# I lost / have lost my purse - present perfect/past simple



## dianamadrid45

Hello,
Yet another grammatical question. Please let me know which option is correct and WHY:

I *lost *my purse. I can't find it anywhere. or 
I _*have lost*_ my purse. I can't find it anywhere. 

The dilemma is which tense to use: present perfect or past simple.
Your prompt reply would be much appreciated. 
Regards,
Diana.


----------



## Thank you

Wow!

For the first time, I think I have found an example that helps me see what Spanish speakers mean when they explain to me the difference between the preterite vs. the imperfect.  Sometimes, when people tell me it's either "fue" or "era" and both make sense, I don't fully understand why.  I simply try to base it on what I hear and what I know about the immediacy of the action.

So, here's an example in English where I can tell you that both are correct, but I can't say why.  I will try, though.  Hopefully, somebody with more grammatical "giftedness" can further explain.

Example 1:  I lost my purse (yesterday, at the supermarket, last week).  I can't find it anywhere.

Example 2:  What's the matter?  
I seemed to have lost my purse.  (I'm not sure where or when.)  I've lost it, and I can't find it anywhere.

Example 3:  What's the matter?
I lost my purse.  (I'm not sure where or when.)  I lost it, and I can't find it anywhere.

Perhaps we use the simple past in the first example because the implication is that we lost it at a specific moment (even though we can't remember when or where).

Perhaps the second one emphasizes the uncertainty of the details surrounding the loss????

Perhaps example three negates everything I just wrote...because it is also correct.  On the other hand, it could simply just be a reflection of the speaker's level of hope in finding it.  I truly can't explain this at all, and I don't think I'm even cognizant of the true difference between examples 2 and 3.  Example one is unique to me in that I would not use the present perfect in this context.  =)

Oh...one more thing: To say *I have lost*, the implication is that it is still misplaced.  To say *I lost it* might possibly mean that you believe that not only is it still misplaced, but that it will be lost forever with no hope of recovery.  The emphasis is on the past tense as being done and over.


----------



## dianamadrid45

Hello,
Thank you. Your detailed description of examples with explanation is simply great. I think you are right and my conclusion is that the student in order to answer correctly needs more info about the context. So I am going to accept both. 
That was brilliant!
Regards,
Diana


----------



## Istriano

In the US English, people would normally say: _I lost my purse _unless they want to put a stress on recentness:_ I have (just/recently) lost my purse._

In Central and Northern European Spanish (but not in Galicia, León, Asturias and Canarias), people would normally say: _He perdido el monedero._

Only when a past adverbial is used in the same phrase _(hace dos meces, anteayer _and so on) they would use past simple:_ Anteayer perdí el monedero._

Nonetheless, I heard many people from Madrid and Bilbao using present perfect
with _anoche _and _ayer_...This would mean they lost their purse yesterday, but they
still feel the shock of losing it, so they use the ''_presente perfecto psicológico_''.
And there is also ''_presente perfecto aorístico_'' (now officially accepted by RAE in their new Grammar) where _He perdido_ is equal to _Perdí_,  found in some peninsular users, Northwestern Argentinians and Bolivians:
_Anteayer he perdido el monedero. (_Anteayer he recibido una carta de un  amigo de la huerta, Trinitario Ferrer, muy amigo de mi hermano y me  dice que se ve con él todos los días. )


----------



## Istriano

> _*Anteayer he recibido una carta* de un  amigo de la huerta, Trinitario Ferrer, muy amigo de mi hermano y me  dice que se ve con él todos los días._



*Miguel Hernández Gilabert* (Orihuela,  30 de octubre de 1910 – Alicante,  28  de marzo de 1942) fue un poeta y dramaturgo  de especial relevancia en la literatura española del siglo XX.


----------



## Spug

Hola dianamadrid,



dianamadrid45 said:


> ...I am going to accept both...



I agree with you. They are both grammatically correct. There is a subtle difference in meaning between the two constructions, but they are both undoubtedly correct in AE.

Istriano, dianamadrid's question is about the use of these tenses in English, not in Spanish... 

Saludos...


----------



## Outsider

dianamadrid45 said:


> I *lost *my purse. I can't find it anywhere. or
> I _*have lost*_ my purse. I can't find it anywhere.


With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, while I would agree that in general both _I lost my purse_ and _I've lost my purse_ are correct, when the next sentence is _I can't find it anywhere_, this strongly suggests that the loss of the purse is still considered relevant by the speaker. Therefore, the present perfect _I've lost my purse_ seems like the best choice in this context.


----------



## duvija

Outsider said:


> With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, while I would agree that in general both _I lost my purse_ and _I've lost my purse_ are correct, when the next sentence is _I can't find it anywhere_, this strongly suggests that the loss of the purse is still considered relevant by the speaker. Therefore, the present perfect _I've lost my purse_ seems like the best choice in this context.


 

Well, I'm a native speaker of Spanish and I can't see the difference! If I'm talking about my loss, it's always relevant! otherwise, I wouldn't be talking about it.
Needless to say, if I don't see it in Spanish, I can't see it in English either (even though I know more Eng. Grammar than Spanish - I had to study the Eng...). I manage to use a decent Eng. perfect, just by sheer listening... 
No one will ever convince me that talking about s'thing is making that s'thing relevant. It already is relevant, and that's why you talk about it!


----------



## SevenDays

I think it's a question of immediacy rather than relevance. The present perfect links the immediate past and the present, and so_ I have lost my keys_ suggests the keys were lost "recently," close to the present, while _I lost my keys_ implies the keys were lost at an earlier time. Having said that, I doubt whether people make that fine distinction, and some may prefer "I lost my keys" because it's shorter or because "I have lost my keys" could sound affected.


----------



## Spug

SevenDays said:


> ...some may prefer "I lost my keys" because it's shorter or because "I have lost my keys" could sound affected.



No, I don't think so. Not at all. At least not in AE. "I've lost my keys" doesn't sound affected at all.


----------



## Istriano

But in USA and Canada, these two mean the same:

_I *just *lost my keys.
I 've *just *lost my keys.
_
In both cases it is JUST that describes recentness.
Like in Peninsular Spanish:_* Hoy *perdí el monedero. / *Hoy *he perdido el monedero_
Both are equally used with no difference.


----------



## The Prof

To quote from Raymond Murphy's _Essential Grammar in Use_:
"_*We use the present perfect for an action in the past with a result now*_".

That makes "_I *have lost* my purse. I can't find it anywhere_" correct, because we are not thinking of the past action, but the result of that action now, in the present.



Whether that applies to American English or not, I wouldn't like to say! 

Other grammar books - unfortunately I can't remember at this moment which ones - tell us that with "just" (meaning 'a short time ago'), you should also use the present perfect.
In BE, "_I just lost my keys_" doesn't sound correct.


----------



## Istriano

> JUST
> 1
> _a_ *:* exactly, precisely  <_just_ right>    _b_ *:*  very recently <the bell _just_ rang>


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just?show=2&t=1292711462

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=268652
Here people say it's used in Australia and it's increasingly used in UK English.


----------



## The Prof

Istriano said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just?show=2&t=1292711462
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=268652
> Here people say it's used in Australia and it's increasingly used in UK English.


 
Used or not, I don't like it! 
That makes me rather a hypocrite because, if I were to be honest, although I scream at the TV or radio when I hear it used by presenters, I would have to admit to occasionally using this construction myself.  
In my defence, I would say that I only ever use it in speech, and would not dream of using it in writing.

My advice to English learners (in the UK) would still be to use the present perfect tense here:_ The bell has just rung._


----------



## dianamadrid45

I am becoming to realize that the issue with the present perfect vs. past simple is parallel in English and in Spanish. 
I have taught Spanish in California for 11 years and I soon realized how Latinos couldn't use the present perfect when speaking in Spanish;it got lost when it traveled the Atlantic because it's just easier not to use it. The same situation applies for the Spanish subjunctive, which they use very little and incorrectly.
To make things more complicated to myself I have learned American English, so in English I barely use the present perfect, but in my Castillan Spanish I use it all the time. So now I'm teaching English in Madrid and it is giving such a headache to teach the difference to my students.
Your help is priceless, it's been a journey of discovery to unveil the secrets of the present perfect. Perhaps it will disappear all together both in English and in Spanish since we are moving fast towards an utterly ignorant world.


----------



## Outsider

dianamadrid45 said:


> I am becoming to realize that the issue with the present perfect vs. past simple is parallel in English and in Spanish.


In standard Spanish and standard English (if we may use such terms), I think the present perfect does work pretty much the same way. There are some variations according to region and register, as has been noted.


----------



## Forero

Both versions refer to the same events and the same lack of knowledge about where or when. I see no expressed difference in the immediacy, recentness, or relevance of losing my keys.

 As I see it, the only difference is that simple past "lost" is about past time, and the simple past version just reports a past event and then gives its consequence in the present ("I lost my purse at some time, and now I can't find it anywhere."), but "I have" is present tense, like "can't", so both sentences in the "I have lost" version are about the current situation ("Here I am: I have lost my purse and can't find it anywhere.").

In other words, "I lost my purse" reports the event that happened; "I have lost my purse" reports the situation in which I find myself.

In AmE, _just_ is both past and present, meaning simultaneously "just a little bit ago" and "just now", and ambiguous, since it can as easily mean "merely", without referring to time. Since both "I have just lost my purse" and "I just lost my purse" are valid things to say, and can be said in the same situations for the same purposes, AmE usually prefers the simpler form.


----------



## mfvill

Yes, it is really difficult to find the difference between these two tenses, and it also depends on the person's objectivity. I think some English teachers correct it and they don't know exactly what the person was trying to explain or emphasize.


----------



## The Prof

Forero said:


> In other words, "I lost my purse" reports *the event that happened*; "I have lost my purse" reports* the situation in which I find myself.*


 
I think that in this one sentence, you have very neatly summarized the text-book difference between the two tenses in that particular sentence. 

In other words, the present perfect tense is used where "_the action in the past has a result now_" - it is the result which we consider important, even if, as is often the case, the result remains unspoken.

And I deliberately say the "text-book difference", because it is clear that in "real" usage, many (most?) speakers do not differenciate between the two.


----------



## duvija

The Prof said:


> I think that in this one sentence, you have very neatly summarized the text-book difference between the two tenses in that particular sentence.
> 
> In other words, the present perfect tense is used where "_the action in the past has a result now_" - it is the result which we consider important, even if, as is often the case, the result remains unspoken.
> 
> And I deliberately say the "text-book difference", because it is clear that in "real" usage, many (most?) speakers do not differenciate between the two.


 
So, I repeat from Forero:
In other words, "I lost my purse" reports *the event that happened*; "I have lost my purse" reports* the situation in which I find myself.*
And then The Prof. 
I'm glad you reported this as a text book example, which for me is total bullshit (let me be clear. The example is bad. You are fantastic). If at any point in my life, I say 'I lost my purse', it's *always* referring to the situation I'm now! (at the moment of speech). Otherwise, why would I mention it at all?
I gave up a couple hundred years ago...


----------



## Outsider

duvija said:


> If at any point in my life, I say 'I lost my purse', it's *always* referring to the situation I'm now! (at the moment of speech). Otherwise, why would I mention it at all?


How about this?

Last year, when we were on holiday in Greece, I lost my purse with my camera in it. The purse was eventually returned to me by the police but I never got my camera back.​


----------



## The Prof

duvija said:


> So, I repeat from Forero:
> In other words, "I lost my purse" reports *the event that happened*; "I have lost my purse" reports* the situation in which I find myself.*
> And then The Prof.
> I'm glad you reported this as a text book example, which for me is total bullshit (let me be clear. The example is bad. You are fantastic). If at any point in my life, I say 'I lost my purse', it's *always* referring to the situation I'm now! (at the moment of speech). Otherwise, why would I mention it at all?
> I gave up a couple hundred years ago...


 
I can understand your reaction, but like it or not, this is a rule that genuinely reflects how English is (generally) spoken in _this_ part of the English-speaking world, although very few of us have ever thought about _why_ we use it!!! 
Given that Dianamadrid is learning English in Madrid, I would be surprised if she was not being taught those rules!

Actually "understanding" the rule can take time - I can remember when I was first introduced to the subtilties of our present perfect tense (I was studying TEFL as part of my language degree). I was indignant when the tutor corrected me on my own use of the tense, and it took me a while to get to grips with it!


----------



## capitas

duvija said:


> So, I repeat from Forero:
> In other words, "I lost my purse" reports *the event that happened*; "I have lost my purse" reports* the situation in which I find myself.*
> And then The Prof.
> I'm glad you reported this as a text book example, which for me is total bullshit (let me be clear. The example is bad. You are fantastic). If at any point in my life, I say 'I lost my purse', it's *always* referring to the situation I'm now! (at the moment of speech). Otherwise, why would I mention it at all?
> I gave up a couple hundred years ago...


I don't agreel, Duvija.
Simple past does never report the situation now, but the event that happened (Forero's).
I lost my kees, and I have just found them. 
I lost my kees, and I can't find them now. "lost" does not at all refer to the situation now, but to the event in the past.
I've lost my kees, and I can't find them.
I've lost my kees, and I've just found them


----------



## duvija

capitas said:


> I don't agreel, Duvija.
> Simple past does never report the situation now, but the event that happened (Forero's).
> I lost my kees, and I have just found them.
> I lost my kees, and I can't find them now. "lost" does not at all refer to the situation now, but to the event in the past.
> I've lost my kees, and I can't find them.
> I've lost my kees, and I've just found them


 
Why is the last one crossed? 
(además de 'keys')
Trato de traducir:
1-Perdí las llaves y ya las he encontrado. (no veo por qué hay que cambiar)
2-Perdí las llaves y no las puedo encontrar ahora (bien)
3-He perdido las llaves y no las puedo encontrar.
4-He perdido las llaves y las he encontrado recién. (yo no lo diría porque no entiendo el perfecto -uso solamente la 2, pero naturalmente entiendo las otras, aunque no sé por qué cambia el tiempo, y no veo qué tiene de malo usarlo doble como en ésta)


----------



## capitas

duvija said:


> Why is the last one crossed?
> (además de 'keys')
> 4-He perdido las llaves y las he encontrado recién. (yo no lo diría porque no entiendo el perfecto -uso solamente la 2, pero naturalmente entiendo las otras, aunque no sé por qué cambia el tiempo, y no veo qué tiene de malo usarlo doble como en ésta)


The only way to make sense would be:
I've lost the keys. Presently, I find them.Then I say:I've found the keys.
Present perfect descibes an action in the past that gets to the very present, so you cannot say at the same time I've lost the keys and I've found them: it has to be one (to have lost the keys) and then, a short time later without continuity, to have found the keys.


----------



## Forero

By "situation in the present", I do not mean to be referring to a result or consequence of the past action, just the permanent state in the present that originated with the action in the past.

"I have lost my keys" does not by itself say that my keys are lost, but "I can't find them anywhere" does. And the fact that I can't find my keys does not make me say "I have lost my keys" as opposed to "I lost my keys."

If I lost my keys, then I have lost my keys, and if I found my keys, then I have found them. Conversely, if I have lost my keys, then I did lose them at some time in the past, and if I have found them, then I did find them at some time. In other words, we can always use simple past or present perfect for the same action(s).

Let's say that I found my keys at some time in the past, and that I lost them at some other time in the past. Regardless of which was first, "I have found them" and "I have lost them" are true now and will continue to be true forever. I may know where the keys are right now, or I may not. The use of present perfect does not indicate that there is any present effect of the past action.

Another example: "I have opened the door" remains true whether or not the door is open now, and whether or not opening the door has had any consequences.

I see nothing wrong with:

_I have lost my keys, and I have just found them._

For example it might mean: Several times I have lost my keys and found them. In fact, I have just now found them.

The difference between simple past and present perfect is not in the action reported on, or in the consequences of it, but in our point of view. If I am looking at the present, regardless of the current state of the keys or the door, I can say "I have lost my keys" and "I have opened the door". But if I am looking at the past, I will say "I lost my keys" and "I opened the door" (preferably in the order they happened).



I know of two, minor, differences between the use of present perfect in English and in Spanish:

Peninsular Spanish may allow a French- or Italian-like _passé composé_, present perfect as a complete replacement for preterite. ¿Verdad?
When something has been and still is, English prefers to say simply that it has been, but Spanish just says that it is. For example, the sentence "I have felt ill since yesterday" does not say whether I feel ill now, but I don't normally say "I feel ill since yesterday." In Spanish, however, "Me siento feo desde ayer" is the norm. Personally, I don't think "I feel ill since yesterday" is wrong, but it would be unusual. On the other hand, from what I hear from native hispanohablantes, "Me he sentido feo desde ayer" denies that I still feel ill. ¿Correcto?
Except for these two differences, I think English speakers and Spanish speakers can use past tense or present perfect instinctively without misunderstanding.


----------



## zetem

(1) I *lost *my purse. I can't find it anywhere. or 
(2) I _*have lost*_ my purse. I can't find it anywhere. 

This is not a question of grammar or what is correct and what is not (both are correct). This is a question of the use. First off, I think the use of (1) is more common in AE, and (2) in BE. 

Apart from that, some other points may be considered, before you decide which one to use. The added sentence "I can't find it anywhere" shows that the emphasis is on searching for the purse, not on the act of loosing it. In this case the present perfect is normally used (example 2).

If the example (1) is only "I *lost *my purse", this is what you say if you want to emphasize the act of loosing it (How stupid of me! I lost my purse!) But I think the British will also say "Damn it! I have lost my purse!". No clear winner or looser, here. Whatever you choose, you will not be the only one, and that should be good enough for you.


----------



## Istriano

Forero said:


> I know of two, minor, differences between the use of present perfect in English and in Spanish:
> 
> Peninsular Spanish may allow a French- or Italian-like _passé composé_, present perfect as a complete replacement for preterite. ¿Verdad?
> When something has been and still is, English prefers to say simply that it has been, but Spanish just says that it is. For example, the sentence "I have felt ill since yesterday" does not say whether I feel ill now, but I don't normally say "I feel ill since yesterday." In Spanish, however, "Me siento feo desde ayer" is the norm. Personally, I don't think "I feel ill since yesterday" is wrong, but it would be unusual. On the other hand, from what I hear from native hispanohablantes, "Me he sentido feo desde ayer" denies that I still feel ill. ¿Correcto?
> Except for these two differences, I think English speakers and Spanish speakers can use past tense or present perfect instinctively without misunderstanding.



Well, these two examples are from the Spanish movie ''Hable con ella'':

1. Anoche vi una película que me ha dejado trastornado.
( lit. ''Last night I saw a movie that has upset me'').

2. El abogado estuvo aquí y me ha informado de todo.
(lit. ''The lawyer was here and he has informed me about everything'').

And here is an example from a Spanish poet Miguel Hernández:
_''Anteayer he recibido una carta de un  amigo de la huerta, Trinitario Ferrer,_''
(lit. '' The day before yesterday, I have received a letter...'')

RAE, in its newest grammar justifies this usage:



> *El pretérito perfecto compuesto* admite además una segunda interpretación, la llamada _*interpretación perfectiva o de aoristo,*_ como en _Ha muerto hace dos meses_ (uso característico del español boliviano, pero presente también en otras variedades), donde _ha muerto_ adquiere el significado que corresponde a _murió._


----------



## duvija

Istriano said:


> Well, these two examples are from the Spanish movie ''Hable con ella'':
> 
> 1. Anoche vi una película que me ha dejado trastornado.
> ( lit. ''Last night I saw a movie that has upset me'').
> 
> 2. El abogado estuvo aquí y me ha informado de todo.
> (lit. ''The lawyer was here and he has informed me about everything'').
> 
> And here is an example from a Spanish poet Miguel Hernández:
> _''Anteayer he recibido una carta de un amigo de la huerta, Trinitario Ferrer,_''
> (lit. '' The day before yesterday, I have received a letter...'')
> 
> RAE, in its newest grammar justifies this usage:


 

Great! no help at all. I seem to have blocked the area of my brain that could deal with the PP. I just don't get it.


----------



## Forero

1. _Anoche vi una película que me ha dejado trastornado.
_Nothing wrong with "Last night I saw a movie that has got me upset." Past followed by present, just like "Last night I saw the same movie you are watching now."

2. _El abogado estuvo aquí y me ha informado de todo._
Nothing wrong with ''The lawyer was here and has told me everything''. Past followed by present again: The lawyer was here before and has now told me everything.

And here is an example from a Spanish poet Miguel Hernández:
_''Anteayer he recibido una carta de un  amigo de la huerta, Trinitario Ferrer,_''
This one sounds strange: ''The day before yesterday, I have received a letter...'' because "the day before yesterday" evokes a point of view in the past but directly modifies "have" in the present. I would say "Anteayer recibí una carta ..."/"The day before yesterday I received a letter ...."


----------



## Istriano

_Anteayer he recibido  _has two interpretations:
*
1.  presente perfecto psicológico  (Manuel Seco):
*


> Según las circunstancias, podríamos decir: _La guerra terminó hace tres meses_, o _La guerra ha terminado hace tres meses_.



* 2.  *_*interpretación perfectiva o de aoristo (New RAE Grammar)
*_


----------



## The Prof

Forero said:


> I see nothing wrong with:
> 
> _I have lost my keys, and I have just found them._


 
The reason that one doesn't work for me is because "*the present perfect is a present tense*.* It always tells us something about now*. 'Tom has lost his key' = he doesn't have his key now" (quoting again from the aforementioned book).

Therefore, if you have just found your keys, then the fact that you had lost them in the first place is now part of the past, not the present!

Don't shoot me - I am using the grammar book examples to try to help those learners who are expected to use those rules, not because I want to change the way you yourself use this tense!


----------



## capitas

The Prof said:


> The reason that one doesn't work for me is because "*the present perfect is a present tense*.* It always tells us something about now*. 'Tom has lost his key' = he doesn't have his key now" (quoting again from the aforementioned book).
> 
> Therefore, if you have just found your keys, then the fact that you had lost them in the first place is now part of the past, not the present!
> 
> Don't shoot me - I am using the grammar book examples to try to help those learners who are expected to use those rules, not because I want to change the way you yourself use this tense!


I had always thought (which means, as far as I know, that I dont think it any longer, or at least that I'm considreing it again) that your idea (The Profe's) of the "past action to the present" was both in Spanish and English, but now I see that maybe it's not so "al otro lado del charco" in both languages.
I, in Spanish and English, really make difference between "present perfect and simple past.
If someone tells me "I have lost my keys", I would think FOR SURE that HE HAS NOT FOUND THEM.
But at least in Spanish, we are the "raros" thirty million people out of 300 million who make, and understand, that difference.
So, i would advice Spanish learners not to take so much care about it, but just to know that some people make that difference.


----------



## duvija

capitas said:


> But at least in Spanish, we are the "raros" thirty million people out of 300 million who make, and understand, that difference.
> So, i would advice Spanish learners not to take so much care about it, but just to know that some people make that difference.


 

And that there are totally native speakers of Spanish, who are absolute unable to even understand the difference... and much less use it.


----------



## juandiego

Hi Forero.


Forero said:


> Peninsular Spanish may allow a French- or Italian-like _passé composé_, present perfect as a complete replacement for preterite. ¿Verdad?


I wouldn't say that at all. Despite it may be a tendency in some areas to use the compound form instead of the simple in contexts in which this latter is more appropriate, the simple past is alive and well. Mind you that it's even the preferred form in some areas as Galicia and Asturias, also to the point of its debatable usage.





Forero said:


> When something has been and still is, English prefers to say simply that it has been, but Spanish just says that it is. For example, the sentence "I have felt ill since yesterday" does not say whether I feel ill now, but I don't normally say "I feel ill since yesterday." In Spanish, however, "Me siento feo desde ayer" is the norm. Personally, I don't think "I feel ill since yesterday" is wrong, but it would be unusual. On the other hand, from what I hear from native hispanohablantes,* "Me he sentido feo desde ayer" denies that I still feel ill. ¿Correcto?*


No, _"Me he sentido mal desde ayer"_ doesn't deny the speaker is still ill; actually, I dare to say everyone, would understand he still is. True that we can't overlook the power of "desde ayer" for this interpretation. However, you are completely right that the preferred option to convey that you're still ill, is the present. Probably the most precise would be some form of continuous, as: _"Me vengo/estoy sintiendo mal desde ayer"_.


Forero said:


> Except for these two differences, I think English speakers and Spanish speakers can use past tense or present perfect instinctively without misunderstanding.


I have a couple of examples which I've been told that they are different in Spanish and in English.
_¿Te vienes con nosotros a comer a un restaurante? No, *he comido* en casa.
Mi padre *ha muerto*. (though it happened years ago)_
Would you use the simple past in those cases as I've been advised?


----------



## Forero

The Prof said:


> The reason that one doesn't work for me is because "*the present perfect is a present tense*.* It always tells us something about now*. 'Tom has lost his key' = he doesn't have his key now" (quoting again from the aforementioned book).
> 
> Therefore, if you have just found your keys, then the fact that you had lost them in the first place is now part of the past, not the present!
> 
> Don't shoot me - I am using the grammar book examples to try to help those learners who are expected to use those rules, not because I want to change the way you yourself use this tense!


I must say I think the grammar book is missing the mark with that statement. I doubt Raymond Murphy (the author) would really call it wrong to say:

_Tom has lost his key many times, but he has it with him now._

I agree, however, that "Tom has lost his key yesterday" does not make much sense as written, though I might say "Tom has lost his key ... yesterday", with a break before the change of viewpoint. Somehow the break allows me to make the jump.

I would say "Tom has lost his key" is a statement about the present, but it concerns Tom's having lost his key, not his having or not having his key now. Here are some more examples:

Ex1. _Tom has lost his key before._
Ex2. _Now Tom has lost his key._
Ex3. _Now Tom has not lost his key._
Ex4. _Tom has not lost his key._
Ex5. _Tom has never lost his key._

To me, these are all valid sentences using present perfect. Ex1 and Ex2 do not tell me whether Tom's key is lost right now. Ex3 is ambiguous since _now_ has multiple meanings that seem to apply. Both Ex4 and Ex5 seem to be saying his key is not lost right now.

It is said that English present perfect has "one foot in the past and one in the present":

_—Tom has lost his key again._
—_When has he lost it again?_
_—Just yesterday._

To me, this conversation makes sense because "again", "when", and "yesterday" modify "lost", not "has lost", like "before" in Ex1 and "never" in Ex5. But "now" in Ex2 and Ex3 (if it is adverbial in Ex3) modifies "has lost". "Not" in Ex4 could go either way.


----------



## The Prof

juandiego said:


> Hi Forero.
> I wouldn't say that at all. Despite it may be a tendency in some areas to use the compound form instead of the simple in contexts in which this latter is more appropriate, the simple past is alive and well. Mind you that it's even the preferred form in some areas as Galicia and Asturias, also to the point of its debatable usage.No, _"Me he sentido mal desde ayer"_ doesn't deny the speaker is still ill; actually, I dare to say everyone, would understand he still is. True that we can't overlook the power of "desde ayer" for this interpretation. However, you are completely right that the preferred option to convey that you're still ill, is the present. Probably the most precise would be some form of continuous, as: _"Me vengo/estoy sintiendo mal desde ayer"_.
> 
> I have a couple of examples which I've been told that they are different in Spanish and in English.
> _¿Te vienes con nosotros a comer a un restaurante? No, *he comido* en casa._
> _Mi padre *ha muerto*. (though it happened years ago)_
> Would you use the simple past in those cases as I've been advised?


 
My immediate reaction to those sentences was that this particular English-speaker would also use the present perfect for the first sentence, (but not in the second). 
However, having thought about it, I have realised that I would have to change the wording if I wanted to use the present perfect:
_... I have (already) eaten._

In order to get "at home" into the sentence, it does indeed involve changing tense: 
_... I ate at home / I ate before leaving home._

No wonder people find this tense confusing!!!


----------



## Forero

juandiego said:


> Hi Forero.
> I wouldn't say that at all. Despite it may be a tendency in some areas to use the compound form instead of the simple in contexts in which this latter is more appropriate, the simple past is alive and well. Mind you that it's even the preferred form in some areas as Galicia and Asturias, also to the point of its debatable usage.No, _"Me he sentido mal desde ayer"_ doesn't deny the speaker is still ill; actually, I dare to say everyone, would understand he still is. True that we can't overlook the power of "desde ayer" for this interpretation. However, you are completely right that the preferred option to convey that you're still ill, is the present. Probably the most precise would be some form of continuous, as: _"Me vengo/estoy sintiendo mal desde ayer"_.
> 
> I have a couple of examples which I've been told that they are different in Spanish and in English.
> _¿Te vienes con nosotros a comer a un restaurante? No, *he comido* en casa._
> _Mi padre *ha muerto*. (though it happened years ago)_
> Would you use the simple past in those cases as I've been advised?


Gracias, Juandiego.

I would say any of the following after "Are you coming with us to eat at a restaurant?":

_No, I've eaten._
_No, I've already eaten at home._
_No, I ate at home._
_No, I already ate at home._

"I've eaten at home" by itself makes sense, but to me is less clear, not having enough immediacy without the adverb.

I would say "My father is dead", in present tense, because we usually do not say "My father died" or "My father has died" y punto. It makes sense to explain, for example, "My father died of a broken heart" or "My father died years ago". "Years ago" does not work with "has died", but neither does "seconds ago". I might say "My father has died already" without regard to how long ago he passed on.


----------



## The Prof

Forero said:


> I must say I think the grammar book is missing the mark with that statement. I doubt Raymond Murphy (the author) would really call it wrong to say:
> 
> _Tom has lost his key many times, but he has it with him now._
> .


 
No, Murphy would not consider that wrong. It simply falls under a slightly different "rule" - Tom has lost his key many times over a period of time (his life?) _which continues until now! _And with his track record, the chances are that he will lose it many more times in the future! 



Forero said:


> It is said that English present perfect has "one foot in the past and one in the present":
> 
> _—Tom has lost his key again._
> —_When has he lost it again?_
> _—Just yesterday._
> 
> To me, this conversation makes sense because "again", "when", and "yesterday" modify "lost", not "has lost", like "before" in Ex1 and "never" in Ex5. But "now" in Ex2 and Ex3 (if it is adverbial in Ex3) modifies "has lost". "Not" in Ex4 could go either way.


 
You won't be surprised to hear that the second line of that conversation sounds wrong to me! 

Quoting Murphy again, "*We use the present perfect to give new information. But if we continue to talk about it, we normally use the past simple".*
So, "Tom has lost his key again" is new information, but the following question isn't, and would normally be used in the past simple:_ When did he lose it again?"_
Ok, he does say "normally", so maybe it's open to interpretation!


----------



## juandiego

Forero said:


> Gracias, Juandiego.
> 
> I would say any of the following after "Are you coming with us to eat at a restaurant?":
> 
> _No, I've eaten._
> _No, I've already eaten at home._
> _No, I ate at home._
> _No, I already ate at home._
> 
> "I've eaten at home" by itself makes sense, but to me is less clear, not having enough immediacy without the adverb.
> 
> I would say "My father is dead", in present tense, because we usually do not say "My father died" or "My father has died" y punto. It makes sense to explain, for example, "My father died of a broken heart" or "My father died years ago". "Years ago" does not work with "has died", but neither does "seconds ago". I might say "My father has died already" without regard to how long ago he passed on.



Thanks for your answer, The Prof.

Thanks you too, Forero.

Ok, it makes some sense —a lot, in some Spanish speaking areas as mine's— to say _"Mi padre ha muerto ya hace tiempo"_ though the same sentence with _"murió"_ is also fairly used, even here. Somewhat, the first option adds more grief about it whereas the simple past rather sounds as a statement.

By the way, we also often use _"mi padre está muerto"_.


----------



## capitas

duvija said:


> And that there are totally native speakers of Spanish, who are absolute unable to even understand the difference... and much less use it.


 
All of them (native speakers) but 30 million out of 300 million...


----------



## aztlaniano

I lost my purse. Lo doy por perdido. Incluso, a lo mejor, ya he comprado otro bolso.
I have lost my purse. No sé dónde está, pero a lo mejor lo voy a encontrar.


----------



## Forero

The Prof said:


> No, Murphy would not consider that wrong. It simply falls under a slightly different "rule" - Tom has lost his key many times over a period of time (his life?) _which continues until now! _And with his track record, the chances are that he will lose it many more times in the future!
> 
> You won't be surprised to hear that the second line of that conversation sounds wrong to me!
> 
> Quoting Murphy again, "*We use the present perfect to give new information. But if we continue to talk about it, we normally use the past simple".*
> So, "Tom has lost his key again" is new information, but the following question isn't, and would normally be used in the past simple:_ When did he lose it again?"_
> Ok, he does say "normally", so maybe it's open to interpretation!


Hi, Prof.

So Murphy appears to contradict himself in the following sense: If "Tom has lost his key" really = "He doesn't have his key now", then "Tom has lost his key many times" would = "He doesn't have his key now many times", which is rather strange and not something I think he means.

I maintain that his not having his key now is not explicitly expressed by the statement "Tom has lost his key." Follow this sentence with "Many times, in fact", and the illusion is gone. Perhaps we surmise that Tom does not have his key now when we hear "Tom has lost his key" because we suspect a person would not otherwise say this sentence all by itself. 

We can "read between the lines" in a grammar book, but I can certainly see how someone who does not understand present perfect already would have trouble with this. How does one know which of the "rules" in the grammar book to apply in a given situation?

Is there anything in Murphy to explain why "at home" seems to conflict with "I've eaten" except when "already" is present?

Another example:

_Husband to wife: Would you take a shower with me?_
_Wife: No, I've bathed. _
or
_Wife: No, I've taken a bath. _

To me, these two answers have the same problem as "I've eaten at home": They do not express enough immediacy to answer the question without "already". ("Of course you've eaten at home and taken a bath. Haven't we all?") But plain "I've eaten" and "I've had a bath" are fine ("already" is somehow implied).

I maintain that it is the context, adverbs, choice of verbs, etc., not the present perfect itself, that tell us more about the present.

I agree with Murphy that we normally switch to past simple: "When did he lose it again?". But what if we put "already" into this one too?

_—Tom has lost his key again._
—_When has he already lost it again?_
(or _—When has he lost it again already?_)
_—Just yesterday._

Does that help? I am not sure.


----------



## The Prof

Forero said:


> Hi, Prof.
> 
> So Murphy appears to contradict himself in the following sense: If "Tom has lost his key" really = "He doesn't have his key now", then "Tom has lost his key many times" would = "He doesn't have his key now many times", which is rather strange and not something I think he means.
> 
> I maintain that his not having his key now is not explicitly expressed by the statement "Tom has lost his key." Follow this sentence with "Many times, in fact", and the illusion is gone. Perhaps we surmise that Tom does not have his key now when we hear "Tom has lost his key" because we suspect a person would not otherwise say this sentence all by itself.
> 
> We can "read between the lines" in a grammar book, but I can certainly see how someone who does not understand present perfect already would have trouble with this. How does one know which of the "rules" in the grammar book to apply in a given situation?
> 
> Is there anything in Murphy to explain why "at home" seems to conflict with "I've eaten" except when "already" is present?
> 
> Another example:
> 
> _Husband to wife: Would you take a shower with me?_
> _Wife: No, I've bathed. _
> or
> _Wife: No, I've taken a bath. _
> 
> To me, these two answers have the same problem as "I've eaten at home": They do not express enough immediacy to answer the question without "already". ("Of course you've eaten at home and taken a bath. Haven't we all?") But plain "I've eaten" and "I've had a bath" are fine ("already" is somehow implied).
> 
> I maintain that it is the context, adverbs, choice of verbs, etc., not the present perfect itself, that tell us more about the present.
> 
> I agree with Murphy that we normally switch to past simple: "When did he lose it again?". But what if we put "already" into this one too?
> 
> _—Tom has lost his key again._
> —_When has he already lost it again?_
> (or _—When has he lost it again already?_)
> _—Just yesterday._
> 
> Does that help? I am not sure.


 
I doubt very much if I can say anything that will change your mind here, but I will try anyway! 

Firstly, I would like to stress a point which I am fairly sure you will agree on: you _always_ have to take the wider context into account when deciding on a tense.

Adding "many times" to the sentence does not in itself mean that we have to use the present perfect tense. Consider the following:
_-Tom moved house many times before settling here in London._
_-Tom has moved house many times in his life._

The first of those is in the simple past because the "period of time" to which it refers is over and done with, quite definitely in the past.

The second refers to a period of time (in this instance, his life) which is still continuing at this moment in time (the present!) - he has moved house many times, and there is every chance that he will continue to do so in the future. 
In that sentence, I used the word "life" to highlight what I meant, but we could just as easily remove that word from the sentence - it would not change the underlying meaning. This is then exactly like the sentence "Tom has lost his keys many times".

Regarding the "conflict" between "at home" and "at home", no, I doubt very much if there is anything in Murphy to explain that - that particular point was very much based on my own gut feeling - I am not even sure why it feels wrong to me, and am certainly not going to lay the blame tor that one on Murphy! The best I could give by way of justification would be to say that in my mind, "at home" is perhaps acting as a "time" - I am no longer at home, so anything that happened there is in the past.  

The shower examples use the present perfect because they explain why I am not going to have a shower with you_ now_.

On the final (I think!) point, I would say yet again that those sentences with the keys, apart from the first one, sound totally wrong to me. Possibly this is because the question word "when" is again pinpointing a specific time in the past - nothing to do with the present.

Now I will contradict myself, by saying that the following conversation sounds ok to me with either present perfect or simple past:

_-I've burnt the lunch._
_-How have you done that? / How did you do that._

The present perfect puts more emphasis on the present repercussions of the action, whereas the simple past is much more based on the action itself. (my brain is going, I know I'm not wording this very well!).
However, this is me speaking again, not Murphy. 

Wouldn't life be simpler if we could re-write our languages and removed such confusing, complicated elements!


----------



## Forero

Where I live, both are correct.

As I see it, If "I lost my purse" is true, then so is "I have lost my purse." And conversely, if "I have lost my purse" is true, so is "I lost my purse." Without context, the two imply each other and are thus logically equivalent. "I can't find it anywhere" does not necessarily follow from either one except when understood as examples of understatement.

More to the point, "I can't find it anywhere" does not contradict either statement.

But the two statements are not really talking about the same thing. They are not equivalent when it comes to tense (time). "I lost my purse" is about losing my purse, in the past; "I have lost my purse" is about having lost my purse, in the present. So in a past tense context, past tense fits better:
_
I had to carry three loads of packages in from the car. I lost my purse. I can't find it anywhere.
_
I would not use _have lost_ in such a context. But put present tense first, and I would feel more comfortable using the _have_:
_
I can't find my purse anywhere. I fear I have lost it.

_Otherwise it seems incongruous to me because it would in effect be in reverse chronological order.

Without context, you have a choice as to which time you are referring to with "I (have) lost my purse." You could say something pertinent about the past "I lost my purse" and then shift to the present, or begin and continue within the present "I have lost .... I can't find ....".


----------

