Tin nhắn: 77
Nội dung: English
erinja (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 12:56:08 Ngày 21 tháng 9 năm 2011
If a learner said to me "He said that he has been at home", assuming that the learner used it in an inappropriate circumstance, I would explain to the learner the exact meaning of that tense (He is currently at home, and he has been at home for some period of time, from the past extending to right now; this usage is usually accompanied by a specified period of time, e.g. "He said that he has been at home for the last three hours").
Then I would explain that this tense isn't correct for the meaning that the learner is going for, and if necessary, I'd explain tense shifting, and I'd give the learner the correct form to use for that circumstance.
-----
But this conversation has also covered the teaching of colloquial speech. It seems like people have expressed a lot of viewpoints that are unnecessarily absolutist!
It's important to teach learners the difference between colloquial speech and formal written speech. They need to learn the correct grammar in order to sound educated when they write. They need to learn colloquial speech to sound natural when they speak.
I think that pretty much any modern language class will teach both forms. I ran into this difficulty when I started learning Italian using a textbook from the 50's. I learned a set of pronouns, then I took a semester of Italian at school, and I found out that the pronouns I'd learned were currently only used in a few formal contexts. The new pronouns used were the equivalent of using "him" and "her" in the place of "he" and "she"; i.e. "him went to the store". But that's today's colloquial speech, and if I went around speaking the 50's Italian that I learned, I would have sounded rather strange. However I did need to learn those older forms, because they are still used in some formal settings.
Then I would explain that this tense isn't correct for the meaning that the learner is going for, and if necessary, I'd explain tense shifting, and I'd give the learner the correct form to use for that circumstance.
-----
But this conversation has also covered the teaching of colloquial speech. It seems like people have expressed a lot of viewpoints that are unnecessarily absolutist!
It's important to teach learners the difference between colloquial speech and formal written speech. They need to learn the correct grammar in order to sound educated when they write. They need to learn colloquial speech to sound natural when they speak.
I think that pretty much any modern language class will teach both forms. I ran into this difficulty when I started learning Italian using a textbook from the 50's. I learned a set of pronouns, then I took a semester of Italian at school, and I found out that the pronouns I'd learned were currently only used in a few formal contexts. The new pronouns used were the equivalent of using "him" and "her" in the place of "he" and "she"; i.e. "him went to the store". But that's today's colloquial speech, and if I went around speaking the 50's Italian that I learned, I would have sounded rather strange. However I did need to learn those older forms, because they are still used in some formal settings.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 16:44:36 Ngày 21 tháng 9 năm 2011
Hmmph! This isn't a question of colloquial speech versus formal speech, nor, if you will forgive me, Erinja, a question of dogmatism.
It is question of the meanings of English tenses.
It makes as much sense to say 'It was clear that he has made a mistake' as it does to say 'He came tomorrow'.
That surely isn't an issue of formality but of meaning.
'He said he has been at home' is like saying 'Li diris tiam, ke antaŭ nun (aŭ ĝis nun) li hejmas - which is as unsettling as the offending English.
The Present Perfect ('has been') anchors itself with reference to NOW, the Simple Past ('said') refers to a time in the past separate from NOW - THEN.
It is the conflict of temporal reference that undermines the sense.
It is question of the meanings of English tenses.
It makes as much sense to say 'It was clear that he has made a mistake' as it does to say 'He came tomorrow'.
That surely isn't an issue of formality but of meaning.
'He said he has been at home' is like saying 'Li diris tiam, ke antaŭ nun (aŭ ĝis nun) li hejmas - which is as unsettling as the offending English.
The Present Perfect ('has been') anchors itself with reference to NOW, the Simple Past ('said') refers to a time in the past separate from NOW - THEN.
It is the conflict of temporal reference that undermines the sense.
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 15:17:24 Ngày 22 tháng 9 năm 2011
sudanglo:'He said he has been at home' is like saying 'Li diris tiam, ke antaŭ nun (aŭ ĝis nun) li hejmas - which is as unsettling as the offending English.Hang about, where's these "then"s and "now"s coming from?
Maybe this is the misunderstanding.
When I say "He said he's been at home", I'm saying:
"He has completed the action of "saying". The information I got from this is that he has been at home".
sudanglo:Essentially the Present Perfect in English means before now, without any specific time reference (more technically in a time period that extends to the present)Isn't this legitimising what I'm saying though?
If we use this explanation of the perfect, then:
"He said he's been at home" = "He said (something which effectively means that) he has, for an indefinite period of time, been at home"
sudanglo:A significant source of foreign learners errors in English is the failure to apprehend the character of the Present Perfect in English.True, but just because they might become confused doesn't mean we just don't teach them how the language works in other ways.
I mean, in Japanese, they still teach you the various ways of differing between formal and informal speech even though it's confusing as heck. If they taught you just informal speech, then it'd be easier and more students would be grammatically more correct. But you'll sound wrong in certain company. So they have to teach the formal way of speaking, even though it's grammatically less important (the "informal" grammar isn't actually so much "reduced" like in English, but rather less flowered-up with piles upon piles of double-speak. The informal grammar handles a lot more functional roles, where as formal grammar is just to sound humble and polite).
----
English isn't Esperanto. While in formal writing it should be used very similarly when in comes to precision in tenses etc, in the spoken language it's much more idiomatic*. (Even in writing it's still more idiomatic than Esperanto though! Take for example "Which one do you want to win?", which doesn't mean "Kiun vi volas gajni?" but more "Vi volas ke kiu gajnu?" (or that's an -us there... never sure with Esperanto expressions using "ke" to express hopes like a subjunctive phrase)). And I might add that you'll need to learn informal Japanese anyway, so they just can't teach you things in a set manner (I believe formal Japanese in the wrong situation makes you look arrogant, off-put, or unwilling to get to know someone).
*There's surely a better word for this. Idiomatic seems "right" from a layman's perspective, but I think there is a more precise word for this to describe uses of grammar that diverge from their normal meanings, no?
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 14:56:29 Ngày 23 tháng 9 năm 2011
It is quite simple to demonstrate, Ceiger, that the Simple Past in English implies a THEN.
There wouldn't be many cases where the speaker says 'I X-ed' and it would be unnatural to ask 'When did you X'
This contrasts strongly with the Present Perfect where the question is not natural.
The bare question 'When have you X-ed' will normally sound strange. (The restriction also seems to apply to the Past Perfect.)
Normally, sentences like 'When have you finished the book' will not be used by a native speaker.
It can be done with the Present Perfect, but then the question becomes more like 'Whenever' rather than 'When'.
So you can say 'When have you seen him in the Office before 9 o'clock', but this is not like the simple question 'When did you see him'.
There wouldn't be many cases where the speaker says 'I X-ed' and it would be unnatural to ask 'When did you X'
This contrasts strongly with the Present Perfect where the question is not natural.
The bare question 'When have you X-ed' will normally sound strange. (The restriction also seems to apply to the Past Perfect.)
Normally, sentences like 'When have you finished the book' will not be used by a native speaker.
It can be done with the Present Perfect, but then the question becomes more like 'Whenever' rather than 'When'.
So you can say 'When have you seen him in the Office before 9 o'clock', but this is not like the simple question 'When did you see him'.
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 07:05:30 Ngày 25 tháng 9 năm 2011
sudanglo:It is quite simple to demonstrate, Ceiger, that the Simple Past in English implies a THEN.OK, good demonstration, I see what you mean there.
But I don't see how that prohibits its use in reported speech.
Also, this seems to be ignoring the figurative usage of "said", where it means "As a result of XYZ saying ABC, here is the fact ABC".
(Jim said he's been at home all week, with XYZ = Jim, and ABC being the fact(oid) that "Jim has been at home all week").
It's like using infinitives to describe someone elses action rather than your own despite the grammar, e.g. "I told him to eat his food" =/= "I told him, so I could eat his food", but rather = "I told him that he should eat his food".
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 10:40:49 Ngày 25 tháng 9 năm 2011
OK Ceiger, if you accept that the Simple Past in English implies a THEN, and that the Present Perfect means before NOW (without a THEN), then my argument is, that saying 'He said that he has X-ed' is like saying 'Li diris tiam ke antaŭ nun li X-is' - which reveals a sloppiness in temporal reference.
Now, in a private communication, Chainy has dug up for me some journalistic examples of 'He said that he has X-ed'.
Well it would't be the first time that poor English has appeared in print.
One of them is particularly interesting with regard to the argument that a Present Perfect is justified in reported speech to emphasise the currency of the situation.
He said that he has been personally responsible for the return of more than 5,000 items to Egypt since he became head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities in 2002.
Now if the afore-mentioned justifying argument is valid, then the number of returned items at the time of going to press should be still 5000. But why should this be true?
All that can be reasonably reported is that the number of items returned was 5000 at the time of the interview. Whether this figure still applies at the time of publication of the report wouldn't be known.
The newspaper report can only reasonably assert that the reporter was told that the the Head of Antiquities HAD (at that time) returned 5000 items.
Now, in a private communication, Chainy has dug up for me some journalistic examples of 'He said that he has X-ed'.
Well it would't be the first time that poor English has appeared in print.
One of them is particularly interesting with regard to the argument that a Present Perfect is justified in reported speech to emphasise the currency of the situation.
He said that he has been personally responsible for the return of more than 5,000 items to Egypt since he became head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities in 2002.
Now if the afore-mentioned justifying argument is valid, then the number of returned items at the time of going to press should be still 5000. But why should this be true?
All that can be reasonably reported is that the number of items returned was 5000 at the time of the interview. Whether this figure still applies at the time of publication of the report wouldn't be known.
The newspaper report can only reasonably assert that the reporter was told that the the Head of Antiquities HAD (at that time) returned 5000 items.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 11:00:45 Ngày 25 tháng 9 năm 2011
Indirectly, this discussion raises again the difference between the natural languages and Esperanto.
In the natural languages, usage is King, and if something is said enough by native speakers then it becomes part of the language.
In Esperanto the requirements for consistency are much higher. Esperanto can't be allowed to develop in a higgledy-piggledy fashion.
To allow this is to rob the language of one of its principle plus points, that you don't have to learn a whole mass of irregularities. In Esperanto, if you have grasped a pattern from a small number of examples you can safely generalize this.
Perhaps there are exceptions, but they run counter to the spirit of the language
In the natural languages, usage is King, and if something is said enough by native speakers then it becomes part of the language.
In Esperanto the requirements for consistency are much higher. Esperanto can't be allowed to develop in a higgledy-piggledy fashion.
To allow this is to rob the language of one of its principle plus points, that you don't have to learn a whole mass of irregularities. In Esperanto, if you have grasped a pattern from a small number of examples you can safely generalize this.
Perhaps there are exceptions, but they run counter to the spirit of the language
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 11:40:53 Ngày 25 tháng 9 năm 2011
sudanglo:OK Ceiger, if you accept that the Simple Past in English implies a THEN, and that the Present Perfect means before NOW (without a THEN), then my argument is, that saying 'He said that he has X-ed' is like saying 'Li diris tiam ke antaŭ nun li X-is' - which reveals a sloppiness in temporal reference.That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's more like "Li diris ion tiam. La diraĵo signifas ke li tiam faris XYZ-n".
Now if the afore-mentioned justifying argument is valid, then the number of returned items at the time of going to press should be still 5000. But why should this be true?So? We might as well just not bother with this tense stuff if we're that afraid of misinforming the public. I'm sure any person with a reasonable IQ should be able to come to the conclusion that it's not necessarily cemented fact. Nothing is. Science teaches us that at best we merely have proven theories, and that there's always stuff we don't know.
All that can be reasonably reported is that the number of items returned was 5000 at the time of the interview. Whether this figure still applies at the time of publication of the report wouldn't be known.
The newspaper report can only reasonably assert that the reporter was told that the the Head of Antiquities HAD (at that time) returned 5000 items.
Regardless, back to the example:
He said that he has been personally responsible for the return of more than 5,000 items to Egypt since he became head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities in 2002.To me, this is stating a factoid, and the origin of this factoid is the person who said it.
The reporter could just say:
"After talking to him, we found out that he has been personally responsible for the return of more than 5,000 items to Egypt since he became head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities in 2002."
But it's easier and quicker to say "he said", since he did say something. In this case, "he said" is taking on a more adverbial sense, like saying "On the topic of what this man said, he has personally been (etc...)...."
Sudanglo:In Esperanto the requirements for consistency are much higher. Esperanto can't be allowed to develop in a higgledy-piggledy fashion.More like we have a simple tense system which doesn't allow for use to debate these sorts of things, and when someone uses the more complex possibilities, because they're so rarely used they haven't evolved past their original design, so it's as if they're kept in stasis.
Sudanglo:Perhaps there are exceptions, but they run counter to the spirit of the languageIndeed. Part of Esperanto culture is that something should be simple, yet make sense. I would hope that stays part of EO culture for as long as the language is recognisably still "Esperanto".
English on the other hand I think is more like a language being forced to work in a number of conflicting ways. Problem is that if one way wins out, someone's gonna feel alienated, and if all the ways survive, we're gonna feel shockwaves through the language as the speaker community tries to "reinvent the wheel" to redevelop tense distinctions that might get lost.
sudanglo (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 09:31:25 Ngày 26 tháng 9 năm 2011
Messing around with the introductory verb does nothing to remove the error.
The fact is that, at that time (in the past) he HAD X-ed.
Doesn't make any difference in this case whether you say 'He said that' or We discovered that', using the Present Perfect for the subclause still jars.
'La diraĵo signifas ke li tiam faris XYZ-n' can't be translated into English with HAS done/made. The options are 'did/make' 'was doing/making' 'had done/made'
The Present Perfect in English means before NOW, not before THEN. The clue is in the name.
The fact is that, at that time (in the past) he HAD X-ed.
Doesn't make any difference in this case whether you say 'He said that' or We discovered that', using the Present Perfect for the subclause still jars.
'La diraĵo signifas ke li tiam faris XYZ-n' can't be translated into English with HAS done/made. The options are 'did/make' 'was doing/making' 'had done/made'
The Present Perfect in English means before NOW, not before THEN. The clue is in the name.
ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 11:45:45 Ngày 26 tháng 9 năm 2011
sudanglo:using the Present Perfect for the subclause still jars.It jars if you're so rigid you can't accept the possibility that words have multiple meanings and uses. You're assuming that "He said" means "Li diris" in this usage - but whoops, as I've said, that's not how it works.
Obviously you aren't prepared to see this viewpoint though, so fine, refuse any prescriptive outlook on grammar. I'll refer anyone to you if I want them to learn how to write a good essay, not to actually speak the language like many an English speaker do.