Thread: Можно сказать так по-Английски?

"You saw that movie many times."
"There was many earthquakes in California."
"You waiting here for two hours."
"They talking for the last hour."

Originally Posted by shmshm

"You saw that movie many times."
"There was many earthquakes in California."
"You waiting here for two hours."
"They talking for the last hour."

The first is OK, depending on the context. The second should have 'were' instead of 'was'.

The other two are not correct. The last one must be 'They have been talking for the last hour', the one before that I cannot correct because the time reference is not clear. Were waiting? Have been waiting? Will be waiting?

Robin

Тогда ещё вопрос, в чём разница между

"You saw that movie many times." и "You have seen that movie many times. "

"There was many earthquakes in California." и "There have been many earthquakes in California."

I hope it is ok if I explain the difference in English, I don't think I could do so in Russian.

Simple or progressive (also called continuous) past tense refer to events which are fully in the past. "You saw that movie many times" is a statement about the past with no implication about the present. "You have seen that movie many times" makes a statement about the present insofar as the person is now in a position to talk about the film, or has a specific opinion about it now. So, for example you would say 'Oh no, I have seen this movie so often I can't stand it anymore' to state that now you really don't want to watch it again. You should not use simple past here (I saw this movie so ften).

Generally speaking, in English the perfect tenses have present implications: "I learned English for five years" (simple past) means that I spent five years in the past to learn English, then stopped. I am not learning it anymore. "I have been learning English for five years" (perfect progressive) means that I began five years ago and am still at it, I have not stopped yet.

Likewise, "there were (not was!) many earthquakes in California" is a statement about the past. You could use that for instance in a context talking about a specific period of the past, or it could be used in a statement saying that there are no more earthquakes now. "There have been many earthquakes" means that the area is prone to get earthquakes even now; there were many earthquakes in the past and there could be more presently and in the future.

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

"You have seen that movie many times" makes a statement about the present insofar as the person is now in a position to talk about the film

when you say "You saw that movie many times" are not you in a position to talk about the film? I don't undestand what you mean.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

"I have been learning English for five years" (perfect progressive) means that I began five years ago and am still at it, I have not stopped yet.

"I learning English for five years" could be means the same. When you say "I am playing" do this means that you began to play in the past and am still at it ? Зачем придумали это время, когда можно было обойтись обычным continuous?

У меня с английскими временами вечная беда, особенно всякими там "future in the past". Ну и не всегда понятно, когда использовать present perfect, а когда past perfect. Может, немного прояснит такой момент: perfect-времена переводятся нашими глаголами совершенного вида, а continuous - соответственно, не совершенного. Так что: "Я видел 5 фильмов" vs "Я посмотрел 5 фильмов". Как-то так.

Originally Posted by shmshm

when you say "You saw that movie many times" are not you in a position to talk about the film? I don't undestand what you mean.

Past tense doesn't imply a connection to the present, whereas perfect tense does. Let's look at a different example:

"Where did you spend last summer?" "I was in England."

In this case the topic is completely in the past. No present statement is made about the person who replies - the topic is where he spent last summer, not what that means today.

"Have you ever been to England?" "Yes, I was there last summer."

In this case the question is phrased using perfect tense: it is about an event in the past, but it also inquires about its implications in the present, namely whether the person in now in a position to make a statement about England. The reply is in past tense because it has a definite time frame which is completely in the past (last summer).

Originally Posted by bitpicker

"I have been learning English for five years" (perfect progressive) means that I began five years ago and am still at it, I have not stopped yet.

"I learning English for five years" could be means the same.

No, it' just grammatically wrong. Even 'I am learning English for five years' is weird: it seems as if the person was now somewhere within that period of five years, for example three years in, knowing exactly that it will end after two more years. English expresses this idea of now looking back on five years of learning English using perfect tense. German incidentally would use present tense here.

When you say "I am playing" do this means that you began to play in the past and am still at it ? Зачем придумали это время, когда можно было обойтись обычным continuous?

"I am playing" means that you are in the middle of the process of playing, yes.

Robin

Originally Posted by LuxDefensor

У меня с английскими временами вечная беда, особенно всякими там "future in the past". Ну и не всегда понятно, когда использовать present perfect, а когда past perfect. Может, немного прояснит такой момент: perfect-времена переводятся нашими глаголами совершенного вида, а continuous - соответственно, не совершенного. Так что: "Я видел 5 фильмов" vs "Я посмотрел 5 фильмов". Как-то так.

OK, let's look at some of the options:

First, a time scale:

A ---- B ---- C ---- D ---- E

C is the present, B is a game of cards which took place yesterday. A is the time before the game of cards, D is the near future, E is farther in the future.

Someone could talk about this game of cards at B. He would say "Yesterday evening I played poker with my friends." This is a complete activity, not an activity in progress, therefore it is in simple past. "While we were playing, my wife called". The first part is the same activity in progress, the second is a complete activity nested within. Both past tense.

"I had played games like that before". This refers to A: a time which is farther in the past than the time actually being talked about. The narrator talks about yesterday but references card games much farther in the past by using past perfect.

"I had been waiting for that call all evening." This also references the time before B, this time an activity in progress up until the actual call came. The call is now the precise moment B, so the period of waiting before that is referenced using past perfect. It is the dashed line from A to B.

B moves along with the narration. So the narrator may then say "We wrapped up the game soon after that and went home. The call had destroyed my concentration anyway." So the end of the game is now B, and the call is now A, as it is not in progress anymore at the time the narrator is talking about, but further in the past.

"I did not sleep well after the game." Again, B has moved on. "In fact, I haven't been sleeping well lately at all." This is a statement about the time leading up to the present C, it includes the dashed line leading from B to C, but also B and A - we do not know how long the narrator has had sleeping problems, but it has a result now, at C, he is tired. So he says "I am tired" (a state of being, simple present, C) or "I am dragging myself through the day", a process, present progressive, the line leading up to C and including C.

"I hope I'll sleep better tonight." That's D, a point in the future. "But I am afraid I will be tossing and turning again." This is D and the dashes around it, and maybe even including E, a process in the future. "In any case, I will only play another game of cards (E, a point in the future), after I will have slept a full night through" - this last sentence refers back from E, the time being talked about, to D, time spent before that, but still in the future as observed from C.

Robin

"You saw that movie many times." CORRECT
"There [s:2d1tt0kx]was[/s:2d1tt0kx] were/are many earthquakes in California." (earthquakes = plural => use "were", not "was". )
"You were/have been waiting here for two hours."
"They have been talking for the last hour."

Originally Posted by shmshm

"You saw that movie many times."
"There was many earthquakes in California."
"You waiting here for two hours."
"They talking for the last hour."

Unless some intricate context is involved, I would put them this way:

1. You've seen that movie many times
2. There have been many earthquakes in California
3. You have been waiting here for two hours
4. They have been talking for the last hour

Here is the cases where I would use the past tense
1. In the year 1940 there were many earthquakes in California (meaning that earthquakes were commonplace at that time, they were a dime a dozen, the author wants to say that everybody took earthquakes as a matter of course, not something out of the ordinary)
2. You saw that movie, didn't you? (referring to a point in the past when I was actually watching the movie)
That's why it would be borderline unnatural to say "You saw that movie many times", because you saw each movie at a different time and you can't refer to a specific time at all, you have to resort to the perfect simple there.
Just remember that the present perfect is sort of "refuge" when you cannot pinpoint a moment in time when the action was in progress (or example it is not pertinent, or when it is not a single occurrence).
For example, I've completed the task (no sense to mention when you completed it, the idea that you have it completed is in the spotlight, the idea of the time when you did it is irrelevant).

3 and 4 are hardly possible in the past continuous, you have to use the perfect continuous for both.

Just my nickel's worth of free advice.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

OK, let's look at some of the options:

First, a time scale:

A ---- B ---- C ---- D ---- E

Oh dear! Ok, firstly, thank you very much for your thorough explanation. But I can't say I am less confused now
I think it requires more thinking from me.

after I will have slept a full night through

That's exactly what I am talking about. Are there any restrictions about wrapping tenses in another tenses? For example "I will have been sleeping" seems wierd to me. And what about "Yesterday I thought I will sleep better this night"? Or, in yor chart, "While we were playing cards I have been wiating for the call from my wife" - is it correct?
Usually I try to avoid such sentences in my speach when it is possible.
Once again, many thanks.

Originally Posted by LuxDefensor

But I can't say I am less confused now

I can imagine it must be quite confusing. I have an advantage in that the tense system of my native German isn't so far from the English one, even though it doesn't have progressive forms and handles perfect differently. But I can only imagine what it must look like coming from Russian, with its one-tense-fits-all approach.

And what about "Yesterday I thought I will sleep better this night"? Or, in yor chart, "While we were playing cards I have been wiating for the call from my wife" - is it correct?

The first one ispossible, though I would subject it to the rules for reported speech, as it is no quote: yesterday I thought I would sleep better this night. The other sentence isn't correct because the perfect tense (I have been waiting) should lead up to the present. Someone sitting right next to a telephone could say 'I have been waiting for an important call for two hours' or something like that. But two progressive (i.e. ongoing) events in the past should both simply be past progressive: while we were playing cards I was waiting for a call.

Robin

А как насчет скачать учебник?

В английском языке другая логика (не только с временами, кстати).
У нас 3 времени плюс совершенный/несовершенный. Англичане сильно путаются по-первости.
У них просто куча времен на все случаи жизни.

1. Present Continuous - самое употребляемое время в реале. Схема: [объект] + [to be] + [глагол](с окончанием ing).
Примеры:
I'm watching TV.
I'm walking.
They are eating.
The plane is flying.
Употребляется для выражения того, что происходит прямо сейчас. Вот в данную минуту, данную секунду. Типа I am typing an answer right now.
Я его для себя в голове трактую как "right-now-tense".

2. Спроецировав present continuous в прошлое (заменив is на was, are на were) мы получим Past Continuous.
Тут ситуация маленько посложнее: типа для чего нам "right-now", но в прошлом? А для того, чтобы придать некоторому действию оттенок продолженности. Это нужно, например для согласования двух действий в прошлом, одно из которых произошло во время другого. Ex: I was walking when she called. Я гулял когда она позвонила. Тут тоже работает идея о "right-now". Впитайте это в мозг. Другая логика, говорю же .
Еще примеры:
We were waiting him for 3 hours. (3 часа. Оттенок продолженности) Но. Действие уже закончилось, поэтому were.
While the plane was landing, its left engine exploded. (Когда самолет заходил на посадку взорвался его левый двигатель) - тут о чем я говорил: согласование двух событий.

3. То же самое насчет будущего. (Не буду расписывать, спрашивайте, если трудно.)

4. Present simple (habitual)
Это время употребляется для обозначения чего-то привычного/обычного для кого-то.
Например, я обычно гуляю с 6 до 8 вечера. I usually go for a walk from 6 to 8pm.
Это привычка. И для обозначения привычек, или обычного образа действия и используется это время.
Также это время работает для того, что лучше сказать "вообще", чем "прямо сейчас". Типа глаголы like, love etc.
I like meat. - Мне нравится мясо. Оно мне нравится вообще (не вот только в данную секунду, а вообще).

5. Спроецировать это время в прошлое не получится, тут надо использовать used to. I used to take a shower in mornings.
В прошлом это время само по себе работает для обозначения просто действия в прошлом см.насчет взорвавшегося двигателя самолета.
Я видел это кино много раз. Тут использование чего-либо кроме Past Simple звучит так же глупо как использование творительного падежа вместо просто именительного. Типа как "У меня есть машиной". Зачем, блин...?

6. В будущем simple tense работает так же как и в прошлом. Просто какое-то действие.

7. Вот теперь пришла пора Present Perfect (Что за дурацкое название).
bitpicker написал на самом деле гениальную фразу:

English expresses this idea of now looking back on five years of learning English using perfect tense.

Запомни, нарисуй на стене мелом и т.п.

В принципе я сейчас скажу то же, что и предыдущие ораторы.
Только по-русски
Формулы Perfect используются для того, чтобы распространить некоторое действие и на прошлое и на настоящее. То есть и was и right now одновременно. Пример:
I have been learning English since last december. Я учу английский с декабря. (что - правда, кстати.) Таймфрейм здесь такой: я начал учить в декабре, и учу до сих пор. То есть действие началось когда-то в прошлом и продолжается до сих пор.

Еще примеры:
Have you seen this movie?
Ты когда-нибудь видел это кино?
Временной интервал здесь ВКЛЮЧАЕТ текущий момент (а может быть ты его смотришь прямо сейчас?)

Have you ever been in England?
Ты когда-нибудь был в Англии?
Смысл тут чуть в принципе такой же, только с нюансами (действительно, если я тебя спрашиваю фейс-ту-фейс, значит ты не в Англии )
Неважно, задается ли напрямую вот эта самая ever, или она только подразумевается (то есть можно вставить в предложение и смысл будет абсолютно тем же самым), но если она есть, используй Perfect.

И последний:
Попробую привести аналогию с русским языком.
Представь себе ситуацию, прокрути в мозгу:
- Представляешь, чего Анька сегодня сморозила? - .... (что-то такое несусветно-глупое)
- Даааа! Она всегда была с приветом.

Вот это "всегда была" здесь подразумевает, что и сейчас это продолжается. И вот именно для этих ситуаций в английском и служит present perfect. И англичане очень тонко чувствуют эти нюансы. Для правильного применения нужно тоже развить это чутье, а это достигается только через практику. Так что больше болтай по-английски и через пару месяцев все станет понятно.

Спасибо, Eugene-p и Robin за разъяснения. Действительно, логика другая, но, в принципе, более или менее понятно. Думаю, нужно больше обращать внимание на эти моменты, когда читаю или смотрю что-то по-английски (обычно просто содержание увлекает и перестаешь анализировать текст, нужно удерживать внимание). Я хотел бы сказать, что в том, что касается времен, для меня две самых главных проблемы: это разница между Present Perfect и Past Perfect и согласование времен в сложных предложениях. Ваши объяснения сильно помогли, но нужно еще закрепить это.

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Go Lucky

In the year 1940 there were many earthquakes in California (meaning that earthquakes were commonplace at that time, they were a dime a dozen, the author wants to say that everybody took earthquakes as a matter of course, not something out of the ordinary)

Is "In the year 1940 there have been many earthquakes in California" correct and wouldn't be it borderline unnatural to say so? in the Present Perfect Tense , i mean.

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Go Lucky

For example, I've completed the task (no sense to mention when you completed it, the idea that you have it completed is in the spotlight, the idea of the time when you did it is irrelevant).

It is the example from a book:

"She washed her car". No sense to mention when she completed it, the idea that she have it completed is in the spotlight, the idea of the time when you did it is irrelevant. Is it? So why do this spell in The Present Simple?

BTW Eugene-p write "We were waiting him for 3 hours." Is it not correct, right?

BTW Eugene-p write "We were waiting him for 3 hours." Is it not correct, right?

Wrote. Re-read my post once again. I do not write this sentence for habit daily .
It's good grammatically, but sounds unfinished. I wanted to point this out, but preferred you to catch me.
Хехехе.

Originally Posted by shmshm

Is "In the year 1940 there have been many earthquakes in California" correct and wouldn't it be borderline unnatural to say so? in the Present Perfect Tense , i mean.

In a word, no. Never use the perfect present tense with a reference to a time in the past
Compare:
She has seen the movie.
Yesterday she saw a movie. (Yesterday refers to a time in the past)

Originally Posted by shmshm

It is an example from a book:

"She washed her car". Is it? So why do this spell in The Present Simple?

You can say both in such cases:
1. She has washed her car
2. She washed her car

I'm not that up on grammar to tell you the rule that governs such cases, but my gut feeling tells me that sentence #1 is more formal than sentence #2. That means that if you were talking to a friend, you would use #2, on the other hand, if you were putting together a report for your boss, you would use #1.

Only be heedful of this:

1. She has washed her car the day before yesterday (WRONG, sounds completely off)
2. She washed her car the day before yesterday (OK)

PS: Also, I corrected your post and highlighted my corrections, hope you don't mind

Originally Posted by Eugene-p

It's good grammatically...

Not quite. It should be "...waiting for him"

Oops

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Go Lucky

In a word, no. Never use the perfect present tense with a reference to a time in the past

From the books:

Sometimes, we want to limit the time we are looking in for an experience. We can do this with expressions such as: in the last week, in the last year, this week, this month, so far, up to now, etc.

Examples:

Have you been to Mexico in the last year?
I have seen that movie six times in the last month.
They have had three tests in the last week.
She graduated from university less than three years ago. She has worked for three different companies so far.
My car has broken down three times this week.