# underestimated (have underestimated)



## Phoebe1200

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn, TV series
Context: Dicky paints a beautiful picture which he gives to Ricky to use for his Art class assignment because Ricky is really bad at art. The art class teacher is so impressed with the painting that she hangs it up in the school hall for everyone to see. Dicky noticing how three girls are admiring the painting says that he painted it. They don't believe him saying that he never takes anything seriously. (Dicky is known as the ladies man and he cares a great deal about his appearance.) Dicky resents that. Later in the episode when it's revealed that it was indeed Dicky who painted it, the girls are shocked.
*
Ricky*: I have a confession. I can't paint. Dicky is the one who did the painting in the hallway, not me.
*The girls gasp and one of them says*: Wow, Dicky. We really *underestimated* you.


I would have expected the present perfect here "We'*ve* really underestimated you.".


----------



## wandle

She means that they do not underestimate him now. The simple past disconnects the action of the verb from the present.


----------



## Phoebe1200

So it's about whether including the present or not again? 
And she could have easily used the present perfect?
And the past simple and the present perfect are both interchangeable in the OP, right?


----------



## wandle

(1)_ So it's about whether including the present or not again? _It is about whether there is a connection to the present in the speaker's mind.
(2_) And she could have easily used the present perfect? _No, she does not want to say that the underestimation still continues in the present.
(3)_ And the past simple and the present perfect are both interchangeable in the OP, right? _No, the two verb forms are distinct in meaning.


----------



## boozer

The meaning of the verb 'underestimate' makes it very tricky to use the verb in the present perfect.
_I have underestimated you_ 
Two possible interpretations:
1. I did underestimate you, but now I know what you are actually worth, so I no longer underestimate you. So how can you say at the same time that the underestimation has both stopped and still continues? The present perfect implies it still continues, yet you already know it was underestimation... There is a logical conflict here.
2. I underestimated you on several occasions in the past. When exactly, it does not matter.


----------



## Glasguensis

I agree that there are two interpretations and that 2 is one of them. To resolve the apparent conflict in 1, the link with the present moment relates to the change of mind - there is an implied "until now", which is how the present perfect can be justified. 

Whilst I agree with wandle's answer in post 4, I would say that she *could* have used the present perfect, but it would indicate a different perspective.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks for your replies.


Glasguensis said:


> she *could* have used the present perfect, but it would indicate a different perspective.


What perspective is that?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> the link with the present moment relates to the change of mind - there is an implied "until now", which is how the present perfect can be justified.


Did you mean this by perspective?


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> Yes.


Thank you very much for replying.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> *Ricky*: I have a confession. I can't paint. Dicky is the one who did the painting in the hallway, not me.
> *The girls gasp and one of them says*: Wow, Dicky. We really *underestimated* you.





Glasguensis said:


> there is an implied "until now", which is how the present perfect can be justified.


I respectfully disagree. The implication is not 'until now', but 'until a moment ago'.
You may say this difference in time is minute. It is, but that is not the important point. What matters is that the past tense is signalling the change of mind.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> What matters is that the past perfect is signalling the change of mind.


So you mean that it has to be the past perfect in the OP "We* had* really *underestimated* you."?

By the way, the line was said by the same girls who were admiring the painting earlier and didn't believe Dicky that he was the one who painted it.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> So you mean that it has to be the past perfect in the OP "We* had* really *underestimated* you."?


Sorry, that was a mistake. I have edited post 11.

The important distinction is a logical one. Before the change of mind, her opinion was that Dicky had little ability. After the change of mind, she thinks he has great ability.

There are three steps: (1) her previous opinion; (2) the news that Dicky did the painting; (3) the change of mind.

At the time of speaking, step (2), the news, is already in the past. This comes between her present opinion and her previous opinion, creating a clear separation between the two.

The function of the past tense, as distinct from the present perfect, is to show that the speaker mentally separates the past event from the present situation.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Wandle.


wandle said:


> At the time of speaking, step (2), the news, is already in the past.


Even if she says the line *a second* after she hears the news?


----------



## wandle

Yes: it is a vital logical change. Her opinion swings round through 180 degrees, because of the new information.
The past tense signals the great difference between the two points of view. 
It is only a minute fraction of time, but it is to her a huge change of meaning.

The tense difference does not mean the time gap is long or short: it just means that it exists.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your help, Wandle.
Just one more question.

So basically the word "underestmate" always has to be used with the *past simple *if the person saying it to someone no longer underestimates the other?


----------



## wandle

Yes, that is the logic of the word.
We cannot say _or imply_ to someone 'I underestimate you' because the meaning would be: 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are'.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I actually meant to say that generally the word "underestmate" always has to be used with the *past simple *if the person saying it to someone no longer underestimates the other as opposed to the present perfect which if used "I have underestimated you" would always mean that the person is still underestimating the other.

Right?


----------



## wandle

I edited post 17 by adding the words 'or imply', in order to indicate that the present perfect tense was covered.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> I edited post 17 by adding the words 'or imply', in order to indicate that the present perfect tense was covered.


So what I wrote in 18 is correct?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> "I have underestimated you" would always mean that the person is still underestimating the other.


I think 'always' is too much to say. We can say 'in general' that is true.

When could we properly say 'I have underestimated you'? Suppose a manager writes a report on an employee and shows it to her. The employee explains that the manager has misunderstood something, and shows that she, not someone else, had done the main work on a particular project.
Then the manager might say, 'I'm sorry, I have underestimated you in this report. I must change it' (the report still exists at the time of speaking, so it still expresses his previous view).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your answer.


wandle said:


> 'I'm sorry, I have underestimated you in this report.


But why can't he use the past simple here since he's changed his mind?


----------



## wandle

Of course he could say 'I underestimated you', since he has changed his mind.

The sentence 'I have underestimated you in this report' is different. It is equivalent to 'This report by me underestimates you'. At the time of speaking, he has changed his mind, but he has not yet changed his report.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I understand now.


wandle said:


> 'I'm sorry, I have underestimated you in this report.


So if he didn't use "in this report" in his sentence then he would have to use the past simple in that case, right?


wandle said:


> I'm sorry, I *underestimated* you.


----------



## Glasguensis

wandle said:


> I respectfully disagree. The implication is not 'until now', but 'until a moment ago'.
> You may say this difference in time is minute. It is, but that is not the important point. What matters is that the past tense is signalling the change of mind.


You quote the original sentence and then a comment of mine which did not refer to the original sentence. My comment concerned the present perfect, and I maintain that the period in that case is indeed "until now". In fact you could explicitly add "until now" to the sentence.


----------



## wandle

Glasguensis said:


> My comment concerned the present perfect, and I maintain that the period in that case is indeed "until now". In fact you could explicitly add "until now" to the sentence.


That is just where I disagree in regard to the topic sentence. In the context, the speaker uses the past tense in order to place the underestimation explicitly in the past, separated from the present by that sudden and complete change of mind expressed by gasping and saying 'Wow!'

It is true that the time gap there is very small: but the logical gap, so to speak, is great. The past tense signals that the former opinion is now decisively a thing of the past. As long as we recognise a difference between the tenses, it seems to me that that is a typical example where past is the proper tense and present prefect is not.

That is a different case from my example in post 21, where the earlier opinion still exists in written form in the document which, unless and until it is changed, remains the manager's official opinion.


----------



## Glasguensis

Once again, I was not referring to the original sentence. I agree that the original sentence places the underestimation explicitly in the past. I was replying to Boozer's question, not to the original post.


----------



## wandle

Glasguensis said:


> I was replying to Boozer's question, not to the original post.


What is the difference? *boozer's* view is that there is a logical conflict in the expression 'I have underestimated you'.
That is also my view (subject to exceptions of the kind in post 21). It applies equally well to 'We have underestimated you'.


wandle said:


> We cannot say _or imply_ to someone 'I underestimate you' because the meaning would be: 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are'.


----------



## siares

wandle said:


> *boozer's* view is that there is a logical conflict in the expression 'I have underestimated you'.
> That is also my view (subject to exceptions of the kind in post 21).





boozer said:


> The meaning of the verb 'underestimate' makes it very tricky to use the verb in the present perfect.
> _I have underestimated you_
> Two possible interpretations:
> 1. I did underestimate you, but now I know what you are actually worth, so I no longer underestimate you. So how can you say at the same time that the underestimation has both stopped and still continues? The present perfect implies it still continues, yet you already know it was underestimation... There is a logical conflict here.
> 2. I underestimated you on several occasions in the past. When exactly, it does not matter.


Do I understand correctly, that it is this way:
_I have underestimated you._
interpretation 1 
interpretation 2_ 
_
(I am bemuddled about the )
Thank you.


----------



## london calling

The use of 'underestimate' in the present perfect can be tricky, I agree. Here it certainly couldn't be used. That said, this is pretty common:

"I've always underestimated you" (a compliment-cum-apology: I underestimated you before but I don't any more).


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> 'I underestimate you'


Is it ever used with the present simple tense?


----------



## london calling

It depends on the context. For example:

" I really must apologise. I didn't expect you to come through at all, John. I underestimate you every time".


----------



## Phoebe1200

london calling said:


> It depends on the context. For example:
> 
> " I really must apologise. I didn't expect you to come through at all, John. I underestimate you every time".


Thanks, LC.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> We cannot say _or imply_ to someone 'I underestimate you' because the meaning would be: 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are'.


Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you please explain?


----------



## siares

Thanks, london calling.


----------



## Glasguensis

I completely disagree - it is absolutely possible to say "I/We have underestimated you" - indeed I would consider this entirely correct and idiomatic in the original context, and more likely than the simple past.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Nicky, Ricky, Dicky and Dawn, TV series
> Context: Dicky paints a beautiful picture which he gives to Ricky to use for his Art class assignment because Ricky is really bad at art. The art class teacher is so impressed with the painting that she hangs it up in the school hall for everyone to see. Dicky noticing how three girls are admiring the painting says that he painted it. They don't believe him saying that he never takes anything seriously. (Dicky is known as the ladies man and he cares a great deal about his appearance.) Dicky resents that. Later in the episode when it's revealed that it was indeed Dicky who painted it, the girls are shocked.
> *
> Ricky*: I have a confession. I can't paint. Dicky is the one who did the painting in the hallway, not me.
> *The girls gasp and one of them says*: Wow, Dicky. We really *underestimated* you.
> 
> 
> I would have expected the present perfect here "We'*ve* really underestimated you.".


I believe the speaker is referring to the time when he said he painted it but the girls didn't believe him and said he never takes anything seriously. The "present" of this conversation is "later in the episode".

Alternatively, she might be referring to a longer time interval before the gasp when they did not believe him. The "present" of the sentence in question is after the gasp.

For me, the difference between present perfect and past simple is always the same, and has nothing to do with relevance in the present, action continuing into the present, or recentness as opposed to remoteness. It always has to do with summarizing a time interval that extends up to the present (present perfect) as opposed to recounting events and states within a (possibly moving) time interval that does not extend up to the present (past simple).

If the speaker is explicit about the time interval ending before the present, present perfect is out of the question:

_We have really underestimated you that time we said you never take anything seriously._
_We have really underestimated you before we gasped at Ricky's confession a moment ago._

Without such an explicit reference, the speaker is free to consider everything up until the present and to summarize "We have really underestimated you."


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> We cannot say _or imply_ to someone 'I underestimate you' because the meaning would be: 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are'.





Phoebe1200 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand this. Could you please explain?


We can say, 'You underestimate Fred'. This appears to be a factual statement, but it really comes dpwn to one person's opinion against another's. It means in effect, 'You think Fred is less admirable than I think he is'.

But it does not make sense to say, 'I underestimate you', because this would mean, 'I think you are less admirable than I think you are'.


----------



## Glasguensis

As explained in post 32, however, it is possible to use the simple present to describe a habitual action.


----------



## wandle

It is reasonable to say, 'I have often underestimated you' (implication: 'Now I see I was wrong'); and even 'I keep underestimating you' ('I keep making that mistake'); but not 'I underestimate you' ('In my judgement you are less admirable than in my judgement you are').


----------



## london calling

wandle said:


> It is reasonable to say, 'I have often underestimated you' (implication: 'Now I see I was wrong'); and even 'I keep underestimating you' ('I keep making that mistake'); but not 'I underestimate you' ('In my judgement you are less admirable than in my judgement you are').


So this is wrong, in your opinion......



london calling said:


> It depends on the context. For example:
> 
> " I really must apologise. I didn't expect you to come through at all, John. I underestimate you every time".


----------



## wandle

london calling said:


> I underestimate you every time.


That seems similar to 'I keep underestimating you'.


----------



## london calling

Yes, but it is nevertheless the present simple and describes what may be seen as a habitual action, as it is something which is done repeatedly.


----------



## wandle

It is still a different sentence from 'I underestimate you'.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> We can say, 'You underestimate Fred'. This appears to be a factual statement, but it really comes dpwn to one person's opinion against another's. It means in effect, 'You think Fred is less admirable than I think he is'.
> 
> But it does not make sense to say, 'I underestimate you' because this would mean, 'I think you are less admirable than I think you are'.


Thank you. I understand it now. Would you be so kind as to reply to my post 24, please?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> I agree that the original sentence places the underestimation explicitly in the past.


I'm confused. First, you said the above and later the following.


Glasguensis said:


> "I/We have underestimated you" - indeed I would consider this entirely correct and idiomatic in the original context, and more likely than the simple past.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> So if he didn't use "in this report" in his sentence then he would have to use the past simple in that case, right?


Yes, to indicate that the underestimation was a thing of the past.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> Yes, to indicate that the underestimation was a thing of the past.


My warmest thanks to you.


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm confused. First, you said the above and later the following.


You are confused because you seem unable to understand that two alternatives are possible in a particular context without them meaning the same thing. The present perfect is perfectly possible in the original dialogue, but if it were used it would not be identical in meaning to the simple past.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you.


----------



## siares

Glasguensis said:


> the link with the present moment relates to the change of mind - there is an implied "until now", which is how the present perfect can be justified.


I'm sorry I missed this, Glenfarclas, could I ask, is this specific for 'underestimate' or can it be applied to other opinion verbs?
For example, I've been emailing with a person named Bill who appears in a meeting and it turns out it is a woman.
_Oh, I've thought / assumed you were a woman.
_
Does this work as a relevant parallel?
Thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

It works with other verbs but not, unfortunately with the example you have given. That example would need an "always" or something to work.
I've always thought you were a man" 
And even then the simple past works better.
But here are some other examples:
I've missed you. (When reunited with a loved one)
I've misunderstood you (when something is finally understood)


----------



## Fled From Nowhere

boozer said:


> The meaning of the verb 'underestimate' makes it very tricky to use the verb in the present perfect.
> _I have underestimated you_
> Two possible interpretations:
> 1. I did underestimate you, but now I know what you are actually worth, so I no longer underestimate you. So how can you say at the same time that the underestimation has both stopped and still continues? The present perfect implies it still continues, yet you already know it was underestimation... There is a logical conflict here.
> 2. I underestimated you on several occasions in the past. When exactly, it does not matter.





wandle said:


> Yes, that is the logic of the word.
> We cannot say _or imply_ to someone 'I underestimate you' because the meaning would be: 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are'.


I completely agree with these two posts. 'I think you are less clever (or brave, or kind, etc.) than you really are' makes my head hurt; it's a logical impossibility.


----------



## wandle

Glasguensis said:


> I've missed you. (When reunited with a loved one)
> I've misunderstood you (when something is finally understood)


Missing someone is a different case. People naturally say 'I missed you', meaning that the feeling is now over.
However, such feelings can linger and 'I've missed you' shows that the speaker still feels some of that sense of separation.

Misunderstanding is like underestimating: as soon as the person realises he or she was wrong, the old opinion becomes immediately a thing of the past.


----------



## Glasguensis

I think you've made your views abundantly clear. I don't share them.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Glasguensis.


Glasguensis said:


> I've misunderstood you (when something is finally understood)


I think I get your examples. The realisation of misunderstanding or underestimating someone as a person carries with it a (present) feeling of regret or shame or surprise.


Glasguensis said:


> That example would need an "always" or something to work.


Isn´t it interesting that the logical disagreement (I don't think it anymore) is solved by adding _always_? By its meaning, I couldn't guess that it bridges the gap petween past and present thought so.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> I'm sorry I missed this, Glenfarclas, could I ask, is this specific for 'underestimate' or can it be applied to other opinion verbs?
> For example, I've been emailing with a person named Bill who appears in a meeting and it turns out it is a woman.
> _Oh, I've thought / assumed you were a woman.
> _
> Does this work as a relevant parallel?
> Thank you.


Grammatically they are parallel, but differences in meaning affect the way these different verbs relate to time.

One difference, already mentioned, is quite obvious: Whereas we believe we are aware of what we are thinking or assuming at any given time, and we are aware of our current estimate of something or someone, we normally can be aware of our underestimating (or overestimating) only after we do it. I say "normally" because we might, for example, "underestimate" on purpose, but that is an unusual enough idea to need supporting context to express clearly.

Another difference between "underestimate" on one hand and "think" and "assume" on the other is that "think" and "assume" tend to be thought of as more "stative" in nature. It is obvious to me that a person can underestimate on one occasion, overestimate on another occasion, and then underestimate again; but normally a person does not stop thinking another person is a woman and later start thinking it again.

Your "I have thought/assumed" is not ungrammatical or even illogical in your context, but the distinctions I have mentioned do affect our impressions of these sentences in the absence of other context.

These distinctions affect more than present perfect and past simple. For example, when I first hear "I think/assume she is a woman", I usually imagine a static opinion rather than a changeable opinion or series of changes of mind, but when I hear "I underestimate you", I think first of a series of estimations— not necessarily a habit, but something repeatable.

Now add the word _always_. With "I always underestimate you", my first impression is still of a series of estimations.

But with "I always think/assume she is a woman", I now think of a series of "thinkings" or "assumings" because "always" contrasts with "sometimes", which only makes sense for something that can change.

Back to present perfect. With "I have underestimated you", I think of something repeatable that has happened at least once. But "I have thought/assumed she was a woman" seems at first almost a non sequitur, because there is not enough in your context to support the notion of something changeable.

Adding the word _always_ provides support for the notion of changeability: "I have always thought/assumed she was a woman" is obviously about something changeable.

Aspect (perfect, continuous, etc.) in English is hard to explain. We use it instinctively, but we can still be surprised when a little adverb like _always_ provides just enough context to change our first impressions.

As I keep saying, present perfect summarizes a time interval that extends all the way up to the present. It does not automatically make the actions happening in that time interval extend to the present.

Present perfect is the perfect aspect of present tense, and it is present tense because it summarizes present history, history as of "now", whether recent or not, relevant or not, still happening or not.

In particular, "I have always thought/assumed she was a woman" does not tell us whether I think/assume right now that she is a woman. It also does not, as far as I can tell, suggest any more recentness or relevance to the present than past tense would.


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, Forero, very interesting!


----------

