Why have perfect tenses in English?

[SW VandeCarr]

I speak several languages, but I frankly don't understand the reason for the perfect tenses in modern English usage. Do the English sentences "I was there." and "I have been there." really say different things? I know the theory. The past perfect tense reflects a completed action in the past. But the simple past tense does the same thing. I've been told that the perfect tense applies to a continuing action or state of affairs that has ended, while the simple past refers to a single incident in the past. (Like the Greek aorist tense?) But in English we use the progressive aspect for that: 'She laughed when I said that. She was laughing when I said that.' Here we do get two different meanings. But I don't see the distinction between: 'She laughed when I said that' and 'She had laughed when I said that.'

In French there is no progressive aspect although it's easy to invent one (but the French just hate that). Going back to the first example in French, one would say: J'étais là, J'ai été là. The first is the imperfect and does carry a different meaning although I can't explain it in English.

 

[caffenta]

(sigh)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It most certainly conveys 2 different meanings. When you say 'I was there', it specifies a specific time/event. When you say 'I've been there', it just means that you have gone there at some point.

I don't think saying "I was there." implies any more than what's stated. It carries no more or less information than "I have been there".

She was laughing when I said that' means that she was already laughing when you said that

I know. That's why said it carries different information than "She laughed when I said that".

I hope my French didn't have too many mistakes.

I'm not sure about using 'y' with forms of the verb 'être', but maybe it's OK.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

(sigh)

OK. I do see your point if the sentence is extended. So if I say "I was there when the the ship arrived,"; that's not the same as "I have been there when the ship arrived". The former is a specific instance while the latter implies multiple (or non soecific) arrivals of the same ship. However I'm not sure I couldn't say "I was often (or occasionally or once) there when the ship arrived." with the same meaning as the perfect.

 

[caffenta]

You can't say "I have been there when the ship arrived". You can say "I was often (or occasionally or once) there when the ship arrived." because each arrival of the ship is a specific event.

Depending on the sentence, you can say things like "I've been there on a sunny day" or "I've been there on a Sunday", but "I've been there last Sunday" would be wrong. "I've been there since last Sunday" is fine however, because you are still there and it has a different meaning than just "I've been there".

I think the examples in my first post showed the difference clearly. I probably shouldn't have erased it. Maybe a mod can bring it back.

 

[Borek]

Deleted posts can be restored, edited are lost forever.

English tenses are a nightmare.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2005263&postcount=6

Actually if you ever see me using incorrect tense, feel free to tell me I am an idiot. Perhaps something will stick and my English will get beter.

 

[caffenta]

Deleted posts can be restored, edited are lost forever.

Oops. Oh well.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

English tenses are a nightmare.

You said it! (Or is it "You have said it" or maybe "You have said it all?)

Actually if you ever see me using incorrect tense, feel free to tell me I am an idiot. Perhaps something will stick and my English will get beter.

No. The English language is the "idiot" (Just kidding Trevour et al). Merlin (who was Welsh) cast a spell on the Anglo-Saxons that confounded their speech, and made them into Mercians, Northumbrians, West Saxons and the rest. And now the world suffers.

You can't say "I have been there when the ship arrived". You can say "I was often (or occasionally or once) there when the ship arrived." because each arrival of the ship is a specific event.

Depending on the sentence, you can say things like "I've been there on a sunny day" or "I've been there on a Sunday", but "I've been there last Sunday" would be wrong. "I've been there since last Sunday" is fine however, because you are still there and it has a different meaning than just "I've been there".

I think the examples in my first post showed the difference clearly. I probably shouldn't have erased it. Maybe a mod can bring it back.

Whatever you say man. It's all Greek to me. I need some rules. The best I could find was that the perfect (or "present perfect") is where a past event or events somehow "lingers" in the present (sort of like a bad smell). "Did you f.rt?" or "Have you f.rted?" I really don't see which is to be preferred although I'm inclined toward the first and I don't really see a need for the second. .

Ich war dort. Ich habe dort viele Male gewesen.

Maybe English needs to get some of that old "gewesen" back.

 

[caffenta]

Whatever you say man. It's all Greek to me.

Well, then, you have a προβλεμ.

I need some rules.

Rules? Coming from a Fench speaker? Rules? Really? I thought that “l'exception confirme la règle.” Something every poor kid in school trying to learn French is told, because there is not a single rule in French, only exceptions. Besides, doesn't French have the passé composé? "J'ai vécu en France", "Je vivais en France." It's the same thing.

Ich war dort. Ich habe dort viele Male gewesen.

FYI, the second one's wrong grammatically.

Here's a rule: asking questions and then insulting the guy who's trying to help you is considered bad form.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

FYI, the second one's wrong grammatically.

(The German)

What's right way?

Here's a rule: asking questions and then insulting the guy who's trying to help you is considered bad form.

Why do you take it as an insult? I may be insulting the English language at bit. It's got too many words, too many tenses, and too many ways to make the same sound: fight, byte, write ,eye, I, lie, Idaho and so on. But I love it. I only speak French when I need to. The French will only speak French to me. It's a fact that British and American English differ on the use of the perfect (or present perfect) tense, or so I have been told. (Or is it: "So I was told?") Just give me a rule on that one.

 

[caffenta]

(The German)

What's right way?

"Ich bin ... gewesen", not "habe ... gewesen"

Why do you take it as an insult?

"Whatever you say, man" sounds dismissive.

I may be insulting the English language at bit. It's got too many words, too many tenses, and too many ways to make the same sound: fight, byte, write ,eye, I, lie, Idaho and so on. But I love it. I only speak French when I need to. The French will only speak French to me. It's a fact that British and American English differ on the use of the perfect (or present perfect) tense, or so I have been told. (Or is it so I was told?)

Every language is like that. You don't think English speakers get frustrated when they are trying to learn French?

I can't really express the rules because I don't really think about them. I can only express them through examples. Sometimes the difference between “was” and “have been” is very subtle. It's probably easier to spot incorrect usage. For example, in "I have been there when the ship arrived", present "have been" and past "arrived" are mixed, so it can't really work.

You can make some parallels with French. For example, you wouldn't say "j'ai vécu à Paris quand les Allemands sont arrivés,” but “je vivais à Paris quand les Allemands sont arrivés.” Yet you might say “j'ai vécu à Paris quand j'étais jeune.” In this case, you're not describing a specific event, but a general period in your life. “Je vivais à Paris quand j'étais jeune” has a slightly different meaning. It says that you spent all of your youth living in Paris, while in the first case, it just says that you spent some time in Paris while you were young.

In my experience, the best way to get the subtleties is to get exposed to the language. Read books or magazine, watch movies, listen to people. The rules can only get you so far. And even native speakers make these kinds of mistakes, so it's not a biggie.

So I have been told. (Or is it: "So I was told?") Just give me a rule on that one.

I think "So I've been told". The problem is that both are used so often, I don't even know which one is really correct. I remember a joke on the Simpsons about something similar.

 

[Studiot]

But I don't see the distinction between: 'She laughed when I said that' and 'She had laughed when I said that.'

She laughed when I said that - and might still be laughing.

She had laughed when I said that - and has now finished laughing.

This is not the most realistic example since laughing is generally a short lived activity.

So try this example.

The enemy resisted when we attacked, so we are settling in for a long seige.

The enemy had resisted when we attacked, but we soon overcame this and won the day.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

"Ich bin ... gewesen", not "habe ... gewesen"

Well I think you can say "Ich bin dort oft gewesen" which translates to "I have been there often".

"Ich habe dort viele Male gewesen" I believe translates more literally as "I have there many times been." Maybe some German speaker can comment. Perhaps the main verb is "gehabt" in this phrasing.

I think "So I've been told". The problem is that both are used so often, I don't even know which one is really correct..

That's my point.

 

[caffenta]

"Ich habe dort viele Male gewesen" I believe translates more literally as "I have many times there been." Maybe some German speaker can comment. Perhaps the main verb is "gehabt" in this phrasing.

No, it's always "bin". I checked with a relative of German origin to be sure, since I rarely get to speak German nowadays.

That's my point.

But that's just a specific case, because it's unclear what the circumstances are. It doesn't mean that “was” and “have been” are always interchangeable. “When I was a kid, I've been told never to lie” is wrong. “When I was a kid, I was told never to lie” is correct.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

No, it's always "bin".

I mean the main verb (really the infinitive form); the one at the end of the sentence. If you use 'habe' as the auxiliary verb, then 'gehapt' is the main verb in most sentences (as in 'Ich habe gehabt : "I have had"), but I'm not sure about this one since it makes reference to "many times" in what seems to be the accusative, so it may not actually be an example of the German present perfect. (Lit:I have many times there been) My German is also fairly rusty. I read it, but don't get to speak it very much.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

So try this example.

The enemy resisted when we attacked, so we are settling in for a long seige.

The enemy had resisted when we attacked, but we soon overcame this and won the day.

Well to my ears "The enemy resisted when we attacked but we soon overcame this and won the day." seems just fine. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Studiot]

Well to my ears "The enemy resisted when we attacked but we soon overcame this and won the day." seems just fine. Maybe it's just me.

Both my examples sound just fine but they have different meanings.

Can you really not see the difference considering the pattern in my last post?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm not trying to restart this thread, but for closure, I did find some common uses of what appears to be the English present perfect where the simple past tense doesn't work at all.

"I should have done that. I could have done that. I wish (that) I did that." The last doesn't fit the form of the English present perfect but in French: "J'ai dû le faire. J'ai pu le faire. Je tiens ce que j'ai fait." So you can see my confusion since all three use the same form in French and it's not called a perfect tense. By the way, if anyone thinks I'm critical of English, you should hear what I say about French. My ancestry is Flemish.

One other point. The English present perfect may have some use in the effect of speech. Compare ML King's "I have seen the promised land!" with 'I saw the promised land.'

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Both my examples sound just fine but they have different meanings.

Can you really not see the difference considering the pattern in my last post?

As I said in the first post, I know the theory regarding the present perfect, but in actual usage, the theory doesn't generally seem to apply.

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html

In your example '...the enemy had resisted...' should indicate a vague point in time relative to the present while the simple past ideally is used like the old aorist as a single well defined point in time in the past. Since you add, "we won the day" that actually seems to make the previous action more precise in terms of the time of the event of resisting. Some references also define the present perfect for events immediately contingent to the present "She dumped her date for you." "She has dumped her date for you". However, in actual usage, at least in the US, I think both sentences would have the some meaning, except maybe for effect; a point I made (not 'have made') in my last post.

EDIT: Correction. "...the enemy had resisted..." is an example of the past perfect (pluperfect). I have less of a problem with this because it relates an event in the past with a more recent past event. However, in your example, the events are so close together, that the simple past essentially means the same thing.

 

[Studiot]

I have no idea what post#20 means, but my point is simple, even if it is not clear to you - sorry about that.

Use of "The enemy resisted" gives no information about what is happening now or to happen in the future.
It simply states that resistance commenced in the past.
That resistance may or may not have been concluded by the time the next action occurs or it may still be going on in the present and on into the future.

Following the use of "the enemy had resisted" we would expect to see a statement of what happened after the conclusion of the resistance, because the construction is designed specifically for an action that was wholly complete in the past.

go well

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have no idea what post#20 means, but my point is simple, even if it is not clear to you - sorry about that.

Use of "The enemy resisted" gives no information about what is happening now or to happen in the future.
It simply states that resistance commenced in the past.
That resistance may or may not have been concluded by the time the next action occurs or it may still be going on in the present and on into the future.

Following the use of "the enemy had resisted" we would expect to see a statement of what happened after the conclusion of the resistance, because the construction is designed specifically for an action that was wholly complete in the past.

go well

I don't know if you saw my edit. I missed this when I first looked at your sentence. What it means is that you used the past perfect (correctly) rather than the present perfect. I've been talking mostly about the present perfect which would have been "has resisted". I don't have as much of a problem with the past perfect since its usage in English is more clear cut. The past perfect is used for an action which is completed before another action in the past. In this case the enemy's resistance was completed before " we won the day". (But in this case, the events are so closely connected in time that the simple present tense suffices.)

The present perfect is supposed to be used for an action that is completed prior to the present but this can also be expressed by the simple present and often is. English can also express an action that started in the past but extends to the present by use of the progressive: "I have been driving for six hours and I'm tired." In post 18, I stated what I believe are the only essential uses of the present perfect in English (conditional statements). However, I welcome challenges.

 

[Studiot]

You also need to remember that in English, unlike many languages, we distinguish two kinds of action.

Actions that take place at a single instance in time

For example - He died.

Performing a single act of resistance.

Actions that extend over (perhaps a considerable) period of time.

She lived in Rome for twenty five years.

If we said "She had lived in Rome for twenty five years" we would expect further information to follow.

This distinction can lead to multiple ways of expression and possible ambiguity. Sometimes the correct tense is popularly not used.

 

[Borek]

I guess my main problem is that things we usually describe in Polish with additional information/words, in English are already built into the language. I am simply not used to think in such categories.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I guess my main problem is that things we usually describe in Polish with additional information/words, in English are already built into the language. I am simply not used to think in such categories.

It seems Polish has just three basic tenses: past, present and future. In addition there's two aspects (like English) perfective: 'I went' and imperfective: 'I was going'. The latter corresponds to the English progressive. However Polish, like other Slavic languages, has an elaborate case system for nouns and adjectives. English is much simpler in this regard.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't know if you saw my edit. I missed this when I first looked at your sentence. What it means is that you used the past perfect (correctly) rather than the present perfect. I've been talking mostly about the present perfect which would have been "has resisted". I don't have as much of a problem with the past perfect since its usage in English is more clear cut. The past perfect is used for an action which is completed before another action in the past. In this case the enemy's resistance was completed before " we won the day". (But in this case, the events are so closely connected in time that the simple present tense suffices.)

The present perfect is supposed to be used for an action that is completed prior to the present but this can also be expressed by the simple present and often is. English can also express an action that started in the past but extends to the present by use of the progressive: "I have been driving for six hours and I'm tired." In post 18, I stated what I believe are the only essential uses of the present perfect in English (conditional statements). However, I welcome challenges.

That should be simple past tense in the second paragraph. (Edit option expired).

 

[atyy]

One other point. The English present perfect may have some use in the effect of speech. Compare ML King's "I have seen the promised land!" with 'I saw the promised land.'

I think there are slight differences in ambiguity. "I have seen the promised land" means the promised land exists at the time of speaking. "I saw the promised land" does not rule out that the promised land no longer exists at the time of speaking. Since this is Physics Forums, we should be clear that this difference is not absolute since simultaneity is conventional.

 

[Borek]

Note to all: whenever you see me writing in English, assume I use tenses at random and I don't necessarily understand what I wrote.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think there are slight differences in ambiguity. "I have seen the promised land" means the promised land exists at the time of speaking. "I saw the promised land" does not rule out that the promised land no longer exists at the time of speaking. Since this is Physics Forums, we should be clear that this difference is not absolute since simultaneity is conventional.

http://www.englishbaby.com/lessons/grammar/present_perfect_tenfewse

Yes. In theory, that is one use of the English present perfect. But it's not observed. "Gadaffi was the dictator of Libya at the time of the airliner crash in Lockerbee, Scotland." I doubt many English speakers would take that to indicate that he may not still be the dictator of Libya (at least at this moment). Also, by taking "Gadaffi has been the dictator of Libya since 1969." to indicate he still is the dictator of Libya violates the usual meaning of a perfect tense; an action or state completed in the past. Actions or states of being that existed or occurred in the past and continue in the present are usually treated by the "imperfect" tense in most languages that have such a thing. But I'll grant you that this is a use of the present perfect tense in an imperfect world where there are no absolutes, only conventions.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Note to all: whenever you see me writing in English, assume I use tenses at random and I don't necessarily understand what I wrote.

Well, I never had a problem reading your posts which is more than I can say about some other posts in PF, presumably by native speakers of English. Note that modern Polish apparently lacks perfect tenses. I understand they existed in Old Polish, but you guys wisely got rid of them.

 

[Studiot]

"Gadaffi was the dictator of Libya at the time of the airliner crash in Lockerbee, Scotland." I doubt many English speakers would take that to indicate that he may not still be the dictator of Libya

That is because the correct construction to express this thought would be

"Gadaffi had been the dictator of Libya at the time of the airliner crash in Lockerbee, Scotland."

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That is because the correct construction to express this thought would be

"Gadaffi had been the dictator of Libya at the time of the airliner crash in Lockerbee, Scotland."

Well I don't think that sentence is well constructed if you use the present perfect: "...has been...at the time...". I would write it as "Gadaffi has been the dictator of Libya since the airliner crash..." Again, you used the past perfect, which is correct, but that's not what I'm discussing now. My point is that even if you substitute the past perfect for "was", the use of the simple past is clear and is used. Moreover, when you use the past perfect, you should reference another point in the past. "Gaffafi had been dictator of Libya for twenty years before the Lockerbee incident". I discuss these types of sentences in the post you're referencing(#28). Please go back and read my comment re perfect vs imperfect tenses.