# Past or present perfect tense.



## federicnguyen

I have a question about my English homework.

Choose the best word/phrase to complete the sentence:
I…………the door, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out.

A. opened
B. have opened
C. open
D. was opening

I wonder whether A or B is the right answer. Could you help me and explain? Thank you very much.


----------



## natkretep

Welcome to the Forum, Federic. I'd go for B. The present perfect is often used to signal a (resulting) current state of affairs, therefore 'He has come' = 'He is here', 'She has cleaned the floor' = 'The floor is now clean'. Hence 'I have opened the door' = 'The door is open' (so there is nothing to prevent you from going out).


----------



## boozer

I agree with Nat. I would also choose B.

However, A is also possible.


----------



## wolfbm1

I would like to add that 'I opened the door' means 'The door was open'. And as natkretep has already said 'I have opened the door' means that 'The door is open'. That is why B is the best answer.


----------



## Embonpoint

There is a disconnect between what is taught in English class and what is actually said.

I personally would almost always say A, but it is a certainty that your exam graders are looking for B. So make them happy.


----------



## federicnguyen

Thanks all. I understand now. This forum is so great.


----------



## Pertinax

Embonpoint said:


> There is a disconnect between what is taught in English class and what is actually said.
> 
> I personally would almost always say A, but it is a certainty that your exam graders are looking for B. So make them happy.



I don't think that there would be a "disconnect" in BrE, though I can understand that there might be one in AmE.  Still, I suppose that's the direction we're all headed in...


----------



## ribran

I find B to be the most natural barring any unusual circumstances.


----------



## Embonpoint

ribran said:


> I find B to be the most natural barring any unusual circumstances.



Okay, considering an actual situation when you are talking to a friend. Would you really say "I have opened the door for you? Everyone I know would say "I opened the door for you." 

If I was kind enough to remove your dinner from the refrigerator so it warms up, do I say "I took your dinner out of the refrigerator for you" or "I have taken your dinner out of the refrigerator?"

I left you a note. Or "I have left you a note?" 

The examples I gave are parallel. The door is still open. The dinner is still on the counter and the note is still there for you.

Note: I still agree with all that the "proper" answer for the homework is B. I just have spent a lot of time in Texas, where Ribran is from, and I can't imagine all those "have dones" in casual speech. I sure didn't hear them.

I personally would say, at least most of the time, "I opened the door for you (tonight). I have opened the door for you every night for the last year. And I left you a note tonight, but I have left you notes once a week for the past year."


----------



## Crockett

To be honest, I can see myself using either A or B in spoken English.  Although, I understand how B is considered the correct answer.


----------



## ribran

Embonpoint said:


> Okay, considering an actual situation when you are talking to a friend. Would you really say "I have opened the door for you?" Yes.   Everyone I know would say "I opened the door for you."
> 
> If I was kind enough to remove your dinner from the refrigerator so it warms up, do I say "I took your dinner out of the refrigerator for you" or "I have taken your dinner out of the refrigerator?" This is the one I would use.
> 
> I left you a note. Or "I have left you a note?" I don't know. It really would depend on what preceded it...
> 
> The examples I gave are parallel. The door is still open. The dinner is still on the counter and the note is still there for you.


----------



## Embonpoint

Wow. This sounds incredibly formal and textbooky to me. I just can't picture it. Do you at least contract the 'have' as in 'I've opened the door for you,' or 'I've left the door open for you '?


----------



## ribran

Embonpoint said:


> Wow. This sounds incredibly formal and textbooky to me. I just can't picture it. Do you at least contract the 'have' as in 'I've opened the door for you,' or 'I've left the door open for you '?



Yes, definitely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think this is a bad question.  It has no correct answer.

Any of A, B, or C, could be perfectly natural, depending on what you wish to say.

 I can't see grounds for preferring one over another. As nobody has explained why C. could be correct, I shall briefly do so:

_I open the door, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out.

_You might say this to someone who can't open the door for themselves, maybe because both hands are in plaster, or maybe you are speaking to your dog.  Maybe you are using _open_ to mean _unlock_, as some people do.

It means _I am in the habit of opening the door, in order that there should be nothing to prevent you from going out_. 

I don't think the likelihood of the circumstances occurring which would make the statement appropriate should enter into consideration in a question like this.  The question is unspecific about what meaning is being conveyed.


----------



## boozer

I just knew TT would come and say just that.  I could then add that D is also possible in a situation where somebody, say your grumpy granddad who walks with a bamboo cane, has just heard the dook creaking and is shouting from the next room "What the bloody hell are you dong there?". And then, after you have opened the door, you say: "I was opening the door, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out." This may not be the best example, but even D is grammatically correct and can be said in a suitable situation, I believe.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> I just knew TT would come and say just that.  I could then add that D is also possible in a situation where somebody, say your grumpy granddad who walks with a bamboo cane, has just heard the dook creaking and is shouting from the next room "What the bloody hell are you doing there?". And then, after you have opened the door, you say: "I was opening the door, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out." This may not be the best example, but even D is grammatically correct and can be said in a suitable situation, I believe.


Good point, Boozer.  I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## federicnguyen

Thanks all, but this is just a question at elementary level so I don't think it's complicated like that.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

federicnguyen said:


> Thanks all, but this is just a question at elementary level so I don't think it's complicated like that.


I can understand your point of view, Federicnguyen, but elementary questions need to be clear and simple.


----------



## will3154

Past simple " I did " is commonly used in AmE instead of Present perfect- especially whenthe action quite recent.  And the emphasis is no longer on the action itself. It's the result that matters.


----------



## boozer

federicnguyen said:


> Thanks all, but this is just a question at elementary level so I don't think it's complicated like that.


Well, nobody thinks it was meant to be a very tough question, federic, but this one is flawed at even the most elementary level as both A and B are equally good, as you have seen - A seems better in AE, while B would likely be preferred by most Brits and myself.

The other points made by Thomas Tompion and me... well, those are just remote possibilities, but possibilities nonetheless. I was actually planning to keep silent about them but then TT came and spoiled the harmonious discussion revolving exclusively around A and B


----------



## ribran

boozer said:


> A seems better in AE, while B would likely be preferred by most Brits and myself.



As I said last night, B would be the normal choice for me, and I don't agree that A is better in AmE. 

OK, time to go back to my cave and gnaw on a turkey leg.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> As I said last night, B would be the normal choice for me, and I don't agree that A is better in AmE.
> 
> OK, time to go back to my cave and gnaw on a turkey leg.


But you wouldn't use B if you were Boozer's grumpy granddad, would you, Ribran?

I can't see any reason for preferring one over any of the others, except that one might think that the appropriate circumstances are more likely to occur for one rather than for the others, and that it not, of course, a linguistic consideration at all.


----------



## boozer

ribran said:


> As I said last night, B would be the normal choice for me, and I don't agree that A is better in AmE.


This makes me even happier, ribran.  You've earned your turkey leg as far as I'm concerned. 
And I'll have to munch on some minuscule KFC wings this evening.


----------



## Embonpoint

boozer said:


> This makes me even happier, ribran.  You've earned your turkey leg as far as I'm concerned.
> And I'll have to munch on some minuscule KFC wings this evening.



You *have cooked* the turkey, and now it is time to eat. Right, Ribran?
Over here in Boston, I* cooked* the turkey and now it is time to eat.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> But you wouldn't use B if you were Boozer's grumpy granddad, would you, Ribran?



Why would I be grumpy? Because he made his dear old granddad open doors for him (It was I, not you, who opened the door)? Or, more figuratively, because he had never taken advantage of the opportunities given to him?


----------



## ribran

Embonpoint said:


> You *have cooked* the turkey, and now it is time to eat. Right, Ribran?
> Over here in Boston, I* cooked* the turkey and now it is time to eat.





Yeah, something like that.


----------



## panjandrum

_[...] I *have cooked* the turkey, and now it is time to eat.
I* cooked* the turkey and now it is time to eat.[...]_
In my kitchen, the first of these emphasises that the turkey is now cooked and ready to eat.
The second emphasises that I was responsible for cooking the turkey.  It may have been ready some time ago - perhaps even yesterday.  It's a bit strange without context to explain why I'm declaring myself as the one who cooked the turkey.

Back to the door.
I have opened the door ...
Suggests that I opened the door a short while ago - perhaps even so that you could go out.
I opened the door ...
Suggests that I opened the door some time ago and indicates detachment between my opening of the door and the present situation.


----------



## ribran

Well, yes. The point I was going to make in my first post was that "opened" places the focus on the actual opening of the door, not on the consequences of opening the door (perhaps we had an argument about it, and I want to point out to you or remind you that I ended up doing it). It's not a good idea to make assumptions, but sometimes you have to when faced with questions such as this one (they're frustrating and often poorly written, but I understand their purpose).



panjandrum said:


> _[...] I *have cooked* the turkey, and now it is time to eat.
> I* cooked* the turkey and now it is time to eat.[...]_
> In my kitchen, the first of these emphasises that the turkey is now cooked and ready to eat.
> The second emphasises that I was responsible for cooking the turkey. It may have been ready some time ago - perhaps even yesterday.


In mine, too.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> Well, yes. The point I was going to make in my first post was that "opened" places the focus on the actual opening of the door, not on the consequences of opening the door (perhaps we had an argument about it, and I want to point out to you or remind you that I ended up doing it). It's not a good idea to make assumptions, but sometimes you have to when faced with questions such as this one (they're frustrating and often poorly written, but I understand their purpose).



In the days when I made up such questions, I thought that when I produced one in which more than one answer was correct, I had produced a bad question. And I rejected it, and discounted any answer to it as indicative of the excellence of a student. It is not the student's business here to divine the 'purpose' of the examiner, but the duty of the examiner to make his questions watertight. Often it is the best students who see that the 'correct' answer is not the only possible correct answer, who spot that they are dealing with a bad question.

We seem to agree here that more than one answer works perfectly well. For me that means that we have a bad question.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> It is not the student's business here to divine the 'purpose' of the examiner, but the duty of the examiner to make his questions watertight.



Oh, if only there were more teachers like you, TT.


----------



## federicnguyen

When I do my exam, there's no chance for me to explain my choice. if I'm lucky, I could choose the one that satisfies our teacher.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

federicnguyen said:


> When I do my exam, there's no chance for me to explain my choice. if I'm lucky, I could choose the one that satisfies our teacher.


I do sympathize, Federicguyen.  I hope you are now more clear about the issues, as a result of this discussion.


----------



## ivannz

Hello everyone!

The following passage reflects my understanding of this topic:
Present Perfect (PP) should be used if a speaker *wants *to emphasize the consequences for the present moment   of some action or event happened in the past (or absence of it).  The   consequences for the present moment may show through a *persisting  result, acquired  experience, gained knowledge and expectations*. But if a speaker *doesn't want*   to emphasize the consequences for and attachment to the present or if   there are no possible connections to the present (the action is a part   of history now and its results might have even been undone) Simple Past (SP) should be used instead. So, after all, it us *up to the speaker* to decide where to put emphasis in the sentence.​

And as a case let's consider the following example, which my text-book suggests is the correct translation of a Russian phrase:
"I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them. Oh, you've found them! Where were they?"​

As in the first sentence "... I can't find them" indicates that the  speaker checked the table for keys just before saying it, I think PP  must not be used here. Because to use PP means to still _expect the knowledge about the keys being on the table_ to be true (these are *the consequences*  of a past action for the present moment). But by simply looking at the  table this attachment of the past to the present should have been  severed.

In the second sentence PP is used because the *obvious result* of finding keys in the immediate past is that their whereabouts are exactly known or that they are not lost anymore.

In the third sentence SP is used because the speaker wants to know _where the keys were prior to them being found_. The state of them being lost is in the past now because it has just been undone by successfully finding them.



I suspect I might be overcomplicating this matter, but all text-books  and help pages I've read so far were full of examples that were  unambiguous and straightforward. So my questions are:

Does the speaker decide where to put emphasis in ambiguous cases? 
Is my analysis of the example presented even close to being correct? 

I would appreciate your help and comments very much!
Thank you)


----------



## boozer

Indeed, you could be found guilty of overanalysing but I agree with you - I would never use the present perfect the way your textbook suggests and I find their translation to be awful. I would invariably say "I put my keys on the table but I can't find them now."

PS. Welcome to the forum


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not so sure.  I agree that one could indeed easily say "I put my keys on the table but I can't find them now."

However in the oppressively present context of not finding one's keys, one might have recourse to the present perfect.  _I have put my keys on the table_ is, to my ear, more expressive of one's frustration.  It's makes one's not finding them all the more absurd.  It stresses, as Ivannz says, that the keys should still be on the table.  If the table is as cluttered as my desk habitually is, then they may certainly still be there, of course.


----------



## wolfbm1

I agree with Thomas Tompion. PP stresses that the keys should still be on the table.

Here is my analysis:
_I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them._
Are the keys on the table?  Probably.  They have to be on the table but the person can’t see them.
Who put the keys on the table? I did. (Somebody did.)
When did he put them on the table? Sometime before now. The person should remember the exact time. An hour ago? Two hours ago?
Is he putting them on the table now?   No.
Do we know exactly when he put  the keys on the table? No. It doesn't really matter.
Has he put the keys on the table? Yes, he has.  The keys should be still there but he can’t find them.


----------



## ivannz

Thank you very much for your replies!

I think, basically the correct tense depends on the intended meaning of the phrase "... I can't find them".

If by it the speaker means that _she or he has exhausted all the possibilities of finding the keys and is pretty sure that ultimately the keys aren't there at all_ (e.g. there is nothing at all on the table), then PP *must not be used* because the result of putting the keys on the table no longer persists.

But if this phrase has a softer meaning like "... at the first glance I can't find them" (e.g. _probably the keys got lost in the multitude of objects on the table, but are very likely to be nowhere else but on it_), then the speaker *can decide what to emphasize* by either using PP _to express hope of finding the keys_ or SP _to hint at the possibility that the keys were removed from the table a short while ago_.


----------



## boozer

I am badly stuck with my earlier categorical statement, so let me think whatI can do about it 

_I have put my keys on the table._
This sentence means two things to me:
_1. I put the keys on the table.
2. They are still on the table.

_There is virtually nothing that I can do about this - it is the meaning I get. Then:

_I have put my keys on the table but I can't find them now._ 

This is absurd. The first part of the sentence says the keys are there, while the second strongly suggests that they are not. Can an absurd statement highlight the absurdity of the situation? I am ready to accept it can. Can an absurd statement emphasise the resulting frustration? I suppose so.

However, the statement remains absurd to me and I personally would only use it immediately before committing suicide.


----------



## wolfbm1

Have a look at this example:
A._ I’ve put a tuna sandwich on the table. Where is it? I can’t find it._
B. ~_Look under the table. The cat’s still eating it.
_
It doesn' matter where the sandwich is now. What matters is the fact that the sandwich has disappeared. 
A1. _I put a tuna sandwich on the table fifteen minutes ago and started to write my response.  Where is it now?_
B1. ~_The cat has eaten it. He ate your sandwich ten minutes ago. Actually he left the bread for you.

_Similarly, when you say: _I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them_, it doesn't matter where the keys are now. And it definitely doesn't mean that the keys should be on the table. (The tuna sandwich should have been on the table but was it?) What matters is that you *have* put them somewhere and now you can't find them.


----------



## Embonpoint

I think what you are missing here is that there are geographic differences and that this "textbook" explanation does not fit how many people actually speak. I am American, currently living in Boston, and I use the present perfect mainly to show action over time (first example), to show that I have done something in the past (second example) or to emphasize that something has already been done (third example.)

I have been opening that door every night for three weeks.
I have been to Spain.
I told you. I have already tried calling him at his beach house. Do you have any other ideas?

Even in this third case I might say, "I already tried" as a more casual way of expressing of "I have already tried."  However I would always write "have already tried" in this circumstance.

But yes, if you ask me the "rule" I agree that the PP emphasizes the fact that the effect of the action is still ongoing. If recounting to a friend much later how I welcomed a houseguest, I would say "I laid out clean towels for him on the bed." However if speaking to said houseguest to alert him to the presence of said towels one would most properly say, "I've laid out your towels on the bed."  I would tend to use the latter with a guest on whom I was on formal terms--a friend's grandmother, for example, or someone from work I hardly know. With my best bud I'd probably just say, "i laid out your towels on the bed."

Personally, I would almost never say "I've put the tuna sandwich on the table" unless the context fit one of the three categories above. That said, give me a test such as the one above and I will choose the "right" answer.



ivannz said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> The following passage reflects my understanding of this topic:
> Present Perfect (PP) should be used if a speaker *wants *to emphasize the consequences for the present moment   of some action or event happened in the past (or absence of it).  The   consequences for the present moment may show through a *persisting  result, acquired  experience, gained knowledge and expectations*. But if a speaker *doesn't want*   to emphasize the consequences for and attachment to the present or if   there are no possible connections to the present (the action is a part   of history now and its results might have even been undone) Simple Past (SP) should be used instead. So, after all, it us *up to the speaker* to decide where to put emphasis in the sentence.​
> 
> And as a case let's consider the following example, which my text-book suggests is the correct translation of a Russian phrase:
> "I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them. Oh, you've found them! Where were they?"​
> 
> As in the first sentence "... I can't find them" indicates that the  speaker checked the table for keys just before saying it, I think PP  must not be used here. Because to use PP means to still _expect the knowledge about the keys being on the table_ to be true (these are *the consequences*  of a past action for the present moment). But by simply looking at the  table this attachment of the past to the present should have been  severed.
> 
> In the second sentence PP is used because the *obvious result* of finding keys in the immediate past is that their whereabouts are exactly known or that they are not lost anymore.
> 
> In the third sentence SP is used because the speaker wants to know _where the keys were prior to them being found_. The state of them being lost is in the past now because it has just been undone by successfully finding them.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect I might be overcomplicating this matter, but all text-books  and help pages I've read so far were full of examples that were  unambiguous and straightforward. So my questions are:
> 
> Does the speaker decide where to put emphasis in ambiguous cases?
> Is my analysis of the example presented even close to being correct?
> 
> I would appreciate your help and comments very much!
> Thank you)


----------



## wolfbm1

OK. Let's have a look at:
_I have been to Spain._

Did you go to Spain in the past (before now)? Yes.
Did you go to Spain at a particular (specific) time in the past? No.
Do you have the experience of visiting Spain in your life up to now? Yes.
Are you in Spain now? No.
Are you planning to go to Spain or anywhere else? Maybe, we don't know.

Now, let's look at this sentence:
_I was in Spain two years ago._
Did you go to Spain in the past (before now)? Yes.
Did you go to Spain at a particular (specific) time in the past? Yes.
The other questions do not apply. We are not concerned about 'now' or about any plans for the future. We just wanted to know when you were in Spain.


----------



## boozer

wolfbm1 said:


> A._ I’ve put a tuna sandwich on the table. Where is it? I can’t find it._
> B. ~_Look under the table. The cat’s still eating it._


If all I could see, Wolfie, was a bare table, I would never say that. When the present relevance of the past action is gone, the present perfect tense becomes irrelevant and the logical emphasis shifts on the action itself:
_I put a tuna sandwich on the table but now it is not there._ 

I acknowledge TT's point that when your table is a mighty cluttered affair you could use the present perfect simply because you believe the thing you have put on it is still there and you just can't see it at the moment. 

Well, wrongly or rightly that is how I see things and that is how I speak.


----------



## wolfbm1

boozer said:


> When the present relevance of the past action is gone,



If the present relevance of the action is gone (with the wind) then why are we trying to find it. This is the context of the original sentence, isn't it?


----------



## thedov

To clarify a point about the original question, if you want to state a specific time at which the door opened, as wolfbm1 pointed out, you should use the Simple Past.

So...
I've opened the door, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out.

But...
I opened the door *when John went out*, so there is nothing to prevent you from going out.


----------



## boozer

wolfbm1 said:


> If the present relevance of the action is gone (with the wind) then why are we trying to find it. This is the context of the original sentence, isn't it?


This is exactly the point - we are not trying to find it, we are simply using the tense that does not need it, i.e. simple past.


----------



## Embonpoint

boozer said:


> If all I could see, Wolfie, was a bare table, I would never say that. When the present relevance of the past action is gone, the present perfect tense becomes irrelevant and the logical emphasis shifts on the action itself:



Great post! I think this point is important not just for the tuna sandwich, but for this thread in general. I realized after reading this that in all the cases in this thread I would be much more likely to use the PP if I was actually_ looking _at the effect of my action while I was speaking and explaining it to someone.

Showing someone a fat delicious tuna sandwich I just made and handing it to him: "*I've made *you a tuna sandwich."
Telling someone I made him a tuna sandwich and it is in the kitchen: "I *made* you a tuna sandwich. It's in the kitchen any time you want it."

Showing someone an unlocked door and demonstrating how it opens easily: "Look, *I've unlocked* the door for you. Now you can go out any time all night." 
Telling someone I unlocked the door, when in fact we are nowhere near the door: "*I unlocked *the door for you. Now you can go out any time all night."

Telling a guest I laid out towels for him: "I *laid out *your towels on the bed upstairs."
Showing the guest the towels on the bed: "*I've laid* out your towels for you."

These are cases in which I might well use present perfect. I must admit that I might also use the past tense in the above examples, even though I strongly feel the PP as the most "correct" tense. The chances of my using PP increases with the level of formality I'm feeling. In a formal situation ie. an important business acquaintance, I would use PP as shown above. With a good friend, I might just use the past tense; in this case it feels a bit sloppy, relaxed, informal, as if I'm thinking the PP but not bothering to say it.

But in any case, similarly to what Boozer said about not using PP while looking at an empty table, in all three cases above--if I am not actually looking at the tuna sandwich or showing the person the towels or the unlocked door--I would be very unlikely to use PP, even in a formal situation.


----------



## wolfbm1

boozer said:


> This is exactly the point - we are not trying to find it, we are simply using the tense that does not need it, i.e. simple past.


When I said 'it' I really meant 'the keys'. I should have said:


> If the present relevance of the action is gone (with the wind) then why are we trying to find *them* (the keys). This is the context of ivannz's original sentence, isn't it?



Ivannz’s origiginal statement is this:
"_I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them. Oh, you've found them! Where were they?_"

Does the statement ‘_I can’t find them_’ mean ‘_I’m not trying to find them_’? No, it doesn’t. Otherwise you might say:_ I put my keys on the table (yesterday) but later on I couldn’t find them there. Too bad, somebody must have taken them. They are gone._
When you say: "_I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them. …_" you *expect* the keys to be somewhere. You *haven’t given up* the possibility of finding them yet.
How on earth can anyone interpret the statement ‘_I can’t find them_’ as '_There aren't any keys on the table. I can see a bare table_'? I have no idea.


----------



## wolfbm1

Embonpoint said:


> ...  I strongly feel the PP as the most "correct" tense. The chances of my using PP increases with the level of formality I'm feeling. In a formal situation ie. an important business acquaintance, I would use PP as shown above. With a good friend, I might just use the past tense; in this case it feels a bit sloppy, relaxed, informal, as if I'm thinking the PP but not bothering to say it.


This is a very interesting explanation of how the Americans view the Present Perfect and why the use the Past Simple but they actually mean the Present Perfect. As for the tuna you would probably say the sentence if I included the word 'just'. But does one really need to use it?


----------



## ribran

Wolf,

I agree with Boozer, although I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain my preference for the simple past. In a way, I think that the relevance of the fact that you can't find them there right now "takes precedence" over the fact that they may still be there. When I say your sentence aloud, I automatically think back to the moment at which I would have put them down and walked away...

Hmm... that probably doesn't help, does it?


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> Wolf,
> 
> I agree with Boozer, although I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain my preference for the simple past. ... When I say your sentence aloud, I automatically think back to the moment at which I would have put them down and walked away...



I understand that you can say this sentence: _I *put* my keys on the table, but I can't find them._
But you can't say this sentence: _I'*ve put* my keys on the table, but I can't find them.
_
Here is a dialogue between a tenant and a landlady:
T: _You forgot to give me my keys. _
L: _I've put them on the table. They should be there. (I expect them to be there.)_
T: _I can't find them._
L: _Try the smaller table in the corner._
T: _I've found them. Thank you._

You probably would use the Present Perfect only in the last sentence of the dialogue.


> In a way, I think that the relevance of the fact that you can't find them there right now "takes precedence" over the fact that they may still be there.


To me it doesn't matter whether one can or can't find the keys, whether they are or are not on the table. 
What is really relevant is that the tenant needs the keys now. The Present Perfect always relates a past action to the present moment. Therefore it is appropriate here.


----------



## ribran

wolfbm1 said:


> I understand that you can say this sentence: _I *put* my keys on the table, but I can't find them._
> But you can't say this sentence: _I'*ve put* my keys on the table, but I can't find them.
> _
> Here is a dialogue between a tenant and a landlady:
> T: _You forgot to give me my keys. _
> L: _I've put them on the table. They should be there. (I expect them to be there.)_
> T: _I can't find them._
> L: _Try the smaller table in the corner._
> T: _I've found them. Thank you._
> 
> You probably would use the Present Perfect only in the last sentence of the dialogue.



Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, the present perfect sounds perfect rolleyes in the second sentence.


----------



## boozer

ribran said:


> Wolf,
> 
> I agree with Boozer, although I'm having trouble figuring out how to explain my preference for the simple past. In a way, I think that the relevance of the fact that you can't find them there right now "takes precedence" over the fact that they may still be there. When I say your sentence aloud, I automatically think back to the moment at which I would have put them down and walked away...
> 
> Hmm... that probably doesn't help, does it?


 This is exactly what happens in my head when I see that the keys are gone. It's a different story when they are still there.  I simply cannot help that...


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, the present perfect sounds perfect rolleyes in the second sentence.


And in the second line the Present Perfect is out of the question. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## ribran

No... I put that emoticon there because I thought the whole turn of phrase was groan-worthy, not because I was being sarcastic.


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> No... I put that emoticon there because I thought the whole turn of phrase was groan-worthy, not because I was being sarcastic.


Let's imagine this situation. Somebody suffers from amnesia. His wife tells him:
W: You've been to Spain already so let's go to Greece this time. .
S:Oh, I've been to Spain, have I. But I can't remember that. 

What is the relevance of somebody's lack of ability to remember something in this context?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't see that it has much relevance at all.


----------



## ribran

Sorry, Wolf, you've lost me. What does this example have to do with the previous one?

EDIT: In your previous example, the key is that the landlady was not standing at the table and therefore didn't know that the keys were not where she thought they were. If she had been standing at the table, she would have seen that the keys were not there and would have had to use the simple past.


----------



## wolfbm1

ribran said:


> Sorry, Wolf, you've lost me. What does this example have to do with the previous one?



Well, isn't it similar to this situation: _I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them.
_(And: _I've been to Spain but I can't remember that._) Maybe both people suffer from amnesia.

I guess it is not easy to communicate over the Internet.


----------



## LilianaB

I think you should concentrate, Wolf, on which version of English you are referring to. This makes a big difference as far as these two tenses are concerned, and try to stick to one version in usage, either BE or AE. Otherwise you will get really confused. In AE Past Simple is very often used in place of Present Perfect, without any deep linguistic explanation, not in all situations , of course. In certain situations you have to use Present Perfect.


----------



## wolfbm1

LilianaB said:


> I think you should concentrate, Wolf, on which version of English you are referring to. This makes a big difference as far as these two tenses are concerned, and try to stick to one version in usage, either BE or AE. Otherwise you will get really confused. In AE Past Simple is very often used in place of Present Perfect, without any deep linguistic explanation, not in all situations , of course. In certain situations you have to use Present Perfect.



I'm not confused. I can see both the British and the American points of view. I'm not sure if everybody else can say the same.
So you don't agree with what Embonpoint has said: "I must admit that I might also use the past tense in the above examples, even though I strongly feel *the* *PP* as *the most "correct"* tense. The chances of my using PP increases with* the level of formality* I'm feeling."


----------



## LilianaB

I think that PP might be correct: it is just not used that often in certain constructions in AE. I think if you replace SP with PP in situations where PP is used in BE it will not be considered a mistake in AE, but if you replace PP with SP in BE it will be most likely a mistake in  most contexts.  On the other hand if you overuse PP in AE, your style may not seem idiomatic any more.


----------



## wolfbm1

LilianaB said:


> I think that PP might be correct: it is just not used that often in certain constructions in AE. I think if you replace SP with PP in situations where PP is used in BE it will not be considered a mistake in AE, but if you replace PP with SP in BE it will be most likely a mistake in  most contexts.  On the other hand if you overuse PP in AE, your style may not seem idiomatic any more.


This is exactly what I wanted to hear. 
If a non-native speaker of English writes a sentence like this: "I've put my keys on the table, but I can't find them.", how can anybody (non-native) know if he refers to British English or to American English. And in Europe it is the British English and courses written by British authors that are taught in schools. There are courses of American English in the bookstores but they are not very popular.


----------



## Dale Texas

Unfortunately, this happens time and time again when the test question itself is so badly presented, that native speakers balk at having to choose the best answer when all are possilbe.

I see another distinction here somewhat beyond tense/time:

"I opened the door for you"  = I am the person who opened the door ( another person did not)
"I've opened the door for you"  = I am the person who anticipated your need for the door to be open and it is now already open.)

Surely people on both sides of the Atlantic are capable of making such distinctions, depending on spontaneous emphasis, and it's not some enormous AE/BE difference, but back to the poor test question itself? 

"I've put my keys on the table and now I can't find them."  = I have just now put the keys on the table and reference it as sonething that is practically happening at this moment.

"I put my keys on the table and now I can't find them."  I at some past time,  not perceived as recent---this morning?  last night?  ten minutes ago? but experienced as an act that is _over and finished ,_ and now I can't find them.

Those two possibilies happen in both AE and BE English.


----------



## wolfbm1

Dale Texas said:


> Unfortunately, this happens time and time again when the test question itself is so badly presented, that native speakers balk at having to choose the best answer when all are possilbe.


I can say that again. I agree.


----------



## boozer

wolfbm1 said:


> I'm not confused. I can see both the British and the American points of view. I'm not sure if everybody else can say the same...


That was, indeed, very subtle, Wolf  You can rest assured that I am perfectly familiar with both the BE and EA English perspective on this issue. On top of that, I have only ever been taught BE from British books and this has not rendered me incapable of communicating with or understanding Americans.  Our point of disagreement seems to be your insistence on using the present perfect tense where the present relevance of the past action is gone and where all that matters is the action itself. This, already, is not a difference between BE and AE that I know of (although who knows  )


----------



## Dale Texas

Agreed Boozer, as I added to my above post, it is NOT a difference between AE and BE.  It is the subjective experience of time and how close the past action feels to the person speaking, American, British, Canadian, Australian, etc.  It is an _English_ time sense.


----------



## LilianaB

Which constructions do you have in mind, Dale?


----------



## wolfbm1

boozer said:


> ... Our point of disagreement seems to be your insistence on using the present perfect tense where the present relevance of the past action is gone ...


Well... I don't perceive the action of putting the keys on the table 'before now' as irrelevant to 'now'. To me, it is very much relevant to 'now' because the fact that I can't find the keys makes me worried. What am I going to do now? How am I going to open the door or start my car. This is how I look at this sentence. I have never insisted that you look at it the way I do. What I do insist on is that in the sentence "_I('ve) put my keys on the table but __(now) I can't find them_", the "can't find" part cannot pigeonhole the action of putting the keys on the table as belonging exclusively to the past. I tried to show this in post #55 but probably you missed my point there, didn't you.
It goes without saying that when the present relevance of the past action is gone one cannot use the Present Perfect. This is because one is not concerned about the effect of the action on present circumstances. One uses the Past Simple to distance something from the present and to state the fact that something took place at a particular moment in the past.
So if your intention is to distance an action from the present then the Past Simple is the way to go: _I put the keys on the table_.
I think that Dale Texas presented a golden solution to this issue in post #63.


----------



## panjandrum

I'm in trouble in this thread because so many things have been said and it is too long to follow.
But this post provokes me to comment.



Dale Texas said:


> ...
> "I've put my keys on the table and now I can't find them."  = I have just now put the keys on the table and reference it as sonething that is practically happening at this moment.


This is not possible in my version of BE.
It is impossible because the red text implies that the action I describe continues to be valid in the present.


> "I put my keys on the table and now I can't find them."  I at some past time,  not perceived as recent---this morning?  last night?  ten minutes ago? but experienced as an act that is _over and finished ,_ and now I can't find them.
> ...


That's OK.  
The blue text defines an action completed in the past.  The consequence of that action may, or may not, be valid in the present.


----------

