Talk:Present perfect tense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vulgarity (since fixed)

The final group of examples use pretty vulgar language, laden with insluts and masturbation references. While obviously an attempt at adding some humor to the article, it's really not fitting for a Wikipedia entry. Examples with more apppropriate language are in order. [unsigned]

[Note: This has apparently been fixed since the comment was written.] — Lumbercutter 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

OMG this article is sooo confusing

[edit] Remove this

I'd rather have this article not exist than someone stumble upon this mess and try to learn something from it.

Sad but true re its current state. However, give it a few years to start developing along the lines sketched in the outline below. It could be good. — Lumbercutter 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, there's no real reason to have a huge section dedicated to the Spanish present perfect. Tmrobertson 07:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal

This reasoning is tempting but specious. Actually, the thing to do is to briefly explicate the use of the present perfect in a dozen or so major world languages. For example, it would be a development from the outline sketched below. However, looking around Wikipedia at other articles on language, for example Article (grammar), I see that we currently have light years to go before we start to build a body of pedagogy on this order. Oh boy—a challenge! Can we get there? It's a many-year project! — Lumbercutter 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outline sketch

The present perfect tense is a perfect tense used to express action that has been completed with respect to the present. "I have finished" is an example of the present perfect.

==Overview==

The Present Perfect is a compound tense; it is formed by using the present tense of "have" ("have" or "has") and the past participle of a verb. In the above example, the past participle "finished" is the main verb, while "have" is the auxiliary verb.

[This overview would (a) be written from an etic, multilingual perspective, but in simplest possible terms, and (b) would include the thorny distinction between the "perfect" and "perfective" verb aspects. (Actually, the distinction in concept is not that thorny, but the unfortunate similarity in nomenclature breeds confusion.) And what a mountain of pedagogical challenge lies within (a) and (b) above!]

===Use of the present perfect in various major world languages===

==== English ====

[Discuss—include the special case of "to have + got" = "to have"]

==== French ====

In modern French, the present perfect is usually used with perfective aspect and has mostly replaced the simple past (passé simple) for that purpose.

==== German ====

In modern German, the present perfect is usually used with perfective aspect, and colloquially usually replaces the simple past, although the simple past still is frequently used in non-colloquial and/or narrative registers. For this reason, the present perfect is often called in German the "conversational past", while the simple past is often called the "narrative past".

==== Spanish ====

[Restore Spanish discussion]

==== (Insert other languages) ====

[edit] Harder to explain than to understand

To the anon who recently wrote:

"note - It is not at all difficult. The traditional explanation as shown above is flawed, it always has been. Understanding this grammatical concept is easy, however, in order to gain a high grade in a examination you have to relate to the traditional flawed explanation. Therefore people think it is correct, the same way as people taught that the Earth was flat, not so long ago. Amendments to this page are quickly deleted."

It's not that there is a conspiracy against truth here. It's just that in improving the explanation, it can be hard to get the pedagogy right. In other words, it's harder to explain than to understand. (And, as elsewhere in the study of language, it is hard to get the epistemology right, too [i.e., schoolmarm notions versus linguistic science]). This article could stand to be better, yes. If you have time to try and make it better, in a way that readers can understand, then certainly go ahead and try. It's not as easy as it seems. Your comment that "amendments to this page are quickly deleted" makes it sound like good explanations were deleted. I don't remember that happening while I've been watching this article. Maybe some random additions that weren't better than what was already here were deleted. (I lack time to go scour the history at the moment. If I'm wrong, just show me a relevant edit diff.) That's not a conspiracy, and it's unfair to others to put it down to that. — ¾-10 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)