# Indefinite aspect {habitual action vs. fact}



## Lun-14

Hi



> He eats fish.
> (This time, it's unclear whether this is a habitual action or just a fact.)


Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect?

I don't understand the red line. If someone eats fish, it is clear that it is a habitual action. Also, it is a fact that that "someone" eats fish.
So I don't understand _why_ it is unclear whether it's a habitual action or a fact.

Could you please clear this up for me? If you could give an example to support your explanation, it'd be very helpful.



Thanks a lot.


----------



## grassy

It can indeed mean two things:

a) it's a habitual action; he eats fish every day, for example
b) it's a fact that he consumes fish; he's not a vegetarian; it doesn't matter when or how often he does it, he just does it.


----------



## Barque

Lun-14 said:


> If someone eats fish, it is clear that it is a habitual action. Also, it is a fact that that "someone" eats fish.


The sentence could be used to refer to a habitual action or merely a fact. It needn't be a habitual action.


Lun-14 said:


> So I don't understand why it is unclear whether it's a habitual action or a fact.


By itself, it doesn't say anything about whether it's used to refer to a habitual action or a fact. It's dependent on context. The earlier two examples are more clearly merely facts.

_Cross-posted._


----------



## PaulQ

It is a difficult distinction to describe, as it involves "fish" as a countable and uncountable noun (often where the distinction is only slight) - but they are two distinct concepts that are clearer when there is context:

Habitual/regular/frequent action:
1. Mankind and bears are both omnivores - they both eat plants, meat, and fish.
2. "I am cooking snapper, please join me. Do you eat fish?" -> "Do you regularly eat fish?" with the nuance of "Is fish something that you enjoy eating?"

A simple single action.
"John goes into the restaurant and eats fish."

The problem becomes easier to see if a countable noun

"People eat apples" same as "People eat fish."
"I eat an apple" same as "On this occasion, I eat a fish".


----------



## Lun-14

PaulQ said:


> A simple single action.
> "John goes into the restaurant and eats fish."


But this sentence seems to mean _John regularly goes into the restaurant and eats fish_, doesn't it?


----------



## Barque

Lun-14 said:


> But this sentence seems to mean


How do you know? It could also refer to a single occurrence.


----------



## PaulQ

You seem to be raising objections without making the effort to understand.


Lun-14 said:


> But this sentence seems to mean _John regularly goes into the restaurant and eats fish_, doesn't it?


No, it doesn't (notice "*into*" and not "*to*".) 

But
(i) even if it does, I think you can use your imagination to envisage a single event. For example, I do not think that providing your own example of *"He happens to be hungry so he goes into a restaurant and eats fish."* is beyond your capabilities.

(ii) If you can see that the sentence has two potential meanings, then you have understood the problem that the author in the link is trying to explain - you have therefore answered your own question.


----------



## Lun-14

Barque said:


> How do you know?


I know because the tense is simple present, i.e. "goes". Simple present tense shows the regular/habitual action.
More examples:
He plays cricket. -> He *regularly* plays cricket.
I drink water. -> I *regularly* drink water.
The sun rises in the east. -> The sun *regularly* rises in the east.
People ask questions on WRF. -> People *regularly* ask questions on WRF.




Barque said:


> It could also refer to a single occurrence.


How? If it'd referred to a single occurrence, it would have used the simple past tense, i.e.

John *went* into the restaurant and _*ate*_ fish.


This clearly shows John's going into the restaurant and eating fish _at some time in the past. _So it is a single occurrence - John doesn't regularly/habitually goes into the restaurant and eats fish.


----------



## Barque

Did you read #7?


Lun-14 said:


> I know because the tense is simple present, i.e. "goes".


That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a habitual action.


Lun-14 said:


> If it'd referred to a single occurrence, it would have used the simple past tense, i.e.
> John *went* into the restaurant and _*ate*_ fish.


Not necessarily.


----------



## PaulQ

Did you read #7?


Lun-14 said:


> I know because the tense is simple present, i.e. "goes". Simple present tense shows the regular/habitual action.
> More examples:
> He plays cricket. -> He *regularly* plays cricket.
> I drink water. -> I *regularly* drink water.
> The sun rises in the east. -> The sun *regularly* rises in the east.
> People ask questions on WRF. -> People *regularly* ask questions on WRF.


Now give us four examples of where the present tense relates only to one instance...


----------



## Lun-14

Barque said:


> Did you read #7?


Yes, I did, but I'm confused - I don't understand his point. I have always been taught that present simple tense *always* shows the regular/habitual action (examples in #8). I'm not sure how it can refer to a single occurrence.

I need to know when present simple tense can refer to a habitual action and when it can refer to a single action.


----------



## Lun-14

PaulQ said:


> Now give us four examples of where the present tense relates only to one instance...


I can't - I am having a hard time understanding how present simple tense can refer to a single occurrence of an action.

A woman *slaps* me in the supermarket. -> Every day when I goes to the supermarket, a woman slaps me. It is a habitual action that I receive every day from the woman. It is a habitual action. -> How can it refer to a single occurrence?

A woman *slapped* me in the supermarket -> It is a single occurrence of the action that I received from the woman on one particular day. -> How can it refer to a habitual occurrence?


----------



## VicNicSor

Lun-14 said:


> I have always been taught that present simple tense *always* shows the regular/habitual action


So not only have you been taught the wrong thing, you've also _always _been taught that!
But it only takes a couple of clicks in the internet to see that the present simple has many other meanings apart from "habitual". E.g.:
Present simple ( I work ) - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary
Note the first usage at the link: "general truths and facts", which is what is meant by "fact" in the OP.


----------



## velisarius

The present simple is used also for present tense narratives. Whole novels have beeen written in the present tense. A running commentary will also make use of this tense. (I'm sure you've heard sports commentators.)


----------



## Truffula

Lun asked me to comment on this thread, but if there is any confusion here it appears all to be in Lun's understanding.

Lun - it appears very clear to me, you simply are insisting on something that isn't true.

I think perhaps you don't comprehend what is meant by something being "a fact."

Light passes through transparent materials.  This is a fact, not a habitual action.  There exist transparent materials that have been kept in the dark since they were produced (for example, unused photographic film).  They are still transparent, and light still passes through them (although it never has).  That is what it means that the present tense is used as a 'fact.'

So let's take the example of Emily.  Emily has been raised as a vegetarian her whole life.  But now that she is 18, she has decided she will no longer be a vegetarian.  Now, she is an omnivore and she eats fish and meat.

She has _never_ eaten fish, but, now she isn't a vegetarian anymore and she eats fish.  It is not a habitual action... it's just a fact.

Emily's older sister, Esther, also stopped being a vegetarian when she turned 18.  She eats fish and meat.  But Esther's husband Michael is a vegetarian, so Esther doesn't eat those foods often or habitually.  She only eats them once in a while.  It is still a fact that she eats meat and fish.


----------



## PaulQ

Truffula said:


> Lun asked me to comment on this thread, but if there is any confusion here it appears all to be in Lun's understanding.


Me too, and I agree.


Lun-14 said:


> I have always been taught that present simple tense *always* shows the regular/habitual action


 - That is simply untrue. It sounds far too much like a rule, and there are no rules. 

Try and get your money back from your teacher.

*"The man dies." *How habitual is that?


Truffula said:


> Lun - it appears very clear to me, you simply are insisting on something that isn't true.


----------



## moseen

Hello.
How we can understand when it is habitual and when a fact, please?


----------



## Loob

moseen said:


> Hello.
> How we can understand when it is habitual and when a fact, please?


From the context,  moseen. And if there's any likelihood of confusion, we ask for clarification. 

(Lun did not ask me to contribute to this thread.)


----------



## moseen

Loob said:


> From the context,  moseen. And if there's any likelihood of confusion, we ask for clarification.
> 
> (Lun did not ask me to contribute to this thread.)


Thank you very much.
I am sorry, If you have only one sentence, Can you please explain it in two ways when it is habitual and when it is a fact?


----------



## Lun-14

Truffula said:


> She has _never_ eaten fish, but, now she isn't a vegetarian anymore and she eats fish. It is not a habitual action... it's just a fact.


Let's forget what she'd been doing before she turned 18. Now, as you say, she eats fish. How do you know that it is not a habitual action?


----------



## Truffula

moseen  -  Some sentences are more likely, stand alone, to be one or the other.  Most can be made to mean either given the right context, but some usages of present tense just don't quite fit into every category.

Here's an example of a stand alone sentence that could easily be construed in several of the ways described above, and some example contexts I like... 

Mary writes magazine articles.

1.  Fact:  Mary has just been hired at her first job as a writer.  The magazine Marie Claire hired her last week.  And what is her job there?  *Mary writes magazine articles.* She also has to suggest topics for other writers' articles, and conduct interviews with celebrities.

2.  Habitual action:  Mary is a freelance writer.  Once, she wrote a guidebook for tourists visiting her hometown.  How does she make most of her money?  *Mary writes magazine articles.* Usually the editor of a magazine will send her a request for an article on a specific topic of a specific length.  Mary has a reputation for turning in good articles of the right length on time and without causing trouble, so she has as much repeat business as she wants.

3.  Present tense narration:  It's the end of the month and Mary has a lot of bills to pay.  Her husband was fired from his job last week, and she's worried.  She's never had to be the breadwinner before.  She's a poet, and most of what she writes gets published in literary journals that pay in prestige, not cash.  But, she thinks, she can trade on that prestige.  *Mary writes magazine articles.*  When she has three finished, she sends an email to each of the three magazine editors who, at various times in the past, she's become personally acquainted with.  She sells the articles overnight.  Now she can pay those bills.

---

Lun - it's meaningless to say an action is habitual if it has never occurred.  I don't even understand how you can ask that given the quote.  "She has never eaten fish."  "How do you know that it is not a habitual action?"  What?


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

grassy said:


> It can indeed mean two things:
> 
> a) it's a habitual action; he eats fish every day, for example
> b) it's a fact that he consumes fish; he's not a vegetarian; it doesn't matter when or how often he does it, he just does it.


If it’s just a fact, I’d be more likely to say ‘he’s eating fish’, to imply the currency of this.  However, I’d say ‘he eats fish’ to imply habituality.  Hope this helps! JD


----------



## Truffula

Jimbob - even in my examples? Because I think that would be odd.  I'd say your assertion not only doesn't help, it's going to make Lun have an even harder time accepting that sometimes the present simple tense is used factually rather than habituallly.


----------



## Lun-14

Truffula said:


> Lun - it's meaningless to say an action is habitual if it has never occurred. I don't even understand how you can ask that given the quote. "She has never eaten fish." "How do you know that it is not a habitual action?" What?


You said she's turned 18, and *now she eats fish*. It is _not_ clear here whether or not she's eating fish habitually nowadays. Then how can you claim with full certainty that she isn't eating fish habitually nowadays? -> (your bold red)



> She has _never_ eaten fish, but, now she isn't a vegetarian anymore and she eats fish. *It is not a habitual action*... it's just a fact.


----------



## Jimbob_Disco

Truffula said:


> Jimbob - even in my examples? Because I think that would be odd.  I'd say your assertion not only doesn't help, it's going to make Lun have an even harder time accepting that sometimes the present simple tense is used factually rather than habituallly.


Not in your examples.  You’ll notice that I quoted ‘grassy’, and was therefore rephrasing HIS examples to try and show a difference that SOMETIMES occurs in the English language.


----------



## JulianStuart

moseen said:


> Thank you very much.
> I am sorry, If you have only one sentence, Can you please explain it in two ways when it is habitual and when it is a fact?


If you only have one sentence you do not have enough context to know which is meant - and because there's no context for interpretation, it doesn't matter which is meant! It's like asking what does the word "wind" mean, without any context, it could mean a variety of things.

Simple context :
On Fridays she eats fish.  (Regular occurrence)
She doesn't eat meat but she eats fish. (Simple fact about her food preference, but not about how often she eats it)


----------



## VicNicSor

Lun-14 said:


> You said she's turned 18, and *now she eats fish*. How can one know that she is eating fish habitually nowadays?


Really, why are you even asking such a question, if the reply was like this?


Truffula said:


> She has _never_ eaten fish, but, now she isn't a vegetarian anymore and she eats fish. It is not a habitual action... it's just a fact.


----------



## Forero

Lun-14 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect?
> 
> I don't understand the red line. If someone eats fish, it is clear that it is a habitual action. Also, it is a fact that that "someone" eats fish.
> So I don't understand _why_ it is unclear whether it's a habitual action or a fact.
> 
> Could you please clear this up for me? If you could give an example to support your explanation, it'd be very helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot.


I agree with you that any statement that is true is a fact, whether it says anything about a habit or not.

I also find the use of the word _habit_ misleading when used to describe things like imperfect aspect.

But all that is clear about "eats" in "He eats fish" is that it is simple present tense. It could be historical present about something that happened one time, it could be about something that happened more than once, it could be about something he is able to do (as when I say "I speak English"), it could be about something he is willing to do (as when I say "I am a pescetarian"), it could be about something he does as a habit, either regularly or irregularly, or it could be about something he does routinely though not necessarily habitually. (And there are other possibilities, probably not worth listing out.)


----------



## RM1(SS)

Lun-14 said:


> You said she's turned 18, and *now she eats fish*. It is _not_ clear here whether or not she's eating fish habitually nowadays. Then how can you claim with full certainty that she isn't eating fish habitually nowadays? -> (your bold red)


He can claim that because of the context.

She eats fish once in January, twice in March, and once in November.  A simple statement of fact, told using the present tense.
She eats fish every other Tuesday.  A habitual action.

I've eaten lobster twice, and both occasions were over 34 years ago, but I would be willing to eat it again.*  I eat lobster.


* As long as I don't have to butcher it myself, anyway.


----------



## dojibear

Many present tense statements are not "habitual" or "universal facts". For example:

You are wearing a green shirt today.
Your shirt is pretty.
I am hungry.
That bus is very crowded.

How do you know when a statement refers to habitual action? It is up to the writer (or speaker) to tell you! The writer *must *add words someplace that lets you know it is habitual. Sometimes it is a time word like "most evenings". (It may be in different sentences, not this one.)

It's the same with "universal facts". They often use a pronoun like "you, we, one" to mean "any person", but they will also express "universal fact" in some way in this same sentence or a connected sentence.

It is *never* the responsibility of the reader to guess: is this simple present, or habitual, or a universal fact? The writer must make it clear.
If the writer doesn't tell you, you don't know -- and neither does a fluent AE speaker like me.

In this forum, we often use single sentences as examples. That is okay for studying syntax. But not for meaning. That is not how sentences are used in real life (in any language). Sentences are part of a paragraph, an essay, an article, or a conversation. Everything around them is "context" which will tell you whether this sentence (or sentence fragment, in spoken English) is a habitual action, a universal fact or a simple statement -- or an idiom, an old proverb, a command, a question, an exclamation or something else.

If you make up a one-sentence example and ask what it "means," we often don't know. It may be ambiguous.

If you find a single sentence or phrase in a dictionary, you often don't know what it implies. It may be ambiguous.

Those are not complete examples of how language is actually used.


----------



## Truffula

Lun-14 said:


> You said she's turned 18, and *now she eats fish*. It is _not_ clear here whether or not she's eating fish habitually nowadays. Then how can you claim with full certainty that she isn't eating fish habitually nowadays? -> (your bold red)





VicNicSor said:


> Really, why are you even asking such a question, if the reply was like this?



I can claim with full certainty because I made Emily up and she turned 18 the day before yesterday - has no idea how to cook fish - and still lives with her vegetarian parents.  Her boyfriend promised to take her to a restaurant tonight for a date, and she might order fish, but she's a little afraid to because what if she doesn't _like_ it? Then her boyfriend would have paid for an expensive dish she didn't like.  She would rather taste it for the first time in a less pressure-filled situation.  So maybe it'll be weeks before she eats fish for the first time.  It hasn't happened yet.  The only thing that already happened was her decision to eat meat and fish now that she's legally an adult, so she can make up her own mind about vegetarianism instead of feeling like it was forced on her by Mom and Dad.


----------



## VicNicSor

Just in case it is confusing: my remark in #27 was addressed to Lun, who later edited her post (#24) so it now says the opposite of what I quoted


----------



## Truffula

It was slightly confusing, but I figured it out, I think.  It still made sense. 

Why ask "how do you know she does not habitually eat fish?" when the context "she has never eaten fish" was given?  How can that question even arise in a person's mind given that context?

Nevertheless I sympathize with Lun's need to argue this into the ground.  I used to do the same thing (and still do when sufficiently distressed/upset by my own misperception's inaccuracy).  It was my way of bashing new facts into my head past the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Lun-14

Truffula said:


> I can claim with full certainty because I made Emily up and she turned 18 the day before yesterday - has no idea how to cook fish - and still lives with her vegetarian parents.  Her boyfriend promised to take her to a restaurant tonight for a date, and she might order fish, but she's a little afraid to because what if she doesn't _like_ it? Then her boyfriend would have paid for an expensive dish she didn't like.  She would rather taste it for the first time in a less pressure-filled situation.  So maybe it'll be weeks before she eats fish for the first time.  It hasn't happened yet.  The only thing that already happened was her decision to eat meat and fish now that she's legally an adult, so she can make up her own mind about vegetarianism instead of feeling like it was forced on her by Mom and Dad.


Got it, Truffula. Thanks.
Could I ask what you would comment on the following sentences, please? How can they be taken as a habitual action and how can they be a fact?
He plays cricket. 
I drink water.
The sun rises in the east. 
People ask questions on WRF.


----------



## Truffula

_The sun rises in the east:_  a nice obvious one that is both fact and "habitual" action in one.  To the extent that you can say a celestial body has a "habit."

_He plays cricket:_  Could be either, or part of a narrative, similar to_ Mary writes magazine articles_ in my above post.  If he just changed employers from a football team to a cricket team, it's a fact.  If he has belonged to an amateur cricket league for the last ten years, it's habitual.  If you're telling a story about how he goes to a field, picks up a bat for the first time, and plays pretty well for a novice, it's narrative.

_I drink water:_  - this one is like _she eats fish_ just change the details from not being a vegetarian anymore to giving up drinking carbonated beverages for health reasons.

No comment on the last one


----------



## Lun-14

Truffula said:


> Why ask "how do you know she does not habitually eat fish?" when the context "she has never eaten fish" was given? How can that question even arise in a person's mind given that context?


This is what you said:


> She has _never_ eaten fish, but, now she isn't a vegetarian anymore and *she eats fish*. *It is not a habitual action*... it's just a fact.


The confusion arises from your bold red. You said she [now] eats fish - she's started eating fish now. Next you said the bold blue, i.e. she is not eating fish habitually. My question was: how did you come to know that she is not eating fish habitually? From the standalone sentence "She [now] eats fish. -> She is eating fish nowadays.", it is not clear whether she is eating fish habitually or occasionally.
For example,
When I say to you, "I go to ShiwaJi Temple" and you say "You go to the temple habitually". I would immediately ask, "Truffula, how do you know that I go to the temple habitually?". I didn't tell you that I go to the temple _habitually_; I just told you that I go there.

I hope it is now clear.


----------



## Barque

Lun-14 said:


> how did you come to know that she is not eating fish habitually?


From the context, as people have been trying to explain and which you'll see if you read #15.


Truffula said:


> Emily has been raised as a vegetarian her whole life. But now that she is 18, she has decided she will no longer be a vegetarian. Now, she is an omnivore and she eats fish and meat.






Lun-14 said:


> From the standalone sentence "She [now] eats fish. -> She is eating fish nowadays.", it is not clear whether she is eating fish habitually or occasionally.


Yes, true, but you're the only one who's reading it as a stand-alone sentence. Others read it in context. And the fact that you're saying it's not clear whether it's habitual or occasional shows that it doesn't need to be habitual.


----------



## Lun-14

Thanks, Barque. I now have got it.


----------



## Truffula

Good explanation, Barque - thank you for clearing it up.  

So, Lun asked me to comment on why this is called the "indefinite" aspect.  I had no idea so I looked it up.  

Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect?  is where Google pointed me.  Fortunately, there was a good explanation at the very beginning.

"The indefinite aspect (or simple aspect as it's more commonly called) is the verb form used to express a fact. Unlike the progressive aspect or the perfect aspect, the indefinite aspect does not make it clear whether the action is a complete action or a habitual action."  This, in the article linked, is followed by examples.

I think they are saying that it's called indefinite because you aren't sure which way it means (factual and habitual, or factual and not habitual) without context.


----------



## PaulQ

Truffula said:


> I had no idea so I looked it up.
> 
> Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect? is where Google pointed me.


Did you find it anywhere else? I looked and didn't find it.

The OED gives a meaning for "indefinite", which corresponds to the linked author's definition, but the examples are from the same author, in the same book, and from the 16th century:

*Indefinite *II. specifically (in various technical uses).
 3. Grammar.
a. Applied to various adjectives, pronominal words, and adverbs, which do not define or determine the actual person or thing, the place, time, or manner, to which they refer; as any, other, some, such, somewhere, anyhow, otherwise, etc.: esp. in indefinite article, a name for the individualizing adjective a, an (a adj.), or its equivalents in other languages.
1727   N. Bailey Universal Etymol. Eng. Dict. II   Indefinite Pronouns.
1728   E. Chambers Cycl. at Article   The Article A is said to be indefinite, because applied to Names taken in their more general, and confused Signification.
1877   W. F. Moulton tr. Winer Gram. N.T. Greek iii. §25. 2   The indefinite pronoun τις, τι, is joined to abstract nouns.

*b. Applied to those tenses or inflexions of verbs which merely denote an action taking place at some time (past, present, or future), without specifying whether it is continuous or complete* (thus distinguished from both imperfect and perfect), e.g. the Greek aorist and the English simple past; [reference to French omitted]
1530   J. Palsgrave Lesclarcissement Introd. 32   The indiffynite indicatyve of the thyrde conjugation endeth ever in S.
1530   J. Palsgrave Lesclarcissement 84   The indiffinite tens, as je parlay, I spake.
1530   J. Palsgrave Lesclarcissement 382   To knowe therfore howe and whan the frenche men use their preter imparfyte tence, and whan their indiffynyte tence, whiche name I borowe of the grekes, for they have a tence whiche they call aoristus, that is to say, indifinitus, whiche moche resembleth this tence in the frenche tonghe.


----------



## Truffula

Sure... wikipedia Simple present - Wikipedia

Grammarly blog: Simple Present  "sometimes called present indefinite"

and this english arts blog English Grammar: The Indefinite Tenses

There's probably more... but no, it's not exactly a TON of reputable sources... So it sounds like the real answer is "some guy in the 16th century called it that in a book and people still use his term"   

(the big smile is insulting, this is sad news... I think it is cute)


----------



## VicNicSor

Truffula said:


> So, Lun asked me to comment on why this is called the "indefinite" aspect. I had no idea so I looked it up.
> 
> Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect? is where Google pointed me. Fortunately, there was a good explanation at the very beginning.


It's the source Lun was using in #1, by the way And indeed the very first paragraph there explains it well enough!


----------



## Lun-14

VicNicSor said:


> It's the source Lun was using in #1, by the way. And indeed the very first paragraph there explains it well enough!


I had problem understanding the little explanation given in that link. That is why I asked in here. I thought native speakers would explain it better.


----------



## JulianStuart

Lun-14 said:


> Hi
> Indefinite Aspect | What is the Indefinite Aspect?
> 
> I don't understand the red line. If someone eats fish, it is clear that it is a habitual action. Also, it is a fact that that "someone" eats fish.
> So I don't understand _why_ it is unclear whether it's a habitual action or a fact.
> 
> Could you please clear this up for me? If you could give an example to support your explanation, it'd be very helpful.
> Thanks a lot.


That link indeed does contain the same key message everyone has been providing:


> the *indefinite aspect* *does not make it clear* whether the action is a complete action or a habitual action


 and context or logic are the required pieces that can make it clear.


----------



## Lun-14

JulianStuart said:


> That link indeed does contain the same key message everyone has been providing:
> 
> the *indefinite aspect* *does not make it clear* *whether the action is a complete action or a habitual action*
> 
> and context or logic are the required pieces that can make it clear.


Could you please give an example and explain how in this example it isn't clear whether the action is complete or a habitual action?


----------



## Barque

You've provided one yourself.


Lun-14 said:


> From the standalone sentence "She [now] eats fish. -> She is eating fish nowadays.", it is not clear whether she is eating fish habitually or occasionally.


----------



## Lun-14

But in the definition that I've marked blue in #45, there's also mention of "complete action". I don't know how to understand the concept of the "complete action" in the example.


----------



## Barque

It's the same as a factual statement referring to a single completed action. It's described on that page you linked to.


----------



## VicNicSor

Lun-14 said:


> But in the definition that I've marked blue in #45, there's also mention of "complete action". I don't know how to understand the concept of* the "complete action"* in the example.


This is from the link you gave in #1:


> We climbed Mount Everest *yesterday*. (This is a fact. Context tells us it's a *complete* action.)
> He climbs Mount Everest *every year*. (This is a fact. Context tells us it's a *habitual *action.)





Truffula said:


> (the big smile is insulting, this is sad news... I think it is cute)


I was going to clarify that, but that request was deleted before I could, so I hope it is not anymore insulting----


----------



## Lun-14

VicNicSor said:


> This is from the link you gave in #1:


But from the standalone sentence "We climbed Mount Everest *yesterday"*, it is clear that it is a complete action, isn't it? 
Could you please clarify?


----------



## JulianStuart

Lun-14 said:


> But from the standalone sentence "We climbed Mount Everest *yesterday"*, it is clear that it is a complete action, isn't it?
> Could you please clarify?


Yes - the word Yesterday *is* the context that makes the meaning clear.


----------



## Lun-14

JulianStuart said:


> Yes - the word Yesterday *is* the context that makes the meaning clear.


But what about "We climbed mountain"? It is already a complete action (no need to add "yesterday"). Like, we ate mangoes, we watch a movie etc. Then why say it is unclear from the sentence whether it is a complete action or not?
I'd say it is perfectly clear from the sentence ("We climbed mountain") that it is a complete action.


----------



## PaulQ

Thanks for the links - all my attempts led back to the original.





Truffula said:


> There's probably more... but no, it's not exactly a TON of reputable sources... So it sounds like the real answer is "some guy in the 16th century called it that in a book and people still use his term"


I don't think it's a bad name - I had not heard it before - it's quite descriptive. One of the problems is that there is no "Grammatical Naming Authority" to standardise terms.


----------



## PaulQ

Lun-14 said:


> But what about "We climbed the/a mountain"? It is also a complete action.


No it isn't. The context is

A: "And what was it that you used to do when you wanted to keep fit?"
B: "We climbed the/a mountain".


----------



## JulianStuart

Lun-14 said:


> But what about "We climbed mountain"? It is already a complete action (no need to add "yesterday"). Like, we ate mangoes, we watch a movie etc. Then why say it is unclear from the sentence whether it is a complete action or not?
> I'd say it is perfectly clear from the sentence ("We climbed mountain") that it is a complete action.


We climbed Mount Everest.  The  meaning is indefinite. *The same exact words can mean different things in different CONTEXTS*
We climbed Mount Everest yesterday. (Single complete action)
We climbed Mount Everest every year. (Habitual, but obviously complete action*s)*
You cannot tell what the words mean without the context.


----------



## Lun-14

My original question has been answered.
I'll start a new thread on "past indefinite tense".

Thanks all, very much, for your kind comments.


----------



## Forero

Here, I think "He eats fish" is about a completed action:
_
So yesterday my friend comes up to me and invites me to dinner. I accept, and we go to the Italian restaurant on the corner.

He eats fish. I settle for spaghetti._

I daresay perfect and continuous "tenses" are also indefinite in the sense that completeness and habitualness depend on context.

Does perfect indicate completeness? It does, in a sense, but:

_I have eaten fish._ [Maybe once, maybe a thousand times, perhaps even habitually; maybe finishing, maybe leaving some on my plate.]
_
I have lived here for over fifty years and have no intention of ever living anywhere else._

This context almost says the action is not complete.

Does continuous indicate habit? No:

_I am jogging tonight after dinner.
_
The idea I see here is intention, or at least a plan, not a habit.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> I'll start a new thread on "past indefinite tense".


Don't!  < --- >

It's an unusual term which I've never come across before.

<  Off topic comment removed.  Cagey, moderator >


----------

