Problems with perfect tenses

Question

I guess I slowly get it.So comming back to that example CalifJimGlaciers have carved out this entire valley in the last 10,000 years.When I want to say that something happened in the past (historical) It always have some present evidenc, even when it's not visible so it cannot be used in past simple.So when I say:I've heard from the noble that Lion kingdom is preparing for war (there is a result that the kingdom is preparing army for the war)I heard about your magnifician victory in Vascado. (the result is that he won, but it doesn't have any result right now. Maybe excitement or delightment) - I don't know if this comment has some grammatical error, I'll fix it when it has some.CalifJimIt's usually when the result of a past event is right before us — present in the situation where we are talking — that we use the present perfect to say what brought about this result.CalifJimI think you may be referring to the explanation often seen in grammar books that the present perfect is used to show "current relevance". This concept is difficult to understand, and perhaps it is not the most helpful description of the present perfect.CalifJimI can go to a library or book store and see the book myself today. Rather, it has no direct bearing on anything in my life at the very moment that I am given this information.so if I want to inform somebody that something happened (of course there were some result) then I can use past simple ?The city was devastated and streets were deserted. It was a hard time for those like me. (informal that it was a though life, maybe now it's different but I'm informing him how it was then)The city has been devastated (present perfect). We shouldn't go back there, you know how dangerous it is there now. (somethign happened and the result is quite visible, but we are not right there, so we have to say what has happened)I wounder how does it work with historical facts, we can add some time (in 1997 or since 2000) but what if we want to inform somebody about some action that happened in past had some results in the past but now those results aren't visible in any way.

Xenon02 · Accepted Answer

"current relevance" is kind a hard to understand when I'm thinking about those 2 tenses. Especially when I see that the character is a victim of this past action and he uses past simple. In books it's pretty the same.

Every time I see present perfect tense, I just automatically think of what he wanted to say by using this tense (context - that's important.)

CalifJim · Answer

Xenon02 if I want to inform somebody that something happened (of course there were some result) then I can use past simple ?

Exactly. We use the past simple much more than the present perfect. We use the past simple all the time just to say that something happened.

I took a walk through the park. I went shopping. I bought bread. I ran into a friend at the supermarket. We talked for a while. ... and so on.

Basically, the past simple is for telling stories, even if it's the story of what you did one day.

Xenon02 The city was devastated and streets were deserted.

Here's another use of the past simple. It's a description of how things were at some time in the past. It doesn't say what happened. It paints a scene. There is a time gap between when the city was devastated and now, when we are talking about it. Maybe the city is all rebuilt now and there are people all over the city, going about their business. We don't know. This sentence talks only about the past. It says nothing about the present.

Xenon02 The city has been devastated.

With the present perfect here we are acknowledging that something happened to create the devastation, but we are also delivering the main message that the city is now suffering the effects of this. The city is now devastated. In contrast to the past simple, this statement in the present perfect does say something about the present.

CJ

Problems with perfect tenses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions