English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

« first day (3147 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1761 days later) »

1:43 AM

So I'm puzzling through the difference between the simple past and the present perfect in English. :D

The first approximation is: the simple past denotes a completed event, or series of events, which is not expected to continue; and the present perfect denotes an event which is expected to continue.

Such as "I did the dishes three times" (and then I did not, or I do not intend to, do the dishes again for a while) versus "I have done the dishes three times" (and it'll soon be four, then maybe five, and so forth).

But that's not quite the whole story.

"I went fishing": I went and then came back; I'm done fishing. "I have gone fishing": I have gone, and I'm still out there fishing; I will be back later.

"I lost 20 pounds": This happened some time ago. "I have lost 20 pounds": This was only very recently accomplished, and I'm telling you the news of this accomplishment.

It seems like the present perfect generally indicates that the action or event is still "current" somehow, whereas the simple past indicates that it's "no longer current".

If "I have done the dishes three times", then it's still "current" because I'm expecting that particular series of dish-washings to continue. If "I did the dishes three times", then that series is no longer current because it's finished.

If "I have gone fishing", then the event of going is still current because I'm still fishing.

If "I have lost 20 pounds", then the weight loss is still current, either because it's still ongoing, or it's still the latest news about my weight.

But this still doesn't quite explain it all. Take these two sentences—

"Mr. Boddy has been murdered by Colonel Mustard. He was killed with a knife." "Mr. Boddy has been killed with a knife. He was murdered by Colonel Mustard."

Both of those sentences are totally fine—even though, apparently, the first sentence implies that the murder is current but the killing is not, and the second sentence vice versa.

Then again, maybe in the first sentence, the killing is no longer "current" because it was mentioned a second ago.

🤷‍♂️

I've gone on too long already.

3 hours later…

M.A.R. ಠ_ಠ

5:16 AM

@TannerSwett It's probably not any part of the story

@TannerSwett I think you've misunderstood "current"

145

Q: Canonical Post #2: What is the perfect, and how should I use it?

This is a Canonical Post, intended as a reference and resource for both Questioners and Answerers. The English “perfect” is deeply puzzling for learners. Nearly one Question in every twenty here asks about perfect constructions, and every Answer seems to raise new Questions. Even very advanced...

Specifically

> 3.1 grammatical meaning of the perfect, which is conferred by the construction itself

☛The VERB piece presents an eventuality located before the time which is being spoken about.

☛The HAVE piece presents a state which is current at the time which is being spoken about.

☛The perfect cannot be used to express narrative sequence.

3.2 pragmatic meaning of the perfect, which is inferred by the hearer/reader from the context in which the construction is used.

☛ The ‘standard framework’ describes what the perfect means, distinguishing three meanings the perfect may express— continuative (“h…

and

> If you have been relying on concepts like ‘completed action’, ‘anterior event’, ‘indefinite past’, ‘current relevance’, or ‘incomplete action’ to understand perfect constructions, you need to know that none of these formulas are reliable. Sometimes one works, sometimes another. They’re echoes of many theories put forward in the course of a prolonged debate about what the perfect means.

So maybe part of the story.

Also, @Tanner, present perfect and simple past don't need to be mutually exclusive. Read the comments under this answer. (The answer itself is pretty good too!)

4 hours later…

SmokeDetector

9:13 AM

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected, potentially bad keyword in body (45): Differences in swearing - UK vs US by Alicia Bibi on english.SE

M.A.R. ಠ_ಠ

9:33 AM

@SmokeDetector The British version is probably "Bloody fuck"

6 hours later…

Tanner Swett

4:02 PM

@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ So, I just read that post and it seems like it's saying more or less what I said.

M.A.R. ಠ_ಠ

@TannerSwett My knowledge is rusty but I don't get your reasoning, especially like in this message

14 hours ago, by Tanner Swett

It's a state that still holds true, but it doesn't mean you should go wash dishes again and still use perfect.

2 hours later…

Mitch

6:28 PM

@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ OMG just do the dishes already

M.A.R. ಠ_ಠ

7:19 PM

@Mitch I have objected!

3 hours later…

Student404Mus

10:35 PM

Can I include Martial Art activity under the title of " Professional experience" about my CV?

Robusto

11:30 PM

Q: Adjective for 'made of pus' or 'corrupted by pus' or something of something of pus

This to be used in a sentence with: a somethingish discharge I like "pustulous discharge" but 'pustulous' is of pustules not of their content. 'Pusy' would be a natural but doesn't look like what it's trying to mean so..