# I have been blind



## Brigitte_anna

Hi!

Lyrics (Chrise De Burg - Lady In Red):

_I've never seen you looking so lovely as you did tonight
...
And I have never seen that dress you're wearing
Or the highlights in your hair that catch your eyes
*I have been blind*_

Why the present perfect is used? The present perfect implies that he *is still blind*. But as I understand the lyrics he is being impressed by her appearance now, he likes it very much now though he didn't notice how beautiful she is earlier, so the simple past seems to be the right choice here:

_I was blind_ (But I'm not blind now. Now I see how beautiful you are.)


----------



## The pianist

Present perfect is correct and it does not imply what you said it does.

Elizabeth Bennet to her father in 'Pride and Prejudice' ---"Oh, Father, I have been so blind!"


----------



## Brigitte_anna

Thank you!


----------



## Uncle Jack

There are several uses of the present perfect, but I have noticed many learners get confused over one of them in particular: to say that something happened or was true for a period of time up to the present. With this meaning, you can usually assume that it is still true, which I imagine is why you asked this question.

However, this meaning only applies where there is a clear reference to a period of time (which includes, or conceivably includes, the present):
I have lived in Cumbria *since 2015.* (I still live here)
Theresa May has been British Prime Minister* for three years.* (She still is, just)​If you remove the mention of a period of time, then the present perfect means the thing happened in the past. You need some reason to use the present perfect rather than the simple past, but in the following sentences I will assume this is given by the context:
I have lived in Kenya. (I no longer live there)
Tony Blair has been Prime Minister of Britain. (He isn't any longer)​


----------



## Brigitte_anna

Uncle Jack said:


> There are several uses of the present perfect, but I have noticed many learners get confused over one of them in particular: to say that something happened or was true for a period of time up to the present. With this meaning, you can usually assume that it is still true, which I imagine is why you asked this question.
> 
> However, this meaning only applies where there is a clear reference to a period of time (which includes, or conceivably includes, the present):
> I have lived in Cumbria *since 2015.* (I still live here)
> Theresa May has been British Prime Minister* for three years.* (She still is, just)​If you remove the mention of a period of time, then the present perfect means the thing happened in the past. You need some reason to use the present perfect rather than the simple past, but in the following sentences I will assume this is given by the context:
> I have lived in Kenya. (I no longer live there)
> Tony Blair has been Prime Minister of Britain. (He isn't any longer)​



Thank you for the explanation - it's very helpful!


----------



## Kolridg

Uncle Jack said:


> However, this meaning only applies where there is a clear reference to a period of time (which includes, or conceivably includes, the present):
> I have lived in Cumbria *since 2015.* (I still live here)
> Theresa May has been British Prime Minister* for three years.* (She still is, just)



Good to know, however I guess sometimes context can tell us that action is stopped even though time duration is mentioned.

_- You have repaired the car so fast. It's just amazing!

- Sure, I worked a mechanic when lived in Russia.

- And for how long?

- I have worked a mechanic *for 5 years.*_

I think the fact that he worked a mechanic only when he lived in Russia suggests us that he doesn't work mechanic anymore (after he moved from Russia for example to US and stopped to work a mechanic). Or it is not right at all to say "I have worked such a position for 5 years" if I stopped to do that quite feasible time ago? Then "I worked a mechanic for
5 years" must be right sentence to meet the context.


----------



## london calling

Kolridg said:


> _- Sure, I worked *as* a mechanic when *I *lived in Russia.
> 
> - And for how long?
> 
> - I have worked a mechanic *for 5 years.*_


It has to be the past simple because there is a time indicator: you lived in Russia (which means you don't live there any longer).


----------



## Kolridg

I see I was right to assume I was wrong. Thanks!


----------



## Forero

I feel the need to point out that "I have lived in Cumbria since 2015" does not actually say I live in Cumbria now, and "Theresa May has been British Prime Minister for three years" does not actually say she is Prime Minister now.

Present perfect is about a time period that extends up to the present, but that does not mean that an action expressed in present perfect extends through the present.

If a person says "I have lived here since 2015", it is likely (but not necessarily a sure thing) that the speaker still lives "here" just because we know "here" is where the speaker is.


----------



## Kolridg

Forero said:


> I feel the need to point out that "I have lived in Cumbria since 2015" does not actually say I live in Cumbria now, and "Theresa May has been British Prime Minister for three years" does not actually say she is Prime Minister now.
> 
> Present perfect is about a time period that extends up to the present, but that does not mean that an action expressed in present perfect extends through the present.
> 
> If a person says "I have lived here since 2015", it is likely (but not necessarily a sure thing) that the speaker still lives "here" just because we know "here" is where the speaker is.



Isn't the next example the case?

_A and B are flying to New York from Cumbria.

A: For how long are you going to be visiting New York?
B: I'm moving there for permanent residence.
A: How long have you lived in Cumbria?
B: I have lived there for 5 years._

However, B has already left Cumbria and is flying over some other city when the coversation is going on, but he has stopped living there actually only three hours ago when stepped into plane and it took off. I guess if it were train travel taking longer time than air flight and conversation happened 3 days or even later since they had taken their places it would still be appropriate to use Present Perfect. That is, while they are on the way to the destination regardless of how long the transit time is Present Perfect must be actual, except, of course, the instances where the transit time were one year taking into account that they flew from Earth to other living planet and conversation took place a month or two after the departure.

I guess this can work even in case they have already arrived in New York and conversation is taking place in New York on the day of the arrival or on the second. Can't this?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Forero said:


> I feel the need to point out that "I have lived in Cumbria since 2015" does not actually say I live in Cumbria now, and "Theresa May has been British Prime Minister for three years" does not actually say she is Prime Minister now.


This is true. This use of the present perfect is "up to the present" but does not include it. However, with no indication to the contrary, there is a strong implication that it is still true in the present and, if it isn't, then it only ceased being true a very short time ago.


Kolridg said:


> Isn't the next example the case?
> 
> _A and B are flying to New York from Cumbria.
> 
> A: For how long are you going to be visiting New York?
> B: I'm moving there for permanent residence.
> A: How long have you lived in Cumbria?
> B: I have lived there for 5 years._
> 
> However, B has already left Cumbria and is flying over some other city when the coversation is going on, but he has stopped living there actually only three hours ago when stepped into plane and it took off. I guess if it were train travel taking longer time than air flight and conversation happened 3 days or even later since they had taken their places it would still be appropriate to use Present Perfect. That is, while they are on the way to the destination regardless of how long the transit time is Present Perfect must be actual, except, of course, the instances where the transit time were one year taking into account that they flew from Earth to other living planet and conversation took place a month or two after the departure.
> 
> I guess this can work even in case they have already arrived in New York and conversation is taking place in New York on the day of the arrival or on the second. Can't this?


Your example does not quite ring true - it is quite difficult to come up with a plausible scenario where this use of the present perfect specifically excludes the present. In this case, person A would be far more likely to ask "How long were you living in Cumbria?".

Note that there are other uses of the present perfect which do not have this "up to the present" meaning. For example, "I have visited the Taj Mahal" can only refer to an event in the past.


----------



## PaulQ

The trouble is with "to be" - it is often used as a utility verb - a pro-verb - and it is then a question of whether the 'real' verb is capable of expressing a completed action in the past via the present perfect, and if there is frequency:

John will know the answer; he has been a policeman. -> to be = to work as
John will know the answer; he has been in a similar situation.  -> to be + in = to experience
John will know the answer; he has been to France. -> to be + to = to visit
John will know the answer; he has been in France. -> to be + in = to live/inhabit/be resident

However if a time clause is added 
John will know the answer; he has been a policeman for five years. -> he still is
John will know the answer; he has been in a similar situation for five years.  -> he still is
John will know the answer; he has been to France for five years.  
John will know the answer; he has been in France for five years.  to be  = to live -> he still is.

Then you can add frequency:
John will know the answer; he has been a policeman for five years, *twice*. -> He no longer is
John will know the answer; he has been in similar situations for five years *more than once*. -> this refers to the past only.
John will know the answer; he has been to France *once a year* for five years. -> this refers to the past only.
John will know the answer; he has been in France for a month *once a year*.


----------



## Forero

Kolridg said:


> Isn't the next example the case?
> 
> _A and B are flying to New York from Cumbria.
> 
> A: For how long are you going to be visiting New York?
> B: I'm moving there for permanent residence.
> A: How long have you lived in Cumbria?
> B: I have lived there for 5 years._
> 
> However, B has already left Cumbria and is flying over some other city when the coversation is going on, but he has stopped living there actually only three hours ago when stepped into plane and it took off. I guess if it were train travel taking longer time than air flight and conversation happened 3 days or even later since they had taken their places it would still be appropriate to use Present Perfect. That is, while they are on the way to the destination regardless of how long the transit time is Present Perfect must be actual, except, of course, the instances where the transit time were one year taking into account that they flew from Earth to other living planet and conversation took place a month or two after the departure.
> 
> I guess this can work even in case they have already arrived in New York and conversation is taking place in New York on the day of the arrival or on the second. Can't this?


The length of the journey is irrelevant to the choice of tenses.

In this case, B's first sentence tells us that B does not live in New York yet, and A's second question tells us that A believes B has resided at the point of origin of the flight. What is the basis for that belief? Perhaps A has seen B in Cumbria on multiple occasions doing things like buying dustmops or exercising at a fitness club. Or maybe B is wearing well-worn distinctively Cumbrian shoes or something.

How often can a person change domiciles?

It's all in the context (which sometimes includes knowing what has not been mentioned). The fact is that the question "How long have you lived in Cumbria?" can mean "How long have you ever lived in Cumbria?" and the statement "I have lived in Cumbria since 2015" does not have to mean "I have lived in Cumbria ever since 2015."


----------



## PaulQ

Brigitte_anna said:


> _*I have been blind*_
> 
> Why the present perfect is used?


Because _*I have been blind*_ means *I have not noticed [until now].*


----------



## dojibear

Brigitte_anna said:


> The present perfect implies that he *is still blind*.



Present perfect talks about a past time period which ends *now*. It does not talk about the future or present: only the past.

So if you want to say "I was blind (metaphorically) up until *now*", present perfect is correct.


----------



## Kolridg

I feel the need to come back to example with mechanic who very fast repaired the car.


Kolridg said:


> - You have repaired the car so fast. It's just amazing!
> 
> - Sure, I worked a mechanic when lived in Russia.
> 
> - And for how long?
> 
> - I have worked as a mechanic *for 5 years.*





london calling said:


> It has to be the past simple because there is a time indicator: you lived in Russia (which means you don't live there any longer).



But why? Isn't it the same case as in phrase "I have graduated from Oxford university" said in reply to the question "What is your education level"?

After all, if he informs the interlocutor that he worked as a mechanic for 5 years it means he points out that he (has?) acquired great experience and some unique knowledge which are obviously the reason for why he has repaired the car so fast. Doesn't it mean that the sense is the same like in the case with graduation, where the present effect of the past event is more important than event itself, or maybe even better to say - where the effect is what interlocutor is informed about?


----------



## heypresto

There's no need to change the tense. It sounds odd.

Keeping the same tense makes more sense (and sounds more natural):

_You have repaired the car so fast. It's just amazing!

I work*ed* *as* a mechanic when *I *lived in Russia.

How long (did you work as a mechanic)?

I work*ed* (as a mechanic) for 5 years._


----------



## Uncle Jack

Kolridg said:


> After all, if he informs the interlocutor that he worked as a mechanic for 5 years it means he points out that he (has?) acquired great experience and some unique knowledge which are obviously the reason for why he has repaired the car so fast. Doesn't it mean that the sense is the same like in the case with graduation, where the present effect of the past event is more important than event itself, or maybe even better to say - where the effect is what is interlocutor is informed about?


The "significance in the present" use of the present perfect places quite severe restrictions on what else you can say in the same clause. One of the key things is that you cannot detract from the present by referring to anything that points to the past:
I have lived in Russia  ​I have lived in Russia two years ago ​I have worked as a mechanic  ​I have worked as a mechanic while I was in Russia ​
Nor can you usually add a time period to a "significance in the present" use of the present perfect, because this will then be mistaken for the "period up to the present" use.  I say "usually" because Forero describes an exception in post #11, but this is a very unusual situation which would require a very particular context.


----------



## Kolridg

heypresto said:


> There's no need to change the tense. It sounds odd.
> 
> Keeping the same tense makes more sense (and sounds more natural):
> 
> _You have repaired the car so fast. It's just amazing!
> 
> I work*ed* *as* a mechanic when *I *lived in Russia.
> 
> How long (did you work as a mechanic)?
> 
> I work*ed* (as a mechanic) for 5 years._


I guess we say in present perfect in the case with education because education in university is something that is supposed to be accomplished, while working as a mechanic can last any term and isn't a thing that needs "to be done" or even better to say the thing that you need "to have done"? Perhaps the same with reading a book - "Yes, I have read Peace and War", or "Yes, I have visited London" are correct as reading a book and visiting a city are both supposed as actions that need to be accomplished in order to say "I have read", or "I have visited".

I mean to say "I have worked as a mechanic for five years" isn't correct at all if that refers to the past. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## dojibear

Kolridg said:


> I mean to say "I have worked as a mechanic for five years" isn't correct at all if that refers to the past. Maybe I'm wrong.



It is correct if it means this:

"Out of all of the years of my life, I have worked as a mechanic for 5 years."

This does *not* mean "for a 5-year-long period". It means a *total* of 5 years (60 months). 

For example: I worked 2 years, then stopped, then 4 years later I worked 3 years. The total was 5 years.


----------



## Kolridg

Thanks.


----------



## Forero

The sentence "I have worked as  a mechanic for 5 years" says that the speaker has 5 years experience working as a mechanic. The entire 5 years, whether continuous or not, is in the past. None of the 5 years in question is yet to come.

As far as I can tell, the present perfect in proper English is never about the present itself. Even "I have always worked as a mechanic" refers to work in the past only, and "always" is cut short at the present.

This does not mean the speaker does not still work as a mechanic, but the present time is just not what the present perfect is about.

"Theresa May has been British Prime Minister for three years" is not about the recentness of those three years or about any significance a historical fact has on the way things are now. Once a present perfect statement becomes true, it stays true forever, at least if we include any assumptions left unexpressed in the present perfect clause, such as "since that time we just talked about".

The difference between present perfect and past tense is always that the past tense assumes a time interval between "then" and "now" that is not being talked about, whereas the present perfect is about a time interval that extends up to the present (though of course not necessarily about action that completely fills that time interval).

"I have lived in Russia two years ago" and "I have worked as a mechanic yesterday" are not valid statements because "two years ago" and "earlier today" are times between "then" and "now" and are thus incompatible with present perfect.

"I have lived in Russia since two years ago" and "I have worked as a mechanic since yesterday" are valid because they are not about "two years ago" or "yesterday" but about the time interval between "then" and "now".


----------



## london calling

Forero said:


> I feel the need to point out that "I have lived in Cumbria since 2015" does not actually say I live in Cumbria now, and "Theresa May has been British Prime Minister for three years" does not actually say she is Prime Minister now.


We will have to agree to disagree. In BE these sentences mean that you still live in Cumbria and that the PM Is Mrs. May. Otherwise we'd use the past simple.


----------



## Forero

london calling said:


> We will have to agree to disagree. In BE these sentences mean that you still live in Cumbria and that the PM Is Mrs. May. Otherwise we'd use the past simple.


So in BrE, if we take Uncle Jack's example from #11 and add "for three hours":

_I have visited the Taj Mahal for three hours._

Does that make it refer to a three-hour period that includes now?

What if we add "since 2015" instead:

_I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015._

Does that make it mean "ever since 2015"?


----------



## london calling

Forero said:


> So in BrE, if we take Uncle Jack's example from #11 and add "for three hours":
> 
> _I have visited the Taj Mahal for three hours._
> 
> Does that make it refer to a three-hour period that includes now?
> 
> What if we add "since 2015" instead:
> 
> _I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015._
> 
> Does that make it mean "ever since 2015"?


No, because as far as I'm concerned both those sentences are wrong.

_I have visited the Taj Mahal for three hours._

I visited the Taj Mahal for three hours.
I have been wandering around the Taj Mahal for three hours_._

Depending on what you want to convey, of course.

_I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015._

This is just plain wrong, as well as being meaningless.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Forero said:


> _I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015._
> 
> Does that make it mean "ever since 2015"?


No, but if you used the continuous form "I have been visiting the Taj Mahal since 2015", it would mean that you repeatedly/regularly visit it. You started regular visits in 2015, and you still visit it regularly today - or at least, there hasn't yet been so long a gap between visits to break the pattern.


----------



## Forero

Uncle Jack said:


> No, but if you used the continuous form "I have been visiting the Taj Mahal since 2015", it would mean that you repeatedly/regularly visit it. You started regular visits in 2015, and you still visit it regularly today - or at least, there hasn't yet been so long a gap between visits to break the pattern.


So it's not just plain wrong in BrE?


----------



## london calling

Forero said:


> So it's not just plain wrong in BrE?


The continuous form isn't, no.


----------



## Forero

london calling said:


> The continuous form isn't, no.


I am still talking about "have visited", and my question to Uncle Jack is whether he agrees with you.

I am surprised that someone would consider my sentence "just plain wrong". It makes perfect sense to me.

I would like to know If this is a simple AmE-BrE difference, or whether one of us is missing something.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Forero said:


> So it's not just plain wrong in BrE?


I am not sure which sentence you are asking about. "I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015" is probably fine if there is a suitable context. I admit, I find it difficult to imagine a suitable context, but I don't see why one should not exist. It would be the "significance in the present" use of the past perfect, so it probably would not be acceptable in AmE. It could not be the "began in the past and continued up to the present" meaning, which would need the continuous form to describe a repeated or habitual action.


----------



## london calling

I said it was 'plain wrong' because there's no context (and I can't think of one in which I could use it either).


----------



## Brigitte_anna

The pianist said:


> Present perfect is correct and it does not imply what you said it does.
> 
> Elizabeth Bennet to her father in 'Pride and Prejudice' ---"Oh, Father, I have been so blind!"



Thank you. I haven't seen this film and I don't know the context. Does this phrase mean the single event of being blind or does it mean many events (habitual aspect)? Can this be understood based on just the phrase itself (without the context)?


----------



## PaulQ

london calling said:


> _I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015._
> 
> This is just plain wrong, as well as being meaningless.


Hmm...

A: "... and the amazing thing was that in 2015 the Indian Government erected a radio tower on the Taj Mahal!"
B: "No they haven't. That's just plain wrong."
A: "How would you know?"
B: "_I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015."_


----------



## Uncle Jack

Brigitte_anna said:


> Thank you. I haven't seen this film and I don't know the context. Does this phrase mean the single event of being blind or does it mean many events (habitual aspect)? Can this be understood based on just the phrase itself (without the context)?


Being blind is, of course, a metaphor here, but even as a metaphor it would not make sense to speak of being repeatedly or habitually blind. I cannot think of any situation where "I have been" can refer to a habitual or repeated action (unless "have" and "been" are auxiliary verbs).


----------



## Brigitte_anna

Uncle Jack said:


> Being blind is, of course, a metaphor here, but even as a metaphor it would not make sense to speak of being repeatedly or habitually blind. I cannot think of any situation where "I have been" can refer to a habitual or repeated action (unless "have" and "been" are auxiliary verbs).



I'll try to explain.

_I have been to Japan._
This phrase may mean either single or multiple visits to Japan.

_I have been blind._ (metaphoricaly)
Either: I was blind back then when something was happening.
Or: I was blind back then when something was happening + I was blind when something other happened + a number other times in my life. Being blind just happens sometines.


----------



## PaulQ

Brigitte_anna said:


> I haven't seen this film and I don't know the context. Does this phrase mean the single event of being blind or does it mean many events (habitual aspect)?





Uncle Jack said:


> I cannot think of any situation where "I have been" can refer to a habitual or repeated action (unless "have" and "been" are auxiliary verbs).


The verb "to be" is, in its sense as a copula verb, stative - it describes a constant state - and, *without adverbs of frequency,* cannot indicate a frequent action or state.


Brigitte_anna said:


> _I have been to Japan._
> This phrase may mean either single or multiple visits to Japan.


It only means one visit. If you mean more than one visit, you have to add "several times/every year/twice in my life, etc."


----------



## Kolridg

Brigitte_anna said:


> I'll try to explain.
> 
> _I have been to Japan._
> This phrase may mean either single or multiple visits to Japan.
> 
> _I have been blind._ (metaphoricaly)
> Either: I was blind back then when something was happening.
> Or: I was blind back then when something was happening + I was blind when something other happened + a number other times in my life. Being blind just happens sometines.


I can't imagine how in that quote of that film it can be multiple. Of course it is about state of mind or soul, it is not about events.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Brigitte_anna said:


> _I have been to Japan._
> This phrase may mean either single or multiple visits to Japan.


If you say "I have been to Japan", you may have been there several times, but the important thing is that you have been there once.


----------



## london calling

PaulQ said:


> Hmm...
> 
> A: "... and the amazing thing was that in 2015 the Indian Government erected a radio tower on the Taj Mahal!"
> B: "No they haven't. That's just plain wrong."
> A: "How would you know?"
> B: "_I have visited the Taj Mahal since 2015."_


Ok, but that is a different context from the 'normal' usage.


----------



## Brigitte_anna

Uncle Jack said:


> If you say "I have been to Japan", you may have been there several times, but the important thing is that you have been there once.


Yes. No matter which one of those several times. And this exactly the way I thought about "I've been so blind" - She may have been blind several times.


----------



## lingobingo

Brigitte_anna said:


> Does this phrase mean the single event of being blind or does it mean many events (habitual aspect)? Can this be understood based on just the phrase itself (without the context)?


It means:

I have been blind up to this moment [but now I see the light]​=​I have misjudged [someone or something] up to this moment [but now I finally see that I was wrong all along]​


----------



## Kolridg

Brigitte_anna said:


> Yes. No matter which one of those several times. And this exactly the way I thought about "I've been so blind" - She may have been blind several times.


One matter - she may have been blind sometimes (affordable situation), and other matter we know only that there is a fact - she has been blind, and perhaps nothing tells us that it happened periodically. So why we should take it as a periodical state?


----------



## Kolridg

Uncle Jack said:


> If you say "I have been to Japan", you may have been there several times, but the important thing is that you have been there once.


And something tells me this ambiguity works only in the case of "dynamic" verb be.

"I have been in Japan" - we can imagine or assume that he was there more than one time and nothing changes if he was more than one time, the essence remains still the same - he visited it (not knowing how many times).

While, construing the sentence "I have been blind" on the same principle would give two quite different meanings:
a) He has been blind (all the time);
b) He has been blind (from time to time; sometimes);

So, I guess only A. interpretation is workable in the case of stative use of "be" unless periodicity is specified with word like "sometimes". So, actually assumption of Brigitte_annie that "she may have been blind from time to time" must be incorrect.

I would be curious to hear native-speaker opinion. Do you agree on this? Thanks.


----------



## PaulQ

Kolridg said:


> I would be curious to hear native-speaker opinion.





PaulQ said:


> The verb "to be" is, in its sense as a copula verb, stative - it describes a constant state - and, *without adverbs of frequency,* cannot indicate a frequent action or state.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Kolridg said:


> So, actually assumption of Brigitte_annie that "she may have been blind from time to time" must be incorrect.
> 
> I would be curious to hear native-speaker opinion. Do you agree on this? Thanks.


I don't disagree in any way with PaulQ's posts, but I would say that it is not so much incorrect as not relevant. The question would not even cross my mind.


----------



## kentix

Kolridg said:


> "I have been in Japan" - we can imagine or assume that he was there more than one time *and nothing changes* if he was more than one time


That's a key point. Nothing with regard to that sentence changes if it was once or more than once.


Brigitte_anna said:


> _I have been to Japan._
> This phrase may mean either single or multiple visits to Japan.


It doesn't _mean_ that. It just means "at least once". It can't distinguish between once and more than once. It's true that both examples are covered by that phrase but it can't tell them apart. So together they form only a single case - it wasn't zero times. That's the only contrast - either it was zero times or it wasn't zero times.


----------



## Kolridg

PaulQ said:


> The verb "to be" is, in its sense as a copula verb, stative - it describes a constant state - and, *without adverbs of frequency,* cannot indicate a frequent action or state.


And when we say phrase with indication of frequency, like for example "I have been blind *so many times* in my life!" it seems that we take "be" as "become" there? (so this way "be" works as action verb and no problem with presence of frequency accordingly?)


----------



## Uncle Jack

Kolridg said:


> And when we say phrase with indication of frequency, like for example "I have been blind *so many times* in my life!" it seems that we take "be" as "become" there? (so this way "be" works as action verb and no problem with presence of frequency accordingly?)


No, it isn't an action verb; there is nothing to say how the changes between being blind and not being blind took place. However it does show that there were a number of periods where the person was blind, presumably separated by times when they were not.

This is not to say that "be" can never be an action verb. In the past tense, it can have a sense of "go" or "visit": I have been to Japan many times in my life, for example.


----------



## kentix

Blind is a state, not an action.

I have been sick many times in my life.
I have been mistaken many times in my life.

It might have taken some action to demonstrate you were mistaken but being mistaken or sick are states.


----------



## PaulQ

Kolridg said:


> "I have been blind *so many times* in my life!" it seems that we take "be" as "become" there?


I don't think so. Compare "I have been angry *so many times* in my life!" This describes a situation in which, on each occasion, your state is one of anger - there is no process or action being described. "To become" indicates the process/action of change and is dynamic: "The ice became water." "I became angry."


----------



## dojibear

Brigitte_anna said:


> I have been to Japan.


The phrase "has/have been to" means "has/have visited", an action verb. That is a special idiom, and doesn't match the grammar of "to be" in general. It should not be used as an example of using "to be" in English.


----------



## Kolridg

Surely, be is not an action verb. I thought of it as an action verb for a while yesterday because I took Paul Q's statement suggesting that "be" defines only a constant state without frequency as true for all phrases, including those where frequency is still specified, like phrase "I have been blind *so many times*".


> The verb "to be" is, in its sense as a copula verb, stative - it describes a constant state - and, *without adverbs of frequency,* cannot indicate a frequent action or state.


So, as far as I understand, this "rule" must be true only with regard to the phrases where frequency is not specified, like for example in the phrase "I have been blind", and it is not true for phrase "I have been blind *so many times*", where frequency is specified.


----------



## dojibear

Doesn't the rule say "without adverbs of frequency"? I think that is the same as your "where frequency is not specified".


----------



## dojibear

Kolridg said:


> I have been blind *so many times*


What does this mean? It means "I have figuratively acted blindly so many times". It wouldn't make sense using the literal meaning of "blind", which is an ongoing state, not a temporary thing.

But we use the same verb "to be" for temporary things. For example we say "I have been hungry many times." A person can enter and exit "the state of being hungry" often.

Spanish is better than English at this. Spanish has two "to be" verbs. One is for temporary things (being hungry), and one is for permanent things (being blind, being tall). Using the same verb "to be" in English causes confusion.


----------



## Kolridg

dojibear said:


> Doesn't the rule say "without adverbs of frequency"? I think that is the same as your "where frequency is not specified".


Really. Thanks for clarification. I simply read "without adverbs of frequency" as "doesn't allow adverbs of frequency", that was my confusion. Clear now.


----------



## Brigitte_anna

dojibear said:


> Present perfect talks about a past time period which ends now. It *does not talk* about the *future* or *present*: *only the past*.


Hmmm... I thought it does talk about the present, and that is exactly the reason this tense is called the *present* perfect... So I am wrong?


----------



## lingobingo

What the present perfect does is state a *current/present situation* in direct relation to something that has just happened (I’ve dropped my cup) or happened/has been happening in the period leading up to now (I’ve worked here since 2015 / Over the centuries it has become evident that…).


----------



## PaulQ

dojibear said:


> Present perfect talks about a past time period which ends *now*.





Brigitte_anna said:


> I thought it does talk about the present,So I am wrong?



Present (noun)
Perfect (adjective) completely formed, finished or made. (In this sense, which is obsolete in current use, it was always a predicative or post-positional adjective.)

So present perfect means "the present which has finished." -> The present perfect stops about 1/millionth of a second before the present. (Hence the bold in "_which ends *now*."_)


----------



## lingobingo

This is true but misleading.* While the present perfect does indeed only state what happened or was the case up to the very moment of speaking, it carries no intrinsic implication that the action or situation ceases at that point. It is not about things ending. It’s about how things stand at a precise moment.

* By this I mean that students of English find it very hard to understand when to use the present perfect rather than the simple past, since they both refer to past events. I therefore think focusing on the present perspective/aspect of the present perfect can help explain the difference.


----------



## Brigitte_anna

lingobingo said:


> it carries no intrinsic implication that the action or situation ceases at that point. It is not about things ending. It’s about how things stand at a precise moment.



So the phrase "I have been blind" may mean either "was blind and blind now " or "was blind, but not blind now" depending on the context?


----------



## lingobingo

Context is all. The context, in that case, strongly suggests that the comment relates to a sudden realisation – seeing the light, no longer being blind to the man’s faults (or whatever this was about).


----------



## Forero

Brigitte_anna said:


> So the phrase "I have been blind" may mean either "was blind and blind now " or "was blind, but not blind now" depending on the context?


It is not about now, except for being about current history, so any surmise like "and am blind now" or "but am not blind now" has to be based on context outside of the sentence itself.

The being blind that "I have been blind" refers to is in the past, but the having been blind" is a current state of affairs.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Brigitte_anna said:


> Hmmm... I thought it does talk about the present, and that is exactly the reason this tense is called the *present* perfect... So I am wrong?


Be very wary of the present perfect and how people speak about it, on here or in grammar books. It serves several different purposes, and you might easily learn the rules for one ("The present perfect stops about 1/millionth of a second before the present", for example, to quote PaulQ  - rather unfairly, because Paul certainly does understand the present perfect) and then wonder why the rules you so painstakingly learnt seem not to apply in some different situation ("When you have done your homework, we'll play a game of cards together", for example).

The original quote, and almost all the subsequent discussion in this thread, is about what might be called the "significance-in-the-present" use of the present perfect, in which the present perfect essentially serves as a present tense for discussing something that happened in the past, because the past event or situation has some significance in the present. In this use of the present perfect, if the verb describes an action, it took place in the past and is not taking place now. If the verb describes a state (as in "I have been blind") then this state is no longer the case in the present.

Be warned, though, that with action verbs, the present perfect may well describe an action in the past, where a state related to the verb still persists into the present. If you say "John has broken his arm" (an action), for example, it is quite likely that John's arm is still broken now (a state).

There are other uses of the present perfect which do include the present time:
I have lived in Kenya = I no longer live there​I have lived in Cumbria for five years = I still live there (or, at least, I lived there until a very short while ago)​One of the most difficult things with the present perfect is working out which meaning applies in a given use.


----------



## Kolridg

Uncle Jack said:


> I have lived in Cumbria for five years = I still live there


I guess it is so because if I have leaved there for five years up to the present moment, logically it means that I continue live there as I couldn't change residence right in the present moment or today. The end of that 5-years living is set exactly on the present moment by means of present perfect.


----------



## kentix

Yes.

If a meteor hits you and kills you the moment you say that then there is no real present or future. There is only the past up to that moment.


----------

