h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

... I die." (He dies) [and you can't get much more permanent a state than that, religious beliefs aside! ]

Hmm, interesting point, Pothole.

It seems reasonable to suggest that due to the nature of time (we are never in the 'present' long enough to refer to it specifically in words), anything that is said in the unqualified present must refer to the 'future' to a certain extent.

David Crystal talks about dividing verb meanings into two groups, described as 'stative' and 'dynamic'.

'Stative' verb meanings (I hear, I know, I believe, etc) are said to describe processes or states of being in which there is no identifiable 'action'. They are usually used in the unqualified present tense. This does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the *sense* of the verb will carry on into the future, as you have pointed out. Interestingly, however, it is very rare (though it can happen) to hear any of these 'stative' verbs in the progressive present form (I am believing, I am knowing, etc).

We can point to exceptions to this general rule such as - "I don't like what I'm hearing." or "I don't believe I'm seeing this!

We have also mentioned the exceptional nature of the two verbs 'to be' and 'to have' earlier in this thread. They are sometimes used as modal verbs to indicate tense or aspect but can also be main verbs, usually with a 'stative' meaning. In the phrase 'I am hungry.' (where 'I am' is clearly a main verb) the subject describes a temporary state that will persist for as long as nothing happens to change it. Similarly, "I have a headache." Of course, 'have' sometimes replaces another verb with a 'dynamic' meaning, ie "I'm having [eating] dinner." or "I'm having a good time." (phrasal verb 'to have a good time')

What Crystal calls 'dynamic' verb meainings are those where the subject is actively involved in a specific action (I kick, walk, speak). Assuming that the speaker is performing the action simultaneously to uttering the words, there is no reason not to use these verbs in the progressive form. "I am kicking you in the head." "I am typing." "I am walking along the high street." Picture someone speaking on a mobile phone.

Crystal also suggests, though, that "Less than 5% of all verb phrases appear in the progressive form. They are most frequent in conversation." David Crystal - Rediscover Grammar.

This distinction does not entirely deal with Pothole's specific question but it seems relevant to the overall problem with present tense forms. What does anyone think?


Spiff

Spaceman Spiff (*must...not...add...extra...L*) and Potholer,
Thanks for the replies, I'm enjoying your discussions and its getting clearer but I think I shall save this portion of the thread off and go away for a week or so to think about it....

Wandrin'Star, is this a deliberate attempt to do my head in After reading your post I've now got to the stage where 'had' doesn't sound right and doesn't sound like a proper word anymore! Aaaarrggghhh!

One of the interesting factors in the "time value" of verbs is the difference between languages.

Is there any reliable relation between the kind of verb and the present tense.

'I see Jane!' (present)
'I see Jane every week' (non-present, repeated)
'I am seeing Jane next week' (non-present, one-off)

Is the last example, (though common usage) technically wrong - should it striclty be 'I will see Jane next week'

'I am looking *at* Jane' (present)
'I look at Jane every day' (non-present, repeated)
'I am looking at Jane next week' (non-present, one-off)

The last example sounds less likely that the last of the previous set, but could occur, for instance, in the case of a doctor referring to an upcoming examination.

The meaning of the verbs is similar, though not identical, but it seems the non-present, one-off case uses the same form as the present takes in conversation, but the non-present, repeated case uses the unmodified present 'I look', 'I see'.

That said, 'I am seeing Jane' is *also* valid in common usage, and could be used to describe an ongoing intimate relationship.

Hi Ictoan,

Don't panic! Wand'rin was supplying the answer to my 'Old chestnut'.

It is easier to follow if you understand the context and replace some of the 'had's with 'written'.

Two students, John and Peter, both sat the same exam (possibly a grammar test! ). One of the answers involved using the verb 'to have' in a past tense.

Peter wrote "The dog had a good life." - the 'perfect' form of the verb 'to have', whereas John wrote "The dog had had a good life." - the 'pluperfect' form of the verb 'to have'. I assume the difference between the tenses here is clear.

Now, if you accept that you can either say 'John had written "had" (as his answer)' or 'John had had "had" (as his answer)', then you can describe the situation in two similar ways.

ie - John, where Peter had written "had" had written "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.

OR - John, where Peter had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval.

It's twisted, but that's its raison d'etre!

Good luck

Spiff

Sorry , bit late on this, but yeah, that's the one! You get a mini mars bar as a prize!

Spiff

Sorry , bit late on this, but yeah, that's the one! Give that man a cigar!

Spiff

Actually, corwaining is an ancient english word meaning shoemaking. I know it sounds odd but the root comes from "Cordoba" a place name in Spain where the best shoe leather came from at the time. The person making the shoes was called a cordwainer.

Spiff,

Thanks for the explanation, rings very vague bells I have to admit. It's probably something our English teacher told us, he was into that kinda thing!

Wandrin'Star, sorry for the misunderstanding!

Dreamweaver, check out the 'Backog Protocol' thread

I gues cordwainer is gonna take over from the unmentionables

darn, anyone seen my missing 's'?

Hi Dreamweaver,

Well I never. Rare as the word has become in England, its French cousin, 'cordonnier', is the standard word for a shoemaker. Now I know why! Thanks.

*off to go and ask my (French) mates in my local bar if they know the origins of the word 'cordonnier'*

PS Don't worry, they're used to it!

Spiff

Ok, so in my desire to be helpful I got it wrong.
Oh well. Best intentions & all that.

Cross client to signwriter: "The spaces should be bigger between 'Jones' and 'and' and 'and' and 'sons'."

[I think nearly all uses of the present continous, in speech and informal writing anyway, are for the not too distant future.
eg" I'm flying to Finland in February."]

Has anyone noticed that Nikki hasn't been here for 5 weeks?

I have just come back after a couple of busy days with no internet and have enjoyed reading the backlog. And surprised to see David Crystal is still considered an authority. That means he really must be good.

The answer to the logic gate question was NOT AND OR NOT not AND OR NOT and not AND OR either

Nice one Will

Spiff

Hi

I don't agree that this 'future' meaning is the only one communicated by the present progressive form.

Take the example of 'I am sitting down in front of my PC."

In this context, it expresses the fact that as I speak (or type, in this case), what I am saying is an accurate description of a current state of affairs.

A nice example that springs to mind is the Wicked Witch of the East in The Wizard of Oz - as she disintegrates into a puddle of rather nasty looking liquid before our eyes she actually provides a running (should that be 'melting'?) commentary:

"I'm melting!"

Of course, most people won't need to use this often.

Spiff

Spiff,

"Take the example of 'I am sitting down in front of my PC."

In this context, it expresses the fact that as I speak (or type, in this case), what I am saying is an accurate description of a current state of affairs. "

That may be what you intend, but what it means to me is that - as you speak - you are in the act of parking your bum on your chair. For that sense, I would use "I am sitting in front ..." or in more pedantic mode "I am seated ..."
"Sit down" and "sit up" suggest a change in posture:
"Come in and sit down."
"Don't slouch, sit up (possibly adding) straight."

Spiff et al, sorry to hark back to my original question and your answers, but just rying to understand here.

Does the order of the tense matter? To explain, I've just been writing an email and in it I had cause to use the phrase 'As I've been being hassled....'. Does this come under the same heading as the 'has had'? ie the 'been being' bit, as this goes past-present as opposed to present-past? Or am I just misusing the english language?

Rgrds

Comparing :
'As I've been being hassled...'
with
'As I've been hassled...'

In my opinion, there is a large amount of overlap, but to the extent that there is a distiction, I'd say that the first phrase implies the possibility that that multiple periods of hassling may have happened, whereas the second tends more to the possiblility of one long period of hassling.

Also, I feel a stronger implication in the first case that the hassling was a result human action, whereas the second case is easier to reconcile with the (still unlikley) possibility that accidental events have been the cause of the hasslement.