Past simple result negate ?

Question

I'm pretty curious about 1 think in Past Simple and it's result. When we are talking with somebody that he bought something or caught something or anything else but the result is that he remember it (Present Perfect). So what about Past ? Do we want to tell only the action but the result of remembering it or getting informed vanish ? Or I just don't understand here something ?

GPY · Accepted Answer

E.g.:

1. He bought a car.
2. He has bought a car.

Both talk about a past purchase, but (2) has extra connotations that the purchase was recent and is of present relevance (he has the car now; maybe he's just told you about it, or you've just seen it, etc.).

CalifJim · Answer

Xenon02 remembering

Any consideration regarding remembering the action applies equally to the past and the present perfect. If you can't remember the action, you can't talk about it at all, no matter which tense you use.

Xenon02 result

Considering the result of an action is equally unhelpful. Most actions have results, so nothing about the result can be used to guide us in the choice between past and present perfect.

Some explanations of the present perfect include the idea of 'result', but frankly, I don't always see the relevance of this, so don't beat yourself up if that explanation doesn't seem to make sense with specific sentences.

If the action is described in terms of the time (in the past) when it occurred, you must use the past. In other words, the following are all wrong because they have the present perfect where they should have the simple past.

*I have bought some printer ink yesterday.
*Lucy has seen her friend Jane last month.
*Pete has jumped when the alarm sounded.
*As soon as we noticed the accident, we have called the police.

If there is no mention of time, both tenses are grammatically correct. These are the problem cases for learners because one of the two tenses may be more appropriate than the other. Your best bet is to use the past in all cases unless you know from your study and experience that the situation requires the present perfect.

For example, you should have learned that you use the present perfect with a 'for' phrase to say how long an action occurred:

I have lived here for three years.

And with 'since' to say when a current action started:

Susan has studied French since she was a little girl.

You can use the simple past with these, and it would not be completely wrong, but it is usually more appropriate to use the present perfect.

When you have present evidence of a past event, the most logical tense is the present perfect regardless of when that past event actually happened.

Glaciers have carved out this entire valley in the last 10,000 years.

Little by little, as you study English, you can add more situations where you know that the present perfect is needed.

CJ

Past simple result negate ?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions