Missatges: 18
Llengua: English
sudanglo (Mostra el perfil) 7 de setembre de 2017 9.59.15
So Did you see Susan? is like Ĉu vidis Susanon, kiam ŝi. ...?
And Have you seen Susan? is like Ĉu vi vidis Susanon ĝis nun? - though the context will often be enquiry about the recent past. So have you seen Susan (today/this morning/at the party/about the job etc)?
However the use of the present perfect is not limited to the recent past?
I can ask Have you heard of Esperanto? and be quite content with an answer that refers to you hearing of Esperanto when you were at school (many years ago)
Have you seen Susan yesterday? is an error. If you mention a finished time you are forced to use the simple past, so Did you see Susan yesterday?
This distinction is largely unknown in other languages - or at least not expressed in the verb form.
sudanglo (Mostra el perfil) 7 de setembre de 2017 10.27.38
Context: the husband returns from a supermarket shopping trip.
Does the wife say
a, Did you get some eggs?
b. Have you got any eggs?
Answer = a. (b. is more likely used as a general enquiry about the availability of eggs in the house)
Context: I can't find my car keys.
Do I say
a. Have you seen my car keys?
b Did you take my car keys?
Answer = both are possible depending of what is in the speaker's mind
Altebrilas (Mostra el perfil) 11 de setembre de 2017 15.16.21
Ĉu vi aĉetis ovojn? / Ĉu vi havas ovojn?
Ĉu vi vidis miajn ŝlosilojn ? / Ĉu (estas) vi (kiu) havas miajn ŝlosilojn ?
Metsis (Mostra el perfil) 19 de setembre de 2017 18.14.56
Juoksiko Tom maratonin? (Did Tom run marathon?)
tells that the action (the running) has ended, but the action is recent or this is somehow new information. In this case one often adds a time expression to specify the event:
Juoksiko Tom maratonin viime viikolla? (Did Tom run marathon last week?)
The present perfect tense version
Onko Tommi juossut maratonin? (Has Tom ran marathon?)
implicates that the action took place or would have taken in some unspecified past, not recently, i.e. has Tom ever ran marathon.
sudanglo (Mostra el perfil) 21 de setembre de 2017 10.56.13
However the important thing to remember about the contrast in English is that the Present Perfect is not necessarily used for completed actions, or has always something to do with how recent the actions are.
It 's all about completed or unfinished times. For example I can ask 'How long have you been an Esperantist' knowing that you are still an Esperantist. (In Esperanto this becomes Kiom longe vi estas Esperantisto
Metsis (Mostra el perfil) 21 de setembre de 2017 11.42.59
sudanglo:Yes, to make a distinction regarding completeness you use on one side present perfect and on other side preterite or pluperfect.
It 's all about completed or unfinished times. For example I can ask 'How long have you been an Esperantist' knowing that you are still an Esperantist. (In Esperanto this becomes Kiom longe vi estas Esperantisto
Kuinka kauan olet ollut esperantisti? (How long have you been an Esperantist?) [you still are]
Kuinka kauan olit esperantisti? (How long were you Esperantist?) [you aren't any longer and this is somehow new info]
Kuinka kauan olit ollut esperantisti? (How long had you been an Esperantist?) [you aren't any longer and this repeating info]
I can also German, and in it different tenses also strongly denote various degrees of completeness. So maybe Germanic languages make only the completeness distinction, while Finno-Ugric languages also make a distinction with regard to novelty. (No, I'm not an expert on this.)
nornen (Mostra el perfil) 21 de setembre de 2017 22.08.40
Metsis:I can also German, and in it different tenses also strongly denote various degrees of completeness. So maybe Germanic languages make only the completeness distinction, while Finno-Ugric languages also make a distinction with regard to novelty. (No, I'm not an expert on this.)I have to disagree. German has no notion at all of completeness (perfectiveness). German, as Esperanto, has no aspects.
It is a common trait of Germanic languages to not express perfectiveness/imperfectiveness. English is the oddball here and I suppose English gained its aspectual system (perfect and continuous) during the Early Modern English phase under French influence.
In Standard German, there are three past tenses: e.g. ich aß, ich habe gegessen and ich hatte gegessen. The first two can be used completely interchangeably and the choice depends on the regional dialect, the education, the style, the commonness of the verb and whether it is written or spoken. The last one is past-in-the-past (Vorvergangenheit) and simply means that something happened before something else happened (where English would employ the past perfect). No "completeness" anywhere.
Boris ate his cake. = Boris aß seinen Kuchen. = Boris hat seinen Kuchen gegessen.
Boris has eaten his cake. = Boris aß seinen Kuchen. = Boris hat seinen Kuchen gegessen.
This is the reason why Germans never get the English tenses right.
Metsis (Mostra el perfil) 22 de setembre de 2017 6.56.35
nornen:Well, it depends from which part of the German language space you come from. The more south you go, the less differences there are between usage of preterite and present perfect. And in Swiss German preterite has practically vanished (no, I can't Schwürzerdütz). But in non-fiction texts and the further you go north the more one uses preterite and the more it carries the notation of completeness. Thus, when a person from north Germany says
I have to disagree. German has no notion at all of completeness (perfectiveness). German, as Esperanto, has no aspects.
It is a common trait of Germanic languages to not express perfectiveness/imperfectiveness. English is the oddball here and I suppose English gained its aspectual system (perfect and continuous) during the Early Modern English phase under French influence.
Boris aß seinen Kuchen, s/he refers to a specific event in the past
Boris hat seinen Kuchen gegessen, s/he indicates that the action, eating more or less extends to the present.
Just what sudanglo said.
If you take North Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish etc.), the distinction is clear.