Re: present perfect - reason for name of tense
Originally Posted by boozer
(a) I continue to maintain that all tenses relate and have relevance to the present. That is the defining characteristic of any tense and is its main focus. Tenses have no meaning at all except in relation to the 'present', i.e. the time at which they are uttered.
(b) There is no 'of course' about it. It just happens to work in English. There are other languages whose tenses cannot be analysed in that way. It works for us precisely because we use auxiliary verbs. I now strongly suspect that this correspondence was the sole motivation for the names of such tenses in the first place. Research will confirm or discount this.
(c) That is a facile and inaccurate comparison. The elephant is in clear sight and I recognise it, not by its DNA but by its outer form.
(d) That's the precise point of my disagreement. I'm not going to be persuaded by its mere repetition.
(e) I wasn't aware of any contempt. That is your subjective impression. If rules work for me I respect them, if they don't then I reserve the right to challenge them. Most human progress is made by challenging current wisdom. So far I haven't challenged Quirk's doctrine directly at all. I've only challenged other people's interpretation of his work. When I've read Quirk myself I'll be in a position to comment.
(f) I'm frankly amazed by that accusation. I have argued against you and some other contributors to this thread (bennymix, lucas-sp and einstein) with equal conviction and equal attention to detail. What makes you think I have singled you out in any way?
Last edited by Biffo; 13th August 2013 at 11:53 PM.
If you think that, you have another think coming!