Блин, how do I use them?

Hallo, everyone! It's almost a year I'm user of this forum but I still have been feeling that I don't feel the difference between «did something» and «have done something» (I mean Simple and Perfect past tenses). In books of course I saw explanations that Perfect is used without additional information (time of action) and Simple is used with it. For example «Yesterday I wrote a book» and «Yes! I have written it!». But while reading English texts sometimes I don't see that authors follow these rules. I meet sentences like «Did you see the movie?» or «Yesterday John Petrov has visited public toilet». It confuses me a lot. Would somebody explain it for me? What are these situations when I may use any rule I want and when do I use only one of them? Thanks.

Hello Tu-160,
I'm not very accquainted with English grammar actually :oops: But I know what you're talking about.
Perfect tense is used mainly when as an affirmative statement or response - to use your example "Have you written it?" "Yes! I have written it."
But note you could also say "Did you write it?" "Yes! I wrote it."

"I have written a romantic poem for you!" sounds more affirmative and excited than "I wrote a romantic poem for you!"

But:
"Have you been in Russia?"
"Yes, I have been there." - Could imply you've been there more than one time
"Yes, I was there." - You've been there only once

"Yesterday John Petrov has visited public toilet." Did you really see such a thing in an English text? It sounds awfully Russian to me(and not because of the name!) :lol: You'd say this if you were really trying to affirm that he had gone there. Otherwise: Yesterday John Petrov visited the public toilet.

But basically if you always stick with simple form, you'll be ok most of the time.

Look here too:

"I had written it." "He had gone to the store." This is a "greater past"(don't know grammatical term) meaning that you are already talking in the past, and something happened before this past. Examples:

I walked into the room. Oleg was lying on the floor bleeding. The room was in total dissaray. Obviously, someone had been in to fix up Oleg.

past - me walking in and oleg on floor
greater past - someone coming in to beat up oleg

You studied German didn't you? It's like saying "ich war gegangen" or "er hatte Oleg get

TU-160,

When deciding on the tense to use, always first ask yourself what question you are trying to answer. The tense you use in the question will decide what tense to use in the answer. Also, don't think that all the sentences you read are correct:

«Yesterday John Petrov has visited public toilet».
This is incorrect (wrong tense) - the sentence should not be written or spoken this way.

However, compare the following:
«Yesterday John Petrov visited a/the public toilet».
This can answer the question: "Where did John use the restroom yesterday?"
«John Petrov has visited a/the public toilet».
This can answer the question : "Has John ever used a public toilet."

Also:
«Yesterday I wrote a book»
Answers: What did you do yesterday?
«Yes! I have written it!».
Answers: Have you written the book?

One last comment:
«Did you see the movie?»
This seems to be grammactically incorrect, though it is still regularly spoken this way. (It should be, of course: "Have you seen the movie?")
Be carefull, however. This statement is still correct if the time reference is implied: "Did you see the movie (yesterday)?" If "yesterday" is not spoken because it is already known that that the person asking the question is referring to yesterday, then this statement can be correct.

TU-160
Try reading Джина "Английский для наших" book. Search in the internet and download it. It can help.

I won't explain the whole thing, I'll just try to make clear one point.
The Present Perfect may come with "already".
"He has visited the public toilet already". Or "yet", like in "He hasn't visited it yet".
But it cannot be used with "yesterday".
There are some sentences, a kind of "Have you seen this film" or "Have you ever visited Russia? (in your life)", wich get absolutely another meaning with the Simple Past form. It is not the same as "Did you see this film? (Or were you just sleeping on the couch before TV)?" or "Did you visit Russia (last year or not)?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victor

TU-160
Try reading Джина "Английский для наших" book. Search in the internet and download it. It can help.

---

Кстати, насчет Джины... Цитирую выборочно...
"В разговорной речи люди часто выбрасывают начало предложения. Например, они подразумевают:
Did you see her yesterday? а говорят:
You see her yesterday? или даже
See her yesterday?
....
... они говорят не "saw", а "see". " (конец цитаты)

Я спросил у англичанки, которая ведет у нас английский, правильно ли это утверждение - она ответила, что нет, так англичане не говорят, и она бы спросила "Saw her yesterday?"
Уважаемые англоязычные коллеги, как бы вы спросили? See her yesterday? or Saw her yesterday?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tu-160

I don't feel the difference between «did something» and «have done something» (I mean Simple and Perfect past tenses).

---

Tu-160, the best explanation of the difference between «did something» and «have done something» I saw in M. Goldenkov's "Осторожно! Hot dog!"
"Все мы учим Perfect Tences: Present Perfect, Past Perfect. Present Perfect Continuous... Конечно, если даже американцы и англичане все эти перфекты в разговоре особо не употребляют, знать их тем не менее нужно. Но как нам непонятно и запутанно объясняют эти времена! По принципу: зачем просто, когда можно сложно. А все НАМНОГО ПРОЩЕ И ДАЖЕ ЛЕГЧЕ, ЧЕМ МОЖНО ПОДУМАТЬ. Ведь аналоги перфектов существуют в русском языке. Да, ребята, это наши отечественные глаголы совершенного вида, которые отвечают на вопрос "что сделал?" (пришел, увидел, победил...), и несовершенного вида, которые отвечают на вопрос "что делал?" (приходил, видел, побеждал...). Совершенные глаголы и есть Perfect Tences, что, кстати, и переводится как совершенное время. А все несовершенные будут простым временем Past.

Пример.

Комиссар Ле Пешен говорит сержанту Майклу, приходящему на работу всегда па полчаса позже:

— By the way, Mike, as a seargent of the police I came to the office at 9. Always. — Между прочим, Майк, когда я был сержантом полиции, то приходил на работу в девять. Всегда.

Что делал? Приходил. Глагол несовершенного вида, а значит, в английском варианте ему соответствует to come в простом прошедшем времени.

А вот другой пример. Сержант отвечает комиссару:

— OK boss. But once I have come at 9 and there was no one over here. — Хорошо, босс. Но вот однажды я пришел в девять, а здесь еще вообще никого не было.

Что сделал? Пришел. Вот, пожалуйста: совершенное время и to come, соответственно, в совершенной форме, которая состоит из глагола to have и третьей формы основного глагола, которую просто надо выучить. Это, как говорил учитель русского языка в грузинской школе, "нэ объясняэтся, это надо запомнить".

Или вот еще пример.

Сержант Тимоти Тимпсон спит и видит: в образе прекрасной девушки приходит к нему демобилизация.

— Is it time?— Что, уже пора?— спрашивает сержант.

— Yeah, time has come. —Да. время пришло,— отвечает дева-дембель, и сержант вскакивает за минуту до подъема весь в холодном поту, так как он вовсе не хочет увольняться из US Armed Force, где ему уже все нравится.

В прошлом году ковбои Билл частенько навещал (что делал?) упавшего (что сделавшего?) с коня Джона. На английском это будет так:

Last year Bill often visited his sick friend John who had fallen from the horse. В этом случае глагол to visite (навещать) в простом прошедшем времени, a to fall (падать) в прошедшем перфекте, потому как Джон сначала упал, а потом уже Билл его навещал. Вот типичнейший пример, когда два времени употребляются в одном предложении. Может, это достаточно грубое объяснение и не столь уж безукоризненное, но...

Я сам себя жалею, когда вспоминаю, как преподавательница рисовала на доске всякие схемки, которые предположительно должны были облегчить нам понимание чужого языка. При этом она говорила: "Present Perfect обозначает действие, которое произошло до момента речи, но которое все еще представляет интерес и влияет своим результатом на настоящее...". Так в принципе можно объяснить любое действие прошлого, не запрещенное законом штата. Не отличаясь умом и большой сообразительностью, я, молодой зеленый лингвист, думал: "Фигушки я это выучу". Но все оказалось намного проще, ребята."

Hier kommt die Sonne… Thanks everyone. It became more clear but I'm not sure. Maybe I will have some more questions.

Не-а, фигушки! Это я про то, что якобы Past Simple всегда соответствует прошедшему несовершенному. Past Simple в принципе означает действие в прошлом, вне зависимости от того, совершилось оно однократно или многократно. В данном случае это просто указание на прошлое.
- By the way, Mike, as a seargent of the police I came to the office at 9.
Стоит убрать слово always и действие может означать вполне даже однократное. "Пришёл в 9 часов" (а не приходил). Чтобы показать многократность нужно сказать

As a seargent of the police I used to come to the office at 9.

Или "usually came" и т. д.
Если говорить терминами семантики (есть такая наука о знаковых системах), то Past Simple это нейтральный член оппозиции, в котором не выражены никакие подробности, а Perfect это маркированный член оппозиции, в котором отражена особая черта - завершённость к настоящему моменту или наличие какого-то результата.
Если же говорить терминами лингвистики, то Past Simple это скорее нечто вроде "аориста", который был и в древнегреческом и древнерусском ("убивахом" :-)), и который как раз указывал только на прошедшесть действия без указания на его аспект (совершенное - несоврешенное). Дополнительные подробности либо из контекста либо при добавлении дополнительных средств для обозначения характера действия.
Но это мне так кажется. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Propp

Не-а, фигушки! Это я про то, что якобы Past Simple всегда соответствует прошедшему несовершенному.

---

Абсолютно с тобой согласен. Соответствует далеко не всегда. И придумать какое-то простое правило использования этих времен нельзя. Нужно просто "руку набить". Лично мне больше всего в этом вопросе помогла все-таки Джина. Она приводит довольно много примеров с пояснениями.

Quote:

---

The Present Perfect may come with "already".
"He has visited the public toilet already".

---

NO No you can't say this, this is an american colloquilism, it should be be said. Don't say already at the end say "He has already been to the public loos today" or just "he had been to the public loos.

[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rose

Quote:

---

The Present Perfect may come with "already".
"He has visited the public toilet already".

---

NO No you can't say this, this is an american colloquilism, it should be be said. Don't say already at the end say "He has already been to the public loos today" or just "he had been to the public loos.

---

A colloquialism is something used only in informal situations. I'm sure any American professor will tell you that this is a perfectly acceptable way of writing the sentence--formal or otherwise. If you want to say it is an American convention, then fine.

BTW, since we're on the subject of colloquialisms why on earth would you criticize them for using an American one, then replace "toilet" with something as idiomatic and isolated a word as "loo?

And how would you say 'toilet' exept lavatory or loo - bathroom?

I've been reading "Harry Potter". They used 'bathrooms' there. Or 'toilets', if it was impossible to hide the fact that there were actually pans and not baths. I thought the book was supposed to be in "English English".

Crapper, bog, John etc.:) All English colloquialisms (in the real sense of the word).

I take a wizz in the toilet, IF i did it in the bathroom, i know someone who wouldn't be very pleased with me. :D

I don't understand the problem Rose has with the word toilet. My father uses it, my grandparents and uncles etc. use it, and they're as English as can be (working class, oldfashioned etc.)



Well, you think of a better subject to discuss! :roll:

Yup, a toilet is a toilet is a toilet. I never use the bathroom.:lol:

BTW, why is a toilet called a John? What did I do to anyone? :? :wink:

Well, OBVIOUSLY, a toilet is called a John because Port-a-toilet was harder to say. :wink: :D :P :lol:

Here they say "lav" but the a is more nasal. Like лэв. I say "they" because I sure as hell don't use such a stupid word for it.

Quote:

---

Hallo, everyone! It's almost a year I'm user of this forum but I still have been feeling that I don't feel the difference between «did something» and «have done something» (I mean Simple and Perfect past tenses). In books of course I saw explanations that Perfect is used without additional information (time of action) and Simple is used with it. For example «Yesterday I wrote a book» and «Yes! I have written it!». But while reading English texts sometimes I don't see that authors follow these rules. I meet sentences like «Did you see the movie?» or «Yesterday John Petrov has visited public toilet». It confuses me a lot. Would somebody explain it for me? What are these situations when I may use any rule I want and when do I use only one of them? Thanks.

---

I don't think you've much to be worrying about --- your English seems perfect already! We were told to use the parfect tense when writing; and it was 'just-about' okay to use the imperfect if speaking aloud.

... far too much COLLOQUIAL language in English, in my opinion, but who am I to talk --- it's really my second language anyway. However, my level of my native language is much worse!!

Here we go to and use the bathroom/restroom. Toilet and lavatory is usually not said.

Toilet/loo just varying hte vocab. It was the grammar that was being aked about.
I thought saying 'already' was a colloquialism, i did n't realise that it is considered 'correct'

And about the Toilet/bathroom thing in Harry Potter. I think the bathrooms at the school are seperate to the loos. ie the bathrooms are just that. they may hav one or two loos in them, as opposed to the toilets which contains just loos (and sinks).