Shun,

You wrote

> I can't find an iota of common sense in Patsi's careless note.

Well, I don't find it a very friendly comment. Plus,

> 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."

sounds perfectly OK and clear to me ... Frankly, all the previous
explanations offered were based on respected/accepted/widely used grammar
books and common sense, so I don't really see what it is you don't
understand - sorry. Maybe you should accept that there's a conspiracy (your
word) surrounding this topic :). On a more serious note, let me offer my
explanation (OK, let's not call it an explanation ... just my two cents).
Sorry if my points have already been mentioned before.

You are partly right when you write

> 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.)

But you can use any phrase in any tense (well, almost). I've lived in Hong
Kong, I lived in Hong Kong, I'd lived in Hong Kong, I'll be living in Hong
Kong (can I stop now?) are all OK depending on the context and what you want
to say. This is the main thing: What is it that you want to emphasize? In
your example, if you want to stress that you started living in HK in the
past and are still there, you would use the Present Perfect and not the
Simple Present. The Simple Present is for talking about the present, but
with no reference to the past.

Your example

> Did you or Patsi ever eat chicken?

doesn't sound OK to me. It would imply that either "you [=Brock]" or "Patsi"
in the sentence is dead, or that there are no more chickens in the world.
Sounds strange.

> Ridiculous. Since everything we did in the past will very probably repeat
in
> the future

Not at all. You know, I met Orson Welles once. (Not true, but good example.)
The Simple Past is correct here - there's no chance of meeting him ever
again ... But I've never met Krashen. We are both alive, so we might meet -
no matter how unlikely. The Present Perfect is OK here.

> 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'll avoid talking about this issue ... (you know, the conspiracy) As I said
before, I believe that several explanations have been offered and I can't
add anything better.

Ritually yours,

Elek Mathe
Hungary
[log in to unmask]

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/