split the nuance? Or does the present
> > action
> > > > have nothing to do with Simple Present tense at all?
> > > >
> > > > Shun
> > > > englishtense.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/