Simple past vs present perfect

Question

My question is in regards to the original post about the

"I wrote a letter" and "I have written a letter"

I understand the loaf of bread explanation, and it was great, but my question is this:

Are both of those sentences correct? My guess is that they are it just depends on the message you want the reader to take from it -- 1. That you have written a letter at an unspecified time, and 2. That you wrote a letter at a specific time.

Am I on the right track?

Confused

Dimsumexpress · Accepted Answer

There are too many anons, hard to keep track which one you are. Maybe you should consider getting a user account.

Present perfect is not that hard. Just remember this. If you are trying to describe an event or process that happened in the past and it is still true, you can use P.P. tense. However, do not use past time marker like yesterday, last week, a year ago, or this morning, in your sentence. i.e.

I have seen that movie 3 times- no time marker. Do not say: I have seen this movie 3 time last week. Present perf. tells people that fact that you saw the movie 3 separate times up to the time you make this statement. When you saw the movie is not relevent. However, if you must include a past time marker, such as last week. Then you have to use simple past: I saw the movie 3 times last week.

Fandorin · Answer

AnonymousMy question is in regards to the original post about the

Then you should have posted it there.

AnonymousAre both of those sentences correct?

Yes, they are.

Anonymous1. That you have written a letter at an unspecific time

I had better say - "You wrote a letter at unspecific time in the past (I did it)". Time doesn't matter, the fact does.

AnonymousThat you wrote a letter at a specific time.

The fact is important and it's happened recently. Have can imply for instance you're ready to send it off.

AnonymousMy guess is that they are it just depends on the message you want the reader to take from it

I believe that's the answer you have given to the question having been asked.

Indeed, without additional context we can try to elicit information from it till cows come home.

Ferdis · Answer

What I found a very helpful way of reasoning about this is that the present perfect is always relevant to the present (situation) and has a sense of immediacy to it.

Let's consider these four common guidelines in that light:

The present perfect is used when the time period has NOT finished:
The simple past is used when the time period HAS finished:

Ok, so when the period has NOT finished, the present is relevant -- starting before and up to the present time. When the period has finished, the present is no longer relevant because the period ended before it.

The present perfect is often used when giving recent news:
The simple past is used when giving older information:

Again, "recent news" is news that is relevant to the current situation, to the present; old news is not.

The present perfect is used when the time is not specific:
The simple past is used when the time is clear:

Here, a non-specific time event is something happening in a time period that started "some time before the present" and extends to the present. So again, the present is relevant. On the other, for a specific-time event, the present does not matter at all since we are describing the exact moment in time.

The present perfect is used with for and since, when the actions have not finished yet:
The simple past is used with for and since, when the actions have already finished:

This is very similar to the first explanation about an unfinished and finished time period.

I hope this rather vague explanation makes sense when you think about it. I'm not sure whether this is the best explanation, but it sure helped me in the past.

Fandorin · Answer

ferdisvague explanation

Well done, indeed!

Simple past vs present perfect

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions