5
   

She stole my car.

 
 
SMickey
 
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 04:38 pm
I'm a S. Korean who really wants to be good at English.

I'd like to figure out the difference between these two sentences below.

1. Someone stole my car.
2. Someone has stolen my car.

When translated in Korean, they are exactly the same thing, making me confused.

To my knowledge, the first sentence is a simple event of the past, and it has nothing to do with the present. That's it.
No facts are given to the state of the present.

On the other hand, the second one is a combination of the past and the present.
The car was stolen in the past, and at the same time, it suggests that obviously the speaker
doesn't have the car now. That is, the second sentence implies both of these.

A. My car was stolen by someone. B. So, I don't have the car right now.

This is my guess. Could you please help me understand it better?
I'd appreciate your comment.
 
View best answer, chosen by SMickey
jessiebear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 06:07 pm
@SMickey,
It means the same thing. Its just word choice. Its how the sentence is structured.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 08:33 pm
@SMickey,
Quote:
I'm a S. Korean who really wants to be good at English.

I'd like to figure out the difference between these two sentences below.

1. Someone stole my car.
2. Someone has stolen my car.

When translated in Korean, they are exactly the same thing, making me confused.

If you want to be good at English, don't translate back and forth from/to your mother tongue, SMickey. What it does is reinforces mother tongue interference, which doesn't help in making you a better English speaker/user.

Korean doesn't have a Present Perfect [PrP] for hot news, current relevance, past actions made important, formal past, ... .



To my knowledge, the first sentence is a simple event of the past, and it has nothing to do with the present. That's it.
No facts are given to the state of the present.

On the other hand, the second one is a combination of the past and the present.
The car was stolen in the past, and at the same time, it suggests that obviously the speaker doesn't have the car now. That is, the second sentence implies both of these.

While it's possible and even more likely that the person doesn't have the car now, the PrP can be used even if the car has not been recovered.


=============================
A. My car was stolen by someone. B. So, I don't have the car right now.

This is my guess. Could you please help me understand it better?
I'd appreciate your comment.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 03:45 am
@SMickey,

Quote:
On the other hand, the second one is a combination of the past and the present.
The car was stolen in the past, and at the same time, it suggests that obviously the speaker
doesn't have the car now. That is, the second sentence implies both of these.


I think you are right.
izzythepush
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 03:53 am
@SMickey,
The two sentences on their own do mean roughly the same thing, but the second one has more of a sense of immediacy. Someone has stolen my car is locked into the present. Someone stole my car is more adaptable.

Last Thursday someone stole my car.

I was having a wonderful time until someone stole my car.

You have to change has to had to achieve the same effect.

When I got home I realised someone had stolen my car.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 10:32 am
@SMickey,
Quote:
To my knowledge, the first sentence is a simple event of the past, and it has nothing to do with the present. That's it.
No facts are given to the state of the present.


If by this you mean the car has been recovered or that this is a long distant past where the speaker no longer cares or isn't so concerned about the missing car, then no, that's not true.

For the same event, native speakers of English have a choice of the Present Perfect aspect [PrP] or the simple past tense. For NaE speakers, the PrP is reserved more for past events that the speaker wants to make relevant to now. This includes HOT TOPICS.

News outlets often make use of the PrP to make the new more NOW, more current, more interesting.

Quote:
On the other hand, the second one is a combination of the past and the present.


That is true.

Quote:
The car was stolen in the past, and at the same time, it suggests that obviously the speaker doesn't have the car now. That is, the second sentence implies both of these.


That is possible but it is NOT always the case. It could be a PrP of experience,

"My car has been stolen",

meaning, sometime in my life, a car of mine has been taken, but that could have happened forty years ago and the car was quickly recovered but I no longer have that car - it may even have gone to the wreckers.

You just have to understand that English has this PrP aspect and understand the reasons English speakers use it. Then to become proficient at using it, practice using it like we do.

I'll comment on some BrE versus NaE in another post.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 10:39 am
@McTag,
Quote:
Re: SMickey (Post 5400176)


On the other hand, the second one is a combination of the past and the present.
The car was stolen in the past, and at the same time, it suggests that obviously the speaker
doesn't have the car now.
That is, the second sentence implies both of these.


McTag:
Quote:
I think you are right.


This idea, in bold, is actually something that is taught in US and likely, UK schools, but it is not exactly the whole truth.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 10:43 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Someone has stolen my car is locked into the present.


Someone [at a long ago point in my life] has stolen my car.

My car has been stolen. That was ten years ago. I got it back within ten minutes.

Quote:
Someone stole my car is more adaptable.

Last Thursday someone stole my car.


Someone has stolen my car - last Thursday.
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 11:53 am
@JTT,

That is rambling, unfocussed, and unhelpful. Did I mention inaccurate? It's that too.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 11:57 am
@McTag,
Yeah, you mention a lot of extraneous things, McTag, but you never seem to be able to focus on the language issue.
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 02:35 pm
@JTT,

I think your focussing on the "language issue" prevents you from seeing the big picture.
Your answers lack clarity of meaning. Most are totally unhelpful. Some are wrong, like that last one.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2013 07:05 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
I think your focussing on the "language issue" prevents you from seeing the big picture.


Yeah right, Mr May/Can, you really see the big picture. Remember, it's you that continually advance notions that have no basis in reality.

Quote:
Your answers lack clarity of meaning. Most are totally unhelpful. Some are wrong, like that last one.


You're trying to izzyfy this by throwing up any old nonsense you can think of, McTag. Try actually addressing the language issue. If you take exception with something I've described then point up my errors and show why they are errors, instead of running off on all your little tangents.
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Wed 31 Jul, 2013 12:07 am
@JTT,

All this navel-gazing is not helpful. If your answers and adjudged unclear, it is for you to find out why this is so, put them right.
Hint: overcomplication and unfocussed logic.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Jul, 2013 09:49 am
@McTag,
Quote:
All this navel-gazing is not helpful. If your answers and adjudged unclear, it is for you to find out why this is so, put them right.
Hint: overcomplication and unfocussed logic.


Read: McTag doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. When he can get in a snipe for a spelling mistake or a typo he's right there.
McTag
 
  3  
Reply Wed 31 Jul, 2013 01:31 pm
@JTT,

Noticeable that almost every thread visited by JTT ends in acrimony or worse.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Jul, 2013 01:36 pm
@McTag,
Noticeable that you have taken another tangent to avoid talking about the issues, AGAIN.
McTag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 09:11 am
@JTT,

"The issues" are those decided upon by our self-appointed moderator, is that right?

Don't make me laugh.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 10:21 am
@McTag,
Quote:
That is rambling, unfocussed, and unhelpful. Did I mention inaccurate? It's that too.


You're still avoiding the issues, McTag, the ones you raised. You're obviously just a bag of hot air because you can't actually discuss any language issue because you know that you'll embarrass yourself if you were to try.
McTag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 12:31 pm
@JTT,
I'll tell you what, you can do long-winded better than me.

"Rambling, unfocussed, unhelpful and inaccurate" is as much as you need to work on. I'm not going to give you any help you don't deserve.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Aug, 2013 08:34 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
That is rambling, unfocussed, and unhelpful. Did I mention inaccurate? It's that too.


Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

Quote:
I'm not going to give you any help


You really don't have the foggiest. Why not just be honest and admit you can't explain because you are afraid you will embarrass yourself?
 

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. » She stole my car.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 03:38:34