The tense-changing process

[engtense]

I have found out a tense-changing process to explain the time relation between the commonly-used three tenses: Simple Past, Present Perfect, and Simple Present:

(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (= incompletion):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (= completion):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.
BUT: If we mention a definite past time, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=incompletion =a):
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=completion =b):
Ex: I lived in Japan five years ago.
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/1_3.htm

Your opinion is welcome.

[CID]

Hey engtense!

What would you like to know exactly?

I do not think that just memorizing these few sentences will do to know everything about Simple Past, Present Perfect and Simple Present.

IMHO!

[engtense]

Hey engtense!

What would you like to know exactly?

I do not think that just memorizing these few sentences will do to know everything about Simple Past, Present Perfect and Simple Present.

IMHO!

Do you know Present Perfect tense is big nuisance to most English learners?

According to tense-changing process, Present Perfect can be same as either Simple Past or Simple Present:
ExA: He has worked in that factory in the past. (a past action = 'worked')
ExB: He has worked in that factory since 1987. (a present action = 'works')
Without knowing the tense-changing process, however, people have done their best to prove the opposite. They want to explain that Present Perfect has of course a difference from Simple Past or Simple Present. This is a dual difficulty. This is why they find Present Perfect hard to explain:
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_7.htm

[Peter Farago]

you're correct that the Persent Perfect is distinct from both Simple Past and Simple Present, but most of your corrections are overzealous.

"He has worked at that factory since 1987" and "He has been working at that factory since 1987" are both correct, and mean essentially the same thing.

If the first one sounds a little awkward to you, note that it works perfectly fine in the negative: "I've never worked at that factory in my life."

"I have lived in Japan." wouldn't generally be used, but it is correct if you're trying to emphasize the truth of your statement:
John: "You've never lived in Japan!"
Bill: "You're wrong. I have lived in Japan."

"I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years." means that at some point in the past three years, I lived in Hong Kong. It also implies that at the present time, I do not. It sounds somewhat legalistic to me, though - "Have you been a resident of California in the last three years?" is the type of question I'd expect to be asked if I were applying to UC Berkeley.

I hope that I haven't just confused you...

[engtense]

"I have lived in Japan." wouldn't generally be used, but it is correct if you're trying to emphasize the truth of your statement:
John: "You've never lived in Japan!"
Bill: "You're wrong. I have lived in Japan."

"I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years." means that at some point in the past three years, I lived in Hong Kong. It also implies that at the present time, I do not.

Peter,

It implies that at the present time, I do!!

If this year is 2005, "in the past three years" is another way to say "since 2003". Working with "in the past three years", both Present Perfect and Present Progressive are therefore as same as working with 'since 2003'. That is to say, they express unfinished actions. Please see the examples:

Ex: Sharon currently is a Senior Strategic Planner in regulatory Affairs and has been working on the industry restructuring in the past three years. Prior to that she worked in Operations Control and Engineering departments as senior engineer and engineer.
http://www.sdieee.org/bulletin/04-98/Society.html

Ex: An artist has been working 21-hour days in the past three weeks as he puts the finishing touches on a mammoth painting in honor of children affected by AIDS and HIV.
http://www.ericwaugh.com/articleassociated%20press.htm

Ex: He said that Iran has been working for confidence building with the international community in the past three years and will not exclude negotiations about stand-off with IAEA Board of Governors to three European states.
== http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... irna05.htm


Ex: It has been working and we have had increased demand for luxury accommodation in the past three years.
== http://property.timesonline.co.uk/artic ... 91,00.html

Ex: Then there is another lady with a teaching background who has been working with the three sites around the Province in the past three years in the pilot projects. So, they are working hard to look at the protocols and what needs to be done.....
== http://www.hoa.gov.nl.ca/hoa/business/C ... vices).htm

You may see the diagram of "in the past three years" in this page:
[url]http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/4_5_1.htm[/url]

[Peter Farago]

The difference is in the preposition here, not the tense.

I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.
(But I don't necessarily live there now.)

I have lived in Hong Kong for the past three years.
(And I still live there.)

[engtense]

The difference is in the preposition here, not the tense.

I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years.
(But I don't necessarily live there now.)

I have lived in Hong Kong for the past three years.
(And I still live there.)

"What I call the Past Family is a group of past time adverbials that contain the telltale adjective ‘past’, fulfilling the role as past time expressions, such as in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc. They are as past as you can define what is past. They are led by different prepositions, which are related more to the verb than the time itself."
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/2_4.htm

With searching engines (like yahoo) on internet, you may search for the reality. The time span "the past three years" may follow a lot of prepositions: during, over, within, through even on. Now, will you tell us which prepositions imply "I live here", and which prepositions don't?

Please note that, in Simple Present "I live in Hong Kong", I also don't necessarily live there now, for I am traveling elsewhere.

I guess you will not go so far and say that by using 'for', one may not leave Hong Kong forever, right? If using 'for' can permit reasonable vacation out of HK, then "I don't necessarily live there now". It is then as same as using 'in'.

[engtense]

One one-sentence basis (one sentence and one tense), as grammar writers cannot see the use of the tense in "Birds fly", they have to BORROW the meaning of the sentence to explain the tense, so that it seems that they really know something about the tense. In this case, the role of the sentence has to remain unmentioned. Young students have acquired the sentence-unmentioned method and, when they have grown up, cannot let it go. May I ask, in "Birds fly", what is the difference between the tense and the sentence?

However, as for me, there are still many ways to prove that it is the sentence that expresses the Meaning; the tense, the Time:
1. In "Birds fly", if we take away the sentence and leave only the tense, there is completely nothing there. How can one talk about the tense that is nothing at all? The conclusion, as he will truly believe and say, is that the tense is timeless. He has to bring the sentence "Birds fly" back and talk about it, and then pretend he is now talking about the tense.
2. Different sentences in the (same) Simple Present can be of different Meanings. It is therefore the sentences, rather than the tense, that produce different Meanings.
3. If we put sentences together, we then see time relation, which controls the tense:
Ex: "I am not hungry. I have eaten dinner."
== We will normally use Present Perfect here, instead Simple Present "I eat dinner', to throw a contrast in Time with another Simple Present. To English native speakers, it is so natural that they aren't even aware there is a time relation there.
4. Actually, by way of time relations, we may even do without any sentences and thus any Meanings, and yet we may still be able to explain tenses and Time. The time relations between the three tenses are such as this:
Combination X: + Perfect + Present + Past
== As a rule, we use the starting Simple Past to say a completion within a definite past time frame, here in 1970. Present Perfect is used to say also a completion, yet outside -- either before or after -- the time frame. Simple Present indicates a happening also outside the time frame, but "not yet finished now". The latter Simple Past indicates a completion also in the time frame of 1970. Two Simple Past actions, though being separated quite apart, can be regarded as a series of actions. The latter Simple Past is a subsequent action to the former, indicating they happened in the same time frame.

Therefore, I can prove tense expresses time only. Your opinion is welcome.

http://englishtense.com