Thread: Можно сказать так по-Английски?

Originally Posted by shmshm

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.

Yeah, this can get tricky The operative words in your samples are "in the last" or "this" or "so far". They link or connect the action to the present.
For example,
I've changed three jobs in the last couple of years. (up to now, starting two years ago)
In the last week or so I've heard a great many lies from him (up to now, starting a week ago)
This week I've been arrested two times on DUI charges (up to now, from the beginning of this week)

You cannot say:
I've changed three jobs last year (happened last year, now we have a new year, so it must be I changed three jobs last year)
Last week I've heard a great many lies from him (happened last week, now we have a new week, it must be last week I heard a great many lies from him)

A word to the wise:
Don't fall into the trap of mixing up
"last year" and "in the last year"
"last month" and "in the last month"
They are VERY different in meaning
"last year" simply means the year before now, and "in the last year" means from "now" all the way back to "now minus 365 days"
"last week" simply means the week before now, and "in the last week" means from "now" all the way back to "now minus 7 days"
See?

So, the bottom line is:

Present perfect:
1. so far
2. this week/month/year/century/millenium
3. In the last week/month/year/century/millenium
4. In the last couple of hours/weeks/months/years/centuries/milleniums

Past simple
1. Last week/month/year/century/millenium
2. A minute/month/year ago

I know I might have muddied things up a bit for you, maybe someone else can do a better job of explaining the fine points of the grammar of such sentences. I have little background in English grammar, I'm mostly a "fly by the seat of my pants" kind of guy

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Go Lucky

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.

Wouldn't you agree that 'she has washed her car' implies that the car is clean now, so it makes a statement about the present, whereas 'she washed her car' does not do so, so the car may be dirty again.

"Oh, look, Sandra's car is squeaky clean!" - "Yes, she must have washed it."
"What did Sandra do last Saturday morning?" - "She washed her car."

Robin

Originally Posted by LuxDefensor

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.

Present perfect refers to something which leads up to now. I have seen the movie, so I can talk about it now. I have been watching TV for the last two hours, that is: the two hours before now.

Past perfect refers to something which leads up to then, that is, a point in the past. I had seen the movie before, so I could talk to Jim about it yesterday. I had been watching TV for two hours, when Jim came through the door. Both events with Jim are in the past, and both past perfect actions are further in the past. The simple one is long completed at the point in the past when I talked to Jim, the progressive one was going on at the moment when Jim came in.

You can say "I was watching TV when Jim came in", and that means the activity of watching TV had begun earlier, ended when Jim came in or even later, but we do not know anything about how long before it began. If the length of the period is mentioned (for two hours) you must use past perfect to indicate that it refers to the past two hours. So if Jim came in at 8 pm, then "I had been watching TV for two hours" means that I switched on the TV at 6 pm.

If I said "I was watching TV for two hours when Jim came in", then it means that I switched on the TV at any time less than two hours ago with the intent of watching TV for two hours, so I could have switched it on at 7 pm with the intention of watching until 9 pm.

English tenses transport a lot of logical relations between events which makes extra mention of the underlying information unnecessary. As I explained in the previous post, "Sandra has washed her car" says that the car is clean now, whereas 'Sandra washed her car' makes no statement about the present state of the car.

Robin

Originally Posted by Mr Happy Go Lucky

I know I might have muddied things up a bit for you, maybe someone else can do a better job of explaining the fine points of the grammar of such sentences. I have little background in English grammar, I'm mostly a "fly by the seat of my pants" kind of guy

If i understood you right It's ok. You really helped me . Thank for this.

And the last question.

when am i saying about anything that start in the past and still continuous in the present which one tense should i use The Present Perfect or The Present Perfect Continuous? Is it depend on verb which i use in that sentence?

Originally Posted by shmshm

when am i saying about anything that start in the past and still continuous in the present which one tense should i use The Present Perfect or The Present Perfect Continuous? Is it depend on verb which i use in that sentence?

Whenever it is an ongoing process you need a progressive form.

"I have been learning English." This sentence means that I am in the ongoing process of learning English. It began at some point in the past and is continuing now.

"I have learned all there is to know about English." If I say this I mean that I consider my learning finished, and am now in a position that I can say "I know English perfectly". It is not an ongoing process, but a finished process which has an effect in the present.

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

It is not an ongoing process, but a finished process which has an effect in the present.

But you can use ongoing process in the Present Perfect. For example:

I have had a cold for two weeks.
She has been in England for six months.
Mary has loved chocolate since she was a little girl.

And of course you can use ongoing process in the Present Perfect Continuous. My question is how understand which tense should i use in this case? Is it depend on verb which i use in that sentence?

I have had a cold for two weeks.
She has been in England for six months.
Mary has loved chocolate since she was a little girl.

These aren't processes in the sense that they are activities with a beginning, a duration and an end. Mary has not preoccupied herself with loving chocolate since she was a little girl.

Also, you don't say 'I am having a cold' but 'I have a cold' in much the same way as you have two arms and are not having them, even though colds pass. A cold is not a process.

But no language can be fully explained with rules. You need to understand the idea of progressive versus normal forms, and when you encounter sentences such as the ones above, and they come from a trustworthy source, then it is better to notice and accept that you say 'I have had a cold for two weeks' rather than try to find out which rule states that you don't use a progressive form here. Rules are tools, but they often have exceptions or weak points. They are the map, not the territory.

Robin

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."

You have seen the movie many times.
THere were many earthquakes in California.
You have been waiting here for 2 hours.
They have been talking for two hours.