Perhaps one comes from Latin (uses the auxiliary to be) and the other from German (uses the auxiliary to have)? This is just a wild, wild guess.
It's my estimation that these came not from other languages for grammatical structure is used for meaning and English just simply isn't Latin or German or Yoruba. So strong is this feeling that second language learners often "misuse" a mother tongue tense in the new language.
Germans use the present continuous, I'm riding my bicycle to work for ten years now. in a fashion that is obviously German but not English. Japanese and Chinese use the simple present tense as it is used in their languages in ways that it isn't used in English.
Quote:
What is the difference between:
A. The boy was never seen fishing.
B. The boy has never been seen fishing.
Off the top of my head; one difference between A & B is the PP of current relevance/importance.
Another could be that A is being used to describe a limited time period. For example, the boy was watched over a period of an afternoon with 'never' being used as an intensifier, similar to a highly stressed 'not'.
The boy was NOT seen fishing.
Quote:
I cannot see the difference between them. How about the affirmative:
The boy is seen fishing every day.
The boy has been seen fishing every day.
Is there a difference? I can't see it.
While both convey the same meaning within the confines of what my mind [and yours] envisions, there may be situations where one would work and the other not.
Is it usual here for people to write a post just to thank for an answer or is uprating enough?
