# Verbs having two tense aspects



## Prower

*INTRODUCTION​*I am trying to find out more about the verbs which can be used in Present Indefinite and Present Progressive *provided they can express in Present Indefinite two actions:* 1) Unlimited action (no time limits) and 2) Limited action (as in Present Progressive)

*To make it more clear let me illustarte it*

*The verb SEND*

1) I am sending a letter to him now. (PP - the action is going on at the time of speaking)
2) I send him a letter every month. (PI - the action happens regulary) 

These two are classical examples. The next one is the one I am interested to know more about.

*3) She sends her appologies. (PI - BUT the action is going on at the time of speaking, though it is not PP)*

I hope you see what I am after.

*The question*​
1) Could you comment on the follwoing verbs. Can they be used as the third example and how do they differ when used in PP

*WARN

I warn you (an on-going current action) VS I am warning you. (What is the difference)

Imply

I imply that (an on-going current action) VS I am implying that .... (What is the difference)*

2) Could you add up more verbs of this kind?


----------



## luxepiggy

I believe "think" would fit your criteria:


I am thinking I had too much wine last night.
I think of new wines to try every day.
I think we need more wine!


----------



## Prower

luxepiggy said:


> I believe "think" would fit your criteria:
> 
> 
> I am thinking I had too much wine last night.
> I think of new wines to try every day.
> I think we need more wine!


It fits, but I am not very much interested in it as I know about it. Any other verbs?

By the way could you explain the difference

*I warn you (an on-going current action) VS I am warning you. (What is the difference)*


----------



## owlman5

Hello, Prower.  First, you _can_ use both "warn" and "imply" as you have used "send" in the third sentence: 
He warns us off.  =  He is warning us off. The woman implies that we're in danger. = The woman is implying that we are in danger. The progressive tense here merely emphasizes the ongoing nature of the act.  It is used very frequently in conversation, probably more than the simple present when we are describing something:

I could say "He waves to us with a white rag".  I usually say "He is waving to us with a white rag".

The main advantage of using the simple present here would be in writing, where it functions in an economical way to relate events in the present, even on-going ones:

She looks around the room.  She notices her friend and walks up to him.  They talk about different things.  He suggests that they go somewhere else.

Although I could have written this with the progressive, it is often unnecessary and obtrusive in written narrative: She is looking around the room.  She notices her friend and is now walking up to him.  They are talking about different things.  etc.

PS  As to your last question about other verbs that can be used in the simple present with more or less the same meaning as the present progressive, I have good news: almost any verb will work:

He kills us a little every day by working us too hard.  =  He is killing us a little every day by working us too hard.
I read German every day.  =  I am reading German every day.
He speaks the truth.  =  He is speaking the truth.

In comments like "She sends her regards", we usually use the simple present because she is not actively sending her regards at the time we make the comment.  Here, the simple present carries the meaning "She told me to greet you whenever I see you".  The present progressive wouldn't be good here: She is sending her regards???  That can only mean that she is telling me to send her regards as I speak to you.  That sort of statement would only be possible if you and I were on the telephone and she was with me at my end of the line.


----------



## Prower

owlman5 said:


> I could say "He waves to us with a white rag".  I usually say "He is waving to us with a white rag".


This example is very interesting as *"to wave"* expresses physical action which (I thought) should stricktly follow the classical rule i.e. if it is happening now then PRESENT PROGGRESSIVE is prescribed.



owlman5 said:


> The main advantage of using the simple present here would be in writing, where it functions in an economical way to relate events in the present, even on-going ones:
> 
> She looks around the room.  She notices her friend and walks up to him.  They talk about different things.  He suggests that they go somewhere else.




To tell you the truth, I don't think that this example is from the same catergory. I would even say this example is completely from the different catergory. As far as I understand you are reciting (or recite)  a writen piece from, let's say, a book. But it makes everything different (in the world). 

Would you say it in real life? I mean, if you were looking at someone and telling others what someone is doing. Whould you say - She looks around instead of She is looking around. 

Thank you for your great answer though, i hope you are not offended by my contention over one detail.


----------



## owlman5

Prower said:


> This example is very interesting as *"to wave"* expresses physical action which (I thought) should stricktly follow the classical rule i.e. if it is happening now then PRESENT PROGGRESSIVE is prescribed.
> 
> 
> 
> To tell you the truth, I don't think that this example is from the same catergory. I would even say this example is completely from the different catergory. As far as I understand you are reciting (or recite)  a writen piece from, let's say, a book. But it makes everything different (in the world).
> 
> Would you say it in real life? I mean, if you were looking at someone and telling others what someone is doing. Whould you say - She looks around instead of She is looking around.
> 
> Thank you for your great answer though, i hope you are not offended by my contention over one detail.


I'm not at all offended, Prower.   I wouldn't be a good forum member if I were that thin-skinned.  

As I told you, I would ordinarily report ongoing action with the progressive.  However, if I had a lot of information to report, I would switch to the simple present.  My listeners would understand me.  Once again, it's a matter of *emphasis*.  The progressive does this very well.   The simple present can also convey ongoing information: he runs up the steps = he is running up the steps.

Although you think using the simple present in literature has nothing to do with your question, I think it answers that question very well.  Writers avoid the lengthiness of the progressive in narrative unless they really need that tense.  Good storytellers do too, even though they are reciting their stories to others.


----------



## Prower

owlman5 said:


> I'm not at all offended, Prower.   I wouldn't be a good forum member if I were that thin-skinned.
> 
> As I told you, I would ordinarily report ongoing action with the progressive.  However, if I had a lot of information to report, I would switch to the simple present.  My listeners would understand me.  Once again, it's a matter of *emphasis*.  The progressive does this very well.
> 
> Although you think using the simple present in literature has nothing to do with your question, I think it answers that question very well.  Writers avoid the lengthiness of the progressive in narrative unless they really need that tense.  Good storytellers do too, even when they are reciting their stories to others.



I must say that the reason why I am saying what I have said is because this topic has been discussed on a different forum and all native speakers were saying that they wouldn't substitute Present Proggressive with Present Simple most of the time.

For example

Why do you laugh? - Can it be used when a person is virtually laughing just in my present right now?

Or should it be ONLY - Why are you laughing?


----------



## owlman5

"Why do you laugh?" is an ordinary question.  "Why are you laughing?" is used more often with the meaning "Why do you laugh *right now*?".  I would certainly answer "Why do you laugh?" without any hesitation. The difference between the progressive and the simple present is really one of aspect, not meaning. 

The simple present has general and wider meanings than the progressive does, however.  She sends her regards.  He likes pancakes for breakfast.  Of course, the progressive isn't used to express these "general" and timeless statements.


----------



## Prower

Let me check if I understand you right.

If someone started to laugh at you presence you would ask him

Why do you laugh? (meaning right now)

(and you *would NOT* ask him - Why are you laughing?)

THE ACTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!


----------



## owlman5

Sometimes I *do* use a simple present with "do" to express an ongoing event.  Apparently, you find this shocking.  I don't think many native speakers would be shocked.

Why do you mock him like that?  This *can* mean "Why do you mock him all the time?"  It can also mean "Why are you mocking him like that today?"

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll remind you: the simple present is sometimes used to express on-going events.  This is particularly true in lengthy narrative.  As much as some people may wish to disallow this use, it exists and is used by native speakers.

You are going to find in your study of grammar that almost anything that serves as a "rule" has exceptions.

By the way, there is no need to "shout" at anybody in this forum by capitalizing all your letters.  Please avoid doing so in the future.  Your fellow forum members will appreciate the courtesy.


----------



## Prower

Believe it or not on the different forum about 10 people said it is not right to do so. But I didn't believe them )))))))) 

Why because, Wells uses the same thing in his "The invisible man". But they all said this usage was outdated.

Now I know it is not obsolete.


----------



## Prower

owlman5 said:


> By the way, there is no need to "shout" at anybody in this forum by capitalizing all your letters.


I was shocked, sorry. As you said...



owlman5 said:


> Apparently, you find this shocking.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm afraid I think _Why do you laugh?_ in such circumstances would be rather an old-fashioned way of speaking, or at least a self-consciously literary one.


----------



## Prower

Some native speakers from the USA say that 

*Why do you laugh?* can be used without loss in the meaning instead of *Why are you laughing?

*I really want to find out how wide it is accepted and what the reasons are for this switch.

I was given this example

=====================

"His top priority is to beat me," Obama said incredulously, to laughs. "That's how you know things aren't on the level. This is how you end up with a Republican Congress voting against things they used to support." 

The Republicans were a laugh line throughout the night, especially the presidential field that was, at the same time, holding its 17th debate in North Charleston, South Carolina.

"*Why do you laugh?" the president deadpanned at one point, to more laughs. "They're running for president ..."
=================

**In another thread there was this statement by **wandle**

*


wandle said:


> 'Duck out'
> Continuous
> The present continuous is not a different tense from the present simple, it is just an aspect of the present tense, used for emphasis. Hence, the meaning of the continuous form is _already included_ in the meaning of the simple form. The simple form includes other aspects as well as the continuous, but it includes all the continuous. Thus it is always possible to replace the continuous form by the simple form without any loss of meaning, but not _vice versa_.


*

*I think that it is not enough to proclaim something even if it's true. (I don't think that the native know English bad) But the point is to explain and analyse the whys not just to say that it is idiomatic whithout backing it up with a logical explanation.
*
If we believe this statement is correct (*Thus it is always possible to replace the continuous form by the simple form without any loss of meaning, but not _vice versa_.) *then we have 
**
- What are you doing?
- I am watching TV.

equals

- What do you do?
- I watch TV.

So, then we have a question why is there a need to use present continouos at all, if it can ALWAYS be substituted by present simple?

=============================

a) If I assume that "Why do you laugh?" used instead of "Why are you laughing?" is ok, then could you explain what the point **is **in using Present Simple when Present Continouos does its job by itself.

b) Another thing, what is the scale of this phenomena? How many examples can you provide where present simple would be used instead of present continouos without doing any harm and changing the meaning?

*


----------



## JamesM

I think you are trying to make this a black-and-white distinctiion.  Unfortunately, language its much messier than that.  Sometimes the two tenses are interchangeable. Sometimes they are not.  If language were controlled by logicians this would not be tolerated. 

I'm afraid your request for a list of words where the present continuous and present simple can overlap in meaning is beyond the scope of this forum.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> I think you are trying to make this a black-and-white distinctiion. Unfortunately, language its much messier than that.  Sometimes the two tenses are interchangeable. Sometimes they are not.  If language were controlled by logicians this would not be tolerated.



It sounds like you are rushing into extremes here. If such an attitude was the norm then nobody would have ever learnt a foreign langauge. I disagree with you here.



JamesM said:


> I'm afraid your request for a list of words where the present continuous and present simple can overlap in meaning is beyond the scope of this forum.



What is the list of words which you are referring to? I never asked for a list of words. A few examples would be ok, however, if you can't find any then it means this phenomena is not so much spread out. Sometimes we run into anomalous usages and if this is the case we need to spot it. I don't see much enthusiasm in your post and don't find it helpful at all.

PS: I have checked the rules and didn't find any prohibition of posting lists. So if a person, let's imagine, have such a list, why would you want to deprive us of the pleasure of sharing one?


----------



## Cagey

Prower said:


> [....]
> PS: I have checked the rules and didn't find any prohibition of posting lists. So if a person, let's imagine, have such a list, why would you want to deprive us of the pleasure of sharing one?


Read this from the English Only guidelines: Lists and research topics


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> It sounds like you are rushing into extremes here.



No, I am just saying that it is a case where sometimes it is possible to exchange them and sometimes it isn't.  I disagree with wandle that there is a hard-and-fast rule that present simple can always replace present continuous without a loss in meaning.  Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don't. 




> What is the list of words which you are referring to? I never asked for a list of words. A few examples would be ok, however, if you can't find any then it means this phenomena is not so much spread out. Sometimes we run into anomalous usages and if this is the case we need to spot it. I don't see much enthusiasm in your post and don't find it helpful at all.



You wrote: "How many examples can you provide where present simple would be used instead of present continouos without doing any harm and changing the meaning?"



> PS: I have checked the rules and didn't find any prohibition of posting lists. So if a person, let's imagine, have such a list, why would you want to deprive us of the pleasure of sharing one?



Each forum may have additional rules besides the general rules for WordReference.  In the Quick Guide to English Only (found here)  there is this prohibition:


> DO NOT request a list. For lists of synonyms or equivalents consult the WR Thesaurus. DO NOT ask a research question.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> No, I am just saying that it is a case where sometimes it is possible to exchange them and sometimes it isn't.  Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don't.


Well. I wouldn't argue on that. But why does it have to stop one from analyzing them? I see you don't want to analyze, but I don't want to discuss how it is *impossible *to analyze. 




JamesM said:


> You wrote: "How many examples can you provide where present simple would be used instead of present continouos without doing any harm and changing the meaning?"


That right! Where do you see me asking for a list? You can roughly estimate it in your mind and give a figure. This is what I also wrote - *what is the scale of this phenomena?  The figure would give me an idea about the scale. **But your idea about a list has nothing to do with me.
*
Well, maybe it's time to discuss the subject instead if beating round the bush?


----------



## Cagey

Prower said:


> Thanks a lot for finding the right passage for me. It is so kind of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  I think that PM hasn't been cancelled so far and a person could send me  it through PM, if they wished. However, it's a petty that from the  whole post I posted you picked out only some list, which I wasn't even  asking about. However, there are a lot of others things which would be  intersting to tackle but this non-existent list.


Like James, I interpret this as a request for a list:





Prower said:


> [....]*
> 
> b) Another thing, what is the scale of this phenomena? How many examples  can you provide where present simple would be used instead of present  continouos without doing any harm and changing the meaning?
> 
> *



Nor do we allow people to use the threads to ask for private communication through PM.


----------



## JamesM

In the case of telling a story to a friend I would most often switch to present simple. 

For example:

"I get up this morning and the first thing I find out is that I have no water.  I call my neighbor and ask if he has any water and he says he does.  I wonder if I've broken a pipe.  (It) turns out that my pipes have frozen.  The water comes back on after an hour or two, once it heats up outside.  I need to wrap those pipes!"

In this case, every verb can be used in present simple.  In fact, it's the nature of that type of narrative.  This is one very common use. 

Another common use is when someone is exasperated or angry:

"You sit there and tell me I can't buy a book because it costs too much, after you just spent $500 on an iPad to surf the internet?"

There are many cases where it is used.  I imagine a book could be written on the subject.  Possibly it already has.  In other words, it's very widespread.

I see that you are looking for those words that fit a more narrow definition.  I'll think about a few examples.   We can't create a comprehensive list for you, but I'm sure there are several examples that can be given.


----------



## Prower

For those who want to discuss the langauge I need to remind that the last productive post of this thread can be found here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1927422&p=11772909#post11772909 
We are discussing the overlaping of Present Simple and Present Continuous.


----------



## Prower

JamesM, thank you for contribution. To tell you the truth I have 19 usages of Present Simple on my list. And those usages which you mentioned are on the list. Well, I thought that the main line wasn't the usages of Present Simple but the cases where Present Simple can substitute Present Continouos. Especially the example with "why do you laugh?" is very intriguing. _This question is the first step to unravelling the mystery of its usage in this context._

*If I assume that "Why do you laugh?" used instead of "Why are you laughing?" is ok, then could you explain what the point is in using Present Simple when Present Continouos does its job by itself. 

*Why would you want to say - *"Why do you laugh?" instead of  ** "Why are you laughing?"*


----------



## Loob

Prower, to be honest, I think you're asking the wrong question.

One essential point to note is that progressive verb forms are a relatively recent development in English; they were rare in Shakespeare's time. 

So, for example, the so-called "stative" verbs - verbs which are usually used in the simple tenses - are really verbs which are still in the process of "catching up" with other verbs in terms of being used in the progressive verb forms.

I think you would find it more productive to ask about the *contexts* in which we would be more likely to use the present simple rather than the present continuous for actions happening now (or being presented as happening now).

Here are some of the contexts which occur to me:

(1) 'lively narrative' - as in James' example of telling a story to a friend; or as in a radio/TV commentary on a sports match

(2) in formal contexts: in a formal letter, I'm more likely to say, for example "I attach a copy of X" or "I look forward to hearing from you", whereas in an email to a friend I would probably say "I'm attaching a copy of X" or "I'm looking forward to hearing from you"

(3) in stage directions: _Prower runs off screaming_

(4) when you want your language to sound Shakespearian or Biblical: _why do you weep?_

There are undoubtedly others.


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> JamesM, thank you for contribution. To tell you the truth I have 19 usages of Present Simple on my list. And those usages which you mentioned are on the list. Well, I thought that the main line wasn't the usages of Present Simple but the cases where Present Simple can substitute Present Continouos. Especially the example with "why do you laugh?" is very intriguing. _This question is the first step to unravelling the mystery of its usage in this context._
> 
> *If I assume that "Why do you laugh?" used instead of "Why are you laughing?" is ok, then could you explain what the point is in using Present Simple when Present Continouos does its job by itself.
> 
> *Why would you want to say - *"Why do you laugh?" instead of  ** "Why are you laughing?"*



I honestly don't see that there is a logical reason behind it; it's a matter of style, preference and usage. 

Some people recoil at McDonald's "I'm loving it!" slogan, but the fact of the matter is that it is fairly common in spoken American English.  I've also heard "I"m not liking this color of paint" or "I'm not feeling any sincerity here".  All of these could also be said with the present simple: "I don't like this color of paint", for example. The two tenses don't really communicate anything different.  There is a slight emphasis on the immediate aspect of the sentiment in the present continous, as if it might change in the future.  Other than that, they would be used interchangeably by some, while others would prefer to use only one or the other.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Let me check if I understand you right.
> 
> If someone started to laugh at you presence you would ask him
> 
> Why do you laugh? (meaning right now)
> 
> (and you *would NOT* ask him - Why are you laughing?)
> 
> THE ACTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!



I would ask them using *whatever verb form seemed suitable to my highly educated and literate  native speaker mind.
*

There is no* rule *that present progressive has to be used for whatever's happening at the time of speaking, as you stated in another post in another thread. There are no *rules *at all in fact - there are only *descriptions *of how verb forms tend to be used. There is also a general consensus about what is correct or not although there are many controversies, sometime quite violent ones. Learners have to be taught English in very simple stages. The focus has to be on the actual form, learning how to manipulate it, and  on practising its use in one limited, clearly described context. If the group is monolingual, there'll be some mention of how this English verb form corresponds with the learners' common language verb usage in a similar context.

I'm using the word 'form' because in my view there are only two tenses  Simple Past and Simple Present. I have no idea how these  very English continuous forms developed through time. Perhaps the participle can usefully be seen as an adjective. But anyway, usage changes over time. I too find it rather quaint, rhetorical or theatrical, to ask Why do you laugh? instead of Why are you laughing?- it sounds Shakespearian to me. It is impressive and Obama's use of it is entirely understandable and unobjectionable. And I _might _say "Why do you laugh? if the totality of the context suggested to the language part of my mind that the present simple was the form that suited my communication needs best. If I used the present simple the native speaker recipient would understand why I was using it. She might reply _Oh come on, I don't always laugh whenever you mention this_. *It is quite impossible to have a meaningful discussion of the use of verb forms without clear and sometimes very detailed context.
*
 I might reply  to I don't always laugh (shock, horror!) Yes you do, you're always laughing about it". Here, I am using the present continuous to talk about habitual action! How terrible. If the person saying that was not a native speaker it could be assumed that the use of the present continuous was an error. But if *I *use it, it is 'correctly' used, believe you me, right or wrong, like it or not, and whatever any language course book says. I might even add whatever any grammar book says.* I *am using the present simple because as *I *experience it/ have experienced it, the other person always laughs whenever this topic is mentioned. It's the speaker's perspective: thiis sometimes known as 'aspect' (I think).

Acceptable usage of verb forms in English has an extremely complicated dimension which is unique, or so I have read. I once read something like this:  it's as if the English language has developed an obsession with describing the relationship of experiences in, and with, time. On the other hand, the language couldn't care less about noun gender and adjectival agreements, or 'case' endings. But these are relatively easy learning- you just have to sit down and learn, learn, learn them repetively until you get it right effortlessly, until it's automatic even under torture.

The only people I have known who have apparently thoroughly mastered at least the spoken use of forms/tenses, as far as I have been able to tell, are bilingual from birth or have had years of intensive all round exposure to English because they have lived and worked in English language countries and often been married to native speakers as well.

I  can't even begin to understand  how  an objection to a  native speaker writing  "Now, I duck ..." can be based on the literal fact that it is impossible to both physically 'duck' and type at the same time. 'Duck' is being used figuratively and it has been explained that anyway, both present continuous and present simple can be used to describe past events, the 'dramatic' or 'historic' presents. If someone says in a meeting, I am "ducking out of this" it doesn't mean they are hiding under the table or have left the room or become invisible or struck dumb.

It must be very frustrating for learners. It's the same as in Life - sometimes there are no satisfactory answers or solutions, no boxes to put things in, no logic. But there's no need to rant and rave about it in capital red! <deletion> I really dislike one of my foreign languages, but it was an intellectual challenge and I wanted to be able to communicate with native speakers and to be able to make sense of my surroundings when I was living in that country. I learnt to speak fluently, by most standards, but I never read a word of the literature, in the original, because there was a lot I didn't like at all about the native speakers on the whole, the culture, and all the rest of it and as a whole, sheer prejudice I suppose, and I was more interested in other things, although at the personal level I made some really good NNS friends there.

<deletion>


Hermione


----------



## PaulQ

Why do you laugh? can be used without loss in the meaning instead of Why are you laughing?

A: “..and then to woman fell over [B starts laughing] and had difficulty getting up [B _is still_ laughing as A continues]… why are you laughing? / Why do you laugh? ”

However, Why are you laughing? can*not* be used without (at least a potential) loss in the meaning instead of Why do you laugh? 
A: “..and then to woman fell over [B starts laughing] and had difficulty getting up [B _stops _laughing *before *A continues]… why are you laughing? /Why do you laugh? ”

Granted this is strict interpretation but, I'm sure given time, I could come up with something even clearer.


----------



## JamesM

It may be that we use present simple more in questions in AE than people do in BE.

All of these sound normal and conversational to me with no Shakespearean overtones:

"Why do you doubt what I'm telling you?"
"Why do you laugh?"
"Why do you think I did it?"
"Why do you look at me that way?"
"How do you feel?"
"How do you feel about having pizza for dinner tonight?"
"What do you think the chances are that it will rain tomorrow?"

In fact, some of these would sound odd to me in present continuous, such as:

"Why are you doubting what I'm telling you?"  
"Why are you thinking I did it?"

And yet, others might prefer the present continuous version to the present simple version.

It's not that I don't want to analyze, Prower.  Sometimes I can be a royal pain in my desire to analyze something.   It's just that this particular aspect of tense doesn't lend itself to analysis, in my opinion.  There is no rule, so you will tend to get different answers from different people.


----------



## ewie

PaulQ said:


> A: “..and then to woman fell over [B starts laughing] and had difficulty getting up [B _is still_ laughing as A continues]… why are you laughing? / Why do you laugh? ”
> 
> [...]
> A: “..and then to woman fell over [B starts laughing] and had difficulty getting up [B _stops _laughing *before *A continues]… why are you laughing? /Why do you laugh? ”
> 
> Granted this is strict interpretation but, I'm sure given time, I could come up with something even clearer.


I'm sorry to say it, Mr Q, but I find those examples utterly incomprehensible


----------



## wandle

It is a mistake to look for cases where the continuous form could be used, but the simple could not.
The present continuous is not a different tense from the present simple, it is just an aspect of the present tense, used for emphasis. Hence, the meaning of the continuous form is *already included* in the meaning of the simple form. The simple form includes other aspects as well as the continuous, but it includes all the continuous. Thus it is always possible to replace the continuous form by the simple form without any loss of meaning, but not vice versa.


----------



## Pertinax

JamesM said:


> It may be that we use present simple more in questions in AE than people do in BE.
> 
> All of these sound normal and conversational to me with no Shakespearean overtones:
> 
> "Why do you doubt what I'm telling you?"
> "Why do you laugh?"
> "Why do you think I did it?"
> "Why do you look at me that way?"
> "How do you feel?"
> "How do you feel about having pizza for dinner tonight?"
> "What do you think the chances are that it will rain tomorrow?"
> 
> In fact, some of these would sound odd to me in present continuous, such as:
> 
> "Why are you doubting what I'm telling you?"
> "Why are you thinking I did it?"
> 
> And yet, others might prefer the present continuous version to the present simple version.
> 
> It's not that I don't want to analyze, Prower.  Sometimes I can be a royal pain in my desire to analyze something.   It's just that this particular aspect of tense doesn't lend itself to analysis, in my opinion.  There is no rule, so you will tend to get different answers from different people.



I would readily use all JamesM's expressions, along with the present continuous variants that sound odd to him.
I think that the choice of each expression is governed by rules, but they are not easy to unravel and they differ somewhat from person to person.

If someone laughs in the course of a conversation with me, the reason is usually obvious.  If it is not, then I might well ask either:
_Why are you laughing?
Why laugh?
Why do you laugh?
_
The meaning of each expression might be something like this:

_Why are you laughing?_  This is a friendly enquiry.  You obviously find something quite funny and I want to share in the joke.  I am probably smiling myself as I ask.

_Why laugh?_  This is not something to laugh at.  This is not a laughing matter.  I am not smiling.  I have a serious expression.

_Why do you laugh?_  This is somewhere in-between.  I suspect that your laughter is inappropriate, or that you are laughing at me.  It might be used as
a gentle reprimand.  I probably wear a slightly puzzled expression, and am only half-smiling.

Examples:

_X: I'm thinking of playing tennis next weekend.  <laughter>__
me: Why are you laughing?
__X: I was just remembering what happened last time, when a chap somehow got his beard caught in the net.__

X: I've got to learn a language in four weeks to land that job in the embassy. <laughs> No chance!__
me: Why laugh?  It is achievable.

__me: I'm thinking of participating in the marathon next Sunday.__
X: <laughter>__
me: Why do you laugh?  I've been practising for several months now.

__X: My doctor ordered me to stop smoking.  <Laughs>  I told him I'd see him in hell first.__
me: Why do you laugh?  That's exactly what might happen._


----------



## PaulQ

ewie said:


> I'm sorry to say it, Mr Q, but I find those examples utterly incomprehensible


And they were so clear to me. Pertinax explains one.

I think it is a matter of when the laughter starts and stops

If the laughter is continuing as he asks, then the continuous "What are you laughing?" or "Why do you laugh?" would be OK.

If the laughter stops before he asks the question, then I feel that, "Why do you laugh?" is the only clear option as people are no longer laughing.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> Thus it is always possible to replace the continuous form by the simple form without any loss of meaning, but not vice versa.


Is this true?

Example: "You have to go see your father. *He's dying*."

This can't be replaced by "He dies." That means something completely different (I'm going to kill him vs. He's mortally sick/wounded).

Another example: "Well, I've gotten offers from Harvard and Yale, but *I'm still considering *my options."

Can't be replaced by "I still consider my options" (to be what?).

I don't see why, wandle, you would want to claim that aspect has no bearing on the meaning or use of a word. The perfective is a verb aspect as well, but we clearly differentiate between the present simple and the present perfect... There are two sets of aspects, right? Perfect/no perfect aspect and continuous/non-continuous. We have these in all verb tenses. So there are four different verb aspects in all three main tenses (perfect-continuous, perfect-non-continuous, continuous, and non-continuous/simple). The "simple" of "present simple" is itself an aspect and is distinct from the "continuous" of the "present continuous."


----------



## JulianStuart

Prower said:


> *If I assume that "Why do you laugh?" used instead of "Why are you laughing?" is ok, then could you explain what the point is in using Present Simple when Present Continouos does its job by itself.
> 
> *Why would you want to say - *"Why do you laugh?" instead of  ** "Why are you laughing?"*



Sometimes it's OK to make that "assumption" , sometimes not.

The laugh examples are both forms I might well use if someone is laughing in my presence. (For that matter, if someone laughs in my presence  )  I might use one version over another - the former has a greater likelihood of being used if, for example, I have just explained something and the person laughs, to ask "What *is* it about what I just said that *makes* you laugh?"  Perhaps it's a short form of "Why do you laugh at that?"  They both feel native, comfortable and idiomatic.  Am I following some sort of "rule"? I dunno, "overtly following rules" is not how I speak most of the time - it just comes out.  

I find there are quite a few rules made by non-native speakers that are _partly_ true but presented in a manner that is _way too definitive_.  To get the initial concept across to English learners, I understand the need for simplification and not complicating things with "nuances" and exceptions etc, so the origin of the these "rules" is understandable.  However, at some stage, the learner should be told of the complexities associated with what they were originally taught, so they can improve their language towards native"ness" and idiomaticity eek. In this thread, even though we are clearly not learners,  it seems as though you are trying to "defend" one such rule, and are resisting being told by native speakers that the rule is not as definitive as you thought/want/expect.  It seems to me that it is the "analysers of the language" and "rule makers" that need to unravel what it is about what the native speakers are using and refine the teaching tool, rather than trying to persuade the native speakers they are somehow breaking a rule.  Just my ¥2


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I don't see why, wandle, you would want to claim that aspect has no bearing on the meaning or use of a word.


Thanks for the response.  Perhaps I have been too categorical and overstated the case. I want to maintain that there is at least the theoretical possibility of substituting simple for continuous in all instances. Why? For two motives: (1) a theoretical analysis of verb distinctions as restrictions of the meaning of the infinitive, taking the present simple as the least restricted and treating other aspects of the present as restrictions of the simple; and (2) as a practical help for those who have completed basic instruction and are trying to master the continuous form in their own practice. (This consists of the advice to begin with the present simple and not use the continuous form in any given situation until they know why it is right for that case. This lets the learner advance always on solid ground, and learn the varied uses of the continuous step by step. It rescues the individual from the fog of vagueness which for many surrounds this usage.)
The theoretical point rests partly on the idea that the continuous is a relatively late evolution out of the original English present simple and hence is derivative from it.
Coming to your examples, I would maintain that the theoretical equivalence still exists, though native speakers would obviously not use the simple form in these cases.


> "You have to go see your father. He's dying."


Suppose this situation arises when you are on holiday abroad and a local (not a native English speaker) brings you this message, but uses the present simple because he knows no other. Would you not understand him?


> "Well, I've gotten offers from Harvard and Yale, but I'm still considering my options."


 Here again, a native speaker would not say 'I still consider', but a German student might say exactly that. Surely that is comprehensible, though not perfect English.
In these cases, I want to say that the continuous meaning is still present in the simple form, though not given the specific focus which the continuous form brings.
The idea is not to recommend such a substitution as an end in itself, but to make a theoretical point which has the practical benefit of giving foreign learners a stepping-stone by which they can advance in their own practice (as distinct from learning in the classroom).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The trouble is, Wandle, that you are looking for what is understandable, whereas others are looking for what what is normal and idiomatic.

It's an argument we have occasionally on the forum.

If we were mainly concerned here with what is comprehensible, most of our discussions would be otiose.


----------



## KeepinOn

Prower, form what I understand from reading this thread, your original interpretation of the meaning and usage of simple present and present progressive were correct. In what you asked about in #9, it would be most common to say "Why are you laughing?" 

Owlman raised some interesting examples, such as, "Why do you laugh?", and "Why do you mock me?". Also, Prower found a fantastic of example of the president saying "Why do you laugh?" These examples are possible, but fairly rare and restricted. The general meaning of simple present tense is that it describes a habitual action, but the ones Owlman raised are examples of of non-habitual present tense. Another common example of non-habitual simple present tense: "Why do you say that?" (after someone says something that you wonder about), "Why do you object?" (after someone objects to an idea you raised)

I think this is a fascinating topic worthy of discussion. I'd like to learn more about the use of non-habitual present simple present tense. I found a blog that deals with this a little bit, here's the URL: http://eflfunc.wordpress.com/page/2/
The blogger is using systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to explore English teaching. One of the ways SFL categorizes words is "behavioral processes". It may be that non-habitual present simple tense is restricted to behavioral process verbs in certain situations, for example, immediately after something happens. For example, the president said "Why do you laugh?" immediate after hearing the laughter. If it had been any later, he likely would have used past tense. He could have used present progressive as well. 

The point is, as Prower indicated, when something is happening right now in front of you and it's a non-stative verb, the present progressive could always be used. In some restricted instances it's possible that the simple present could be used with a non-habitual meaning. 

Prower, about your original question, this may be what is going on in the "send" example. However, I'm not seeing that "warn" and "imply" fit.


----------



## Pertinax

The ngram comparing "Why do you laugh?" with "Why are you laughing?" is here: http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3

It shows the continuous form barely used before 1840, then taking off around 1900, and passing the plain present in 1940-1960.  Today the continuous form is only about three times more common, which perhaps points to the persisting utility of the plain present.  There isn't a large difference between AmE and BrE.


----------



## Prower

Pertinax said:


> The meaning of each expression might be something like this:
> _Why are you laughing?_  This is a friendly enquiry.  You obviously find something quite funny and I want to share in the joke.  I am probably smiling myself as I ask.
> _Why laugh?_  This is not something to laugh at.  This is not a laughing matter.  I am not smiling.  I have a serious expression.
> _Why do you laugh?_  This is somewhere in-between.  I suspect that your laughter is inappropriate, or that you are laughing at me.  It might be used as
> a gentle reprimand.  I probably wear a slightly puzzled expression, and am only half-smiling.


These are very useful notes, indeed. Thanks.

<Deletion>



JulianStuart said:


> I might use one version over another - the former has a greater likelihood of being used if, for example, I have just explained something and the person laughs, to ask "What *is* it about what I just said that *makes* you laugh?" Perhaps it's a short form of "Why do you laugh at that?" They both feel native, comfortable and idiomatic. Am I following some sort of "rule"? I dunno, "overtly following rules" is not how I speak most of the time - it just comes out.


This is a very interesting observation. So, it is ok to say

- Why do you cook now? ("What *is* it about what just happened that *makes* you cook ?")


JulianStuart said:


> However, at some stage, the learner should be told of the complexities associated with what they were originally taught, so they can improve their language towards native"ness" and idiomaticity eek.


Couldn't agree more!


----------



## wolfbm1

You mustn't be so cross. Why don't you, "guys", cool down and shake your hands again.  ... And focus on the discussion.
OR
Why aren't you shaking your hands.  
I think a lot of interesting things has been explained so far.

MOD NOTE: Some of the 'heated' material has been removed.


----------



## Prower

JulianStuart said:


> I have just explained something and the person laughs, to ask "What *is* it about what I just said that *makes* you laugh?"  Perhaps it's a short form of "Why do you laugh at that?"  They both feel native, comfortable and idiomatic.  Am I following some sort of "rule"? I dunno, "overtly following rules" is not how I speak most of the time - it just comes out.



I found this approach worthy of attention. How braod can it be applied or how correct can this method be?

Would it work in these contexts?

1) 

- What are you doing now?
- I am cooking.
- What? Why do you cook now? I have just told you to be packing up! 
("What *is it about what just happened that makes you cook ?")
*
2) - How do you do!
- I am sorry. I've got to run after this man.
- Why do you run?
("What *is it about what just happened that makes you run?")
*
I am not sure how felicitous the examples are, but you can see my point.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

In these cases, I'd be far more likely to say _Why cook now?_ or _Why run?_


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> The trouble is, Wandle, that you are looking for what is understandable, whereas others are looking for what what is normal and idiomatic.


No:  it is about offering the learner a way to advance from the easily understandable to the idiomatic without getting lost. As stated in the post you are referring to, 





wandle said:


> The idea is not to recommend such a substitution as an end in itself, but to make a theoretical point which has the practical benefit of giving foreign learners a stepping-stone by which they can advance in their own practice (as distinct from learning in the classroom).


It is to help the learner progress in his own practice from the easily understandable simple form to the very varied and initially incomprehensible idiomatic uses of the continuous form, step by step. It is impossible to learn all the uses of the continuous at one go.

If the non-native speaker understands that the simple form is not strictly wrong (because it includes the sense of the continuous) he can use it in his own speech until he learns from experience when the continuous should be used. In this way he learns rather as the native speaker does, going always on the basis of what he already understands.
It presents the learner with an algorithm he can apply in all cases, learning as he goes.


----------



## xiaolijie

I don't often post in this forum but as I'm here, I'd like to add a word, with the hope that it may be helpful 
The problem to me seems to be the title of the thread: _"Verbs having two tense aspects"_.

This title seems to tell us to go looking for words that can be used both in _the simple present _and_ present continuous_ forms. There are an infinite number of verbs of this kind, but even if we could put them all on a list, this would still tell us nothing about when the simple present can and cannot be used instead of the present continuous. So perhaps the question the PO should be asking is _under what circumstances the simple present can be used in stead of the present continuous form_? 

Am I right? As I didn't have time to digest the whole of this long thread, I'm sorry if I misunderstand the nature of the problem.


----------



## Prower

xiaolijie said:


> So perhaps the question the PO should be asking is _under what circumstances the simple present can be used in stead of the present continuous form_?


I agree, but your title is a way too long plus after having read a few posts of this thread it becomes clear what the issue is, I guess. But I don't mind if the thread is given another title.


----------



## wandle

_'Under what circumstances can the simple present be used instead of the present continuous form?'_
This still seems to me too big a question to be useful to learners, since as explained in earlier posts, the simple present can, theoretically at least, replace the continuous in all cases.
Hence the advice given above, for those already fluent enough to communicate on their own, to learn the use of the continuous case by case in practice, and use the simple form the rest of the time.
In other words: don't use the continuous in any given case until you understand why.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not clear what it means to say _the simple present can, theoretically at least, replace the continuous in all cases_, or even that it means anything, given the presence of the word _theoretically_ in the middle of the sentence.  I'm not sure either that one can _explain_ something which is not the case.


----------



## wandle

> the simple present can, theoretically at least, replace the continuous in all cases


This is a summary statement of my earlier posts.


----------



## xiaolijie

> to learn the use of the continuous case by case in practice, and use the simple form the rest of the time


I understand this, but when I put myself in the shoes of a learner, I get back to square one: _My English teachers tell me to use the present continuous when the action/ activity is going on. And in this case, the action *is happening* __in front of my eyes__ and yet, this English native speaker uses the simple present to describe it. How come ?!_


----------



## PaulQ

Prower said:


> I agree, but your title is a way too long plus after having read a few posts of this thread it becomes clear what the issue is, I guess. But I don't mind if the thread is given another title.


Is this the sort of thing you mean?

*I am going at 10 o’clock* – spoken now about the future. With emphasis on *am*, shows a determined attitude.
*I go at 10 o’clock*  – spoken now about the future

*I am going to Paris* – spoken now about the future and a complete idea
*I go to Paris* – narrated now about my having gone to Paris in the past as part of a series/list of events in the narration. (ii) spoken now about the future and an incomplete idea; the listener would need to be told more – do you go weekly? Do you go for some purpose? Did you do anything else?

*I am feeling ill* – spoken now about the present
*I feel ill* – spoken now about the present

*I am being good* – spoken now about the present = I am behaving well at the moment.
*I am good *– spoken now about the past and present = All my life, I have been a good person.

*I am jumping the fence* – – spoken now about the present = I am either (i) in the air as I say this or (ii) I am in the process of jumping the fence several times.
*I jump the fence* – narrated now about my having jumped the fence in the past as part of a series/list of events in the narration. (ii) spoken now about the future and an incomplete idea; the listener would need to be told more, see above


----------



## wandle

> the action is happening in front of my eyes and yet, this English native speaker uses the simple present to describe it. How come ?!


It seems to me the question is wrong. Better to ask, 'Why the continuous?'
The simple form is in principle always valid. The continuous form is not a different tense, but a means of emphasizing one aspect of the tense. 
When someone uses the continuous, it is because they wish to emphasize the ongoing aspect of the process or state. 
When they do not use the continuous, it is because they do not wish to emphasize the ongoing aspect of the process or state.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> It seems to me the question is wrong.


I think that's what I said earlier - see post 26 24.


----------



## coolieinblue

Hi, Prower

You said :

Two policemen stood/was standing by the jewlry shop.

stood : You and the lisnter know the reason. (You and/or the listner might be the suspect(s))
was standing : You don't know the reason.

Take my umbrella if it rains/is rainnig tomorrow morning.

rains : you are classifying the weather condition that the listnere should take the umbrella.

is rainning : You are saying the sentence owing to the weather condition you should anticipate.

very sorry to have made an abrupt remark


----------



## Prower

PaulQ said:


> Is this the sort of thing you mean?
> *I am feeling ill* – spoken now about the present
> *I feel ill* – spoken now about the present



*As a response to PaulQ:* I think that *TO FEEL* fits.
=================

I will try to set a certain criterion for the verbs which I would call "turnskins" because they have double nature. 

*==============*
*A "turnskin" - TO LAUGH*

Why are you laughing? – *on-going action (a)*
*Why do you laugh?* - in general (b)/*on-going action (c)(expresses two aspects)
*
*a* equals *c*
*Why are you laughing?* _might mean/be substituted, without a loss in meaning, by_ *Why do you laugh?*

*-----------------------*

*A normal one - TO COOK*

Why are you cooking? - *on-going action **(a)*
*Why do you cook?* - in general(b)/*on-going action **(c) **(doesn't expresses two aspects)
*
*a *equals  *c
Why are you cooking?* _can't mean/be substituted, without a loss in meaning, by _*Why do you cook?

**==============
*
*As a response to PaulQ*: *I think that to go and to jump are not "turnskins"

*Where are you going?* - **on-going action (a)
*Where *do you go?* - in general(b)/*on-going action **(c) **(doesn't expresses two aspects)



This is my raw analysis I am sure there are some flaws but I think there is also some *_core of rationality_* in there.*


----------



## wandle

In case it helps with learning or discussion, this is how I propose to see the ranges of meaning of the simple S and continuous C.  

They are not separate or overlapping, but the continuous is included within the simple.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, I understand your proposition, but I disagree with it.

I go to Paris.  (Without other context I assume this is habitual.)
I'm going to Paris. (This is about a one-time occurrence.)

These mean two different things.  With a little change they can be similar:

Tomorrow I go to Paris.
Tomorrow I'm going to Paris.

So there is more at work here than a general subset of a larger meaning.  I don't agree that present continuous is always contained in present simple.  It can actually mean two different things.

I'm speaking from a conversational point of view, not a theoretical one.


----------



## wolfbm1

JamesM said:


> Yes, I understand your proposition
> 
> I go to Paris.  (Without other context I assume this is habitual.)
> I'm going to Paris. (This is about a one-time occurrence.)
> 
> These mean two different things.  With a little change they can be similar:
> Tomorrow I go to Paris.
> Tomorrow I'm going to Paris.



What about some more context (and let's use "travel"):

1a. Every day at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
1b. Every day at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)

2a. Every day at seven o'clock I brush my teeth. (Routine.)
2b. Every day at seven o'clock I'm brushing my teeth. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)

3a. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
3b. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)

All smaller bs are within larger as.


----------



## wandle

'I go to Paris.'
'I'm going to Paris.' 

It seems to me each of these expressions, depending on context, can refer either to a single or an habitual journey.

'I'm off to France.'
'Oh, where?'
'Calais first, then I go to Paris.'

Two salesmen are comparing their routines.
'I hardly ever get to Paris.'
'I'm going to Paris a lot more these days.'


----------



## Sam W

Hi Prower,

I think your analysis (at post 56) is correct, and a very useful starting point, but as James points out, it doesn't cover the use of present forms to discuss future so needs elaboration. It's an intriguing question.


----------



## Prower

Sam W said:


> but as James points out, it doesn't cover the use of present forms to discuss future so needs elaboration.


Do you mean the post number 58? If yes, then I think James talks to wandle there not to me. If it's another post then I don't know which one you mean. But I am pretty sure that there hasn't been _the meaning of future_ involved initially. I think it's out of this thread. It is about an on-going action being expressed either by Present Simple or Present Continouos.
I hope I didn't miss something.


----------



## PaulQ

1a. Every day at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
1b. Every day at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.) This doesn’t work for me, it sounds as if the sentence needs completing with, e.g. “and this strange woman approaches me.” Or “when the program you mentioned is on, so I never hear it.”

2a. Every day at seven o'clock I brush my teeth. (Routine.)
2b. Every day at seven o'clock I'm brushing my teeth. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.) same as above, it needs finishing.

3a. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
3b. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action) same as above, it needs finishing.


----------



## JamesM

wolfbm1 said:


> What about some more context (and let's use "travel"):
> 
> 1a. Every day at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
> 1b. Every day at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)
> 
> 2a. Every day at seven o'clock I brush my teeth. (Routine.)
> 2b. Every day at seven o'clock I'm brushing my teeth. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)
> 
> 3a. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I travel to Paris. (Routine.)
> 3b. Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock I'm travelling to Paris. (Routine and focus on an ongoing action.)
> 
> All smaller bs are within larger as.



But here you are specifying the routine action outside the verb itself.  "Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock" will indicate a routine no matter what it is paired with.  You have overridden the possible implication of a one-time event by explicitly stating a routine action.  They all work and I have no problem with them, but I think it clouds the issue to force the aspect of routine based on surrounding context.

I'm not saying that the present continuous cannot add focus on the action. I'm just saying that it's not true in all cases, which is what wandle's illustration implies.  Sometimes it is true.  Sometimes it isn't.  As I said, this just isn't black and white.

"I have lunch with the boss at 1:00 p.m." _could_ mean that I do it every day.  It could mean that I have an appointment for today only.
"I'm having lunch with the boss at 1:00 p.m." _probably_ means that it's a one-time occurrence.  If I add the word "now" it _could_ indicate a routine that is a change from a routine in the past, _or_ it could mean that the one-time appointment has been changed from 2:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

I think this simply isn't a neat and clean subset-of-a-set situation, nor do I think it works to think of it as giving two different meanings.  It's much more indistinct than that, in my experience.


----------



## Sam W

Prower said:


> Do you mean the post number 58? If yes, then I think James talks to wandle there not to me. If it's another post then I don't know which one you mean. But I am pretty sure that there hasn't been _the meaning of future_ involved initially. I think it's out of this thread. It is about an on-going action being expressed either by Present Simple or Present Continouos.
> I hope I didn't miss something.



You're quite right Prower, I got confused about the responses. And yes I see what you mean about the use of the present simple or present continuous to describe the future being perhaps best left to another thread.


----------



## wolfbm1

JamesM said:


> But here you are specifying the routine action outside the verb itself.  "Tomorrow and every Monday at eight o'clock" will indicate a routine no matter what it is paired with.  You have overridden the possible implication of a one-time event by explicitly stating a routine action.  They all work and I have no problem with them, but I think it clouds the issue to force the aspect of routine based on surrounding context.



From my Bible classes. Compare:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I *make* all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are *true and faithful*.

 International Standard Version (©2008)
The one sitting on the throne said, "See, I *am making* all things new!" He said, "Write this: 'These words are *trustworthy and true*.'" Source: Revelation 21:5

How come there is a difference in translations. Or maybe there isn't any. Maybe it doesn't matter. Now. Today. Tomorrow. At one o'clock. Every day.
One can do one action at a given point in time and then do another action at another point in time and so on ... 
I don't understand. Whether it is a repeated event or one-time event on the timeline, one still has to make it happen or do it, whether it's a progressive or a simple way.

I like Wandle's model for its simplicity. It is very useful for English learners at lower levels where they are taught that:
1. The present simple is used for things that happen habitually.
2. The present continuous is used for things happening now.


----------



## PaulQ

Versions of Bibles are notoriously disputed between adherents of various Christian sects. There is no definitive Bible as there are no original documents and even if there were, translators would argue. 

The Bible is thus a poor example as either, neither or both could be correct.


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> From my Bible classes. Compare:
> King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
> And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I *make* all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are *true and faithful*.
> 
> International Standard Version (©2008)
> The one sitting on the throne said, "See, I *am making* all things new!" He said, "Write this: 'These words are *trustworthy and true*.'" Source: Revelation 21:5
> 
> _How come there is a difference in translations_.



Maybe in the 400 years between the translations, the verb forms have changed?
From Pertinax's Post # 40 on the ngram usage of the two forms.  The two translations are consistent with this change and the "rise of the present continuous"


> It shows the *continuous form barely used before 1840*, then taking off around 1900, and passing the plain present in 1940-1960.


----------



## wolfbm1

> It shows the *continuous form barely used before 1840, then taking off around 1900, and passing the plain present in 1940-1960.*


Oh, You mean the Bible. That's interesting.


----------



## wolfbm1

PaulQ said:


> Versions of Bibles are notoriously disputed between adherents of various Christian sects. There is no definitive Bible as there are no original documents and even if there were, translators would argue. ...



I agree.


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> Oh, You mean the Bible. That's interesting.



The King James version of the Bible uses English from 400 years ago (hence the name!), apparently long before the present continuous - based on that ngram, at least.


----------



## Pertinax

JulianStuart said:


> The King James version of the Bible uses English from 400 years ago (hence the name!), apparently long before the present continuous - based on that ngram, at least.



According to _The progressive in 19th-century English_ (Erik von Smitterberg), the present continuous became grammaticalized in its modern sense only in the 18th century.   Before that, it was generally used only with present participial adjectives derived from stative verbs, as in today's_ The show is entertaining._

Indeed, according to Nesselhauf 1970, the rise of the present continuous coincided with its use in the "futurate", i.e. to mark future time, as in "_I'm flying tomorrow_".

What might have happened (but which I haven't been able to confirm yet) is that it also coincided with a growth in the use of the plain present in a tenseless sense (possibly in part to help meet the needs of the evolving scientific revolution), and it is that which ultimately drove the whole process. In other words, it wasn't so much that "I laugh" was used less, but that it came to be used routinely in a tenseless (habitual) sense, and the gap was plugged by "I am laughing".


----------



## sunyaer

the best way to learn English as a foreign language is to associate meanings with the context. Too many rules of usage would confuse a non-native speaker, especially in speaking. You don't have the time to analyze the rules as you are talking. 

Present progressive focuses on the ongoing action,which is descriptive, whereas simple present emphasizes on the fact. A lot of times they are interchangeable, it's a matter of style, preference, and the emphasis of the speaker.


----------



## natkretep

JulianStuart said:


> The King James version of the Bible uses English from 400 years ago (hence the name!), apparently long before the present continuous - based on that ngram, at least.



Just a little side note to say that the King James Version or the Authorised Version of 1611 did not use the language contemporary to the time of publication. It took on board certain archaisms (from the point of view of 1611 - say the language of 1550) to lend the translation greater dignity.

I am aware that there are many translations of the Bible. When we think about Biblical language, however, the KJV is a point of reference (_eg_ the 10 Commandments in the form of 'Thou shalt not ...'), so I think the point that Loob made earlier about the simple present as a kind of imitation of Biblical language (way back in post 25) makes sense to me still.


----------



## Pertinax

Prower said:


> Would it work in these contexts?
> 
> 1) - What are you doing now?
> - I am cooking.
> - What? Why do you cook now? I have just told you to be packing up!
> ("What *is it about what just happened that makes you cook ?")
> *
> 2) - How do you do!
> - I am sorry. I've got to run after this man.
> - Why do you run?
> ("What *is it about what just happened that makes you run?")
> *



I don't think that I would use "Why do you" there, but I might in these examples:
_Why do you cook it?  Why do you not eat it raw?  I'm eating mine raw.
Why do you cook oysters?  Why do you not eat them raw?
Why do you run in your suit?  I'm going to get changed, myself._

These examples refer to a specific incident, not to cooking or running in general.  It is possible to instead say:
_Why cook it?  Why not eat it raw?
Why run in your suit?  I'm going to get changed, myself._
... but that is less formal, less respectful, more brusque.  If you are my boss or a world-famous chef then a more polite form of questioning is fitting.

It is arguable that these examples, along with the "Why do you laugh" examples, are a special case of the tenseless (habitual) present.  The tenseless equivalent might be:
_Why do you laugh [at this kind of thing]?
What is it about what was said that makes you laugh?
What is it about that incident that provides grounds for laughter?_
In other words, even though they refer to a specific incident, it is the idea of laughing at this kind of thing _in general_ that I am questioning.


----------



## JulianStuart

natkretep said:


> Just a little side note to say that the King James Version or the Authorised Version of 1611 did not use the language contemporary to the time of publication. It took on board certain archaisms (from the point of view of 1611 - say the language of 1550) to lend the translation greater dignity.
> 
> I am aware that there are many translations of the Bible. When we think about Biblical language, however, the KJV is a point of reference (_eg_ the 10 Commandments in the form of 'Thou shalt not ...'), so I think the point that Loob made earlier about the simple present as a kind of imitation of Biblical language (way back in post 25) makes sense to me still.



Thanks - so my original statement that the wording was from 500 years ago (before I recognized my arithmetic error and edited it to 400, since 1611) was actually closer to the truth than I realized?


----------



## Prower

Pertinax said:


> I don't think that I would use "Why do you" there


I am sorry. I don't quite get where you wouldn't? Do you mean the Obama's example or which one?



Pertinax said:


> but I might in these examples:
> _Why do you cook it?  Why do you not eat it raw?  I'm eating mine raw.
> Why do you cook oysters?  Why do you not eat them raw?
> Why do you run in your suit?  I'm going to get changed, myself._


What do the sentences with Present Simple convey? Do they convey an on-going action or a habitual one?

_Why do you cook it? (when? RIGHT NOW or IN GENERAL) 
_Could you specify?



Pertinax said:


> These examples refer to a specific incident, not to cooking or running in general.  It is possible to instead say:
> _Why cook it?  Why not eat it raw?
> Why run in your suit?  I'm going to get changed, myself._
> ... but that is less formal, less respectful, more brusque.  If you are my boss or a world-famous chef then a more polite form of questioning is fitting.


I thought a boss could be less polite in practice. (just a side note)



Pertinax said:


> It is arguable that these examples, along with the "Why do you laugh" examples, are a special case of the tenseless (habitual) present.  The tenseless equivalent might be:
> _Why do you laugh [at this kind of thing]?
> _ In other words, even though they refer to a specific incident, it is the idea of laughing at this kind of thing _in general_ that I am questioning.


Are you saying that you doubt that _Why do you laugh _may convey a habitual action at all? Or what is it then?


----------



## coolieinblue

Prower,

Why are you laughing? : What you are seeing makes you say the phrase.
Why do you laugh? : You yourself have some reason tha makes you say the phrase.


----------



## Pertinax

Hi Prower



Prower said:


> I am sorry. I don't quite get where you wouldn't? Do you mean the Obama's example or which one?
> 
> I am referring to the quoted examples immediately above my sentence, the ones about cooking and running composed by you.  The context is the same, but I have reworded your statements to make the plain present more natural.
> 
> What do the sentences with Present Simple convey? Do they convey an on-going action or a habitual one?
> They refer to a specific event (as it is unfolding), namely the cooking and running that you are engaged in right now.
> 
> _Why do you cook it? (when? RIGHT NOW or IN GENERAL)
> _Could you specify?
> Right now.  The "habitual" interpretation is ruled out by the statement "I'm eating mine raw."
> 
> I thought a boss could be less polite in practice. (just a side note)
> Possibly, but it is my boss who is running.  Perhaps he is running in circles in a small muddy yard, making it possible for me to ask him questions at the same time.
> 
> Are you saying that you doubt that _Why do you laugh _may convey a habitual action at all? Or what is it then?
> I am saying that "Why do you laugh" does not, on the face of things, have a habitual sense, since it refers to a specific event.  I explain that it can, nevertheless, be construed in a habitual sense.


----------



## se16teddy

Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this very long thread, but surely if A laughs and B responds "Why do you laugh?", this is just an example of the special use of the simple present to report past and fictional words and other forms of expression? 
_After visiting South-East London, Dickens writes about the life of poor people. 
Faced with his predicament, Hamlet responds by musing on life and death. 
In "Daffodils" Wordsworth sees an inspiring force in nature. 
You laugh because you are a fool.

_Some may well feel that this use of the present tense is literary and not suitable for conversation.


----------



## wolfbm1

se16teddy said:


> Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this very long thread, but surely if A laughs and B responds "Why do you laugh?", this is just an example of the special use of the simple present to report past and fictional words and other forms of expression?
> _...
> _Some may well feel that this use of the present tense is literary and not suitable for conversation.



"Why do you laugh?" - apparently - this is how President Obama responded to the reaction of his audience. (Post #14)
This reminds me of another type of question which uses the simple present:
What do you do? ~I clean the shark tank in Aqua Terra Zoo in Vienna (for my living). This is never a one-time event.


----------



## Prower

Pertinax,
Thank you for having answered my questions.

_The main goal, as I see it for this thread, is to come up with a, more or less, satisfactory explanation and guidelines for the usage of Present Simple in such cases when it can substitude the Present Continouos provided that the meaning doesn't get changed drastically._

*This is why I need to ask you what diffirence can you find between 1) and 2) 

1) Why do you cook it? Why do you not eat it raw? I'm eating mine raw.

*_*1) Why are you cooking it? Why aren't you eating it raw? I'm eating mine raw.*
_

_More a less, it would explain the nuance involved in here._

I really like your explanation in the post #31 What I want to make sure of, is whether those notes can be used as some guidelines. It seems like one of the nuances which Present Simple produces in such cases is that it brings a certain tension which can come down to reprimand, irritation or astonishment of the person who uses Present Simple this way.


_Why do you cook it? (_astonishment )_ Why do you not eat it raw? (_reprimand)_I'm eating mine raw.
_
==============================================
Here it is a better analysis of this usage

*1)* - *Why do you laugh? I haven't said anything funny. (reprimand, irritation or astonishment)
- Why do you scrub the coin? It's not dirty. (reprimand, irritation or astonishment)
- Why do you play the guitar? I told you not to touch any instruments in this room. (reprimand, irritation or astonishment)*

Probably, another interesting moment which should be noticed is what PaulQ meantioned here #32



PaulQ said:


> I think it is a matter of when the laughter starts and stops
> If the laughter is continuing as he asks, then the continuous "What are you laughing?" or "Why do you laugh?" would be OK.
> If the laughter stops before he asks the question, then I feel that, "Why do you laugh?" is the only clear option as people are no longer laughing.



This is why, probably, the classical situation whould be to have all these actions stopped before Present Simple is used.

*As in*
- Why do you play the guitar? I told you not to touch any instruments in this room. (The person has just stopped playing and is not playing right now.) (However, it would be a *c**lassical usage. *I think that _Why do you cook it?_ doesn't belong to this case.)

*2) Another usages comes down to a "current state" of something.
*
*The demand for firewood **now far outstrips supply. (comes from another thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2212584)*

*Alaska stands to gain much from governor's plan.*

*3) (I don't know how to classify this usage. It is not the 1 or 2. It is not performative)
May be it has something to do with swift mental actions/reactions

* - She sends you her greetings and expresses her concern about that case. (mental action - I want you to know about my desire to greet you)
- There are so many sunglasses here!!! But nothing jumps at me. (mental reaction)


Here it is what I have come to so far. Would be glad to hear your comments addressed to this analysis.


----------



## PaulQ

I note that in WR in general, many questions use awkward examples. Although the examples are valid, they are not clear examples of the problem that needs to be addressed.

Many of the examples are artificial, in that they would require context, and, depending upon context would be normal or abnormal or correct but rare.

A: “You are eating and it is only 3 o’clock!”
B: “I eat at three o’clock” – here, with an emphatic ‘eat’, it means “I always eat at three o’clock.”

However, with a flat tone, glance askance, and a raised eyebrow, it means, “You are making a stupid observation and it is none of your business. I find your intrusion into my affairs rude and unwarranted. I have a reason for this but I’m not telling you. Yes, it is three o’clock and I’m eating; what’s your problem?”

Prower,
I note that you use, as an example the negative interrogative. (Why *do* you verb?”) This probably provides little more than 10% of normal speech.

In examining a phenomenon or researching a rule/guidance, don’t you think that it would be wise to minimise variables by restricting examples to “I verb [object]” and set these in a sense that requires minimal and unambiguous context?


----------



## wolfbm1

Loob said:


> I think you would find it more productive to ask about the *contexts* in which we would be more likely to use the present simple rather than the present continuous for actions happening now (or being presented as happening now).
> 
> Here are some of the contexts which occur to me:
> ...
> 
> (3) in stage directions: _Prower runs off screaming_
> 
> (4) when you want your language to sound Shakespearian or Biblical: _why do you weep?    _There are undoubtedly others.



In Romeo and Juliette, there is an exchange between the servants of the two opposing clans. Although they could use the present continuous, they use the simple present:                                                                                 

_"Enter *SAMPSON* and GREGORY, of the house of Capulet, armed with swords and bucklers  ... and __ *ABRAHAM* and BALTHASAR (__of the house of Montague)_

*ABRAHAM    *Do you *bite* your thumb at us, sir?
*SAMPSON     *I *do bite* my thumb, sir.
*ABRAHAM    *Do you *bite* your thumb at us, sir? ...
*SAMPSON     *No, sir, I *do not bite* my thumb at you, sir, but I *bite* my thumb, sir.
*GREGORY     *Do you *quarrel*, sir?
*ABRAHAM    **Quarrel* sir! no, sir."
...
But I managed to find an example of the past continuous:

*BENVOLIO   *While we *were interchanging* thrusts and blows,Came more and more and fought on part and part, Till the prince came, who parted either part.

*Source: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html
*


----------



## PaulQ

However, the world and the language has moved on since 1605...

_"Enter *SAMPSON* and GREGORY, from the King's Head pub, armed with knives and pool cues ... and *ABRAHAM* and BALTHASAR (from the council estate.)_

*ABRAHAM Have you got your middle finger up at us, mate?
SAMPSON I've just got my middle finger up, mate - nothing wrong with that, is there mate?
ABRAHAM **Have you got your middle finger up at us, mate?**
SAMPSON No, mate, I ain't got it up for you, I've just got it up... mate...
GREGORY Are you looking for trouble, mate?
ABRAHAM Trouble? No mate."

*


----------



## wolfbm1

Well, seeing is believing. Thank you, Paul, for this apt interpretation. I had a good laugh.


----------



## English language learner

This thread is interesting  also for me. Thank you all for your contributions.


----------



## Prower

Pertinax said:


> _Why do you cook it?  Why do you not eat it raw?  I'm eating mine raw.
> _
> 
> These examples refer to a specific incident, not to cooking or running in general.  It is possible to instead say:
> _Why cook it?  Why not eat it raw?
> _ ... but that is less formal, less respectful, more brusque.  If you are my boss or a world-famous chef then a more polite form of questioning is fitting.



Does it only have to do with a tone or manner? As far as I understand you are saying that using Present Simple we make it sound less formal. Are there any other nuances involved?


----------



## ribran

PaulQ said:


> However, the world and the language has moved on since 1605...
> 
> _"Enter *SAMPSON* and GREGORY, from the King's Head pub, armed with knives and pool cues ... and *ABRAHAM* and BALTHASAR (from the council estate.)_
> 
> *ABRAHAM Have you got your middle finger up at us, mate?
> SAMPSON I've just got my middle finger up, mate - nothing wrong with that, is there mate?
> ABRAHAM **Have you got your middle finger up at us, mate?**
> SAMPSON No, mate, I ain't got it up for you, I've just got it up... mate...
> GREGORY Are you looking for trouble, mate?
> ABRAHAM Trouble? No mate."
> 
> *



That sounds like a Lauren Cooper sketch. It's just missing that one crucial element...


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> Pertinax said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Why do you cook it?  Why do you not eat it raw?  I'm eating mine raw.
> _
> 
> These examples refer to a specific incident, not to cooking or running in general.  It is possible to instead say:
> _Why cook it?  Why not eat it raw?
> Why run in your suit?  I'm going to get changed, myself._
> ... but that is less formal, less respectful, more brusque.  If you are  my boss or a world-famous chef then a more polite form of questioning is  fitting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it only have to do with a tone or manner? As far as I understand you are saying that using Present Simple we make it sound less formal. Are there any other nuances involved?
Click to expand...

In Pertinax's "Why cook it?"/"Why run?" examples, it's not the present simple that's being used - it's the bare infinitive. "Why cook it?" is a shortened form of something like "Why do you want to cook it?" or "Why should you want to cook it?"

In other words, "Why cook it?" does not tell you anything about whether "Why do you cook it?" is more/less formal than "Why are you cooking it?"


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> That sounds like a Lauren Cooper sketch. It's just missing that one crucial element...


It's a sketch about Lauren's new English teacher:
*Lauren-* Are you English, sir?
*Mr. Logan- *No, I’m Scottish.
*...
**Lauren-* So you aren’t English then.
*Mr. Logan- *No I’m not but as you can see I do speak English.
*Lauren-* But I can’t understand what you’*re saying*, sir.
*Mr. Logan- *Well clearly you can.
*Lauren-* Sorry, *are* you *talking* Scottish now? ...  (Shakespeare's version would probably be: Sorry, *do* you *talk* Scottish, sir?
Here is the crucial element: 
*Mr. Logan, aka 'Doctor Who': *(*pulls* out sonic screwdriver and *uses* it on Lauren, who *turns* into Rose Tyler action figure) That’s better. (The simple present is used for narration.)
Source: http://tennant-love.livejournal.com/969569.html


----------



## ribran

Haha, no, I meant, "Am I bovvered?"


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> Haha, no, I meant, "Am I bovvered?"


Apparently, the character* is lying *in the grave now. She can't be "bovvered" any more.  Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article562980.ece


----------



## LilianaB

In instructions such as in movie scripts and metalanguage, lines between the dialogue lines which describe what is happening, you always use Simple Present, at least this is what is customary. Stage directions are in Simple Present.


----------



## Cagey

Bemused moderator's note:

No more entertaining dialogs, please. 
And so on. 

Cagey


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> In Pertinax's "Why cook it?"/"Why run?" examples, it's not the present simple that's being used - it's the bare infinitive. "Why cook it?" is a shortened form of something like "Why do you want to cook it?" or "Why should you want to cook it?"
> 
> In other words, "Why cook it?" does not tell you anything about whether "Why do you cook it?" is more/less formal than "Why are you cooking it?"


Hey Loob, sometimes I feel frustrated when you skip something what it is so easy to see. Don't know why you do so.....
This is what Pertinax says *"I don't think that I would use "Why do you" there, but I might in these examples"
*


Pertinax said:


> I don't think that I would use "Why do you" there, but I might in these examples:
> _Why do you cook it? Why do you not eat it raw? I'm eating mine raw.
> Why do you cook oysters? Why do you not eat them raw?
> Why do you run in your suit? I'm going to get changed, myself._


----------



## Prower

LilianaB said:


> In instructions such as in movie scripts and metalanguage, lines between the dialogue lines which describe what is happening, you always use Simple Present, at least this is what is customary. Stage directions are in Simple Present.


We are not discussing here all the usages of the PRESENT SIMPLE but a specific one which you haven't included.


----------



## LilianaB

I was referring to a post which had such use of Simple Present. Post # 89.


----------



## PaulQ

Prower said:


> We are not discussing here all the usages of the PRESENT SIMPLE but a specific one which you haven't included.


Prower,

Some "off the top of my head" thoughts on verb tenses and their aspects:

I think that part of the problem is the structure of Russian verbs. In Russian (and also Bengali) the verbs seem to be *attached to time relative to the event*, whereas in English, the verbs are *attached to subject’s actions*.

I have just been scanning through the artificial language of Lojban and its grammar: http://www.lojban.co.uk/res/doc/Lojban_Reference_Grammar.pdf At page 191 (large download) Lojban is based, amongst other languages, on Russian, and the verbs (as I understand it) are of the Russian form. (Here I am thinking back 30 years when I studied elementary Russian, and had problems with the “complete and incomplete” concepts involved.)

In the .pdf file, this is most noticeable in 





> There are also two points of time that can be usefully associated with an event: the beginning, and the end, ... A process can have two end points, one reflecting the “natural end” (when the process is complete) and the other reflecting the “actual stopping point” (whether complete or not). ... In Example 10.7, the meal has reached its natural end; in Example 10.5, the meal has merely ceased, without necessarily reaching its natural end.
> 
> A process such as eating a meal does not necessarily proceed uninterrupted. If it is interrupted, there are two more relevant point events: the point just before the interruption, ... and the point just after the interruption, ...
> 
> In addition, it is possible for a process to continue beyond its natural end. The span of time between the natural and the actual end points is represented by “za'o”: [edit: “za'o” apears to be a suffix or prefix - it is not important here]


 
English does not lack an expression of the verb with respect to time, as opposed to the normal subject, but this is constructed with a supplementary verb

He started speaking /to speak
He stopped speaking
He continued speaking /to speak
He finished speaking
Etc.


If it is a question of “Why does English use or need the simple present and also the present continuous?” then the answer seems to be that the simple present and the present continuous are only capable of acting to the present but the present continuous *gives the impression* that it is capable of continuous action in both the present and future.

“I go to town on Tuesdays” This covers the past up until the moment it is spoken, i.e. the present.
“I am going to town on Tuesdays.” *Seems to be* a statement of the future, but it is not.
E.g.
A: “In town, I see they are selling petrol with a 50% discount on Tuesdays.”
B: “Wow! “I am going to town on Tuesdays.” = “Each Tuesday, if you are observing me, you *notice* that I am travelling to town.” NB the use of the present tense… see later.

A: “What are your plans for today?”
B: “I go to town, then I go to the gym, then I visit Aunt Betty.” This is not the future tense; it is the present but spoken as if the speaker were already in the future and is commenting upon his own, then present, circumstances.

Compare with:
A: “What are your plans for today?”
B(i): “I am going to town, then I am going to the gym then I am visiting Aunt Betty.” Here “am” expresses, at each stage, a present state of existence; “am” can be substituted by “am in the process of”

B and B(i) can be prefaced helpfully by [I have started the process and presently the process is that …]

That the simple present and present continuous does not operate in a real future is demonstrated by the fact that they have future forms.

The future forms are

C: “I will/shall go to town, then I will/shall go to the gym, then I will/shall visit Aunt Betty.” Will expresses a wish of what the future will be, shall conveys more certainty.

Or

C(i): “I am going to go to town, then I am going to go to the gym then I am going to visit Aunt Betty.” Here “am” expresses a presently expected state of future existence over time; “am” can be substituted (_mutatis mutandis_) by “will be in the process of”

Or

C(ii): “I will/shall be going to town, then I will/shall be going to the gym then I will/shall be visiting Aunt Betty.” Here “will/shall be” expresses an intended state of future existence over time, and likewise, “will be” can be substituted by “will be in the process of”

C, C(i) and C(ii) can be prefaced helpfully by [I have, as yet, not started the process but, when the process is started…] This is the future.

To summarise, by repeating the first paragraph: In Russian, the verbs seem to be *attached to time relative to the event*, whereas in English, the verbs are *attached to subject’s actions*.


----------



## JamesM

> If it is a question of “Why does English use or need the simple present and also the present continuous?” then the answer seems to be that the simple present and the present continuous are only capable of acting to the present but the present continuous gives the impression that it is capable of continuous action in both the present and future.



I can't say I agree with that summation.  Perhaps I don't quite understand it.

"Trash is picked up on Tuesday." "Rent is due on the first of the month." "The trees lose their leaves in autumn."

All of these imply that this is an established pattern that will continue in the future.

Can you use one of these examples to explain the difference you are describing?


----------



## Loob

Prower, sometimes I feel like you keep asking questions just to keep people answering you.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> Prower, sometimes I feel like you keep asking questions just to keep people answering you.


Well, if you think that this question was answered then I don't know how to deal with such an attitude.

*Originally Posted by Pertinax *< --- >
*I don't think that I would use "Why do you" there, but I might in these examples:
Why do you cook it? Why do you not eat it raw? I'm eating mine raw.
Why do you cook oysters? Why do you not eat them raw?
Why do you run in your suit? I'm going to get changed, myself.*


----------



## PaulQ

JamesM said:


> I can't say I agree with that summation.  Perhaps I don't quite understand it.


It is in 2 parts, the Russian versus the English verb and the aspect of the simple and continuous present.



> "Trash is picked up on Tuesday."


This is a statement of what has happened in the past and (probably) at the present. There is nothing to indicate that the future will hold the same thing, nor is the wish expressed that it should. It expresses a present state of affairs.


> "Rent is due on the first of the month."


ditto 


> "The trees lose their leaves in autumn."


This is a self defining statement, as autumn is defined as the time that trees lose their leaves. As such, it is a statement that is true in the speaker's present and has no relationship with time - it is a generality. 



> All of these imply that this is an established pattern that will continue in the future.


Well... you may conclude that to be the case but nothing is immutable, especially trash collection and none of them fall into the category of prediction.

If you place the verb in your first two examples in the future, do you see a different meaning?



> Can you use one of these examples to explain the difference you are describing?


Yes, put the verbs into the future tense.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Loob wrote


> Prower, sometimes I feel like you keep asking questions just to keep people answering you.



You and me both, but I don't 'feel', I 'know'. How else can there be six pages about this!

The post which provoked all this brou - haha used the simple present because the poster subconsciously decided this was the best tense for his purposes, indeed the only option. It's a relatively uncommon use and rarely encountered 'live' on the forum. 
It has been a very interesting discussion all the same.

Best to move on, Prower. There can't be anything more to say about this topic, unless the topic is being changed, which I wouldn 't know about.

Hermione


----------



## JamesM

PaulQ said:


> It is in 2 parts, the Russian versus the English verb and the aspect of the simple and continuous present.
> 
> This is a statement of what has happened in the past and (probably) at the present. There is nothing to indicate that the future will hold the same thing, nor is the wish expressed that it should. It expresses a present state of affairs.



I have to disagree.  "Rent is due on the first of the month" absolutely includes an expectation (at least on the landlord's part) that the future will hold the same thing.  I don't think any landlord would accept the argument that he had made a statement about the past with no indication that the pattern held true in the future as a reason for not paying your rent the next time the first rolled around. 

I do understand that it probably wouldn't hold up well as legal English, which would probably be "Rent is due on the first of each month", but in everyday conversation and writing "Rent is due on the first of the month" refers to a continuous pattern.



> Yes, put the verbs into the future tense.



"Rent will be due on the first of the month" indicates, if anything, that there is a _change_ in an established pattern.  I  I don't agree that these should be placed in the future in order to indicate that the pattern continues in the future.  

My point is that "Rent is due on the first of the month" represents a continuous pattern - past, present, future - and can only be represented in present continuous with some awkward phrasing: "Rent is being due on the first of the month".


----------



## lucas-sp

I could imagine the present continuous being used there, but only in the passive:
_
Rent's being paid on the first of the month_. or
_We're/People are paying our/their rent on the first of the month._

My expectation might be that the pattern is set and will continue, but it might not continue _forever_. For instance, either of these sentences could be followed by "... but the landlord is thinking of changing it to the first business day in the month."


----------



## JamesM

Good point.  I can imagine that, too.  To me, that's an emphasis on how the situation is now, as in "You're being ridiculous".  I don't think someone is always ridiculous when I say that.  It's an emphasis on the person's behavior at the moment.  If anything, it implies that the person is normally not ridiculous and his current behavior is a departure from the pattern.

All this is to say that I think PaulQ's assertion doesn't hold up well under examination, which was:



			
				PaulQ said:
			
		

> ...the answer seems to be that the simple present and the present continuous are only capable of acting to the present but the present continuous gives the impression that it is capable of continuous action in both the present and future.



As I've said before, I think the ways we use simple present and present continuous are very complex and aren't amenable to generalized rules.  Sometimes they overlap in usage, sometimes they don't.  Sometimes present continuous is talking about a continuing state, and sometimes it is emphasizing something happening at the moment that is different from the past or the future.  Sometimes present simple is talking only about the present ("I am tired"), and sometimes it indicates a longstanding pattern ("In the U.S., income taxes are due April 15th.")

It would probably be a great theme for a thesis or dissertation but I don't think we will uncover any rule or small set of rules in a forum thread that will hold true in the majority of cases.


----------



## lucas-sp

"You're being ridiculous" is a great example. It demonstrates two of my big problems with this thread:

1. The present continuous is not just a "inflected form" of the present simple. There are times when the present simple _cannot_ replace the present continuous. It would be so, so much better to call the "present simple" the "present non-continuous." (I just mean, compare "You're being ridiculous" to "You're ridiculous" (or "You're acting ridiculous" compared to "You act ridiculous" and "You do act ridiculous"): it's clear there are multiple differences in tone and connotation between them.) I came up with similar cases way long ago, such as "I'm dying" vs. "I die" and "I'm considering" vs. "I consider". We now have another case, "I'm being [trait]" and "I am [trait]."

2. The usage of the present non-continuous and the present continuous differs from verb to verb. There isn't going to be one rule governing all the connotations of these forms that's universally applicable to all verbs. (For instance, I don't see the particularity of the present non-continuous form of "to die" as being the same as that of the present non-continuous form of "I am": the first one is only punctual, and the other either punctual or universal.) So there should be unique threads for different verbs, and we should discuss a coherent body of examples. Otherwise we're just spinning our wheels here.


----------



## PaulQ

JamesM said:


> All this is to say that I think PaulQ's assertion doesn't hold up well under examination, which was:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..the answer seems to be that the simple present and the present continuous are only capable of acting to the present but the present continuous gives the impression that it is capable of continuous action in both the present and future.
> 
> 
> 
> …  Sometimes present simple is talking only about the present ("I am tired"), and sometimes it indicates a longstanding pattern ("In the U.S., income taxes are due April 15th.")
Click to expand...

The longstanding pattern is a statement of what the past was and the present is. There is nothing about the future in it. You will have seen this: _“Almost all investment literature warns you that past performance is no guarantee of future results.”_

Had your example said, "In the U.S., income taxes will/are going to be due April 15th." then that would be the future.


> … I don't think we will uncover any rule or small set of rules in a forum thread that will hold true in the majority of cases.


So far, there has been no exception.


----------



## JamesM

PaulQ said:


> The longstanding pattern is a statement of what the past was and the present is. There is nothing about the future in it. You will have seen this: _“Almost all investment literature warns you that past performance is no guarantee of future results.”_
> 
> Had your example said, "In the U.S., income taxes will/are going to be due April 15th." then that would be the future.



That would be exclusively the future.  As far as a longstanding pattern be a statement about the past and the present only, we simply disagree.  I think that, practically speaking, the assumption is included that it will continue in the future. 

I guess we just disagree.  I can only say that your rule doesn't work for me in my use of the present simple and the present continuous, and I don't think my use is unusual in any way.


----------



## lucas-sp

"Valentine's day is next week" - is that a present or future sense?

"I'm here, whenever you feel like calling" - is that a present or a future sense? (In this sentence my "being here" seems explicitly future-oriented: I will be available to listen and sympathize, whenever you feel like calling _in the future_​.)


----------



## wandle

Re: posts 103 to 106.
We apparently have a basic difference in understanding of verb forms. It seems to me a necessary consequence that if 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement. The truth of the latter follows as a logical consequence of the former. It is an analytic entailment. Likewise for the emphatic form 'I do run'. 'I am running' and 'I do run' are periphrases for the simple form: they are derived from the simple form and their meaning comes from the simple form. As mentioned previously, the entailment does not apply in the opposite direction.
When we use the continuous or the emphatic form we are not saying something other than the simple, we are merely emphasising a particular aspect of the simple verb. Here is a diagram representing the continuous and emphatic on the spectrum of the simple form. 

The advantage of the term 'simple form' (I run) contrasted with the terms 'continuous form' and 'emphatic form' is that 'simple' (made up of one element) brings out that it is not formed with an auxiliary verb, unlike the periphrastic forms, also known as 'compound forms' (made up of more than one element).
This view is not mere abstract reasoning. It reflects the historical origin of the compound forms, which have developed over centuries from a stage when the language had only the simple form. If the continuous form expressed something not embraced within the simple form, it would follow that the sense of the continuous could not have been expressed by our ancestors. This, however, is surely not the case. Modern German, descended from the same origin as  modern English, does not have the continuous form. It expresses the continuous sense through contextual implication without need for any auxiliary verb or supplementary words. That is what our early English-speaking ancestors too would have done before the continuous form developed. We could do it again today if we chose. 
However, as stated earlier, this is not a campaign to drop the continuous or emphatic form.  It is simply the making of a logical point, which has the practical benefit that it can help foreign learners of the language to advance to the idiomatic use of the continuous (or the emphatic) from the simple in such a way that they always go on the basis of what they already understand.
The semantic embrace, so to speak, of the compound forms within the simple form is precisely what has to be learned by speakers of languages which lack the compound forms when they come to acquire English.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Re: posts 103 to 106.
> We apparently have a basic difference in understanding of verb forms. It seems to me a necessary consequence that if 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement. The truth of the latter follows as a logical consequence of the former. It is an analytic entailment. Likewise for the emphatic form 'I do run'. 'I am running' and 'I do run' are periphrases for the simple form: they are derived from the simple form and their meaning comes from the simple form. As mentioned previously, the entailment does not apply in the opposite direction.



This might work from a logical analysis but I don't think it plays out on a practical level.  The connotations can be quite different.

If you say I'm being mean to my sister it does _not_ logically follow that I am mean to my sister in the practical, everyday sense of the sentence. Saying "I am mean to my sister" means that I am habitually mean to my sister in the same way that "I run" means I habitually run.  However, not all cases of the continuous logically follow to the habitual, especially in the case of "to be".  Just because I am currently being mean to my sister doesn't mean I make a habit of it.  

There's a flaw there, wandle.  There is a difference between the pure logic of a programming language and the very fuzzy (il)logic of the connotations of language.

[edit]  Actually, thinking about it a bit more, to me "I am running" does not necessarily lead to "I run".  I may be running now for a very specific reason but I do not habitually run.  What follows from "I am running" is "I am capable of running" just as what follows "I am being mean to my sister" is "I am capable of being mean to my sister".


----------



## wandle

Well, it seems to me the flaw is on the other foot, so to speak,  since you have defined the simple by excluding the sense of the continuous.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> It seems to me a necessary consequence that if 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement.


But this quite simply isn't true for verbs like "I'm considering." "To be considering" has a meaning ("to mull over something carefully") that "to consider" ("to judge") doesn't possess in the present non-continuous.

It's also wrong in a situation like "You're being ridiculous." That means you're being ridiculous _at the moment_, with the implication that it's out of character for you. So in fact "You're being ridiculous" logically entails "You are _not_ ridiculous" (not "You _are _ridiculous").

This problem comes from your (wrong) conclusion that _just because the progressive developed from the "simple" present, it must have derived all of its functions from the "simple" present_. Unfortunately, the continuous aspect (along with the non-continuous aspect) has had a heck of a lot of time to develop and take on some new functions of its own. On your diagram, this would have to be expressed by the functions of the present continuous _sometimes overlapping with and sometimes differing from_ the functions of the present non-continuous.

I also really chafe at the question of "truth" here, when what non-native learners want to learn isn't how to tell the truth, but to say what they want to say _in an appropriate manner_. The ontological status of their claims isn't of prime interest to them, or to the pedagogical approach to language in general, which is more rhetorical.

Finally:





> It reflects the historical origin of the compound forms, which have developed over centuries from a stage when the language had only the simple form. If the continuous form expressed something not embraced within the simple form,* it would follow that the sense of the continuous could not have been expressed by our ancestors.* This, however, is *surely not the case.*
> 
> However, as stated earlier, this is not a campaign to drop the continuous or emphatic form. It is simply the making of a logical point, which has the practical benefit that it can help foreign learners of the language to advance to the idiomatic use of the continuous (or the emphatic) from the simple *in such a way that they always go on the basis of what they already understand.*


There's a big contradiction here. First you say that knowledge of "continuousness" is not the same as possession of a grammatical criterion of "continuousness." Fine, I agree with that. But then you say that we should treat, say, a German speaker learning English _as if_ she has no idea of "continuousness" so that she always has a prior understanding of the verb's connotation. This would, unfortunately, mean that the German speaker _must not have had_ any idea of "continuousness." (We must progress from things that she entirely understands. If this means that we have to begin with the present non-continuous alone, then she must not understand other aspects that are not the same as the present non-continuous. Therefore she has no knowledge of the present continuous.)

I think there must be a way to teach non-native speakers based on the overlap between their ways of expressing some of the functions of both the non-continuous and continuous aspects - rather than making them learn a rule that's patently wrong (that the present non-continuous can "do" everything that the present continuous can do).

If I call you and you pick up the phone, huffing and puffing, and I ask "What do you do?" you would answer "I'm a stock analyst," not "I'm jogging in the park" (the answer to "What are you doing?"). Similarly, if I ask you "What are you doing?" and you say "I jog in the park," I would think you were a Russian mafioso.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Well, it seems to me the flaw is on the other foot, so to speak,  since you have defined the simple by excluding the sense of the continuous.


You think "I run" = "I am capable of running" and that "I run" _isn't_ equivalent to "I run regularly/habitually" in everyday conversation?


----------



## wandle

No, as said already, if it is true to say 'I am running', it is necessarily true to say 'I run'.  The latter is the more general, less restricted sense of the present tense.


----------



## JamesM

But "I run" doesn't simply mean I have the capacity to run.  It means "I run regularly/habitually", unless it is otherwise modified by context.  Do you think "I am mean" does _not_ mean "I am mean habitually/regularly mean", lacking any modifying context?

If I say "My boss is mean" it points to a character trait or a behavior pattern.  It doesn't mean "My boss is capable of being mean and has been observed on one occasion to have been mean".

"What do you do?"
"I run."
"Interesting!  How often?"
"Only once, but that's all that's necessary to qualify the statement 'I run'."


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> No, as said already, if it is true to say 'I am running', it is necessarily true to say 'I run'.  The latter is the more general, less restricted sense of the present tense.


Even if I were to accept this pattern (and I don't, for good reason), I would also be able to say:

Even if, wandle, it may be "true" to say "I run," would that make it _appropriate_? _idiomatic_? _elegant_? _comprehensible_? _well-said_​? and thus (in many ways) _correct_?

How do you think a non-native speaker wants to speak? Truthfully, or appropriately? Justifiably, or well?


----------



## wandle

The speakers of German or of other languages (at least, say, within the Indo-European family) which do not possess a continuous form are already able to express the sense of the continuous and do so.  When they are studying English and taking on board the continuous and the emphatic forms they have to learn that these forms taken together fall within the range of meaning of the simple form in their own tongue (which has only the simple form).  Thus what they have to learn is the relation expressed diagrammatically here.


----------



## lucas-sp

But there's no reason to give them the (false) impression that English usage of these aspects is represented by that diagram. If they know the nuance that's expressed by the present continuous, why the heck not just teach them the present continuous? 

Also your diagram is wrong for that situation. They would have: One present tense (German) with various nuances within it that are taken up in turn by the various aspects of the English present tense. The English "simple" present would be one region within the field of the German present.


----------



## wolfbm1

JamesM said:


> But "I run" doesn't simply mean I have the capacity to run.  It means "I run regularly/habitually", unless it is otherwise modified by context. ...
> 
> "What do you do?"
> "I run." ...



Another context:

A chef demonstrates making potato pancakes:
I grate the potatoes. 
I strain excess potato water.
I grate one onion.
Now I add two raw eggs, some flour, tarragon, salt and pepper and mix everything. 
I form a cake from the mixture. 
I put it on the preheated pan and let it fry. Uhmm. Delicious.

And another one:
What are you doing?
I'm getting dressed. I pull on my trousers, put on my shirt, button it up, and put on my shoes.
I'm ready to go.

I think the present simple make the activities look compact. If one wanted to stretch the activities in time one could always say (while making tea): 
I'm taking a cup.
I'm putting a tea-bag into the cup.
I'm pouring some hot water into the cup. 
But the simple present would be more apt in the sentences above.

(The last two examples are taken from Gramatyka angielska dla Polaków by Tomasz P. Krzeszowski.)

It looks that the simple present is not only used for habitual actions.
But normally we understand that the sentence "I run" has a habitual meaning. 
And this is exactly why the sentence "Why do you laugh?" makes an English learner wonder: Is it a one time event or a habitual one. Probably a habitual one. But the context of this sentence (amused expressions of faces) also tells the learner that maybe the present continuous "Why are you laughing?" could work too. 
So why did President Obama choose the simple present form? Maybe the compact form "Why do you laugh" focuses on the meaning of the word laugh. And that is all what he wanted to say. 
Am I right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> No, as said already, if it is true to say 'I am running', it is necessarily true to say 'I run'.  The latter is the more general, less restricted sense of the present tense.


I'm with James here.  I don't think it makes much sense to say that _I run _follows necessarily from the statement _I am running_.  After all, under what circumstances does one say _I run_, in the absence of some kind of adverbial framework?

_Are you running now? _ _Yes,  I'm doing my morning training.

__Do you run? _ I'd need some context before answering the question.

Clearly it's not absurd to say _I don't run much but I'm running now_.

It is absurd to say _I can't run_ _but I am running now_.  I wonder if that is what Wandle means.  As James points out, _I run_ does not mean _I can run_.


----------



## wolfbm1

wandle said:


> ...
> When we use the continuous or the emphatic form we are not saying something other than the simple, we are merely emphasising a particular aspect of the simple verb. Here is a diagram representing the continuous and emphatic on the spectrum of the simple form. View attachment 9352
> The advantage of the term 'simple form' (I run) contrasted with the terms 'continuous form' and 'emphatic form' is that 'simple' (made up of one element) brings out that it is not formed with an auxiliary verb, unlike the periphrastic forms, also known as 'compound forms' (made up of more than one element).
> This view is not mere abstract reasoning. It reflects the historical origin of the compound forms, which have developed over centuries from a stage when the language had only the simple form. If the continuous form expressed something not embraced within the simple form, it would follow that the sense of the continuous could not have been expressed by our ancestors. This, however, is surely not the case. Modern German, descended from the same origin as  modern English, does not have the continuous form. It expresses the continuous sense through contextual implication without need for any auxiliary verb or supplementary words. That is what our early English-speaking ancestors too would have done before the continuous form developed. We could do it again today if we chose. ...



I wonder how the above-mentioned ancestors managed to express the continuous. Some words seem to imply a process, e.g. want, love, mean, remember, sound, belong, understand, last ... .

To translate the word "go" into Polish (and I guess Russian) I can choose a word that has a repetitive meaning or a non-repetitive meaning.
For the sentence "I'm going to the cinema at the moment" I choose the non-repetitive variant.
For the sentence "I go to the cinema every Saturday." I choose the repetitive one.

How did the early English ancestors manage to express the continuous state of "go"?


----------



## PaulQ

JamesM said:


> That would be exclusively the future. As far as a longstanding pattern be a statement about the past and the present only, we simply disagree. I think that, practically speaking, the assumption is included that it will continue in the future.
> 
> I guess we just disagree. I can only say that your rule doesn't work for me in my use of the present simple and the present continuous, and I don't think my use is unusual in any way.


You seem to be confusing a statement of the present state of affairs with a prediction or wish of what the future may be, merely by the assumption that if it has happened in the past, then it must happen in the future. There are, of course, degrees of certainty as to the future, but this does not alter the idea that a statement in the present tense concerns only the state of affairs as at present.

A: "When is the next bus."
B(i): "It arrives in five minutes; they run on the hour."
B(ii): "It will arrive in five minutes; they run on the hour."
[20 minutes later and no bus has arrived]

A: "Why did you lie to me?"
B(i): "It was true at the time based upon the past performance - I didn't say it would come, I merely told you what happened in the past. I cannot help it if your extrapolation were wrong."
B(ii): "OK, so I was wrong, something must have happened."

[These are exaggerated responses but logically true.]

Were there any substance to the continuous present including the future, then the future tenses would be redundant.



lucas-sp said:


> "Valentine's day is next week" - is that a present or future sense?


There is a difference betweeen tense and sense, and sense and illusion. 

You can see the difference between your example and "Valentine's day will be next week."

I'm sure you did not mean it to be, but "Valentine's day is next week" is a bad example. "Valentine's day" obviously is not "next week" (next week is seven days, Valentine's is one of them.) Perhaps you mean to say, "Valentine's Day occurs on one of the days in the coming week, as this has been the custom for many years." This is a simple statement of fact - it is in the present. "Two plus two equals four." cannot be said to be "in the future."



PaulQ said:


> If it is a question of “Why does English use or need the simple present and also the present continuous?” then the answer seems to be that the simple present and the present continuous are only capable of acting to the present, but *the present continuous gives the impression that it is capable of continuous action in both the present and future*.
> B: “I go to town, then I go to the gym, then I visit Aunt Betty.” _Edit: to which I would add the habitual sense of the simple present does not specifically include the future although an assumption is made. No assumption is required if the actual future tense is used._
> 
> *This is not the future tense; it is the present but spoken as if the speaker were already in the future and is commenting upon his own, then present, circumstances.
> 
> Compare with:
> A: “What are your plans for today?”
> B(i): “I am going to town, then I am going to the gym then I am visiting Aunt Betty.” Here “am” expresses, at each stage, a present state of existence; “am” can be substituted by “am in the process of”
> 
> B(i) can be prefaced helpfully by [I have started the process and presently the process is that …]
> 
> That the simple present and present continuous does not operate in a real future is demonstrated by the fact that they have future forms.





> "I'm here, whenever you feel like calling" - is that a present or a future sense? (In this sentence my "being here" seems explicitly future-oriented: I will be available to listen and sympathize, whenever you feel like calling in the future​.)


"I'm here" is undeniably a statement of the present state of affairs. Because you then go on to make an open offer does not alter that. Here, you are saying, If we travelled to the future, then, in that current present, the same words would be used - it is my, then present.

If it were the future then "I will be here, whenever you feel like calling" would be exactly equal, and it isn't. - that is a prediction of your future state and a bounded promise.

The present can create an illusion of the future but the strict understanding of the present implies only the present and, on occasion, the past.


----------



## LilianaB

I think in some languages, Slavic being among them, the aspect is inclusive in the verb itself. There is a different verb to express the repetitive aspect of the action, and there is a verb to express a non-repetitive aspect.


----------



## PaulQ

wolfbm1 said:


> I wonder how the above-mentioned ancestors managed to express the continuous.


There is a good examination of *"The Progress of English Verb Tenses and the English Progressive."* by George Lamont at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-lamont.htm

You may be particularly interested in Section 4. *"The Development of the Progressive in Modern English"*, which under the subheading, *"Cross-over between the simple and the progressive"* explains





> One reason is likely that the simple and progressive uses had not finished dividing semantically. In eModE, the simple present still often accounted for what PDE speakers would make progressive, and this is evident even in Shakespeare when Ophelia asks, *“What do you read, my lord?”* (Hamlet II.ii) (Rissanen 221), even when a PDE speaker would ask, *“What are you reading, my lord?”*


----------



## JamesM

PaulQ said:
			
		

> I'm sure you did not mean it to be, but "Valentine's day is next week" is a bad example. "Valentine's day" obviously is not "next week" (next week is seven days, Valentine's is one of them.) Perhaps you mean to say, "Valentine's Day *occurs* on one of the days in the coming week, as this has been the custom for many years."



Please explain, then, why you used the present tense ("occurs") here rather than "will occur".

I can't imagine that things are so very different where you live that people don't say:

"Remember! Tom's birthday party is tomorrow."
"I have a board meeting on Friday."
"I can't go out tonight because I have a final exam tomorrow."

It would be completely unidiomatic where I live to say:

"Remember! Tom's birthday party will be tomorrow."  (Unless it had been scheduled for another day originally)
"I will have a board meeting on Friday." (Unless there had been no board meeting planned until this moment)
"I can't go out tonight because I will have a final exam tomorrow."  (I can't think when this would ever work)

It would also be unidiomatic to say:

"Remember! Tom's birthday party occurs/will occur tomorrow."
"My board meeting occurs/will occur on Friday."
"I can't go out tonight because my final exam occurs/will occur tomorrow."

Are you saying that people around you do _not_ use the simple present to refer to things happening in the future?


----------



## wandle

Thomas Tompion said:


> It is absurd to say _I can't run_ _but I am running now_.  I wonder if that is what Wandle means.  As James points out, _I run_ does not mean _I can run_.


Sorry, but I don't see where this idea about 'run = can run' comes from. 
Not from me, anyway.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't think it makes much sense to say that _I run _follows necessarily from the statement _I am running_.  After all, under what circumstances does one say _I run_, in the absence of some kind of adverbial framework?


At the risk of repeating myself, it's a logical point (though not only a logical one). The compound forms (am running, do run) are derivative from the simple form. The latter is in effect a higher logical category, rather as the infinitive is (relative to all the less general meanings of the verb). 
To put it another way, if I am running, then I am engaged in the action denoted by the verb 'run'. (I hope we can agree on this, anyway.)
This proposition, 'If I am running, then I am engaged in the action denoted by the verb 'run'' is just what is meant by the proposition, 'If 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement'. Similarly with any other verb.


lucas-sp said:


> Even if, wandle, it may be "true" to say "I run," would that make it _appropriate_? _idiomatic_? _elegant_? _comprehensible_? _well-said_​? and thus (in many ways) _correct_?
> How do you think a non-native speaker wants to speak? Truthfully, or appropriately? Justifiably, or well?


The practical application of the above logical point is to help the learner who has left formal instruction and is trying to make sense of the many varied uses of the different present forms. This and other language forums contain requests from learners for rules to follow in this respect. Unfortunately, so varied are these uses that the usual response (as in this thread) is to multiply examples without easily applicable rules, leaving the learner still at sea.


wandle said:


> Hence the advice given above, for those already fluent enough to communicate on their own, to learn the use of the continuous case by case in practice, and use the simple form the rest of the time.
> In other words: don't use the continuous in any given case until you understand why.





wandle said:


> If the non-native speaker understands that the simple form is not strictly wrong (because it includes the sense of the continuous) he can use it in his own speech until he learns from experience when the continuous should be used. In this way he learns rather as the native speaker does, going always on the basis of what he already understands.
> It presents the learner with an algorithm he can apply in all cases, learning as he goes.


----------



## JamesM

Just to note that this idea that the present simple can be used to refer to future events is not a quirk of mine:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/pressimp.htm


> The present simple is often used to refer to future events that are scheduled (and outside of our control).
> 
> 
> Hurry up! The train departs in 10 minutes.
> I leave Frankfurt at 5 o'clock in the morning and arrive in New York at midnight the next day.
> She has a piano lesson after school today.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_tense


> The present simple or simple present is used in several ways:
> 
> 
> to describe both habits and or routines (habitual aspect) (I eat breakfast every morning at 6:30; I go to work every day), and general facts or the truth (The earth revolves around the sun);
> to present thoughts, feelings, and other unchanging states (stative aspect) (I think so; I like it; It is hot; The sun always shines in the desert);
> to indicate scheduled events in the near future (so that the simple “present” verb form actually indicates future tense) (I take the train tomorrow at 6:00);


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:
			
		

> If the non-native speaker understands that the simple form is not strictly wrong (because it includes the sense of the continuous) he can use it in his own speech until he learns from experience when the continuous should be used.



I'm not sure in what sense you are using "wrong", but it would certainly be inappropriate and confusing to answer with the present simple in many situations:

"What are you doing?"
"I eat."

This is a non-sequitur.  "I eat" does not answer the question "What are you doing?"  It answers the question "What do you do?"  Your statement is misleading.  This is very basic ESL.  "I eat" does not include the meaning of "I'm eating" here in normal conversational interaction.


----------



## MikeLynn

Hi, I'd say that this thread is something like: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Tense Aspects (But Were Afraid to Ask) - thank you because you've answered a lot of my questions, some of which I never thought existed 
M&L
P.S. If there are some more posts, I'd love to read them as so far I've learned a lot from this unusually long thread.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

wandle said:


> [...] This proposition, 'If I am running, then I am engaged in the action denoted by the verb 'run'' is just what is meant by the proposition, 'If 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement'. Similarly with any other verb.


But my point was that it doesn't follow that where one can say_ I am running,_ other people can infer that_ I run_ is the case.

And this answer doesn't address the problem I raised above, which was that we just don't often say _I run_ in the absence of adverbial context.  You cannot twist language, particularly perhaps in a language forum, to make what may be a valid logical point; it needs making with idiomatic language.

What Wandle calls "the action denoted by the verb run" is, I suspect, what most of us call "running", and to say that when one says _I am running,_ one means that one is "engaged in the action of running" isn't getting us very far forward; it is not making a point from which anything very obvious follows.  The so-called logic is hitting a language barrier which it needs to transcend, but in transcending this language barrier, it will cease to be making a point about the difference between _I am running _and_ I run, _of course.

This is why I think this argument is invalid.


----------



## wolfbm1

Wandle wrote:


> If 'I am running' is a true statement, then 'I run' is also a true statement. Similarly with any other verb.


The other verb is laugh, so:
If 'I am laughing' is a true statement'  then 'I laugh' is also a true statement.
I have just been listening to a BBC programme In Our Time: Erasmus. At the end there was en excerpt from this coming Sunday's (BBC 4 extra) programme: Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451. In it an inquisitive young student asks the fireman why he sets fires burning houses and books instead of putting them out - he laughs. She responds: "Why *do* you *laugh *when I haven’t been funny. Why don’t you think about what I’ve said." 
The line above is an adaptation of the original text. The line in Bradbury's book reads: "Why are you laughing?" Source (an excerpt): http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides3/fahrenheit_4513.asp

Why did the student comment the fireman's laughter using the present continuous in Bradbury's original text and the simple present in its adaptation?
She could always say: Why should you laugh?, the way G.B. Shaw asked his audience: "(Laughter.) I do not see why you should laugh." Source: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/debate.txt


----------



## PaulQ

JamesM said:


> Please explain, then, why you used the present tense ("occurs") here rather than "will occur".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you did not mean it to be, but "Valentine's day is next week" is a bad example. "Valentine's day" obviously is not "next week" (next week is seven days, Valentine's is one of them.) Perhaps you mean to say, "Valentine's Day *occurs* on one of the days in the coming week, as this has been the custom for many years."
Click to expand...

I’m not quite with your argument here – I am paraphrasing your statement, not making my own. Either way you were relying on past performance to derive a present definition.



> I can't imagine that things are so very different where you live that people don't say:
> 
> "Remember! Tom's birthday party is tomorrow."
> "I have a board meeting on Friday."
> "I can't go out tonight because I have a final exam tomorrow."


You are of course correct; they do say those things. Sticking *tomorrow*, or *Friday *on the end does not make the verb express the future. It is the expression of the future, “*tomorrow*”, or *Friday*, itself that speaks of the future.

A is B cannot be claimed to be an indication that A will be B.

“Tomorrow is our yesterday” does not speak of the past or future. It is a statement in the present. A=B



> It would be completely unidiomatic where I live to say:
> 
> "Remember! Tom's birthday party will be tomorrow." (Unless it had been scheduled for another day originally)
> "I will have a board meeting on Friday." (Unless there had been no board meeting planned until this moment)
> "I can't go out tonight because I will have a final exam tomorrow." (I can't think when this would ever work)


That is an argument from personal authority. Nor does it counter the argument that the present tense can give the illusion of the future by combining it with certain words.

How would you feel about,
1: "Remember! It will be Tom's birthday party tomorrow."? Etc. This speaks of the future; it predicts what the sate of affairs will be after midnight on the day it is spoken.

Do you see a difference between that and
2: "Remember! It is Tom's birthday party tomorrow."? This makes a simple statement that A is B.



> It would also be unidiomatic to say:
> 
> "Remember! Tom's birthday party occurs/will occur tomorrow."
> "My board meeting occurs/will occur on Friday."
> "I can't go out tonight because my final exam occurs/will occur tomorrow."


This is not my point at all and I am regretting rephrasing your example.



> Are you saying that people around you do _not_ use the simple present to refer to things happening in the future?


I can’t quite see why it would matter how people express an idea as a whole. I am looking at the distinction between 1 and 2 above and I am looking at what they express.


----------



## JamesM

PaulQ said:


> How would you feel about,
> 1: "Remember! It will be Tom's birthday party tomorrow."? Etc. This speaks of the future; it predicts what the sate of affairs will be after midnight on the day it is spoken.
> 
> Do you see a difference between that and
> 2: "Remember! It is Tom's birthday party tomorrow."? This makes a simple statement that A is B.



The greatest distinction I see between 1 and 2 is that I would be surprised to hear anyone say 1.  

The question you seem to be avoiding is, do people actually say things like 1, in your experience?  It is unidiomatic, in my opinion, and I would suspect the person who said it was not a native speaker of English.  It is as unidiomatic to me as "Tomorrow will be Thursday" or "I'm going to bed early because I will have an appointment in the morning."  



PaulQ said:


> I can’t quite see why it would matter how people express an idea as a whole.



If you think whether something is idiomatic or not is immaterial we are probably talking at cross purposes and won't make any progress in this discussion.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with you, James, about our touchstone being what is idiomatic.  Several posters in this thread seem to have forgotten that.

_It will be Tom's birthday tomorrow_ doesn't seem to me far from things one finds in the corpus, like _Tomorrow will be a different matter though, trying to get down to Perugia before the hostel shuts.

_I could myself say both a. _It is Tom's birthday tomorrow_ and b. _It will be Tom's birthday tomorrow. _I find both idiomatic, therefore, and the difference is that while a. is much the more usual form, b. often suggests a certain remove: either geographical, if one is on the other side of the world, or psychological, if one had just come out of a coma and is getting one's bearings, for example.  Another circumstance where b. is used is where things tomorrow are being considered very much in contradistinction with things today or things yesterday.  This is the case in the Corpus example, I'd say.  I could say things like _Today has been an easy day but tomorrow will be Tom's birthday and we won't have a moment's peace_.
_



_


----------



## PaulQ

"It will be Tom's birthday tomorrow, so don't forget to buy him a present." seems perfectly natural to me.

After a night's sleep, it occurs to me that 

The present tense has, as it were, "That is what I conclude about the *present *state of affairs*." after it, and the future tense has a "That is what I conclude about the *future *state of affairs*."

So, 
1. "It is Tom's birthday tomorrow (that is what I conclude about the *present *state of affairs) so don't forget to buy him a present. "

2. "It will be Tom's birthday tomorrow, (that is what I conclude about the *future *state of affairs) so don't forget to buy him a 

present."

* the complete version is probably something like: "That is what I conclude about the *present *state of affairs, given logic and my experience."


----------



## JamesM

It is not something I would say, but I can accept that it is natural for the the two of you.   I can see the future state of affairs aspect in "Tomorrow will be a different matter" but it doesn't extend to "Tomorrow will be Tom's birthday" for me.  It's not as if it's Wednesday and Tom's birthday isn't on Thursday today but will be on Thursday tomorrow.  I don't know if this is a difference in varieties of English or a personal quirk, but I can't see using "will be" for something that is true today as well.

Does the same hold true for you for ""I'm going to bed early because I will have an appointment in the morning"?  This is the same issue for me.  I have an appointment now for tomorrow.  To say "because I will have an appointment in the morning" sounds to me like I don't have one now but I will obtain/receive one in the morning.


----------

