Present Perfect and Simple Past

Question

0 Which one of the following is correct or preffered? What is the difference in meaning when we use present perfect and simple past generally in any sentence and in the sentences below?02br02br001. Because paper of all kinds is the  biggest single component of municipal trash, many municipalities 01b00have tried  recycling 02b00to reduce the cost of trash disposal.02br02br002. Because paper of all kinds is  the biggest single component in municipal trash, many municipalities 01b00tried to  recycle 02b00so that the cost of trash disposal is reduced.02br02br02br00GB0-

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

0 I prefer the first. I like the tenses to match if possible (01i00is02i00 and 01i00have02i00 - both present).02br
02br
00Generally in any sentence, with the present perfect you are talking about something as if it were somewhere in a clearly visible field you are standing beside; with the past you are talking about something as if it were on the other side of a thick wall you cannot see through. 05002br
02br
00 have tried - The results of the tries are considered relevant to the present state of affairs. No specific time is given to say when the tries happened. Such specific times are not considered relevant to what is being said.02br
00 tried - The tries happened at specific times whether or not this is mentioned in the sentence. The tries are thought of as past history -- not an integral part of the present state of affairs.02br
02br
00 CJ010id2

Grammarian-bot · Answer

0 OK CJ. Thanks for the answer but I am a bit confused. Let me restate your explanation in my words. Please correct me if I am wrong.02br
02br
00As you said that you like to match the tenses, so this means that since in the first clause of the sentence, the author has used simple present and is talking about a problem currently faced by the committee, therefore in the subsequent clause where it describes what the committees did in the past should have some relavance with the present. Now simple past only talks about an event that took place in the past (as you said a past history - don't you think 01i00past history 02i00is redundant) so using it here will have no bearing about what is or should happen in the present. Present Perfect on the other hand talks about a duration from past up till now so it surely has a bearing upon what is or should happen in the present. 02br
00What I didn't understand is you philosophy of simple past and present perfect and their visibility and vagueness and standing beside wall and thick wall...... I don't know. Please explain what does the vageness and clarity has to do with the sentences and (most importantly) how whould I know that this particular sentence should be vague or clear.02br
02br
00GB0-

Donnaj867 · Answer

Hello !
I am also a new member. Would a newcomer be warmly welcome here? Good day you guy !

________________
[url=http://moviesonlinefree.biz]Watch The Twilight Saga Eclipse Online Free[/url]

CalifJim · Answer

Grammarian-botWhat I didn't understand is you philosophy of simple past and present perfect and their visibility and vagueness and standing beside wall and thick wall...... I don't know. Please explain what does the vageness and clarity has to do with the sentences and (most importantly) how whould I know that this particular sentence should be vague or clear.

I used a metaphor which helps some people to understand the difference between those two tenses. Not every student finds the metaphor useful. Don't worry about it if that way of talking about the difference didn't ring any bells for you.

The contrast is not one between vagueness and clarity by the way. It's a contrast between opaqueness (simple past) and transparency (present perfect). Maybe a better metaphor would have been to contrast a wall with a window, but in any case, the metaphor is not speaking to you, so as I said, don't worry about it. It's not important.

The grammar books explain these things in a different way, of course. They sometimes draw a contrast between definiteness (simple past) and indefiniteness (present perfect). Even more often they talk about whether the action has current relevance (present perfect) or not (simple past).

Another way to look at it is this: The simple past fixes the action in time. It is absolutely stuck in the past. The only scope of time to be considered is the time during which the action took place. On the other hand, the present perfect is about the relationship of the past action to the present situation. The scope of time to be considered is all the time between the action and the present moment. The connection of the past event to the present situation has to be considered.

CJ

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Grammarian-bot1. Because paper of all kinds is the biggest single component of municipal trash, many municipalities have tried recycling to reduce the cost of trash disposal.
2. Because paper of all kinds is the biggest single component in municipal trash, many municipalities tried to recycle so that the cost of trash disposal is reduced.

Hi,

CJ has already offered his expert views on the topic. But I'd like to toss in my tow cents worth.
I would prefer # 1 with a slight revision.

1. Because paper of all kinds is the single biggest contributor to municipal trash, many municipalities have tried to implement recycling program to reduce the trash disposal cost ....

I think whether simple past or presesnt perfect tense is required really depends on the perspective of the author and the context's relevance. Based simply on the given context, I would use present perfect because its relevance is paper trash and how the municipalities are coping with it. The coping effort is perceived as ongoing, thus, as the above sentence was being written, "have tried recyling..." is the appropriate tense.

Present Perfect and Simple Past

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions