(Present/Past) Perfect; under suspicion

Question

When I say:
1.- Jill has repaired the roof. Is it completely clear for a listener that she has repaired the roof herself or the listener might think that there is the possibility that someone has done it for her?
2.- Jill had repaired the roof. Is it completely clear for a listener that she had repaired it herself or the listener might think that there is the possibility that someone had done it for her?
Thank you in advance,
Eladio

Pieanne · Accepted Answer

1.- Jill has repaired the roof
Jill has repaired the roof herself, and the roof looks brand-new.

2.- Jill had repaired the roof
The action took place before an other action, but the latter is not stated
You need something more, like "Jill had repaired the roof before the storm", or "... before we arrived". And it's Jill herself that repaired the roof.

if you want to add the notion that someone else repaired the roof, you'll have to use:
"Jill had the roof repaired (by X)"
"Jill has had the roof repaired (by X)"

Eladio · Answer

Hi again, pieanne! And thank you again.
So, from your answers I have concluded that when I say:
Jill has repaired the roof; without any other comment, it is completely clear for a listener that it is Jill who has repaired the roof herself and not another one. Is this correct?

Jill had repaired the roof; without any other comment, it is completely clear for a listener that it was Jill who repaired the roof herself and not another one. Is this correct?

And thank you for your other adds!
Eladio

Pieanne · Answer

1. Yes
She has repaired the roof herself, the sentence is whole, and you can see the brand new repaired roof.

2. Yes, Jill had repaired the roof herself.
YET, the sentence is not whole, without any context. You want something to make the "repairing action" previous to another, or to another event.

Just the truth · Answer

So, from your answers I have concluded that when I say:
Jill has repaired the roof; without any other comment, it is completely clear for a listener that it is Jill who has repaired the roof herself and not another one. Is this correct?

Jill had repaired the roof; without any other comment, it is completely clear for a listener that it was Jill who repaired the roof herself and not another one. Is this correct?

JTT: I'm afraid that this is not a conclusion that can be drawn with complete certainty from the language given.

Paco2004 · Answer

JTT

I'm afraid that this is not a conclusion that can be drawn with complete certainty from the language given.

You got the point! In the Japanese language can be both 'I had my hair cut' and 'I cut my hair by myself'. In the case of , people will take it as 'I had my watch repaired', not 'I repaired my watch by myself'. It is because nowadays people don't think watch repairing is not so easy that everybody can do it. How about the English sentence 'I built my house'? Does it always mean 'I built my house by myself'? I take it rather as 'I had my house built' if I don't have the context. Am I wrong?

paco

MrPedantic · Answer

I'm slightly mystified by this thread:

1. Jill has repaired the roof = Jill did it.
2. Jill had repaired the roof = Jill had done it.
3. Jill has the roof repaired = someone else is doing it.
4. Jill had the roof repaired = someone else did it.
5. Jill has repaired the watch = Jill did it.
6. Jill built a house = Jill did it.*
7. Jill had a house built = someone else did it.

Without context, I take the language given as above. She's a game girl.

(That said, if someone can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and prove my default mode wrong, I'll be more than gratified!)

MrP
*Edit: with assistance, of course.

Just the truth · Answer

Paco:
How about the English sentence 'I built my house'?

Does it always mean 'I built my house by myself'?

I take it rather as 'I had my house built' if I don't have the context. Am I wrong?

++++++++++++

Again no, Paco. Given that the parties to the conversation would have a pretty good idea of their friend's competence at any given task, these people likely would be able to discern the truth.

But say it was friends reuniting after years apart. One friend had often talked of a dream to build a house. #2 friend knew that #1 was all thumbs, so the assumption would be that 'I had my house built'.

But that person could have taken a course, could have elected to build a simple straw bale house and could have done it themselves. I've seen some pretty incompetent "carpenters" build their own straw bale house.

Granted, we most often make the situation clear by choosing language that does just that, but sometimes we purposefully pick "misleading" or confusing language for effect.

Same scenario - two friends who hadn't seen each other for years, the topic "the house".

A: I built my house. I finished it 3 years ago.

B: How much did it cost you? These house projects nowadays cost an arm and a leg.

A: It was cheap. I built my house.

B: [eyes widen, jaw drops] YOU! No way! Miss Ten Thumbs.

A: Yup, start to finish, I did 'er all.

MrPedantic · Answer

Eladio, I'm inclined to answer your original questions as follows:

1.- Jill has repaired the roof. Is it completely clear for a listener that she has repaired the roof herself?
– Yes.

2.- Jill had repaired the roof. Is it completely clear for a listener that she had repaired it herself?
– Yes.

Once we have context, it may become clear that the speaker has chosen his words without care, and that Jill has indeed merely hired a 3rd party; but till then, we have only the words, and the words are clear.

MrP

(Present/Past) Perfect; under suspicion

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions