# past simple / present perfect [interchangeable?]



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

A moment after dropping my ice-cream.

I can say either:

• I dropped my ice-cream

• I've dropped my ice-cream (with present perfect, the meaning is clear that it has an effect on present that it can no longer be eaten).


But if ,for example,

My teacher asks me ,

Why are you not writing?

I'd use present perfect for whatever reason

I've lost my pen.

Or if someone asks me

would you like to have lunch with me?

I'd say
I've eaten , not, I ate.

I've eaten implies that i won't be going for lunch with them.


Am I right?


----------



## dojibear

Why are you not writing?
I've lost my pen.
I just lost my pen.

Would you like to have lunch with me?
I've already eaten lunch, thanks.
I already ate lunch, thanks.

Without "already" or "today", the sentence "I've eaten lunch" could mean yesterday or last week or 55 times this year.


----------



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

I've eaten lunch 55 times this year makes sense.

But I've eaten lunch yesterday doesn't make any sense.

I'd say, 'I ate lunch yesterday'


----------



## bennymix

*How often are past simple and present perfect interchangeable?*

In general, in English, two things {words, phrases, etc} are almost never interchangeable (that is, without change of meaning).   One rare example cited in a text is that you may substitute 'rapidly' for 'quickly' in "His car quickly pulled ahead in the race."


----------



## DonnyB

The combination of the simple past and "already" doesn't usually work in BE, and most BE speakers would say "I've already eaten lunch", not "I already ate lunch".  

"I've eaten lunch yesterday" sounds odd because it doesn't make _logical_ sense as an answer to the question "Would you like to have lunch with me?"


----------



## Uncle Jack

I cannot imagine any situation where "I've eaten lunch yesterday" could be used. What is the connection to the present?


----------



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

Uncle Jack said:


> I cannot imagine any situation where "I've eaten lunch yesterday" could be used. What is the connection to the present?



I donno.

Maybe, @dojibear knows, cz he's the one who said it


----------



## dojibear

I did not suggest "I've eaten lunch yesterday."

I said that when a person says "I've eaten lunch." (with no other words added) that means "I have eaten lunch sometime before now." It does not mean "today". It does not mean "one time". It could mean many times.

The context (the situation) may make it clear that "I've eaten" or "I ate" means today's lunch.


----------



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

Yeah. So, not only present perfect implies some effect on present, it can refer to an unspecified time in past as well. Using already will eliminate any ambiguity that the listener might percieve.

But in this context;
Would you like to have lunch with me?

Even if I don't use already in my reply, the meaning is implicit.  Or is it not?


----------



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

@dogibear 


Not in the question.


In the reply to that question. *I've eaten, Thanks.*


----------



## dojibear

My mistake! Sorry. I have deleted my incorrect post. You're talking about this situation:

Someone: Would you like to have lunch with me?
You: I've eaten lunch, thanks.
You: I ate lunch, thanks.

Yes, in the context of replying to this question, "already" is implied and it's clear you mean today's lunch.

But without "already" these answers are so short that they seem a little bit rude. These are more polite, and more natural:

Thanks, but I've already eaten.
Thanks, but I ate already.
I've already had lunch, but thanks.
I ate lunch last period, but thanks.


----------



## stewie_gilligan_griffin

Thanks 

Yeah right... I've eaten sounds bit rude.


----------



## le avocado

*How often are past simple and present perfect interchangeable?*

I am confused about this too. I already *learned/have learned* from the grammar book that there are some situations we must use simple past, and there are situation we must use present perfect. But from what I *observed/ have observed* by watching movies and videos on youtube. I *found/ have found *that there are some situations we can use these tenses interchangeably.

I think that for situations mentioned within the period from the past until now which we don't mention specific time, or don't have a specific time in our mind (such as yesterday, 2 days ago, last years....), we can use these tense interchangeably. 

Here are some example I found/ have found:

(1) The conversation between 2 friends:
A: You are so kind, you *helped/ have helped* me a lot. You *did/ have done* a lot of good things for me.
(I mean from the past until now without specific time)
B: You are welcome.

(2)The conversation between 2 friends:
A:What is your hobby?
B:I love playing with my dogs. I have 2 dogs. They are so cute.
A:I talked/have talked about your pets. Could you please tell me more detail about them?
B: Sure. The first one named Cici, he has black fur, he is so mischievous...... The second one named Bibi........

(3)The conversation between 2 friends:
A: Can I stay at your home tonight. I lost my key and I can't get in to my house.
B: Of course.

For these 2 examples, 2 tenses are interchangeable without difference in the meanings, AE tends to use simple past and BE tends to use present perfect. Is it right?

Above are just my opinions, Which I don't know if they are correct or not. I would like your opinion.


----------



## Uncle Jack

le avocado said:


> (1) The conversation between 2 friends:
> A: You are so kind, you *helped/ have helped* me a lot. You *did/ have done* a lot of good things for me.
> (I mean from the past until now without specific time)
> B: You are welcome.


Firstly, it is worth noting that all the examples in your thread are for actions in the past that have a significance in the present (or possibly not: it is this significance that determines whether you use the present perfect or the past tense). Do not confuse this use of the present perfect with the use for an action that began in the past and continues up to the present. For actions that began in the past and continue up to the present, the present perfect is always used, not the past tense.

In sentence (1), the focus of the sentence is on the present, which means that the present perfect *can* be used, at least in BrE. However whether you choose to use the present perfect depends on whether you are primarily thinking of the effect of the other person having helped you and having done good things for you (use the present perfect), or whether you are thinking of the actions themselves (use the past tense).


le avocado said:


> (2)The conversation between 2 friends:
> A:What is your hobby?
> B:I love playing with my dogs. I have 2 dogs. They are so cute.
> A:I talked/have talked about your pets. Could you please tell me more detail about them?
> B: Sure. The first one named Cici, he has black fur, he is so mischievous...... The second one named Bibi........


Here, the entire conversation is about the present. The speaker's talking is in the past, but the action of talking is of no importance in itself, it is mentioned only to get the other person to talk more. Use the present perfect (in BrE)


le avocado said:


> (3)The conversation between 2 friends:
> A: Can I stay at your home tonight. I lost my key and I can't get in to my house.
> B: Of course.


A's losing their key is important, so the past tense is possible, but the conversation is all about the effect it has in the present, and in BrE I would expect to hear the present perfect.
.


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> *Do not confuse* this use of the present perfect with the use for an action that began in the past and continues up to the present. For actions that began in the past and continue up to the present, the present perfect is always used, not the past tense.





Uncle Jack said:


> whether you are primarily thinking of the effect of the other person having helped you and having done good things for you (use the present perfect),


Hi Uncle Jack,
Thanks for your dedicated answer as usual.

I agree with all your explanations above.

I have a question related to situation (1).
You said that we use present perfect here because we are primarily thinking of *the* *effect* of the other person having helped you and having done good things for you.

Can I use the reason that I can consider the action of person having helped you and having done good things for you is an action that began in the past and continue up to the present?==> so, we must use present perfect here due to this reason.


----------



## bennymix

Uncle Jack's explanations are clear and very valuable!


----------



## Uncle Jack

le avocado said:


> I have a question related to situation (1).
> You said that we use present perfect here because we are primarily thinking of *the* *effect* of the other person having helped you and having done good things for you.


You might be primarily thinking of the effect in the present (use the present perfect, at least in BrE) or you might primarily be thinking of the action itself (use the past tense). There is no right or wrong answer here.


le avocado said:


> Can I use the reason that I can consider the action of person having helped you and having done good things for you is an action that began in the past and continue up to the present?==> so, we must use present perfect here due to this reason.


No. The began in the past and continues up to the present use of the present perfect almost always has a time period mentioned (or is a question asking how long a time period it is). Usually this is in the form "since..." or "for...". I seem to recall some exceptions to this, but I cannot remember what they are.


----------



## le avocado

Hi Uncle Jack,
Thanks so much for your explanation for my question .



Uncle Jack said:


> I seem to recall some exceptions to this, but I cannot remember what they are.


Is below the example you mean?

If the period of time is until now:
**We have to say:
I have read this book 5 times, so I remember most of its details.Let me tell you about it.
**We can not say (although we can think of actions of reading itself at different times in the past)
I read this book 5 times,so I remember most of its details. Let me tell you about it.

Is my opinion correct?


----------



## Uncle Jack

I don't understand what you mean. There isn't a time period nor have you been continuously or repeatedly been reading the book over a period of time that extends up to the present.

On five occasions in the past, you read the book. Because the sentence is mostly about what you remember in the present, it makes sense to use the present perfect, but don't think that this use of the present perfect has anything to do with beginning in the past and continuing up to the present.


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> How often are past simple and present perfect interchangeable?


Instead of "interchangeable" I would say "either tense can be used". Perhaps that happens more often in AE than in BE. How often does it happen? I don't know. But your wording (including verb tense) depends on your meaning:

(1) a single event lasting _throughout _the entire time period *vs. *a shorter event happening _during _the time period
(2) one event (possibly N times) *vs. *one or more events (a total count of events)
(3) a past time period that ends _now _*vs. *a past time period that ended _before now_
(4) a recurring (habitual) action *vs.* a single action


----------



## Forero

stewie_gilligan_griffin said:


> A moment after dropping my ice-cream.
> 
> I can say either:
> 
> • I dropped my ice-cream
> 
> • I've dropped my ice-cream (with present perfect, the meaning is clear that it has an effect on present that it can no longer be eaten).
> 
> 
> But if ,for example,
> 
> My teacher asks me ,
> 
> Why are you not writing?
> 
> I'd use present perfect for whatever reason
> 
> I've lost my pen.
> 
> Or if someone asks me
> 
> would you like to have lunch with me?
> 
> I'd say
> I've eaten , not, I ate.
> 
> I've eaten implies that i won't be going for lunch with them.
> 
> 
> Am I right?


"I've dropped my ice cream" and "I dropped my ice cream" can both be used to report the same event. If it happened just a moment ago and I want to suggest that the ice cream is no longer edible, I would use the latter version since it is more to the point:

_I dropped the ice cream I bought just a minute ago, so I need to go back and get another one._

"I've eaten" and "I ate" are both possible, but they don't say much. Why not "I would like to, but I've already eaten" or "I would like to, but I ate before I left home"?


----------



## bennymix

It might be mentioned that the British folks tend more to use the present perfect in a number of common, or 'gray area' cases.
To this North American ear, it sounds more refined.  

I'd tentatively propose this, more British rendering of the above sentence.

[B's proposal] _I've just dropped the ice cream I bought--  I'll have to go get another._  {?}


----------



## kentix

I'll be a voice for AE. I would tend to use simple past in general and restrict present perfect to situations where it is "necessary". For an action that completed more than a millisecond ago, present perfect is not necessary.

• I dropped my ice cream.

It's on the floor. The action is complete. Simple past. Whatever the consequences of that are, it doesn't change the fact that the ice cream is no longer falling.

- Why are you not writing?

- I dropped my pen. (It's done moving.)
- I've lost my pen. (It's still lost.)


----------



## dojibear

I agree with all of post #23. The issue of "do we still care about it now?" doesn't affect verb tense in AE.


----------



## le avocado

Here is a situation I brought up above. According to Uncle Jack explained for me in this situation, I can use either:


le avocado said:


> (1) The conversation between 2 friends:
> A: You are so kind, you *helped/ have helped* me a lot. You *did/ have done* a lot of good things for me.
> (I mean from the past until now without specific time)
> B: You are welcome.





Uncle Jack said:


> You might be primarily thinking of the effect in the present (use the present perfect, at least in BrE) or you might primarily be thinking of the action itself (use the past tense). There is no right or wrong answer here.


This means:
If I mainly think of  the friend's past actions of help==> use simple past
If i mainly think of the effect of the friend's past actions of help==>use present perfect.

Thanks to the help on previous posts, I understood the use of tenses for this situation.

**
I would like to ask more about another situation:

I *(have read)/ (read)* this book 5 times, so I remember most of its details.Let me tell you about it.



Uncle Jack said:


> On five occasions in the past, you read the book. Because the sentence is mostly about what you remember in the present, it makes sense to use the present perfect, but don't think that this use of the present perfect has anything to do with beginning in the past and continuing up to the present.


I agree with Uncle' Jack explanation about using present perfect for this situation, and his explanation matches with what I learned from grammar books. And I know that  BrE will use *(have read) *for this situation.



I wonder that if I can apply that the formula of above situation to this situation:
*If I mainly think of  the 5 times of reading that book in the past==> use simple past (I *read* this book 5 times...)
*If I mainly think of the effect of 5 times of reading that book (I know well all the details now) ==>use present perfect (I *have read* this book 5 times...)


As I see, in both situations, the action of help may or may not happen in the future, and the action of reading may or may not happen in the future too. So, If I can use simple past for the reading situation like helping situation.

Because I know that BrE will use present perfect for this situation.
So, I would like to hear from AmE speakers if I can use simple past in the US for the reading situation.


----------



## kentix

"I have read that book five times" would be normal in AE. Your life is not over and you might read it again.

If you are lying in bed dying and unable to read a book anymore you can say, "I read that book five times". It will never be six times.

You can also use it in a more specific past situation.

- I read that book five times when I was a teenager.

You will never read that book as a teenager again.


----------



## le avocado

kentix said:


> "I have read that book five times" would be normal in AE. Your life is not over and you might read it again.
> 
> If you are lying in bed dying and unable to read a book anymore you can say, "I read that book five times". It will never be six times.


Thanks so much for your answer.

The thing I don't understand is that in the situation below, the action of help may keep happen in the future, but we still can use simple past, but why we can not use simple past for the reading situation, which may keep happen in the future too.

A: You are so kind, you *helped/ have helped* me a lot. You *did/ have done* a lot of good things for me.
B: You are welcome.
(I have read this situation on another threads this forum, and people advised that there are no difference between two tenses for this situation).


----------



## Phil-Olly

I'm not sure if anyone has noted that, as far as interchangeability is concerned, most constructions using the present perfect can be changed to the simple past, (except notably the one identified by Uncle Jack in #14), but very few constructions using the simple past can be changed to the present perfect.


----------



## le avocado

bennymix said:


> It might be mentioned that the British folks tend more to use the present perfect in a number of common, or 'gray area' cases.
> To this North American ear, it sounds more refined.


Hi bennymix,
I heard that people living in North American use simple past more often. For situation below, According to grammar books, present perfect *must* be used. But I wonder if people in North American use simple past for this situation:

I (have read)/ (read) this book 5 times, so I remember most of its details.Let me tell you about it.


**
From grammar books, I know that for action from the past until now, which is still happening now. We *must *use present perfect.
But, I read somewhere that people in North American even use simple past for actions from the past until now with the word "always" and "never". For example:

I always loved you= I have always loved you.
Both sentences mean that I still love you from the past until now.

And this is another example I read on this forum:
"I have never been big on vegetables."  Whereas, a North American would either say that OR say "I never was big on vegetables."

Is what I read about North American above correct?
I would like to hear from a North American voice like you.


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> I heard that people living in North American use simple past more often.


There are some sentences that must use *present perfect*.
There are some sentences that must use *simple past*.
There are some sentences that *can use either* verb tense.

In the sentences that can use either, AE speakers use simple past more often than BE speakers.

That does not apply to sentences that must use present perfect.


----------



## bennymix

le avocado said:


> Hi bennymix,
> I heard that people living in North American use simple past more often. For situation below, According to grammar books, present perfect *must* be used. But I wonder if people in North American use simple past for this situation:
> 
> {A}I (have read)/ (read) this book 5 times, so I remember most of its details.Let me tell you about it.
> 
> 
> **
> From grammar books, I know that for action from the past until now, which is still happening now. We *must *use present perfect.
> But, I read somewhere that people in North American even use simple past for actions from the past until now with the word "always" and "never". For example:
> 
> {B}I always loved you= I have always loved you.
> Both sentences mean that I still love you from the past until now.
> 
> And this is another example I read on this forum:
> {C}"I have never been big on vegetables."  Whereas, a North American would either say that OR say "I never was big on vegetables."
> 
> Is what I read about North American above correct?
> I would like to hear from a North American voice like you.


A. is best --to my ear-- with present perfect.  Please note there is NO rule that says,  "Here you must use pres.pt or you make a grammar error."  Pres. pt supplies a nuance that we like, many times.

B. The first, past, suggests possibly no continuance in the present.  Continuance to the present strongly dictates pres. pt. here.

C. Same idea, but not that 'big on' is a disposition, not an action.  Continuation of a disposition is harder to measure, lacking action.

So your examples don't exactly fit this difference.   Here's what the British Council says  (Look at their example)



> In British English, people use the present perfect to speak about a past action that they consider relevant to the present.
> 
> The present perfect can be used in the same way in American English, but people often use the past simple when they consider the action finished. This is especially common with the adverbs _already_, _just_ and _yet_.
> 
> 
> 
> British EnglishAmerican English_He isn't hungry. He has already had lunch.
> - Have you done your homework yet?
> - Yes, I've just finished it.__He isn't hungry. He already had lunch.
> - Did you do your homework yet?
> - Yes, I just finished it._


----------



## dojibear

The two tenses are different in the time period they cover:

(A) Present perfect covers a time period that started in the past and *ends now*.
(B) Simple past covers a time period that started in the past and *ended in the past*.

Within each of those two different time periods, there are two different situations:

(1) An action that lasts for the entire time period.
_I *have lived *in New York for ten years (up until now).
I *lived *in New York for ten years (from 2005 to 2015)._

(2) A short-lasting action that happened (one or more times) *during* the time period:
_I *have visited *that restaurant five times. (5 times up until now)
I *visited *that restaurant five times in 2005. (5 times during that already-ended time period)_


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> I always loved you= I have always loved you.
> Both sentences mean that I still love you from the past until now.
> 
> And this is another example I read on this forum:
> "I have never been big on vegetables." Whereas, a North American would either say that OR say "I never was big on vegetables."


The meanings are different. "I always loved you" is about the past, not now. The sentence does not mention now. The sentence is about the past. In your mind you might think "now", but that is not what the sentence said.

This sentence would be normal if I stopped loving you (when you murdered your parents). 
_I always loved you, until the murder. Now I hate everything about you._

This sentence would also be normal if I continued to love you. But it doesn't say that. You have to add a sentence.
_I always loved you in school. And I still love you today._


----------



## bennymix

dojibear said:


> There are some sentences that must use *present perfect*.
> There are some sentences that must use *simple past*.
> There are some sentences that *can use either* verb tense.
> 
> In the sentences that can use either, AE speakers use simple past more often than BE speakers.
> 
> That does not apply to sentences that must use present perfect.


If I may respectfully disagree--in part-- with my learned American friend, his first sentence, as to a *requirement* for present perfect.

Consider le avocado's B example.  Past,  "I always loved you."   or my new example, D "I always treated you respectfully vs. I have always treated you respectfully."

It is certainly best, if I wish to stress continuation to say, "I have always loved you."  Simple past at best leaves that open.  BUT notice this is not a grammar mistake.  The suggestion is inaccurate if I wish to stress continuation.  It's like when my kid is at the zoo, the tiger cage, and says,  "Look at the big kitty."  That is inaccurate; there is a mistake in exact wording, but not a grammar mistake.  If we don't press the matter, a tiger is a 'big kitty.'  But the phrase sounds rather too cuddly.

IF the discussion is of the past alleged mistreatments, then D, past, is fine.   It simply does not address the present.  IF I wish to stress regular pattern continuing to  present, then I say,  "I have always treated you respectfully."


----------



## le avocado

Hi everybody,
Thanks so much for your dedicated answers.



bennymix said:


> A. is best --to my ear-- with present perfect. Please note there is NO rule that says, "Here you must use pres.pt or you make a grammar error." Pres. pt supplies a nuance that we like, many times.


You said "is best --to my ear-- with present perfect".
So, this means simple past *is not* best to use, but if it is possible for this situation?

Have you ever heard people use simple past for this situation?





bennymix said:


> B. The first, past, suggests possibly no continuance in the present. Continuance to the present strongly dictates pres. pt. here.


As I read on a different thread on this forum (see attached picture), a native US speaker told that , both simple past and present perfect have the same meaning.
I always loved you= I have always loved you.

So, that opinion is incorrect. Right? or I may misunderstand what is said on that post.



bennymix said:


> C. Same idea, but not that 'big on' is a disposition, not an action. Continuation of a disposition is harder to measure, lacking action.


This means when I want to express a state which is not an action, and that state from the past until now, we can use both tense. Right?
If so, Loving in this sentence "I always (loved)/have loved you" is also a state, why we can't not use simple past like in the situation of being big on vegetable.

It seem that these 2 situation have the same type.
I have never been big on vegetables." / "I never was big on vegetables."
"I always (loved)/have loved you"





> This is especially common with the adverbs _already_, _just_ and _yet_.


Yes, I already read about this.
But the thing I would like to know is that if simple past is common in US with adverbs never, always for action until now.
Please take a look on what my grammar book (Practical English Usage ) write:
***Quote from the book***
*always, ever and never*
In an informal style, a simple past tense is sometimes possible with always, ever and never when they refer to ‘time up to now’.
I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .)
****

I read this sentence in that book :
I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .),
then I thought that this could be applied correctly with my example:"I always (loved)/have loved you".
But after reading your explanations above, I think that I can not use simple past here.


----------



## bennymix

> Please take a look on what my grammar book (Practical English Usage ) write:
> ***Quote from the book***
> *always, ever and never*
> In an informal style, a simple past tense is sometimes possible with always, ever and never when they refer to ‘time up to now’.
> {X}I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .)
> ****
> 
> I read this sentence in that book :
> I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .),
> then I thought that this could be applied correctly with my example:{B}"I always (loved)/have loved you".
> But after reading your explanations above, I think that I can not use simple past here.


I agree with your book about example X.   And you can see the reason:  The adverb 'always' is doing the work of suggesting continuation, possibly up to the present.

I've already commented on B.  To suggest continuation to the present, it's highly desirable to use pres. pt.   However inaccurate wording is not a grammar error: you can see that the context will help determine if continuation to present is meant, regardless of the choice; also, choice of adverb and other sentence features.


----------



## Phil-Olly

I like to think of the present perfect as two tenses for the price of one, as it conveys more information than the simple past.

Consider the following conversation (boy talking to his mum on the phone)

Boy: "So, how's Dad?"
Mum: "Not good.  He fell over again so *I took him* to the hospital."
Boy: "Can I have a word with him?"
Mum: "No, they're keeping him over the weekend."

Compared with:
Boy: "So how's Dad?"
Mum "Not good.  He fell over again so *I've taken him* to the hospital."
Boy: "How long's he going to be in?"
Mum "He should be home on Monday."

In the second example, the use of the present perfect tells us that Dad is still in the hospital, so the boy knows not to ask to speak to him.  Either tense is correct, but the pp is better value for money!


----------



## bennymix

Phil-Olly said:


> I like to think of the present perfect as two tenses for the price of one, as it conveys more information than the simple past.
> 
> Consider the following conversation (boy talking to his mum on the phone)
> 
> Boy: "So, how's Dad?"
> Mum: "Not good.  He fell over again so *I took him* to the hospital."
> Boy: "Can I have a word with him?"
> Mum: "No, they're keeping him over the weekend."
> 
> Compared with:
> Boy: "So how's Dad?"
> Mum "Not good.  He fell over again so *I've taken him* to the hospital."
> Boy: "How long's he going to be in?"
> Mum "He should be home on Monday."
> 
> In the second example, the use of the present perfect tells us that Dad is still in the hospital, so the boy knows not to ask to speak to him.  Either tense is correct, but the pp is better value for money!



The first vignette has less information.  The boy knows there was a 'taking to hospital.'   He's not told anything else.  (And maybe the mother didn't intend to convey anything else right then.)   IF the mother wants to convey something else --e.g. continuation-- then the pres. pt gives her value for money.

Maybe, however, in the first case, the mom does decide to say more.   So she continues,   "I took him to hospital.  That was 2 pm.   I went home, and an hour later I got a call saying he'd died suddenly."


----------



## kentix

Or

- How's Dad?
-- Not good. He's in the hospital.


----------



## le avocado

Thanks for all your examples to make me understand more about the two tenses.

I would like to ask about this situation:
From I was born until now I had never seen a dog driving until one day, my friend took me to the circus, there was a performant of a dong driving a bicycle. What should I say at the moment I saw the dog driving.

"Wow, I (never saw)/ (never have seen) a dog driving before. This is amazing."

According to grammar books, present perfect is the best to use.
But I think that simple past is also common in conversational speaking in real life.
Is it right?


----------



## DonnyB

le avocado said:


> Thanks for all your examples to make me understand more about the two tenses.
> 
> I would like to ask about this situation:
> From I was born until now I had never seen a dog driving until one day, my friend took me to the circus, there was a performant of a dong driving a bicycle. What should I say at the moment I saw the dog driving.
> 
> "Wow, I (never saw)/ (never have seen) a dog driving before. This is amazing."
> 
> According to grammar books, present perfect is the best to use.
> But I think that simple past is also common in conversational speaking in real life.
> Is it right?


I wouldn't use the simple past in  "Wow, I never saw a dog driving before", in conversational speaking or anywhere else. It sounds very AE to me, and I'd mark it as wrong in BE.


----------



## le avocado

DonnyB said:


> It sounds very AE to me, and I'd mark it as wrong in BE.


Yes, I also think so.
I was told that simple past can be used for this situation in AmE. Sometimes, I see that kind of sentences in American movies.
I will wait for confirmation from American speakers for this situation.


----------



## Yichen

To me, present perfect consists of two aspects, one being the past action, the other the effects.
The action is left with the past, but the effects can go up to now or even into the future.

So which tense is to be used? It largely depends on what we are focusing on:
action ----> past tense
effects----> present perfect.


----------



## bennymix

Yichen said:


> View attachment 63566
> 
> To me, present perfect consists of two aspects, one being the past action, the other the effects.
> The action is left with the past, but the effects can go up to now or even into the future.
> 
> So which tense is to be used? It largely depends on what we are focusing on:
> action ----> past tense
> effects----> present perfect.



I think that's not bad, but in some cases the action itself continues till (or through) the present. As in "I have loved her for years."   Said to my friend, who's mentioned his sister, with whom I fell in love years ago and still have those feelings for.


----------



## bennymix

DonnyB said:


> I wouldn't use the simple past in  "Wow, I never saw a dog driving before", in conversational speaking or anywhere else. It sounds very AE to me, and I'd mark it as wrong in BE.



I agree with your preference, Donny B, but I've been living in Canada for decades--perhaps got a bit British-ified in my speech and ear.


----------



## kentix

DonnyB said:


> I wouldn't use the simple past in  "Wow, I never saw a dog driving before", in conversational speaking or anywhere else. It sounds very AE to me, and I'd mark it as wrong in BE.


It doesn't sound AE. It sounds wrong. This is a classic present perfect situation.

AE uses simple past for actions that have ended. If you are watching the dog perform, the action hasn't ended, so that is ruled out.

Second, "never" is a reference to your lifetime. We use present perfect for experiences relative to our entire lifetime, because that, too, is an action that has not ended.

"I have never read that book."
"I have never eaten asparagus."
"I have never seen a dog go scuba diving."

Until my life is over, I can't use simple past.

I have never up to this moment seen those things but I can't say I won't in the future.

(In reality, I have seen a scuba-diving dog.)


----------



## kentix

Wow, I never have seen 
Wow, I have never seen 
Wow, I've never seen


----------



## le avocado

I am reading an novel in English,
The context is:
A boss and a maid is talking about the the kidnap of the boss' daughter.

The maid: Your daughter has been kidnapped.
The boss: Maybe she is at the church for the choir practice.
The maid: She never showed up for choir at this time (2 o'clock). I already called to the church but people there told me that she isn't there .

The author used simple past "never showed up"
Does it because the maid want to refer to the period of time before a past event ( the time the kid was kidnapped).
Is it right?

Because the daughter is still alive now, and the period of time is until now, I think that present perfect "have never showed up"can be used for this situation too. Is it right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

The maid has already established the kidnapping (in the past) having an effect in the present by using the present  perfect. She is now concentrating on past actions, using the past tense. There is no "period of time", or if there was (the time for turning up for choir), it is now over.


----------



## Forero

Two o'clock is a specific time, so if "choir" was at two o'clock, you need past tense.


----------



## le avocado

Hi Uncle Jack and Forero
If so, I think that

She never showed up for choir at this time (2 o'clock) = She didn’t  show up for choir at this time (2 o'clock)


----------



## kentix

It includes 2 o'clock and a reasonable time after. People are late for various reasons and so if she was supposed to be there at 2:00 and it was 2:05 you wouldn't say "she never showed up". That's too soon for "never". At that point you would say, "she hadn't shown up yet". But if 3 o'clock came and choir practice was coming to an end then it's becoming a different situation. At that point you might say "she never showed up". Exactly what time turns it into a past situation is up to your judgement in the situation. In this case, the end of choir practice is a natural marker (but it's still possible she could show up at 3:15). Once it's over, though, the practice is in the past. But in other cases it's not that clear. You have to make a judgement about when a situation is now in the past.


----------



## le avocado

kentix said:


> People are late for various reasons and so if she was supposed to be there at 2:00 and it was 2:05 you wouldn't say "she never showed up". That's too soon for "never". At that point you would say, *"she hadn't shown up yet".*


Is it correct to use this sentence  *"she hasn't shown up yet"* instead of this sentence  *"she hadn't shown up yet" *as you said.





kentix said:


> But if 3 o'clock came and choir practice was coming to an end then it's becoming a different situation. At that point you might say "she never showed up".


Instead of "she never showed up", Can I say " she didn't show up"
I think that these 2 senteces have the same meaning here. Is it right?


----------



## owlman5

le avocado said:


> Is it correct to use this sentence *"she hasn't shown up yet"* instead of this sentence *"she hadn't shown up yet" *as you said.


Yes. It is normal to use the present perfect in this situation. She is supposed to show up at 2:00. At 2:10, you notice that she hasn't shown up yet. You say _She hasn't shown up yet._


le avocado said:


> Instead of "she never showed up", Can I say " she didn't show up"
> I think that these 2 sente*n*ces have the same meaning here. Is it right?


Yes.


----------



## le avocado

bennymix said:


> IF the discussion is of the *past alleged mistreatments*, then D, past, is fine. It simply does not address the present. IF I wish to *stress regular pattern continuing to present*, then I say, "I have always treated you respectfully."


Hi bennymix and everybody,

Here is the situation:
B try to say something to A, but A think that B treat A disrespectfully.

A: What did you say? I can't believe you said that.
B: Don't get me wrong. I just wanted to get you understand the problem. Let's take a look on what I have done for you since we know each other. I *(have always treated) / (always treated)*you respectfully."

For this situation, I can use either. Is it right?

If I use simple past, I just only refer to things happen in the past, and I don't want to mention if treating A respectfully have posibility to keep going in the future or not.
If I use present perfect, I refer to things happen in the past, and I want to mention if treating A respectfully possibly keep going in the future.

Is my understanding correct with what you (bennymix) mean?


****




bennymix said:


> I've already commented on B. To suggest continuation to the present, it's highly desirable to use pres. pt. However inaccurate wording is not a grammar error: you can see that the context will help determine if continuation to present is meant, regardless of the choice; also, choice of adverb and other sentence features.


As you said "To suggest continuation to the present, it's highly desirable to use pres. pt"
If I am grateful that my mother have raised me since I was born, then I come to her and say:

I have always loved you.
==>this is the best way to say.

As you said "inaccurate wording is not a grammar error" and "the context will help determine if continuation to present is meant, regardless of the choice"

So, If I say:
I always loved you.
==> depend on the context the mother would understand the meaning that I love her from the past until now.
Is it right?


****
How often does North American use present perfect and simple past interchangeably in daily life with the word "always" and "never" as in example below? Do they use very often?




le avocado said:


> ***Quote from the book***
> *always, ever and never*
> In an informal style, a simple past tense is sometimes possible with always, ever and never when they refer to ‘time up to now’.
> I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .)





le avocado said:


> And this is another example I read on this forum:
> "I have never been big on vegetables." Whereas, a North American would either say that OR say "I never was big on vegetables."


----------



## kentix

le avocado said:


> A: What did you say? I can't believe you said that.
> B: Don't get me wrong. I just wanted to get you understand the problem. Let's take a look on what I have done for you since we know each other. I *(have always treated) / (always treated)*you respectfully."
> 
> For this situation, I can use either. Is it right?


No, I don't think so.

Present perfect would be natural. The only time that past would be natural is if something had happened that had already severed the relationship and the speaker considered it irretrievably in the past.

- Let's take a look on *at* what I *have done* for you since we *have* *known* each other. I *always treated *you respectfully.

I made some needed corrections to the first sentence. I picked the past option for the second sentence. There is a conflict between the verbs in the two sentences. Mixing those two like that is not natural.


----------



## le avocado

Hi Kentix.
Thanks for your answer and your corrections for my mistakes.

Most people on this thread advised to use present perfect for action until now.

But it seems that some people will use simple past for actions until now. The evidence is the quotes below.
Do you know why there is the difference? Does it because the difference on the region people are living?




le avocado said:


> And this is another example I read on this forum:
> "I have never been big on vegetables." Whereas, a North American would either say that OR say "I never was big on vegetables."



* This is from a famous and reliable grammar book.


le avocado said:


> Please take a look on what my grammar book (Practical English Usage ) write:
> ***Quote from the book***
> *always, ever and never*
> In an informal style, a simple past tense is sometimes possible with always, ever and never when they refer to ‘time up to now’.
> I always knew I could trust you. ( or I've always known . . .)
> ****


----------

