# know in the perfect and continuous tense



## yakor

Hi!
I'm not sure if I can use sometimes the verb "know" in the continues tense. Also, I'm not sure if one could say,
1)"After your answer I have known that I'm not quite right". It seems that one should say instead "After your answer I know/knew I'm not quite right".
2)The sentence "_I have known many interesting people in my life._" implying that you no longer know them (i.e. no longer meet/keep company with them). Yes?
The using "know"in perfect tense is different from other verbs? For example,"I have sailed on this ship three years" means that I continue to sail time to time, not ended.


----------



## Florentia52

The tenses in "After your answer, I know I'm not quite right" are correct. In the past tense, "I knew I wasn't quite right" would be correct. "...I have known..." is not correct.

To say "I have known many interesting people in my life" does not necessarily imply that you do not continue to know interesting people.


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> To say "I have known many interesting people in my life" does not necessarily imply that you do not continue to know interesting people.


But  "many interesting people" means the concrete people.
What about the continuous tense?


----------



## Parla

> "After your answer, I have known that I'm not quite right". It seems that  one should say instead, "After your answer, I know/knew I'm not quite  right".


Yes, you're right; "have known" is wrong, and "know" would be correct. If it were "knew", then it would correctly read, "I knew that I wasn't quite right." (Tenses must be consistent.)



> "I have known many interesting people in my life." This implies that I no longer know them. Yes?


No, it doesn't. You may or may not still know some or all of them. "I knew . . . ", simple past tense, would imply that you no longer know them, but "I have known" doesn't say one way or the other.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> What about the continuous tense?


What about it? You haven't given any examples of "know" in the continuous *aspect* (the continuous is an aspect, not a tense).


----------



## VicNicSor

Do I understand correctly that "After your answer, I have known that I'm not quite right" is incorrect because of "After your answer" which is a time marker? And if we just say "I have known that I'm not quite right" - it'll be correct, right?


----------



## Parla

> And if we just say "I have known that I'm not quite right" - it'll be correct, right?


Not in the English I speak. That would mean that at some time or times in my life, I have had the experience of knowing I wasn't quite right. It would be a rather odd thing to say all by itself.


----------



## VicNicSor

Oh, I absolutely haven't paid attention to the present "I am"
I meant: "I have known that* I was* not quite right" / "I have learnt that *I was* not quite right" (meaning that some time ago I learnt that I hadn't been quite right  and now I'm telling you about it)
Is it correct?


----------



## Parla

> "I have known that* I was* not quite right" / "I have learnt that *I was* not quite right" (meaning that some time ago I learnt that I hadn't been quite right  and now I'm telling you about it).


The second version sounds fine to me, except that we spell it _learned_, not "learnt".


----------



## yakor

I'm not sure why one can't use two present tenses in one sentence? "I have known that I'm not quite right in relation to him"
"I have always known (earlier and now) that I'm right" (I have been sure I'm right)" but "I have always known that I'm not quite right in relation to him" is wrong?
"Why can't someone always have known that he is wrong"?(he knew earlier and knows now, he knew earlier and has still known and don't care about?)


----------



## Florentia52

I'm not quite sure what "...not quite right in relation to him" means.

That aside, you can say ""I have always known that I was wrong" (about something). The second verb needs to be in the past tense, even if the situation continues into the present. "She has always known she was a strong person" is preferable to "She has always known she is a strong person."


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> I'm not quite sure what "...not quite right in relation to him" means.


It means almost the same as you wrote by "I'm wrong". Only it is not quite wrong. (50%*50 %)
I meant that someone treats the other the way which doesn't correspond to reality. The person thinks about the other not so, as the other deserves.


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> "She has always known she was a strong person" is preferable to "She has always known she is a strong person."


OK, what about,"Because she has been a teacher, she is interested in Grammar". Is it correct? Or it is more correct to say, "Because she has been a teacher, she was interested in Grammar" or "Because she has been a teacher she has been interested in Grammar"?What is correct?


----------



## Florentia52

"Because she has been a teacher, she is interested in grammar" is correct.

"Because she *has* been a teacher, she was interested in grammar" would have to be "Because she *had* been a teacher..."

"Because she has been a teacher, she has been interested in grammar" is correct but sounds a bit awkward. 

I still don't understand the meaning of "I have known that I'm not quite right in relation to him." Do you mean one person treats the other unfairly?


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> I still don't understand the meaning of "I have known that I'm not quite right in relation to him." Do you mean one person treats the other unfairly?


I think yes, if "unfairly" implies "not the way by which it should be".


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> "Because she has been a teacher, she has been interested in grammar" is correct but sounds a bit awkward.


Because she was and still a teacher,  she was and still is interested in Gramma. It sounds better? It is what I meant by this awkward sentence.
You don't use two perfect tenses in one sentence?


----------



## yakor

Do you use the perfect tense in a main clause, if it is used in a subordinate clause?


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Do you use the perfect tense in a main clause, if it is used in a subordinate clause?


Sometimes:

Lately I've been learning origami, which I've found to be a very relaxing pastime.

But that question is so vague as to be almost meaningless.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Sometimes:
> 
> Lately I've been learning origami, which I've found to be a very relaxing pastime.
> 
> But that question is so vague as to be almost meaningless.


I think you use two perfect forms only if the subordinate clause is a relative clause, not the adverbial clause as in the case with "teacher".


----------



## lucas-sp

What about:

When I've made this recipe in the past, I've had a lot of success with it.


----------



## VicNicSor

lucas-sp said:


> What about:
> 
> When I've made this recipe in the past, I've had a lot of success with it.


Is "in the past" not a time marker requiring the past simple?
When I made this recipe _in the past/two years ago_, I've had a lot of success with it.


----------



## PaulQ

Note that lucassp said "I have made" and the time has been defined by "have made": *In the past* is not required. 

Your example uses "I made": the simple past is often followed by a time marker.


----------



## VicNicSor

PaulQ said:


> Note that lucassp said "I have made" and the time has been defined by "have made": *In the past* is not required.
> 
> Your example uses "I made": the simple past is often followed by a time marker.


But if I say "When I made this recipe, I've had a lot of success with it." -- is it also correct? The fact of making the recipe is in the past and the second part of the sentence tells us what it has to do with the present.


----------



## lucas-sp

"When I *made* this recipe, I've had a lot of success with it."

When you use the past simple, it makes it sound like you only made the recipe once. But here, the present perfect is being used to imply that there are _multiple occasions in the past_ at which "you have had a lot of success." So the tenses don't match.

That's why, for me, the structure I used to write the sentence in post #20 is the most natural.


----------



## VicNicSor

lucas-sp said:


> "When I *made* this recipe, I've had a lot of success with it."
> 
> When you use the past simple, it makes it sound like you only made the recipe once. But here, the present perfect is being used to imply that there are _multiple occasions in the past_ at which "you have had a lot of success." So the tenses don't match.
> 
> That's why, for me, the structure I used to write the sentence in post #20 is the most natural.


But I thought the sentence really implied a single action. Something like an invention. Ok, I've understood.


----------



## PaulQ

lucas-sp said:


> "When I *made* this recipe, I've had a lot of success with it."


The difficulty is that *when *= (i) *when *(one occasion) and *whenever *(many times.)


----------



## lucas-sp

Another, perhaps less distracting example:

Because I've been a devout Muslim my entire life, I've never tasted any pork products.
Because I've known I was gay for as long as I can remember, I've never had any sexual experience with the opposite sex.
Because I've known I was gay for as long as I can remember, I've always felt different.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> What about:
> 
> When I've made this recipe in the past, I've had a lot of success with it.


Sorry, but it has no sense to me.
If you use "in the past" it implies that you doesn't do this recipe  now. But the main clause implies that you have still done it.
I get 
1)When I made this recipe, I had a lot of success with it. (when=whenever, ussually)
2) When I had made this recipe (in the past), I  had a lot of success with it. (one time)
3) When I have made this recipe (from the past and for now), I have had a lot of success with it. (It was earlier and it still is)


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Another, perhaps less distracting example:
> 
> Because I've been a devout Muslim my entire life, I've never tasted any pork products.
> Because I've known I was gay for as long as I can remember, I've never had any sexual experience with the opposite sex.
> Because I've known I was gay for as long as I can remember, I've always felt different.


 If your sentences OK, why
 "Because she has been a teacher, she has been interested in grammar" is correct but sounds a bit awkward. It needs "always" in the main clause?


----------



## VicNicSor

yakor said:


> If your sentences OK, why
> "Because she has been a teacher, she has been interested in grammar" is correct but sounds a bit awkward. It needs "always" in the main clause?


"Always" doesn't match the subordinate clause in the sentence. 
"Because she has been a teacher, she has been always interested in grammar" - still sounds awkward, I think
Compare the time markers of lucas' examples:
my entire life -- never 
as long as I can remember -- never
as long as I can remember -- always
"Because she has been a teacher *all of her adult life*, she has been *always *interested in grammar." - sounds better, in my opinion.


----------



## yakor

VikNikSor said:


> "Because she has been a teacher *all of her adult life*, she has been *always *interested in grammar." - sounds better, in my opinion.


Maybe it sounds better but it doesn't mean that the sentence "Because she has been a teacher, she has been interested in grammar" has no sense with or without "always"
.


----------



## yakor

VikNikSor said:


> Compare the time markers of lucas' examples:


 But I don't understand his "in the past".


----------



## lucas-sp

Vik, I think you've totally got it! Your suggested correction is perfect, except for one little change:





> "Because she has been a teacher all of her adult life, she has *always* been interested in grammar."


(Also note that "always" doesn't actually mean "always" - it's a typical example of English hyperbole, and I would read it as "for a long time, throughout her adult life." Finally, an English speaker would almost always contract "she has" into "she's.")

The present perfect needs to have a connection to the *present*. Vik added this into the example sentence by making the duration of her teaching and her interest clearly related to the present. You can compare this to the difference between these two sentences:





> A) When I made this recipe, I had a lot of success with it.
> B) When I have made this recipe in the past, I've had a lot of success with it.


(A) is just a statement of fact. (B) implies that I am currently making the recipe again, or that I'm preparing to make the recipe again in a little while, or that I've just made the recipe again (and in that case, probably that the recipe did not turn out well this time). With (B), the listener infers a present reference. That isn't clear in your original sentence "Because she has been a teacher..."


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you. But, I think I don't completely understand the example with "recipe", too... maybe there is another meaning of this word, but I don't see how one can make the same recipe more than one time.


----------



## lucas-sp

VikNikSor said:


> Thank you. But, I think I don't completely understand the example with "recipe", too... maybe there is another meaning of this word, but I don't see how one can make the same recipe more than one time.


Oh... "Make a recipe" means "follow a recipe to make the dish described by the recipe." (It doesn't mean "write the recipe," i.e. for a cookbook.) Sorry about the distracting example. So you can "make a recipe" on multiple, discrete occasions.


----------



## VicNicSor

I get it. 
But I'm still confused by adding "in the past", in this case. It seems to me that it contradicts _"implies that I am currently making the recipe again, or that I'm  preparing to make the recipe again in a little while, or that I've just  made the recipe again (and in that case, probably that the recipe did  not turn out well this time)_".
Maybe I don't understand something again


----------



## lucas-sp

It's the issue of _present relevance_. The times I made the recipe are in the past. But they are _relevant_ now, in the _present_, because they have something to do with what I am about to do/am doing/have just done. Another example:

A: Argh! I can't believe how awful the service at that restaurant was tonight!
B: Really? That's strange. When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional. _= implies that B has eaten there multiple times_
_or_ B: Really? That's strange. When I ate there last week, they were very professional. _= with the past simple, it's clear that B has only eaten there once_


----------



## VicNicSor

>>B: Really? That's strange. When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional. _= implies that B has eaten there multiple times

_Can one say this even s/he has ceased to visit this restaurant some time ago?


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> That isn't clear in your original sentence "Because she has been a teacher..."


I can't get your explanation, sorry. I had understood your original sentense but only without "in the past" before I read your confusing explanation.. What is not clear in my original sentence? "Because she has been a teacher..


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> B: Really? That's strange. When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional. _= implies that B has eaten there multiple times_
> _or_ B: Really? That's strange. When I ate there last week, they were very professional. _= with the past simple, it's clear that B has only eaten there once_


Only without "in the pAst" it is clear what you want to say. Also, "When I ate there (during last weeK), they were very professional" could mean that he ate there many times.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> "When I ate there last week, they were very professional" could mean that he ate there many times.


Nope. "When I ate there last week" states pretty clearly that he only ate there one time last week.

No present relevance is immediately legible in the sentence "Because she has been a teacher..." I'm sorry, but there just isn't any. Why are we talking about it now? Why does it seem important? How does it relate to what we're doing, what we're going to do, what we've just done?

"She's been interested in grammar" by itself implies that "she has been interested in grammar *lately*." You can see that that meaning does not match up with the sense of "Because she has been a teacher." There is no causal connection between the two clauses, so "because" is inappropriate and the sentence, on the whole, does not fit together semantically. ("Because at one point she worked as a teacher, she suddenly started to become interested in grammar in the recent past"? That doesn't follow logically.) 

But the sentences about being gay or Muslim demonstrate a solid chain of causality, so "because" fits in and the whole sentences fit together semantically.

If my explanations are "confusing" - and I suspect they are confusing because you are choosing to disagree with what I'm telling you - then I will stop providing them. If you are confused by a particular part of my explanations, you could ask for clarification about a specific moment.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Only without "in the pAst" it is clear what you want to say.


The sentence "When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional" is *completely grammatical, natural English*.

The "rules" that non-native speakers are told about the present perfect are very simplistic and schematic. You shouldn't be completely surprised that the present perfect works a little bit differently in the real world than it does in beginner textbooks.


----------



## VicNicSor

lucas-sp said:


> It's the issue of _present relevance_. The times I made the recipe are in the past. But they are _relevant_ now, in the _present_, because they have something to do with what I am about to do/am doing/have just done. Another example:
> 
> A: Argh! I can't believe how awful the service at that restaurant was tonight!
> B: Really? That's strange. When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional. _= implies that B has eaten there multiple times_
> 
> 
> VikNikSor said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>B: Really? That's strange. When I've eaten there in the past, they've been very professional. _= implies that B has eaten there multiple times
> 
> _Can one say this even s/he has ceased to visit this restaurant some time ago?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, my question was not clear enough. Imagine, B used to visit this restaurant pretty often. Then s/he stopped going there (maybe s/he choiced another restaurant to go to.) Could B use your example in this case?


----------



## lucas-sp

VikNikSor said:


> Perhaps, my question was not clear enough. Imagine, B used to visit this restaurant pretty often. Then s/he stopped going there (maybe s/he choiced another restaurant to go to.) Could B use your example in this case?


Sorry, I didn't see your question.

If B wanted to emphasize that a lot of time has passed between now and when B ate at that restaurant (and maybe suggest that things could have changed in the interim), B would say:

B: When I *used to eat* there [in the past], they *were *very professional.

If B wants to present this time difference as not particularly significant, the present perfect is more appropriate.


----------



## VicNicSor

Yes, the last time when B was in the restaurant was a long ago, but B does want to "present this time difference as not particularly significant". So, he can use the present perfect legally. Can we say that it's "describing one's experience"?


----------



## lucas-sp

VikNikSor said:


> So, he can use the present perfect *legally*.


Thankfully for all of us, there is no English Language Police who will arrest us for mistakes! 


> Can we say that it's "describing one's experience"?


I'm not quite sure what you mean. Of course B is describing his experience. Whenever you say "When I do/did something," you're describing your experience. (You could be lying, but you're acting _as if_ you're describing your experience.)


----------



## VicNicSor

lucas-sp said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Of course B is describing his experience. Whenever you say "When I do/did something," you're describing your experience. (You could be lying, but you're acting _as if_ you're describing your experience.)


I meant this is one of the points of using the present perfect: 
You can use the Present Perfect to describe your experience. It is  like saying, "I have the experience of..." You can also use this tense  to say that you have never had a certain experience. The Present Perfect  is NOT used to describe a specific event.



I *have been* to France.
_This sentence means that you have had the experience of being in France. Maybe you have been there once, or several times._ 
I *have been* to France three times.
_You can add the number of times at the end of the sentence._
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html


----------



## lucas-sp

Sure, if you find that definition helpful.

(To me, so much of language "describes my experience" - "I'm sad," "I went to the store yesterday," "I always feel crummy on Thursdays," "I was being shot at from all directions" - that that explanation isn't helpful, but...)


----------



## VicNicSor

Of course, all the things that ever happened to us in our life fall into this category ("experience"), but it seems to be also a term used for the PP.
Thank you.
'


----------



## wandle

VikNikSor said:


> Of course, all the things that ever happened to us in our life fall into this category ("experience"), but it seems to be also a term used for the PP.


That is right. It is as if the speaker is claiming to be now a particular sort of person: the sort who has been there and done that.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you.


----------



## PaulQ

VikNikSor said:


> I meant this is one of the points of using the present perfect:
> You can use the Present Perfect to describe your experience. It is  like saying, "I have the experience of..." You can also use this tense  to say that you have never had a certain experience. The Present Perfect  is NOT used to describe a specific event.
> 
> 
> 
> I *have been* to France.
> _This sentence means that you have had the experience of being in France. Maybe you have been there once, or several times._
> I *have been* to France three times.
> _You can add the number of times at the end of the sentence._
> http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html


I can think of these examples:

[At a meeting]
A: “I thought I told you at the last meeting to go to France and speak to our supplier! But you have done nothing!”
B: “On the contrary, I *have* gone to France and I *have *spoken with our supplier.” (Only one occasion.) This form gives precision and emphasis.
This mirrors:
B1: “On the contrary, I *did* go to France and I *did *speak with our supplier!” (Only one occasion.) The use of ‘did’ implies, “on the contrary.”

[At a meeting]
A1: “Well the good news is that I’ve gone to France and I’ve spoken with Jacques and he is happy with the arrangements.” (Only one occasion.) This implies that this stage of the plan has been completed.
This mirrors

A2: “Well the good news is that I went to France and I spoke with Jacques and he is happy with the arrangements.” (Only one occasion.) The use of the simple past lessens the emphasis on the visit and conversation but it is followed by the important point -> “he is happy with the arrangements.”
And also mirrors:

A3: “Well the good news is that I did go to France and I did speak with Jacques and he is happy with the arrangements.” (Only one occasion.) This form implies, “Nevertheless,”; "After all,"; “Despite what I said before,”; “Despite the previously suggested difficulties.”


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> (To me, so much of language "describes my experience"


To me, language is created first of all  for describing experience of everybody.


----------



## yakor

Going to the second part of my origin question...
First, what does the sentense "I have known many interested people" mean?
1) I met many concrete interested people. And they met me. And now, they know me, my name, and I know them, their names. And we keep up our relationships now.
 2) I knew about these people from the words of others, from the TV set, from the newspaper. I never met them personally. They never saw me.


----------



## JustKate

yakor said:


> Going to the second part of my origin question...
> First, what does the sentense "I have known many interested people" mean?
> 1) I met many concrete interested people. And they met me. And now, they know me, my name, and I know them, their names. And we keep up our relationships now.
> 2) I knew about these people from the words of others, from the TV set, from the newspaper. I never met them personally. They never saw me.



It really doesn't mean either of these - not exactly. All "I have known many interesting people"  means is that "I have been acquainted with many interesting people." So the speaker has met them and they have met him - they have some knowledge of each other. The sentence doesn't say whether you still know them and still keep in touch with them. You might, but you might not.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Nope. "When I ate there last week" states pretty clearly that he only ate there one time last week.


It is because "last wek" is used? If it were "When I ate there they were very professional" then it could mean many times.
=======
"Because she has been a teacher of English  she is interested in Grammar" Is it ok, now?
OR
"Becaudse she has been a teacher of English she has been interested in Grammar." Correct? Connection between two parts is evident now?


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> "She's been interested in grammar" by itself implies that "she has been interested in grammar *lately*." You can see that that meaning does not match up with the sense of "Because she has been a teacher." There is no causal connection between the two clauses, so "because" is inappropriate and the sentence, on the whole, does not fit together semantically. ("Because at one point she worked as a teacher, she suddenly started to become interested in grammar in the recent past"? That doesn't follow logically.)


I agree. Maybe, then, "Because she became the teacher, she has been interested in Grammar.



lucas-sp said:


> If my explanations are "confusing" - and I suspect they are confusing because you are choosing to disagree with what I'm telling you - then I will stop providing them. If you are confused by a particular part of my explanations, you could ask for clarification about a specific moment.


Please, don't  stop. Continue... Only try to be more simple in explanation, accounting for the language barrier. Most your sentences are very clear, but there are some that are not. 
I should open the new thread about how many times an event occurs at using  perfect or simple tense. I don't understand why you use the phrase "in the past" at the perfect tense. And how this phrase influences on the quality of times.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> A: “I thought I told you at the last meeting to go to France and speak to our supplier! But you have done nothing!”
> B: “On the contrary, I *have* gone to France and I *have *spoken with our supplier.” (Only one occasion.) This form gives precision and emphasis.


It seems that "have gone" gave the sense of one occasion.
But if it were,"On the contrary, I have visited  our supplier in France and I have spoken with them" then it  could mean, "I was to France and continue to be to there (time to time) in order to arrange everything".


----------



## lucas-sp

> "Because she has been a teacher of English she has been interested in Grammar."


This is the same sentence you've been asking about. I still don't like it at all; it sounds very awkward and is not natural at all. Multiple corrections have been suggested.





> "Because she has been a teacher of English she is interested in Grammar" Is it ok, now?


There are still many problems:

- an English speaker would contract "she has" to "she's"
- no English speaker would use "teacher of English" in place of the more common "English teacher"
- "she's been an English teacher" is odd; we would most naturally say "she's worked as an English teacher"
- "Grammar" is not capitalized in English
- a comma should be added after the end of the first clause 

Fix those problems, and yes, it will be ok. That being said, it is still slightly illogical. Compare it to: "Because she's worked as an English teacher in inner-city high schools, she is acutely aware of how language and poverty interact in American culture." There we have a nice, firm cause-and-effect relationship.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> I agree. Maybe, then, "Because she became the teacher, she has been interested in Grammar.


Not natural, but on the right track.

"Because she's recently become an English teacher, she's been very interested in grammar during the last few months." 

Nice, tight, cause-and-effect relationship: she recently became an English teacher, so her interest in grammar suddenly spiked.


----------



## lucas-sp

There are way too many questions going on in this thread, yakor.





yakor said:


> It is because "last wek" is used? If it were "When I ate there they were very professional" then it could mean many times.


No, "when I ate there" makes it sound like you only ate there one time.


yakor said:


> It seems that "have gone" gave the sense of one occasion.
> But if it were,"On the contrary, I have visited  our supplier in France and I have spoken with them" then it  could mean, "I was to France and continue to be to there (time to time) in order to arrange everything".


No, "On the contrary, I have visited our supplier" only refers to _one_ visit you made to the supplier. (It's possible you made more, but no information about that is contained in the sentence.)


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> T
> 
> "Because she's worked as an English teacher in inner-city high schools, she is acutely aware of how language and poverty interact in American culture." There we have a nice, firm cause-and-effect relationship.


Another problem, I don't understand this part  "how language and poverty interact in American culture" ..What is stated here?


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> No, "On the contrary, I have visited our supplier" only refers to _one_ visit you made to the supplier. (It's possible you made more, but no information about that is contained in the sentence.)


But what about that "present perfect" could be used in order to express the action that began in the past and still continue in the present.
I have visited him for three years. (not one occasion)
I have sailed  on this ship during last time. (I sailed many times and still sail)
 Because I have always lost my pen, I have had always a problems with writing. (many times)
Is it always  necessary to use some explaining words with the perfect tense in order to make it clear that the action repeats often?
Thank you in advance.


----------



## lucas-sp

> I have visited him for three years. (not one occasion)
> 
> I have sailed on this ship during last time.  not a sentence


Does this new question relate to your original question? I think we're really drifting here, and without a specific concern I don't think it would be fair to get into this new issue.


----------



## VicNicSor

yakor said:


> Another problem, I don't understand this part  "how language and poverty interact in American culture" ..What is stated here?


Maybe poor Americans who live in ghetto or slums speak a bit differently than others.


----------



## lucas-sp

VikNikSor said:


> Maybe poor Americans who live in ghetto or slums speak a bit differently than others.


Exactly. And maybe they're denied opportunities for economic/academic/professional advancement because of the way they speak.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Does this new question relate to your original question? I think we're really drifting here, and without a specific concern I don't think it would be fair to get into this new issue.


One question more, why it is not a sentence? Because of "during last time". It should be just "last time"?


----------



## yakor

Hi!
Could one tell me why 
"I have sailed on this ship during last time"  not a sentence
;;;;
How It should be,"I have sailed on this ship last time"? Is "during" and "for" is never used before "last time"?
Also, what could "I know him(this singer)" mean?
1) I saw him on TV and read much information about him, but he doesn't know something about me.
2) I met him personally, so he knows me too.
Or both:1) and 2). I really not sure that I get it.


----------



## Forero

I would like to return to the original question, which I find interesting.





yakor said:


> Hi!
> I'm not sure if I can use sometimes the verb "know" in the continues tense. Also, I'm not sure if one could say,
> 1)"After your answer I have known that I'm not quite right". It seems that one should say instead "After your answer I know/knew I'm not quite right".
> 2)The sentence "_I have known many interesting people in my life._" implying that you no longer know them (i.e. no longer meet/keep company with them). Yes?
> The using "know"in perfect tense is different from other verbs? For example,"I have sailed on this ship three years" means that I continue to sail time to time, not ended.


In my opinion, the present perfect tense, regardless of the particular verb, says nothing about whether the state or activity in question continues into the present. Like the past tense, it only tells us something about a state or event(s) of the past. But unlike past tense, present perfect gives us not a recounting of the past, but a present summary of it. The present perfect is not a past tense but a type of present tense, so any specific time markers with it have to refer to the present (ignoring "historical present" contexts).

The verb _know_ has all the forms and tenses as most verbs, but what it usually means is something that does not end, under normal circumstances. _Know_ can sometimes be used to mark a beginning of knowing, but usually not an end.

I hope what I said so far is enough to show that "I have known many interesting people in my life" does not mean I no longer know those people. It is just a summary of my experience so far.

The sentence "After your answer I have known that I'm not quite right" is valid if the context supports it, but it seems strange without any explanation of what (or when) "after your answer" is or was, and it does not help that "not quite right" also seems to leave us hanging without a specific meaning.

Certainly, if "your answer" is meant to refer to one time in the past, and the sentence is meant to be about a beginning at that time, it ought to be "After (you gave me) your answer, I knew (that) ...." The proper tense for being "not quite right" depends on whether it is meant as something about ignorance dispelled by the knowing in question, or about some sort of ongoing deficiency.

And if "your answer" is meant to refer to an event or events in the present, it is proper to say "After (you give / you have given) your answer, I know that I'm not quite right."


----------



## yakor

It is stiil not clear to me if one could say,"After your answer I have known that I'm not quite right"(the answer has been given just now<I just now have heard it)
Also, it is not clear if one could use the verb "know" in the senses 1) and 2)..see the post 69


----------



## Forero

yakor said:


> It is stiil not clear to me if one could say,"After your answer I have known that I'm not quite right"(the answer has been given just now<I just now have heard it)


"After just now I have known" does not make much sense because it is hard to imagine much of a time interval (to summarize) between "just now" and the present. I would expect "after just now" to be about the future.





> Also, it is not clear if one could use the verb "know" in the senses 1) and 2)..see the post 69


"I know him" does not say whether he knows me, but in certain contexts it might be surmised that he does.


----------



## yakor

Forero said:


> "I know him" does not say whether he knows me, but in certain contexts it might be surmised that he does.


So, the sentence "I have known many interesting people" could mean
1)I've got some information about these people on TV, books, video...I know about them from media.
2) I met them some time ago and they met me too then. We became acquainted with each other.
Also, it is not clear the difference to me between,"I have known many interesting people" and "I know many interesting people".


----------



## Forero

yakor said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I know him" does not say whether he knows me, but in certain contexts it might be surmised that he does.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the sentence "I have known many interesting people" could mean
> 1)I've got some information about these people on TV, books, video...I know about them from media.
> 2) I met them some time ago and they met me too then. We became acquainted with each other.
> Also, it is not clear the difference to me between,"I have known many interesting people" and "I know many interesting people".
Click to expand...

Until now, I have in this thread been overlooking an important distinction. Knowing a person and knowing something are not (necessarily) the same kind of knowing.

Knowing a person is being familiar with them. The familiarity may be superficial or deep, mutual or one-way, long lasting or ephemeral.

We do say things like "I don't know him any more", because knowing a person can have an end. Familiarity can fade, or the people one knows can move away, sometimes with no forwarding address.

"I have known many interesting people" is about knowing in the past; "I know many interesting people" is about knowing in the present. Neither implies the other, especially when considering that "many interesting people" may have been different people in the past.

I could say "I have known many interesting people in the past, but they have all died and I do not know anyone that interesting any more."

Please note: A lot of grammar sources, and several good teachers on this form, seem to say that present perfect implies certain things, such as relevance to the present, completion or incompleteness, etc., but I have found this unhelpful in distinguishing present perfect from other tense-aspect combinations. What is happening in most of their examples of such things is something I call surmise or suggestion and others have called implicature. I advise learners not to confuse this with literal statement, meaning, or implication.

The main difference, in terms of actual meaning, between present perfect and past simple is the difference between a present summary of the past and the past itself. In present perfect, the time of the action or state expressed by the main verb (and its complements and modifiers) is in the past, but the summary of it is in the present.

"I have known many interesting people in the past" is a valid sentence and means the same as "I have known many interesting people before." Even though "I have known ... in the past" summarizes that "I knew ... in the past", perhaps on multiple occasions, "I have known" is not past tense. The sentence works because "the past" is a nonspecific time that has only just now ended.

On the other hand, "I have known many interesting people earlier this morning" does not work because "earlier this morning" is a specific reference to a time in the past. It has not been "earlier this morning" continuously since the time in question.

It is also possible to say "I have known many interesting people in the past, but when I got up this morning I did not know any interesting people. They had all died. However, since I met you this afternoon I have been finding you quite interesting." Notice that we would not replace "I got up this morning" in this context with "I have gotten up this morning", because the morning is over, and we would not replace "I did not know" in this context with "I have not known", because it is modified by "when I got up this morning", which is a specific reference to a time in the past.

In this scenario the time(s) when I knew many interesting people preceded the time when I got up this morning, but what we now call "the past" did not end when I got up.

Now, notice that my context implied something not stated by your sentence itself. Removing my hypothetical context, the sentence "I have known many interesting people" by itself is just a present summary of the past. With present perfect, the time of the main verb (in past participle form) ends with the present. But this does not mean the action or state, in this case the knowing, ends with the present. Neither does it mean it does not end.

I hope this helps.


----------



## yakor

Forero, could you comment my #73 post in brief? Your answer is too complicated, especially the 
Now, notice that my context implied something not stated by your  sentence itself. Removing my hypothetical context, the sentence "I have  known many interesting people" by itself is just a present summary of  the past. With present perfect, the time of the main verb (in past  participle form) ends with the present. But this does not mean the  action or state, in this case the knowing, ends with the present.  Neither does it mean it does not end.
Sorry, but it couldn't help me somehow. I hope it helps the other readers at least.


----------



## JustKate

yakor said:


> So, the sentence "I have known many interesting people" could mean
> 1)I've got some information about these people on TV, books, video...I know about them from media.
> 2) I met them some time ago and they met me too then. We became acquainted with each other.
> Also, it is not clear the difference to me between,"I have known many interesting people" and "I know many interesting people".



"I have known many interesting people" to me means that I knew them personally - face to face or at least via email or phone. That is, we're acquainted on a personal, one-on-one level. In this context, information from media wouldn't mean that I'd "known" them. I might know about them, I might know many facts about them, I might have some ideas about what they're like as people, but that's not the same as saying "Yes, I knew him. He was interesting."


----------



## Forero

yakor said:


> Forero, could you comment my #73 post in brief? Your answer is too complicated, especially the
> Now, notice that my context implied something not stated by your  sentence itself. Removing my hypothetical context, the sentence "I have  known many interesting people" by itself is just a present summary of  the past. With present perfect, the time of the main verb (in past  participle form) ends with the present. But this does not mean the  action or state, in this case the knowing, ends with the present.  Neither does it mean it does not end.
> Sorry, but it couldn't help me somehow. I hope it helps the other readers at least.


Simply speaking, the sentence "I have known many interesting people" is about having known them, not about knowing them now. Perhaps I still know (some of) them; perhaps not.

And the sentence "I have known many interesting people" does not say explicitly in what capacity I knew these people or whether they knew me. That said, some people are very loose with their idea of knowing somebody and others are quite strict in one sense or another.

Does this help?

P.S. JustKate has an important point, with which I agree. We would not normally claim to know someone on television without ever having been around them.

On the other hand, I might say I know a certain legislator because I once debated him in my ninth grade science class. In fact I might say I knew everyone in the class, even without a one-on-one conversation, because we were present in the same room for an hour at a time over the course of a school year.


----------

