# She has made a cake (Present Perfect Simple / Simple Past)



## r2rock

Hello,

One question that might be basic, but I have been puzzling over for a moment
and I have not yet wrapped my brain around it.


When talking about Present Perfect Simple, one told me we use it when it comes to
an action that started in the past, but continues in the present for instance
"I have been worked on this project for 6 months"I started working on the project in the past and I keep working on it.
However, why we use the present perfect simple for sentences like:

"She has made a cake"- The cake is already made, she is not baking the cake she already finished
"X celebrity has been kicked out of a hotel in Brazil " - That celebrity was already kicked out why we use "has kicked"
"You car looks clean, your aunt has cleaned it for you, right?" - Same the action is already done

This might be silly but in my standpoint if the action is finished I use simple past and more for actions
that were finished some couple of hours ago.

Hope you could clear the air.

Thanks in advance


----------



## levmac

r2rock said:


> When talking about Present Perfect Simple, one told me we use it when it comes to
> an action that started in the past, but continues in the present for instance
> "I have been worked on this project for 6 months"I started working on the project in the past and I keep working on it.
> However, why we use the present perfect simple for sentences like:



This sentence is not correct "He sido trabajado" (!) and nor is the definition.

You could use the continuous form, "I have been working" in this way. However, it is not quite as simple as "continues in the present". It can be used:

1) To emphasise the *verb* when describing a recent action.

Lunchtime: I've been sending emails all morning. 
After work: I've been working all day.

2) To emphasise the present *effect* of a past action.

I am *hot*. I have been running.
I am *tired*. I have been working.
The floor is *wet*. It has been raining.

3) As the person told you, an event which started in the past and continues.

I've been living here for three years.


Present perfect simple is a little different. To contrast it with (1), It often emphasises the result, the consequences, not the verb.

I've sent emails all morning.  I've sent about *100* emails today. 
I'm hot because I've run.  I have just run *5 miles in 40 minutes*.
I've been making dinner = that is what I was busy doing.
I've made dinner = here is dinner


----------



## SydLexia

The simplest concept is to forget about when it was finished and concentrate on the present effect of the action.

"I've finished" --> It's finished/I have nothing to do now/I've won/....
"The Bible and Agatha Christie have been translated into many languages" --> There are many editions of these books in different languages
"I've won the lottery" --> I have money problems of a different sort now
"I've always thought he was a bastard" --> I'm smart and I was right
"Have you had some breakfast?" --> Are you hungry?/Do I have to make breakfast for you now, or can I relax with this cup of coffee?
"Yes, he has had an accident. It must have been about ten years ago" --> Experience
"Have you ever shot a rabbit?" --> Experience
"We've never seen anything like it in all our lives." --> (negative) Experience
"I think I've read all of Vonnegut's books" --> (positive) Experience

Customer: What the hell is this!
Waiter:     It's bean soup, sir.
Customer: I don't care about its history. What is it now?

Note that in Europe most people use more perfects, in Spanish and English, than our transatlantic colleagues do.

"Have you done it yet" = "Did you do it yet?" (which sounds very American to British ears)

Your profile doesn't say where you are from - are you a natural 'perfectionist'? 

syd


----------



## r2rock

levmac said:


> This sentence is not correct "He sido trabajado" (!) and nor is the definition.
> 
> You could use the continuous form, "I have been working" in this way. However, it is not quite as simple as "continues in the present". It can be used:
> 
> 1) To emphasise the *verb* when describing a recent action.
> 
> Lunchtime: I've been sending emails all morning.
> After work: I've been working all day.
> 
> 2) To emphasise the present *effect* of a past action.
> 
> I am *hot*. I have been running.
> I am *tired*. I have been working.
> The floor is *wet*. It has been raining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) As the person told you, an event which started in the past and continues.
> 
> I've been living here for three years.
> 
> 
> Present perfect simple is a little different. To contrast it with (1), It often emphasises the result, the consequences, not the verb.
> 
> I've sent emails all morning.  I've sent about *100* emails today.
> I'm hot because I've run.  I have just run *5 miles in 40 minutes*.
> I've been making dinner = that is what I was busy doing.
> I've made dinner = here is dinner



Thanks levmac for your always complete explanation.
Therefore, present perfect progressive can be used for emphasizing the verb of a recent action
that already finished,as you exemplify in these sentences:

Lunchtime: I've been *sending* emails all morning.  The morning is already gone so if I say that it means that this actions is already in the past.
After work: I've been *working* all day. The same for this one

In contrast, present perfect simple can be also use the result, the consequence, not the verb
as in the following example: 

I've sent about *100* emails today. the result is that 100 emails were sent.

But in this case, it does matter when the action was done? could I say?:

Mayan people have constructed *100* pyramids --> Knowing that this was many years before

or I have to say

Mayan people constructed *100* pyramids


----------



## r2rock

Thank you SydLexia . Good explanation and nice remarks and nice joke! Well, I may appear a perfectionist, I am bit , it's true! I just wanted to have this idea clear as for me, because I read regularly news and I saw that are actions in the past so for me they should be written in the simple past. However, I saw that as you say it does not matter when it was done and focus on the present effect. By the way I speak Spanish as native language.


----------



## SydLexia

Yes, but Spanish from where? By 'perfectionist' I meant do you come from a place where people are more likely to use perfect tenses - the UK as opposed to the US, or Madrid as opposed to Galicia.

syd


----------



## r2rock

from Mexico. Well I read news usually from American newspapers, but I have seen that in some European websites, they like the perfect tenses such as "You have chosen the menu 1" and I would better say "You chose the menu 1". 
You're right when you says that tneses may change from one country to another, for instance in Mexico we use more the simple past while in Spain they prefer the perfect tenses for instance, if after work someone asks what you did today , this reply could be different if you're in Mexico or In Spain:

Comi una hamburguesa-Mexico
He comido una hamburguesa-Spain

In Spain they use simple past only when the action was finished many hours after, even days


----------



## levmac

r2rock said:


> T
> 
> But in this case, it does matter when the action was done? could I say?:
> 
> Mayan people have constructed *100* pyramids --> Knowing that this was many years before
> 
> or I have to say
> 
> Mayan people constructed *100* pyramids



For the Mayans, use the past. My explanation was about the problem of choosing between simple and continuous when talking about something 

a) as you are finishing it.

b) soon after finishing

Here in Spain, it's Friday night, which is a good time for present perfect. Let's think of a 9-5 worker. At work at 4.59, you could tell your colleague "I have been so busy this week/I have been working like a dog" (a) but you could also say the same thing to your mum on the phone at 6.00 (b). You could not say either on Saturday morning, because the week is over.


----------



## gengo

For me, it helps to think literally about the words used in the present perfect tense.  "To have" means "to possess."  So when we say "I have baked a cake," we are literally (very literally) saying that I have (possess) a cake that is baked.  For the speaker to say this, the speaker must still be alive, and the result of the verb action must still be existent.  Since the Mayans who built the pyramids are no longer alive, they can't "possess" anything, and therefore we can't say that they have built their pyramids.

I hope this is more helpful than confusing.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, R2rock.

I realize this may contradict what you may have heard or read, but it makes sense to me and I think it explains the issue, so—

For an action to be expressed in the positive present perfect, it has to have happened in the past. It does not have to have continued up until the present.
The difference between past simple and present perfect is in the time interval that is in the speaker's mind.

Consider that the same action can be expressed in pretérito imperfecto or pretérito indefinido, for example "Comí/comía una hamburguesa." The difference is that _comí_ says that the action began or ended or both during the time interval in the speaker's mind (e.g. if the speaker is thinking "cuando estaba en la cafetería") and _comía_ says that the time interval in the speaker's mind is one that began after the action started and ended before the end of the action (e.g. "cuando sonó el timbre").

Similarly, the same action can be expressed in past simple or in present perfect, depending on the time interval in the speaker's mind. "I have eaten a hamburger" says that the time interval in the speaker's mind extends all the way up to the present (e.g "since last week"), and "I ate a hamburger" says that the time interval in the speaker's mind is separated from the present by a gap (e.g. "yesterday"). This is why "I have eaten a hamburger this morning" makes perfect sense if it is still morning but not if it is afternoon.

Suppose "I worked on this project for six months" is a true statement. The time interval in the speaker's mind includes the six months in question, which are separated by some amount of time (large or small, it does not matter) from the present. Then "I have worked on this project for six months" must also be true because the speaker is free to choose a time interval that includes those six months and extends all the way up to the present.

I could in fact say "I have worked on this project for six months and that project for seven, and yesterday I finished them both."

Looking at "I have worked on this project for six months" in isolation, some might say it means I have been working on this project for all of the most recent six months, but that is not what the words actually say. "This project" does not have to refer to a project I am working on now, and "six months" does not have to refer to the most recent six months. "Have worked" has to refer to working within an interval that extends up to the present, but it does not have to refer to working all the way up to the present.


----------



## r2rock

levmac said:


> For the Mayans, use the past. My explanation was about the problem of choosing between simple and continuous when talking about something
> 
> a) as you are finishing it.
> 
> b) soon after finishing
> 
> Here in Spain, it's Friday night, which is a good time for present perfect. Let's think of a 9-5 worker. At work at 4.59, you could tell your colleague "I have been so busy this week/I have been working like a dog" (a) but you could also say the same thing to your mum on the phone at 6.00 (b). You could not say either on Saturday morning, because the week is over.



Levmac,

Thanks for the nice example! It is clearer, I know a little bit the scope of this tense and well now  I need to practice! It's been a pleasure reading your replies. Here, it's saturday so I could say "I worked like a dog this week" to either to my co-workers or to my mum.


----------



## r2rock

Gengo,

Yes , it's a nice tip! sure it makes sense! mostly when talking about cakes. For your comment about the fact that the speaker and the verb action must still exist. I agree, even when there are some examples could be very difficult to me to decide which tense to use. Let's say I sent a mail at 9 am and I am in a meeting at 7 p.m should I say "I have sent an e-mail" or "I sent an -mail" ?


----------



## SevenDays

To me, the English simple present _send_ and the present perfect simple _have sent_ mean and function exactly as the Spanish presente _envio_ and the pretérito perfecto compuesto _he enviado_.  In general,and I would say almost always, however you decide to use "envio" or "he enviado" in Spanish would help you to choose "send" or "have sent" in English, and however you decide to use "envié" or "he enviado" would also help you to choose "sent" or "have sent;" and you will be understood. (The only exception is that some in some parts, it's said "ayer he enviado", but we can't say in English "yesterday I have sent.")     
Cheers


----------



## r2rock

Forero. Thanks for welcoming me. Thus we can summarize saying:

Present perfect- The action does not have to have continued up until the present and hinges on the time interval in the speakers mind . Man has walked on the moon
Present perfect continuous. The actions goes all the way up to the present."I have been studying present perfect continuos"
Simple past. It's something that goes out of the  time interval in speakers mind. "I had lunch in a restaurant"


----------



## gengo

r2rock said:


> Let's say I sent a mail at 9 am and I am in a meeting at 7 p.m should I say "I have sent an e-mail" or "I sent an -mail"?



In American English, at least, only the second one works.  However, if you are talking to the email recipient on the phone during your meeting, you might say either "I contacted you three times today" or "I've contacted you three times today."  The former merely states the completed action, while the second one sort of implies that the speaker is still waiting, that there might be a fourth contact attempt later.  It is difficult to explain why the present perfect can be used in this case, but not in your example above.


----------



## JennyTW

Yes, and I think the thing about the present perfect is that it always expresses some type of connection with the present (as its name suggests). The past simple is more firmly rooted in the past. 

This connection could be because the action continues up to the present time (I've lived here since 1990) or there is a present result (I've lost my wallet) or the time expression used is of present time (I've worked hard today) or, in the case of experiences, because they make up the person you are today (I've been to Africa, India...). 

Generally, as Sevendays says, the tense used in Spanish will be a guide for the tense to use in Spanish except in some cases. 
Present/past time expressions - I haven't heard "AYER he enviado", but round here "esta mañana he enviado" is common, even when spoken in the afternoon. 
Action continuing up to present -  in Spanish you'd normally say "VIVO/ llevo viviendo aquí desde 1990" whereas in English we use present perfect. 
Present result - after the initial present perfect sentence (you've had your hair cut!) any further details will be in past simple in English (When/Where/Why did you have it done, How much did it cost/was it/ did they charge you?), whereas in Spanish (in my area) they will use present perfect.


----------



## r2rock

Thanks Jenny and you all for the time you have spent ! I really appreciate!

Yes, I think I got it as you and other people say, we use the present perfect when it comes to an action that 
has a result in the present.

I agree that I can use it as we do in Spanish "He trabajado", "He cantado" , etc. But I think in some cases as you mentioned we cannot go that simple.
About your example about "esta mañana he enviado" , I noticed that Spaniards like a lot the present perfect while in Latin America(or at least in México) we would prefer to use the simple past for this case, so "Envie esta mañana". 
I am under the impression that in Europe we use more the Present perfect than the simple past, no matter which language it goes from Spanish, English, French and Portuguese, the only ones I know.
It's very useful the tip you gave at the end, so we say the present result in present perfect and the details in past!


----------



## Forero

r2rock said:


> Forero. Thanks for welcoming me. Thus we can summarize saying:
> 
> Present perfect- The action does not have to have continued up until the present and hinges on the time interval in the speakers mind . Man has walked on the moon
> Present perfect continuous. The actions goes all the way up to the present."I have been studying present perfect continuos"


People say that the form "I have been studying" means that my studying has continued into the present. There is more to it than that, but a long explanation about it is probably not appropriate in this thread.





> Simple past. It's something that goes out of the time interval in speakers mind. "I had lunch in a restaurant"


"I had lunch in a restaurant" does not mean my having lunch goes out of the time interval. It means that my having lunch is contained in a time interval that does not extend up to the present.

I think SevenDays's post #13 says all you need to know about present perfect vs. simple past. My explanation was for someone reading this thread whose language either has no present perfect or allows sentences like "Ayer he comido una hamburguesa." If this Spanish sentence sounds odd to you, then you have the concept and any further explanation is academic.

I have to disagree with Gengo's answer to your question about an email. I would not say "I have sent an email at 9am today", but without "at 9am today" I could say either "I sent an email" or "I have sent an email." Assuming I did send an email, I could not truthfully claim that I have not sent it. You and I may both have subsequently deleted it, but since I did send it, I have sent it.


----------



## JennyTW

Forero said:


> People say that the form "I have been studying" means that my studying has continued into the present. There is more to it than that, but a long explanation about it is probably not appropriate in this thread."I had lunch in a restaurant" does not mean my having lunch goes out of the time interval. It means that my having lunch is contained in a time interval that does not extend up to the present.
> 
> I think SevenDays's post #13 says all you need to know about present perfect vs. simple past. My explanation was for someone reading this thread whose language either has no present perfect or allows sentences like "Ayer he comido una hamburguesa." If this Spanish sentence sounds odd to you, then you have the concept and any further explanation is academic.
> 
> I have to disagree with Gengo's answer to your question about an email. I would not say "I have sent an email at 9am today", but without "at 9am today" I could say either "I sent an email" or "I have sent an email." Assuming I did send an email, I could not truthfully claim that I have not sent it. You and I may both have subsequently deleted it, but since I did send it, I have sent it.



Actually, Gengo never said "I have sent an email at 9.00 am today" was correct, if you read his post #15 carefully.


----------



## Forero

JennyTW said:


> Actually, Gengo never said "I have sent an email at 9.00 am today" was correct, if you read his post #15 carefully.


I thought he said "I have sent an email" did not work for the scenario R2rock was asking about.


----------



## JennyTW

Forero said:


> I thought he said "I have sent an email" did not work for the scenario R2rock was asking about.


Oh sorry, I didn't read your post properly. Yes, he did say that.


----------



## gengo

Yes, I did say that, and it stands.  I certainly don't want to tell Forero what he would say in a certain situation, but I find it rather hard to believe that he would use the present perfect in that situation, since nobody else I know in the US does.  Just to be clear, here is the situation.

Forero sent me an email in the morning.  It is now evening, and I say:

-I've been waiting for your reply to my question since yesterday.
-I sent an email / I've sent an email.

The first version sounds natural, while the second sounds terrible in American English.

Perhaps we are talking about different things?  I just can't imagine that we really disagree on this.


----------



## r2rock

gengo said:


> Yes, I did say that, and it stands.  I certainly don't want to tell Forero what he would say in a certain situation, but I find it rather hard to believe that he would use the present perfect in that situation, since nobody else I know in the US does.  Just to be clear, here is the situation.
> 
> Forero sent me an email in the morning.  It is now evening, and I say:
> 
> -I've been waiting for your reply to my question since yesterday.
> -I sent an email / I've sent an email.
> 
> The first version sounds natural, while the second sounds terrible in American English.
> 
> Perhaps we are talking about different things?  I just can't imagine that we really disagree on this.




I would also say "I sent an e-mail" ,as the e-mail was sent in the morning and we're in the afternoon! Yes it's unbelievable we don't get a consensus here.


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> Yes, I did say that, and it stands.  I certainly don't want to tell Forero what he would say in a certain situation, but I find it rather hard to believe that he would use the present perfect in that situation, since nobody else I know in the US does.  Just to be clear, here is the situation.
> 
> Forero sent me an email in the morning.  It is now evening, and I say:
> 
> -I've been waiting for your reply to my question since yesterday.
> -I sent an email / I've sent an email.
> 
> The first version sounds natural, while the second sounds terrible in American English.
> 
> Perhaps we are talking about different things?  I just can't imagine that we really disagree on this.


For me, both sentences sound natural. I might begin the meeting in question with either "I sent an email. Unfortunately it seems it never reached its destination" or "I have sent an email. Unfortunately it seems it has still not reached any of its destinations" or "I (have) sent an(other) email. I wonder why so many of my emails are not reaching their destinations."

However, your scenario calls for more than just "I('ve) sent an email" to be helpful to the other person. In that scenario, I would want to say something more like "I sent you an email this morning" or "I have sent you an email every hour on the hour."


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> For me, both sentences sound natural.



I guess we'll have to leave it at a difference of opinion, and let the OP make up his own mind.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hi,

I only skimmed this thread but I didn't actually find the answer to the OP question about the cake. So I'd be grateful if you could just tell me which tense should be used in this sentence.

She *has made* a cake.
She *made *a cake.


----------



## Hector9

You should mention what the context is, but the first sentence is the correct one if no point of time is specified.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Sorry. The context is: I go over to my friend's house and she tells me that her Mom baked a cake and we're going to eat it now or probably later.


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I only skimmed this thread but I didn't actually find the answer to the OP question about the cake. So I'd be grateful if you could just tell me which tense should be used in this sentence.
> 
> She *has made* a cake.
> She *made *a cake.



If the cake was cake made in the distant past (there's no cake "now"), use the simple past: _She _*made *_a cake_.

If the cake was just made (there's a cake "now"), you can use either one. In this case, there's no grammatical difference between the two forms; however, there's a pragmatic/semantic/psychological difference: "has made" indicates greater *relevance *to the present time. What happens here is that, in terms of "aspect" (a grammatical category separate from "tense"), both forms show _perfectivity_, meaning that the act of "making a cake" is presented in its _totality/completion_. So, if the cake is on the table, all nice and warm, you can say "she made a cake" and "she has made a cake." If you wanted to focus at the _end-point_ of the completed act of "making a cake" (a psychological/emotional focus), then we can say _she *has made* a cake_ (meaning: she finished it very recently; we can almost see her putting the last finishing touches on the cake). But this is a semantic/psychological distinction, not a grammatical difference.


----------



## Phoebe1200

SevenDays said:


> If the cake was cake made in the distant past (there's no cake "now"), use the simple past: _She _*made *_a cake_.
> 
> If the cake was just made (there's a cake "now"), you can use either one. In this case, there's no grammatical difference between the two forms; however, there's a pragmatic/semantic/psychological difference: "has made" indicates greater *relevance *to the present time. What happens here is that, in terms of "aspect" (a grammatical category separate from "tense"), both forms show _perfectivity_, meaning that the act of "making a cake" is presented in its _totality/completion_. So, if the cake is on the table, all nice and warm, you can say "she made a cake" and "she has made a cake." If you wanted to focus at the _end-point_ of the completed act of "making a cake" (a psychological/emotional focus), then we can say _she *has made* a cake_ (meaning: she finished it very recently; we can almost see her putting the last finishing touches on the cake). But this is a semantic/psychological distinction, not a grammatical difference.


Thank you very much for your answer.


----------



## fenixpollo

I follow a general rule: use simple past in English, unless you want to focus on a specific aspect of the past action, as SevenDays describes in his excellent explanation.


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> If the cake was cake made in the distant past (there's no cake "now"), use the simple past: _She _*made *_a cake_.


Suppose someone says "She has never made anything I could eat", and another person says "She has made a cake, and you can eat cake, can't you? "

This does not say when she has made a cake, only that she has done it at least once, sometime, and it does not matter whether it was recently or long ago.





> If the cake was just made (there's a cake "now"), you can use either one. In this case, there's no grammatical difference between the two forms; however, there's a pragmatic/semantic/psychological difference: "has made" indicates greater *relevance *to the present time. What happens here is that, in terms of "aspect" (a grammatical category separate from "tense"), both forms show _perfectivity_, meaning that the act of "making a cake" is presented in its _totality/completion_. So, if the cake is on the table, all nice and warm, you can say "she made a cake" and "she has made a cake." If you wanted to focus at the _end-point_ of the completed act of "making a cake" (a psychological/emotional focus), then we can say _she *has made* a cake_ (meaning: she finished it very recently; we can almost see her putting the last finishing touches on the cake). But this is a semantic/psychological distinction, not a grammatical difference.


For me, the distinction is purely temporal and has nothing to do with temperature, emotion, recentness, or degree of relevance.


----------



## IMD90

Phoebe1200 said:


> Sorry. The context is: I go over to my friend's house and she tells me that her Mom baked a cake and we're going to eat it now or probably later.


If your visiting is in the morning and still morning she has *made a cake*.
But if the mprning is over and you went over in the afternoon , s*he made a cake this morning* ( you are in the afternoon or later).
With the adverbials JUST and RECENTLY either form is possible with little difference in meaning


----------



## Phoebe1200

fenixpollo said:


> unless you want to focus on a specific aspect of the past action,


Thank you. But what does this mean exactly? Because to be honest, I don't understand this aspect/tense thing at all.


----------



## Phoebe1200

IMD90 said:


> If your visiting is in the morning and still morning she has *made a cake*.
> But if the mprning is over and you went over in the afternoon, s*he made a cake this morning* ( you are in the afternoon or later).
> With the adverbials JUST and RECENTLY either form is possible with little difference in meaning


Thanks.


Forero said:


> For me, the distinction is purely temporal and has nothing to do with temperature, emotion, recentness, or degree of relevance.


Could you please explain what you meant with "temporal" here?


----------



## karlalou

The present perfect can be used not only to say a recent event, but, yes, also a past experience which can be long time ago, Phoebe has provided us with her context as a recent event, so we know it's talking about recent event, but I agree that the power of an adverb is big. We've taught that the present perfect goes well with 'just', 'recently', 'already', 'since' or like that.

I've just remembered we are taught at pretty early study level that the present perfect is used for 1) a completion or 2) a continuity to the present moment or 3) a past experience, or  4) a result. And this 'result' is interesting, and is saying that the state of the result is lasting to the present moment.

The present perfect feels the sense of continuity. Maybe it's because it doesn't have the sense to stop the effect to the present moment. It's 'open'. It's vague. Isn't it because it's tense-less?


----------



## gengo

It should be noted that there is a considerable difference in usage of the present perfect between AmEn and BrEn.  The latter uses it much more often than the former.  That is, we Americans often use the simple past tense where Britons would use the present perfect tense.


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Could you please explain what you meant with "temporal" here?


I mean "having to do with time".


----------



## Phoebe1200

Forero said:


> I mean "having to do with time".


Thanks.


----------

