 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / May 2006Past actions with present verbs ?!?
Hello ... firstly, as usual, thank you sooo much for answering so kindly to my previous message :-) ok, another quest for you all ... this time, it's very simple ... I need to know if it's correct, in english, to use verbs in this way : - In 1997, Luke, CREATES a new company named ... blah blah blah - In 1995 that company, OBTAINS new partnerships ... blah blah blah - In 1980 his sister Sarah, LEAVES the company .... blah blah blah - In 1940, Miky STARTS to learn english.... blah blah blah I think you got what I mean ... is it correct to use "PRESENT" verb, with past dates ? can I speak about past actions ( happened in precise dates ... in precise years ... ), using the PRESENT VERBS ? should I use past forms insteads ? like : - In 1997, Luke, CREATED a new company named ... blah blah blah - In 1995 that company, OBTAINED new partnerships ... blah blah blah - In 1980 his sister Sarah, LEFT the company .... blah blah blah - In 1940, Miky STARTED to learn english .... blah blah blah ____________________ thank you very much, again, and again, and again ;-) > Hello ... > firstly, as usual, thank you sooo much for answering > so kindly to my previous message :-) > ok, another quest for you all ... this time, it's very simple ... > I need to know if it's correct, in english, to use verbs in this > way : > - In 1997, Luke, CREATES a new company named ... blah blah blah > - In 1995 that company, OBTAINS new partnerships ... blah blah blah > - In 1980 his sister Sarah, LEAVES the company .... blah blah blah > - In 1940, Miky STARTS to learn english.... blah blah blah > I think you got what I mean ... is it correct to use "PRESENT" verb, > with past dates ? > can I speak about past actions ( happened in precise dates ... in > precise years ... ), using the PRESENT VERBS ? > should I use past forms insteads ? like : > - In 1997, Luke, CREATED a new company named ... blah blah blah > - In 1995 that company, OBTAINED new partnerships ... blah blah blah > - In 1980 his sister Sarah, LEFT the company .... blah blah blah > - In 1940, Miky STARTED to learn english .... blah blah blah > ____________________ > thank you very much, again, and again, and again ;-) Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give more emphasis or sense of dynamism than a simple past tense provides.  SignatureDavid - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ >> Hello ... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give > more emphasis or sense of dynamism than a simple past tense provides. Yes but it is far less common than the past tense and can only really be used if 'narrating a timeline' so that the speaker and listener are situated in the present as each event happens. I'd avoid it personally and certainly wouldn't recommend this to a learner as it will complicater their life somewhat. > > Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or > > "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give > > more emphasis or sense of dynamism than a simple past tense > > provides. > Yes but it is far less common than the past tense and can only really > be used if 'narrating a timeline' so that the speaker and listener > are situated in the present as each event happens. I'd avoid it > personally and certainly wouldn't recommend this to a learner as it > will complicater their life somewhat. Then you certainly wouldn't recommend they listen to the English evening news programmes. "After the break: the Druids greet the Midsummer dawn...." SignatureDavid - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ >>> Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or >>> "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "After the break: the Druids greet the Midsummer dawn...." Certainly not if it is Sky News, they can't even spell the title inserts correctly ;-) >> Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or >> "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > used if 'narrating a timeline' so that the speaker and listener are > situated in the present as each event happens. Of course, it's used all the time when talking about literature or philosophy, as "In 'Troy Town', Q pokes gentle fun at small town Victorian snobbery", or "Spinoza shows that morality derives as surely from the immanent God of Nature as from the external Judaeo-Christian God of Final Judgement". Paul Burke >>> Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or >>> "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from the immanent God of Nature as from the external Judaeo-Christian > God of Final Judgement". I think that is slightly dfifferent. In your example something that continues to exist is being spoken about: morality and what it derives from. There can be no past really in such a case or at least not until there is a fundamental change and morality no longer derives (or is thought to derive) 'from the immanent god etc" For example in the phrase "In 1997, Luke, CREATES a new company named ... blah blah blah" the creation of the company is something definitely set in the past, Luke is not creating the company at the moment, which is not the case with the derivation of morality which, according to the philospher, continues to derive from an immanent god etc. > >>> Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or > >>> "historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > surely from the immanent God of Nature as from the external > > Judaeo-Christian God of Final Judgement". > I think that is slightly dfifferent. In your example something that > continues to exist is being spoken about: morality and what it > derives from. There can be no past really in such a case or at least > not until there is a fundamental change and morality no longer > derives (or is thought to derive) 'from the immanent god etc" > For example in the phrase "In 1997, Luke, CREATES a new company named > ... blah blah blah" the creation of the company is something > definitely set in the past, Luke is not creating the company at the > moment, which is not the case with the derivation of morality which, > according to the philospher, continues to derive from an immanent > god etc. But is Spinoza still showing this derivation? We're getting into deep and muddy ground here because we now really have to differentiate between Spinoza the man who at a point of time acted and is now dead and gorn, and Spinoza the writing which still exists and speaks to us afresh each time we read it. (If we do!) SignatureDavid - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.