# "I've eaten" or "I ate"?



## cheshire

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=504206&highlight=i+won

Hi. I think this question is related to the above link, but what would be the most natural tense to say in English?

Situation: I'm having lunch. I'm sitting at the table. The lunch is delicious. Then I go, "Uf, I (  ). "

1. I'*ve* *eaten *too much.
2. I *ate* too much.​Even though these may be the wordings you wouldn't choose off hand, please exclude "I'm stuffed." "I've had enough." and the like for the sake of discussion.

I'm guessing the answers might vary whether one speaks BrEn or AmEn. I learned that AmEn often omits "have." Does that apply here?


----------



## LouisaB

Hi, cheshire,

As a BE speaker, I would say 'I've eaten too much'.

Present Perfect Simple (or just 'Present Perfect' - I've come across both names for it) works for me here, because I am still experiencing in the present the results of the action I've just completed. 

I think 'I ate too much' may be AE, as you say - but maybe a native can confirm that.

Louisa


----------



## looking-at-the-stars

Indeed, I think is is more natural in AE to say "I ate too much."


----------



## Dimcl

I would probably say "I ate too much" simply because of the immediacy of the scenario.  If I'm still sitting at the table, this means that I've just finished eating.  I lean back, loosen my belt and groan "Oooh, I ate too much".  

Conversely, if I leave the restaurant, get in my car and head home, I'd probably say "Oooh, I've eaten too much" as I head to the couch for a nap.  This probably sounds odd but time seems to play a factor in my mind on this issue.


----------



## LouisaB

Dimcl said:


> I would probably say "I ate too much" simply because of the immediacy of the scenario. If I'm still sitting at the table, this means that I've just finished eating. I lean back, loosen my belt and groan "Oooh, I ate too much".
> 
> Conversely, if I leave the restaurant, get in my car and head home, I'd probably say "Oooh, I've eaten too much" as I head to the couch for a nap. This probably sounds odd but time seems to play a factor in my mind on this issue.


 
That's fascinating, Dimcl. I absolutely agree with you about the importance of the time factor, and would make precisely the same distinction - but I'd also use much the same argument to justify why I'd use the tenses the other way round!! 

I'd say _at the time _'I have eaten too much' - because the effects are still experienced in the present (therefore Present Perfect)

That evening, I'd say 'I ate too much at lunch' - because it's over, it happened, it's in the past (therefore Simple Past).

Are the tenses defined differently in the US? That could really help me understand some of the differences in usage.

Louisa


----------



## gaer

I'd flip a coin before choosing!

Either one sounds fine to me!


----------



## cheshire

I confess every post is a good sample for my understanding of this tense issue



> I would probably say "I ate too much" simply because of the immediacy of the scenario. If I'm still sitting at the table, this means that I'*ve just *finished eating. I lean back, loosen my belt and groan "Oooh, I *ate *too much".
> 
> Conversely, if I leave the restaurant, get in my car and head home, I'd probably say "Oooh, I've eaten too much" as I head to the couch for a nap. This probably sounds odd but time seems to play a factor in my mind on this issue.


Interesting! You'*ve* just finish*ed* eating, but you *ate *too much! It's hard to understand...How does the tense work in AmEn?


----------



## cheshire

http://www.english-grammar-lessons.com/presentperfectorpastsimple/menu.php

The author acknowledges the different usage between AmE and BrE, but don't explain why.


----------



## roxcyn

I believe you should say:

"I have (I've) eaten too much" because:
You are ate some stuff a few minutes ago and you are still eating.  You are thinking that you have eaten too much.  Therefore, I think for this situation you should use the Present Perfect tense.

However, as some American English speakers have stated many times we will use the past tense (I ate) even if we are still eating the food.

Pablo


----------



## cheshire

That's interesting. I wish I knew the reason why Americans use past tense in that case?! 
Let's peep into Dimicl's and roxcyn's brain...!


----------



## tomandjerryfan

This is interesting.

I think I would go with the usage suggested by my AmE and CaE forum partners. I would use the simple past when I'm in the restaurant and I just recently finish eating, but I think I might use either the simple past or the present perfect when I get to the house and head for the couch.


----------



## cheshire

Exactly the same as Dimcl!
1.Please tell me the reason.
2. Is such a use of past tense consistent with in other cases?


----------



## AngelEyes

cheshire said:


> ...but what would be the most natural tense to say in English?
> 
> Situation: I'm having lunch. I'm sitting at the table. The lunch is delicious.
> 1. I'*ve* *eaten *too much.
> 
> 2. I *ate* too much.


 
In AE, what we say at the meal is extremely time-sensitive, in my opinion.

1.Your first example would be said at the table, when you're not necessarily done eating.
_"Uffi, I've eaten too much."_ 
That doesn't mean you won't find room for chocolate cheesecake, or that you won't continue to eat. It means you know you have eaten too much so far, but whether you continue to eat in spite of that fact is still up in the air.

2. _"Uf, uffi, I ate too much!"_ It means you've already eaten too much, but what comes after that is pretty much still undecided. It could also be said much later after you leave the table, and probably in this respect is the more tense-correct past tense. _"Uff,uff, I ate too much. Where are my "fat" jeans?" _

3. We might use another sentence that's time-ambiguous, too. 
_"I'm full."_ Short and to the point, but not necessarily true when you remember there's cheesecake.

4. This is usually exactly what it means.
_"Uffi-baboofi, I'm done."_ But then they give you those after-dinner chocolates, and nothing has changed. (The Italian is my version.)

I think our problem here in America is that there's so much delicious food available, we're never done eating, so the tenses can't jive with the moment.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## LV4-26

cheshire said:


> Exactly the same as Dimcl!
> 1.Please tell me the reason.


Maybe because it takes some time before your stomach really hurts? 
As you probably know, the present perfect is often said to be used for past actions that still influence the present (your present condition, in this case). That's what grammar books and teachers say. I would call that an easy way out that works reasonably often.

Seriously, I think you're right in thinking that what is true in BE is not necessarily true in AE, as far as the PP is concerned. I finally managed to understand the logic behind the British usage but somehow the American one doesn't really fit in. Not to mention that there may well be more than *one* American usage. But you've been around here long enough to be aware of that.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

I gave this some more thought and, as a speaker of CaE, here's my take on this particular issue.

1. *I ate too much. *(Simple past)

Any time when the action finished in the past, or when the action took place - start to finish - various times within a fixed amount of time (in the morning/in the evening/yesterday/last week) that is now complete.

2.* I've eaten too much. *(Present perfect)

Any time when the action took place - start to finish - various times in the recent past and/or continues to happen in the present. It gives a sense of how much you've eaten until now.

So I might say _I ate too much_ whether I just finished eating or I ate several hours ago, but I would only say _I've eaten too much _if I am talking about the meals and snacks I've had until the present.


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

Here is the reason I might say either.

My normal conversational use of the simple past is not sensitive to the normal /correct preference to use the present perfect for past actions that continue to affect the present. Although I don't have a preference here I also would be happy to say the sentence in the present perfect.

When talking about a finished meal when I'm away from the table I would have a strong preference for the simple past, even though the discomfort I feel may continue to the present.

Example: I gourged myself at lunch two hours ago.
X: Me: I ate too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable. 
Y: Me: I've eaten too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable.

Would BE speakers say Y, because it happened in the past and the consequences continue?


----------



## panjandrum

I have eaten, present perfect, action completed just now.
_We use the Present Perfect to say that an action happened at an unspecified time before now. _
I ate, simple past, action completed some time in the past.
_Use the Simple Past to express the idea that an action started and finished at a specific time in the past._


----------



## LV4-26

AWordLover said:


> Y: Me: I've eaten too much *at lunch*, I still feel uncomfortable.
> [...]





panjandrum said:


> _[...]We use the Present Perfect to say that an action happened at an *unspecified time*__ before now. _
> [...]


(emphasis added)
Would "_at lunch_" be considered as a specified time? Could be. Therefore, I guess the correct option would be _I ate_ here, regardless of the speaker's nationality.

Yes, the "time element".... Its presence  forces the use of the past simple....provided it's specific.


> We CAN use the Present Perfect with unspecific expressions such as: ever, never, once, many times, several times, before, so far, already, yet, etc..


Source : page linked by Panjandrum.

Also, some other kinds of circumstancial complements (like _place_ ) can sometimes have the same influence._
I ate too much in that restaurant.*
_I'm not sure many people would say _I've eaten too much in that restaurant_, even though _in that restaurant_ isn't supposed to be a *time* expression.

EDIT : Sorry for the mistake and thanks to tomandjerryfan for pointing it out in such a discreet and diplomatic way. _*At* that restaurant_ would be much better.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

LV4-26 said:


> I'm not sure many people would say _I've eaten too much in that restaurant_, even though _in that restaurant_ isn't supposed to be a *time* expression.



I might actually say _I've eaten too much at that restaurant_ if I was referring to the many times I've eaten there.


----------



## cheshire

Thank you everyone! I'm quite OK with the British usage, as it well goes with the instruction we're given.
What I'm stucked in is the American usage.





AWordLover said:


> Hi,
> 
> Here is the reason I might say either.
> 
> My normal conversational use of the simple past is not sensitive to the normal /correct preference to use the present perfect for past actions that continue to affect the present. Although I don't have a preference here I also would be happy to say the sentence in the present perfect.
> 
> When talking about a finished meal when I'm away from the table I would have a strong preference for the simple past, even though the discomfort I feel may continue to the present.
> 
> Example: I gourged myself at lunch two hours ago.
> X: Me: I ate too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable.
> Y: Me: I've eaten too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable.
> 
> Would BE speakers say Y, because it happened in the past and the consequences continue?



This is a British example.
This is Beatrix Potter's _The Tale of Ginger and Pickles._
The sentence including "have eaten" doesn't agree with the last of AWL's explanation. That I understand as difference of usage across the Atlantic.

This is also from Potter. _The Pie and the Patty-pan_.


> "Then I must have been eating MOUSE!...


The speaker has already eaten mouse pie, and her hostess has gone to fetch a doctor, and her stomach is hurting.


----------



## LV4-26

cheshire said:


> The sentence including "have eaten" doesn't agree with the last of AWL's explanation. That I understand as difference of usage across the Atlantic.


The sentence you're alluding to, "_You have eaten them yourself_", exactly matches the "aspect" factor in the use of the present perfect. The important thing here is that there are no more cream crackers. It's close to the example I was given when I was first told of the "past action affecting the present"
I've lost my keys ==> I can no longer open the door.



> Then I must have been eating mouse


Same with "_He's late. He must have missed the bus_"
Those are not present perfects. They're past (bare) infinitives. It's the only tense available if you want to describe a past event after a modal.
_I felt sick yesterday. I probably ate too much ===> I must have eaten too much
I'm not feeling too well. I've probably eaten too much ===> I must have eaten too much.
_See what I mean? Only one option possible, whatever the tense used in the source sentence.


----------



## cheshire

LV4-26 said:


> Also, some other kinds of *circumstancial complements* (like _place_ ) can sometimes have the same influence._I ate too much *at that restaurant*._​I'm not sure many people would say _I've eaten too much in that restaurant_, even though _in that restaurant_ isn't supposed to be a *time* expression.


You opened my eyes! You introduced to us "circumstancial complements."


The idea can extend to this: Unspoken time referent. Often, American might be using simple past tense because when they use it they have in mind an unspoken time referent.I *ate* too much (at this lunch-->at lunch time).​


----------



## cheshire

tomandjerryfan said:


> I gave this some more thought and, as a speaker of CaE, here's my take on this particular issue.
> 
> 1. *I ate too much. *(Simple past)
> 
> Any time when the action finished in the past, or when the action took place - start to finish - various times within a fixed amount of time (in the morning/in the evening/yesterday/last week) that is now complete.
> 
> 2.* I've eaten too much. *(Present perfect)
> 
> Any time when the action took place - start to finish - various times in the recent past and/or continues to happen in the present. It gives a sense of how much you've eaten until now.
> 
> So I might say _I ate too much_ whether I just finished eating or I ate several hours ago, but I would only say _I've eaten too much _if I am talking about the meals and snacks I've had until the present.


I got it! The Am usage might be that of grammatical aspect.

The verbs such as "win, get [in the sense of "understand"], and eat" are maybe felt and grouped as "achievement verbs" i.e. they are not fuzzy, nothing between 0 and 1 (do you get what I mean here? There is no state of 0.2, 0.3, etc.)

So, there are only "I don't eat." or "I ate." That's why you don't say "I've eaten." in AmEn, except for the experience usage.


----------



## gaer

Another thought:

Two Americans…

A: Did you have enough to eat?
B: Actually, I ate too much.

Two "Brits"…

A: Have you had you have enough to eat?
B: Actually, I've eaten too much.

This may be an exaggeration, but it does (perhaps) show typical example of different verbs structures used on "both sides of the pond". 

Gaer


----------



## JamesM

tomandjerryfan said:


> I might actually say _I've eaten too much at that restaurant_ if I was referring to the many times I've eaten there.


 
I agree. "I've eaten too much" could refer to a recurring pattern. "I am the size I am because I've eaten too much for too long." I couldn't say, personally, "I ate too much for too long." It sounds... wrong.  I wish I had a good explanation for the feeling. I guess in one way it sounds like my eating days are over... a sad thought.  Hmm... but if I were talking about the new, skinny me looking at a picture of the old, fat me, I can imagine saying, "I got that way because I ate too much for too long. I don't do that anymore."

If the meal just completed and I'm feeling overfull, "I ate too much" is probably what I would say. If the meal was still in progress and someone was urging to eat more, I would say, "No, thanks! I've eaten too much already!"


----------



## cheshire

JamesM said:
			
		

> If the meal just completed and I'm feeling overfull, "I *ate *too much" is probably what I would say. If the meal was still in progress and someone was urging to eat more, I would say, "No, thanks! I've eaten too much already!"





			
				cheshire said:
			
		

> This is also from Potter. _The Pie and the Patty-pan_.
> Citation:
> "Then I must *have been* eat*ing* MOUSE!...


What a difference between AE and BE!

In _the Pie and the Patty-Pan_, the speaker is using a *perfect progressive* even after she has finished lunch, felt sick, and  her friend has gone to fetch a doctor. The pie dish is empty when this is uttered. I wonder how an American speaker would say in the story? 



			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> (1)"I *ate *too much for too long."
> 
> (2)"I got that way because I *ate *too much for too long. I don't do that anymore."


I think I understand why you use a past tense in (2). When you say "I got that way" the attention is on the past, from which the tense of "because I ate" is determined.



			
				AWL said:
			
		

> Example: I gourged myself at lunch two hours ago.
> X: Me: I ate too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable.
> Y: Me: I've eaten too much at lunch, I still feel uncomfortable.
> 
> Would BE speakers say Y, because it happened in the past and the consequences continue?


Yes, I think so.


----------



## roxcyn

gaer said:


> Another thought:
> 
> Two Americans…
> 
> A: Did you have enough to eat?
> B: Actually, I ate too much.
> 
> Two "Brits"…
> 
> A: Have you had you have enough to eat?
> B: Actually, I've eaten too much.
> 
> This may be an exaggeration, but it does (perhaps) show typical example of different verbs structures used on "both sides of the pond".
> 
> Gaer



I think you want to say:

Have you *had enough to eat*?  

Your example makes no sense otherwise 

Pablo


----------



## gaer

roxcyn said:


> I think you want to say:
> 
> Have you *had enough to eat*?
> 
> Your example makes no sense otherwise
> 
> Pablo


It should be this:

A: Have you had enough to eat?
B: Actually, I've eaten too much.

Unfortunately, I can't edit that post. It seems none of our members were the slightest bit interested in what I wrote, and now it's to late to fix it.


----------



## cheshire

No, I recognized the mistake but it's too obvious.
Thanks, I'm waiting for your answers.


----------



## cheshire

Dimcl said:


> I would probably say "I ate too much" simply because of the immediacy of the scenario. If I'm still sitting at the table, this means that I've just finished eating. I lean back, loosen my belt and groan "Oooh, I *ate* too much".
> 
> Conversely, if I leave the restaurant, get in my car and head home, I'd probably say "Oooh, I'*ve* *eaten* too much" as I head to the couch for a nap. This probably sounds odd but time seems to play a factor in my mind on this issue.


I now understand why you (Americans) would say "I ate..." but still don't understand why you say "I've eaten..." there?
Could anyone tell me why?


----------



## cheshire

Hi, sorry for bothering you again and again, but this is very important.

The following quote is from Tintin's volume:_ Red Rackham's Treasure_. 



			
				Red Rackham's Treasure said:
			
		

> So we've already passed the right point, and yet we *saw *nothing...I simply can't understand it!


Tintin was written in French, and translated into BrE. 
I understand why the perfect tense was used in "we've already passed..." but don't understand why the past tense in "we saw nothing." even though it's British English.


----------



## Gordonedi

This is a combination of the two sentences :

"We have already passed the right point and yet we have seen nothing."

and

"We passed the right point and yet we saw nothing."

It is not the best piece of translation, but the meaning is clear.

I would have used the second sentence.


----------



## cheshire

Gordonedi said:


> This is a combination of the two sentences :
> 
> "We have already passed the right point and yet we have seen nothing."
> 
> and
> 
> "We passed the right point and yet we saw nothing."
> 
> It is not the best piece of translation, but the meaning is clear.
> 
> I would have used the second sentence.


Thanks! But what's the difference? Why would you pick (2) over (1)?

(1) We* have* already pass*ed *the right point and yet we *have seen* nothing

(2) We passed the right point and yet we *saw* nothing.​


----------



## cheshire

> (1) We* have* already pass*ed *the right point and yet we *have seen* nothing
> 
> (2) We passed the right point and yet we *saw* nothing.


 
My theory: You can't use "have seen nothing" there because...

When we hear "We passed the right point." our attention is geared toward a certain time in the past. You no longer use the present tense, or a perfect tense because these tenses entail present aspect. That's why you should choose only past tense, and say "we saw nothing."

Am I correct?


----------



## cheshire

Suppose you have eaten a second dish on the course menu.
There are further going to be a third, and dessert, but at this point you're already full.
What would you say?

I ate too much.
I've eaten too much.

T&J fan, will you be still more likely say the former?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> Suppose you have eaten a second dish on the course menu.
> There are further going to be a third, and dessert, but at this point you're already full.
> What would you say?
> 
> I ate too much.
> I've eaten too much.
> 
> T&J fan, will you be still more likely say the former?



The third course and dessert haven't arrived yet?

If that is the case, in terms of tenses I would still use the former; however, it seems a bit strange to say "I ate too much" if there are going to be more courses. We would be more likely to say "I'm already full."


----------



## cheshire

Thanks, T&J



			
				Dimicl said:
			
		

> I would probably say "*I ate too much*" simply because of the immediacy of the scenario. If I'm still sitting at the table, this means that I've just finished eating. I lean back, loosen my belt and groan "Oooh, I *ate* too much".
> 
> Conversely, if I leave the restaurant, get in my car and head home, I'd probably say "Oooh, *I've **eaten too much*" as I head to the couch for a nap. This probably sounds odd but _*time seems to play a factor in my mind *_on this issue.



I ate too much.....*detached*, to express an action having been completed.

I've eaten too much.....*emotional*, to express that the effect of an action is lingering.


----------



## MarcB

Judging by my experience and posts found here and other WR posts I would say that BE is more ridged in this use and US and Canadian can use both forms either to express subtle differences or as a matter of style.


----------



## cheshire

The Pie and the Patty-pan said:
			
		

> Then I must have been eating mouse.


*emotional*, even though she is no longer eating mouse pie, she is feeling the effect of having eaten the mouse pie.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> *emotional*, even though she is no longer eating mouse pie, she is feeling the effect of having eaten the mouse pie.



Not quite.

"I must have been eating mouse pie" just seems to suggest a continuing event in the past.

"I must have eaten mouse pie" would be more likely to suggest the lingering effects of having eaten the pie.


----------



## cheshire

Enlightening like a thunderbolt!


> "I must *have been *eat*ing *mouse pie" just seems to suggest a continuing event in the past.


I think what your point here is that the sentence (X)  can be translated as having two potential tenses.(X)I must have been eating pie.​(1) [Past Continuous + Present] (I have been eating pie.)
(2) [Past Continuous] (I was eating pie.)

Since you can't say "I *must was eating* pie," you have to say (X) for the past continuous. I didn't know that!


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cheshire said:


> Enlightening like a thunderbolt!
> 
> 
> I think what your point here is that the sentence (X)  can be translated as having two potential tenses.(X)I must have been eating pie.​(1) [Past Continuous + Present] (I have been eating pie.)
> (2) [Past Continuous] (I was eating pie.)
> 
> Since you can't say "I must was been eating pie," you have to say (X) for the past perfect. I didn't know that!



Now that I think about it, if you say "You must have been eating mouse pie," you still must be implying some lingering effect of having eaten the pie. The effects could be emotional, but they could be physical as well. For example, I can tell you have been eating mouse pie because you have icing all over your face. However, this sentence still refers to the continuing action. "You must have eaten mouse pie" does not. We would be more likely to use the first sentence in CaE.

I had to change your sentence a bit. It was difficult to analyze "I must have been eating..." because it's likely not a statement a native speaker would make. It would suggest that the speaker is unclear whether he had eaten the pie.


----------



## cheshire

Thanks T&J, I'm begining to get a glimpse of how English tenses work.


----------



## xlxslxlcxlx

i ate too much is talking more about the past... like if you were telling a story about a banquet or a dinner party or the cinema that you went to last week and you are telling someone 'i went to the cinema, and I ate too much (popcorn)!'

i've (the same as 'i have') eaten too much is more about the near past... so you will be talking about food that you have just consumed... example: straight after a big dinner when you are all putting your dishes away, you can say 'man, i've eaten too much!' and rub your tummy or something...


----------

