past tense/present perfect tense

He is dead, he no longer exists. We cannot use the present perfect.

Yes, it is possible to use the present perfect ASPECT for such a situation but it is unusual.

See PRACTICAL ENGLISH USAGE by Michael Swan.

Thank you Contrex and JTT

but which chapter?

Contrex, in English we can say:

-Cicero has written essays.

Cicero is dead, how come the present perfect tense is OK?

I'd say no.
More usual to write "He had never spoken a word in French...", or "He never spoke a word in French..."

Look up PRESENT PERFECT in the index. It's not difficult to find.

Thank you Mctag. For JTT,

do you mean in newspapers' privileged language the present perfect could be used?

You'll see it more in newspapers, radio, TV, but it is also possible in everyday speech. Possible DOES NOT mean common. Very rare would be a better description.

The focus is on the important action which causes us to bring that important action into the present, by using the present perfect aspect.

Thank you~ Can I use the present perfect like this?:

-We've arrived at the station and searched for half an hour.

It sounds like the act of arriving took 30 minutes, which is absurd.

No, it doesn't sound like that at all, WB.

It sounds like a person reporting in, the act of arrival being deemed important.

We have arrived and we have searched.

This is the literary present. Shakespeare is dead, so we cannot say he has brown hair, but we can say he writes (or has written) shrewdly about human nature, since his plays exist in the present, as do our reading or attending them.

First: He is dead, he no longer exists. We cannot use the present perfect.

Now: This is the literary present. Shakespeare is dead, so we cannot say he has brown hair, but we can say he writes (or has written) shrewdly about human nature, since his plays exist in the present, as do our reading or attending them.

If, according to JTT, we can say this:

--We've arrived at the station and searched for half an hour.

Can I say this?:

-This man has been(not the simple past) adopted/taken in and raised for 20 years.

In the right circumstances, with the right CONTEXT, yes, you can, WB.

um...In what situation? For the station sentence, it's possible because they have searched for just 30 minutes and the whole event is in the close past, unlike the adoption sentence, which spans a period of 20 years. If something happened such a long time ago, it's very unlikely that a native speaker will use the present perfect to link the thing to the present.

re JTT:
"Shakespeare is dead... we can say he writes (or has written) shrewdly about human nature…"

Yes - the written word 'lives on'. But the original sentence was:
"He has not SPOKEN a word in French…"

'written' I could understand….

I've checked through your Swan reference, and can't find anything to support your contention with regard to the above.

With regard to:
"We've arrived at the station and searched for half an hour."
It seems to me that 'the searching' is the most important action, yet you state:
"The focus is on the important action which causes us to bring that important action into the present, by using the present perfect aspect."
That being so, I would have no qualms with:
:We arrived at the station and have searched/have been searching for half an hour. I think it's time to call the police."

Yet, in your rebuttal, you change BOTH actions to Present Perfect:
"It sounds like a person reporting in, the act of arrival being deemed important.

"We have arrived and we have searched."
So now, both actions are important enough to adopt ( ) and warrant Present Perfect aspect.
I think you need to get out your Swan, and be specific about the paragraph that you consider supports your understanding of the Present Perfect.

That's very true, WB. However, "very unlikely" does not mean "no chance whatsoever". So as I said, given the right circumstances, the right context, it is a possibility.