0
   

the present perfect

 
 
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 08:17 am
Here are a couple of tricky questions for me . With the present perfect, how can we distinguish whether the action is finished or it continues up to the present - "he has painted the room", "He has lived here for...years"? Does it depend on the verb?
Does the sentence "I have lived in Australia for 10 years" mean the person still lives in Australia (now)? For example, after living in Australia for 10 years a person moves on , and now permanently lives in a different place, not Australia. Would it be correct for that person to say "I have lived in Australia for 10 years" using the present perfect, if he /she doesn't actually live there anymore?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,670 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 08:31 am
@Smarty11,
Smarty11 wrote:
With the present perfect, how can we distinguish whether the action is finished or it continues up to the present - "he has painted the room", "He has lived here for...years"? Does it depend on the verb?


The present perfect deals with unspecified occasions or periods.

Quote:
Does the sentence "I have lived in Australia for 10 years" mean the person still lives in Australia (now)?


It does not necessarily carry that meaning. Neither does the Present Perfect Continuous - "I have been living in Australia for 10 years".

Quote:
For example, after living in Australia for 10 years a person moves on , and now permanently lives in a different place, not Australia. Would it be correct for that person to say "I have lived in Australia for 10 years" using the present perfect, if he /she doesn't actually live there anymore?


Yes it would be correct. "I have lived in Australia for ten years." can mean either "I have lived in Australia for a total of ten years during my lifetime" or alternatively "I have lived in Australia for the last ten years". In neither of these is it implied that the person still lives there. Information about this may be supplied by the context.

I have lived in Australia for ten years, in Canada for seven, and Scotland for three.

I have lived in Australia for ten years and I still have not seen a kangaroo.


Smarty11
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 09:06 am
@contrex,
okay......
So, I left Australia very long ago and I don't live there now. Would it be more suitable to say "I lived in Australia for ten years" using past simple instead of "I have lived in Australia for ten years" using present perfect in this case?
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 09:15 am
@contrex,
Quote:
It does not necessarily carry that meaning. Neither does the Present Perfect Continuous - "I have been living in Australia for 10 years".


For the Present Perfect Continuous, it does, Contrex.

A Comprehensive English Grammar by ECKERSLEYS says so. The authors give us examples:

I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).
He has been teaching English for six months.
The boys have been watching television since seven o'clock (...and are still watching now and will probably go on watching for some time).
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 11:20 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
For the Present Perfect Continuous, it does, Contrex.[/b]
A Comprehensive English Grammar by ECKERSLEYS says so. The authors give us examples:

I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).
He has been teaching English for six months.
The boys have been watching television since seven o'clock (...and are still watching now and will probably go on watching for some time).


It can have that meaning, (that the thing referred to has been continuous up till now and is still happening) but it does not have to; it can mean that the thing is recently over, thus one cannot invariably assume that it continues.

Imagine I am in England. I meet my old friend Jim, who is looking very tanned. I say to him: "Hey, Jim! I haven't seen you for years! You are very brown." He replies: "Hi, Contrex! I am tanned because I have been living in Australia for ten years. I have come back to England because my marriage failed. I live here now."
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2012 11:25 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

oristarA wrote:
For the Present Perfect Continuous, it does, Contrex.[/b]
A Comprehensive English Grammar by ECKERSLEYS says so. The authors give us examples:

I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).
He has been teaching English for six months.
The boys have been watching television since seven o'clock (...and are still watching now and will probably go on watching for some time).


It can have that meaning, (that the thing referred to has been continuous up till now and is still happening) but it does not have to; it can mean that the thing is recently over, thus one cannot invariably assume that it continues.

Imagine I am in England. I meet my old friend Jim, who is looking very tanned. I say to him: "Hey, Jim! I haven't seen you for years! You are very brown." He replies: "Hi, Contrex! I am tanned because I have been living in Australia for ten years. I have come back to England because my marriage failed. I live here now."



I think Jim has misused PPC tense. He'd had to use PP (I have ben in Australia...).
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 12:47 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:


I think Jim has misused PPC tense. He'd had to use PP (I have ben in Australia...).


If it is misuse, (which I am not sure about) then it is a very common misuse.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:17 pm
@Smarty11,
Quote:
okay......
So, I left Australia very long ago and I don't live there now. Would it be more suitable to say "I lived in Australia for ten years" using past simple instead of "I have lived in Australia for ten years" using present perfect in this case?


You have to keep in mind what the PP is being used for, Smarty.

You asked,

Does it depend on the verb?

Not strictly the verb, but rather the semantic meaning.

Either, "I lived in Australia for ten years" or "I have lived in Australia for ten years" would be fine, DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT AND WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS TO SAY.

Two uses of the PP come to mind here:

1) The situation described by Contrex where a person is describing their experiences in living around the world. This is the PP of experience - eg. Have you ever skied/eaten frog's legs/danced on Broadway/... ?

I've live in Germany for five years and I've lived in France for three, Korea for two and I've live in Australia for ten years.

2) The PP of current relevance/importance

This is perhaps the hardest one of the PP's "jobs" to understand for the reason it's used is completely a matter of SPEAKERS' CHOICE.

If someone wants to make the idea sound more important, native speakers will choose the PP - "I've lived in Australia for ten years".

Of course, the simple past - "I lived in A for ten years" is also a possibility, a strong one, the normal neutral.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 08:37 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
For the Present Perfect Continuous, it does, Contrex.
A Comprehensive English Grammar by ECKERSLEYS says so. The authors give us examples:

1. I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).
2. He has been teaching English for six months.
3. The boys have been watching television since seven o'clock (...and are still watching now and will probably go on watching for some time).


It's pretty silly to give examples where the PPC holds the meaning of ongoing as proof that it will always means that, Ori.

Who are these ECKERSLEYS? And their "comprehensive grammar"?

Let me give you an example using a variation of one of the given examples, number 3.;

3A. The boys have been watching television since they were five years old.

That's PPC but it would be silly to assume that they had been watching TV continuously since age 5 and even sillier to assume that they are now watching TV.

The logic employed here,

I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).

is the same logic as,

Oristar is from China. He's an EFL. All EFLs who ask questions here are from China.

I have been teaching this class for two years.
He has been teaching English for six months.

Both these examples could describe situations that were finished.

Language school owner: You're fired!

Teacher: I've been teaching this class for two years and they love me. With me gone, you're gonna lose 40 or 50 students.

The PPC does NOT always mean the action at the time of speaking is ongoing.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 10:47 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
For the Present Perfect Continuous, it does, Contrex.
A Comprehensive English Grammar by ECKERSLEYS says so. The authors give us examples:

1. I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).
2. He has been teaching English for six months.
3. The boys have been watching television since seven o'clock (...and are still watching now and will probably go on watching for some time).


It's pretty silly to give examples where the PPC holds the meaning of ongoing as proof that it will always means that, Ori.

Who are these ECKERSLEYS? And their "comprehensive grammar"?

Let me give you an example using a variation of one of the given examples, number 3.;

3A. The boys have been watching television since they were five years old.

That's PPC but it would be silly to assume that they had been watching TV continuously since age 5 and even sillier to assume that they are now watching TV.

The logic employed here,

I have been teaching this class for two years (and am still teaching it).

is the same logic as,

Oristar is from China. He's an EFL. All EFLs who ask questions here are from China.

I have been teaching this class for two years.
He has been teaching English for six months.

Both these examples could describe situations that were finished.

Language school owner: You're fired!

Teacher: I've been teaching this class for two years and they love me. With me gone, you're gonna lose 40 or 50 students.

The PPC does NOT always mean the action at the time of speaking is ongoing.



I'm glad that for the first time in history you're fighting for Contex. Wink

But A Comprehensive English Grammar was published by Longman Group Limited (London), the same publisher of your beloved LONGMAN GRAMMAR of SPOKEN and WRITTEN ENGLISH, JTT
Quote:

Charles Ewart Eckersley (1892–1967) grew up in the North of England and attended Manchester University, where he gained an M.A. in English. He served in the Royal Artillery during World War I and later gained his first civilian job as a schoolmaster. He was appointed to the staff of the Polytechnic Boys’ School in Regent Street, London, in 1921 (Quinault 1967: 2). The school was associated with the Polytechnic Institute, which specialised in technical education and language teaching, and provided classes in English for foreigners. It was a frequent occurrence for Boys’ School masters to be asked to help with the Institute’s evening classes, and so it was that Eckersley gained his first experience of teaching English as a foreign language. T...more Charles Ewart Eckersley (1892–1967) grew up in the North of England and attended Manchester University, where he gained an M.A. in English. He served in the Royal Artillery during World War I and later gained his first civilian job as a schoolmaster. He was appointed to the staff of the Polytechnic Boys’ School in Regent Street, London, in 1921 (Quinault 1967: 2). The school was associated with the Polytechnic Institute, which specialised in technical education and language teaching, and provided classes in English for foreigners. It was a frequent occurrence for Boys’ School masters to be asked to help with the Institute’s evening classes, and so it was that Eckersley gained his first experience of teaching English as a foreign language. The methods used by a French master at the Boys’ School, H.O. Coleman (who was a friend of Harold Palmer’s), appear to have been particularly inspirational for Eckersley in his transition from teaching English as a mother tongue to English as a foreign language.(less)


More:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1954153.C_E_Eckersley





JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 06:39 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
I'm glad that for the first time in history you're fighting for Contex.


The truth, Ori, just the truth. It matters not who states it.

Quote:
But A Comprehensive English Grammar was published by Longman Group Limited (London), the same publisher of your beloved LONGMAN GRAMMAR of SPOKEN and WRITTEN ENGLISH, JTT


No book is beloved. The truth is beloved. The fact remains that either E.... is wrong or you haven't provided the whole picture from that source.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
  1. Forums
  2. » the present perfect
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 04:25:00