I teach English. My first language is Portuguese. Saying that the present perfect refers to an action which happened some time in the past and has an effect in the present, can be very confusing and lead to misunderstanding when teaching English to Portuguese speakers. It has to do with our grammar. So, I agree with all the other teachers who find it difficult to explain and to understand.
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
I am sure your students will be even more confused if you tell them it's an action in the past that is still happening now - or a variation on that. "I am male" is an action that started in the past and is still true now. "I am writing a comment" is an action that started in the past and is still true now. How are you going to explain simple present and present continuous without confusing your students further? Present perfect is very easy to understand. This is what I use as an example: "I ate a banana" Past action with no consequence. "I have eaten a banana, so now....." and I get the student to finish the sentence. They will come up with an outcome connected with the banana. The "so now" is the important phrase, as it helps them understand the concept of consequence.
@carla_ps2 ай бұрын
I second that. Present Perfect is indeed easy to explain. But it is absolutely not easy to understand (if your first language is Portuguese or many others that don't have an equivalent tense). I have never encountered one single Brazilian (apart from teachers) who would master the uses of the Present Perfect. Some do memorize certain structures (which actually seems to be more effective than any explanation, like "how long have you..." or "I've never...". And they're not alone. I live in the Netherlands. The Dutch have scored in the top 3 for English proficiency. The Dutch language has a similar perfect tense but is used differently (more similar to the Spanish Preterito Perfecto Compuesto). So, it's not unusual to hear proficient Dutch speakers saying, "How long do you live here?" "I live here for 5 years." The concept of the present perfect being an action in the past with a consequence in the present, despite being accurate, is so abstract for non-English speakers that it doesn't really help them use it.
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
@@carla_ps But that is what it is there for: An action in the past with a consequence in the presence. Ok, it might be difficult for some speakers to grasp the concept, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid teaching the concept. Find different ways of teaching the concept. Go over it and keep going over it until they get it. Don't look at it in comparison to Portugese or any other language. Simply teach the concept of 'action followed by consequence' Teach them how "so" and "because" can help them identify when to use Present perfect. If you need any help in teaching any tense form, get in touch. I teach English to English teachers. I am happy to help.
@carla_ps2 ай бұрын
@@PastTenseofBanana,Oh, absolutely. No avoiding it here. :) It's just extremely frustrating (30 years of using different approaches to explain this, including the one suggested). I'm really grateful for this debate on different ways of teaching this subject. However, saying that it is "very simple to understand" is simply not true (especially because we have control over the explanation, not the understanding). Also, I don't think those teachers "got it wrong." They have a valid way of explaining the present perfect (and it can be as effective or frustrating as the one you've just suggested) and it might be easier to grasp. We teachers see language in a different way-forever. Any language. Most of my students are learning a different language for the first time. The concept of not comparing the target language to their first language is metalinguistic and far too advanced for most people who think of language as a tool for communication. Lastly, there are differences in acquiring a language as a second language, a foreign language, or a lingua franca. I find this distinction most crucial for understanding certain structures like the present perfect.
@grahamjohnson30632 ай бұрын
I think the 'balance' explanation you posit for determining whether one uses 'in' or 'on' is a bit specious. It happens to be true in a lot (but NB not all!) cases and it might be useful to help learners to remember when to use which preposition, but it isn't 'the reason' we use those words. There are several overlapping considerations, the most important of which is analogy to other forms. -First: less derived forms of transport: one goes 'on' foot, one rides 'on' a horse. These are obvious: one needs to be on top of the ground to walk on it, on top of a horse to ride it, et cetera. -Second, more derived forms of transport (i.e., vehicles). It's not as simple as requiring balance or not. I put it to you that riding 'in' a horse-drawn carriage would be just as (if not far more) rickety and shaky and therefore taxing to one's balance than riding 'on' early buses or trains. For said horse-drawn carriages, the prepositions are clear: if you're inside the coach, you use 'in,' if you're the one driving the coach or sitting outside on a running board, you use 'on.' So far so clear. This is why we use 'in' for cars, then: by analogy, they are the most similar to riding inside carriages. The first cars were essentially horse-drawn buggies without horses, after all. It gets complicated when referring to horse-pulled open-topped carts or just 'conveyances' writ large. Despite the lack of a roof (AND despite the fact that using carts as a method of travel would certainly also require balance) it feels more natural in my dialect of English to say "I was riding 'in' the cart" vs. "I was riding 'on' the cart." Both work, of course, but using 'in' feels just that much better to my ear. One definitely travels 'in' a wagon, though. That's undeniable. For ships/boats, the distinction is whether the craft has a deck (i.e., somewhere to stand 'on,' no matter if there are seats anywhere else): you travel 'in' a rowboat/canoe, but 'on' a sailboat, steamship, motorboat, et cetera. If the sailboat or motorboat were small and lacked a deck, I would say 'in.' Submarines are interesting. I've known sailors to say "I've served 'on' submarines" and "when you're riding 'in' a submarine..." It seems to depend on whether or not you're referring to the submarine in its capacity as a boat with decks (use 'on') or as a mere physical location (use 'in'). Airplanes are an extension of ships. You use 'in' for small planes (i.e., the planes closest in analogy to smaller, deckless boats): "I went up 'in' my Cessna last week," and 'on' for bigger planes with multiple decks, "'I flew in 'on' a 737." Sci-fi even confirms this for space travel: you fly 'in' a shuttlecraft and 'on' the Enterprise in Star Trek; in star wars, you fly 'in' X-wings and 'on' star destroyers, et cetera. Finally, we get to the truly hot take: I think English speakers subconsciously classify buses and trains in the 'big boats' category, rather than the 'carriage/car' category, and therefore we use 'on' for both of them. It tracks: trains are essentially land-ships, and buses are just streetcars/trams that don't run on a fixed track. For purposes of language, a bus' superficial resemblance to other motor vehicles is immaterial. It's a train, and a train is a ship.
@MorrowLanguageLounge2 ай бұрын
I have a Masters degree in teaching English as a second language, and honestly, I’ve noticed that British people tend to use present perfect in many situations in which American English speakers might use simple past. Even when the grammar rules are the same, the way we implement the rules are influenced by our dialect of English, and I find that so interesting.
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
I have had many a conversation with Americans and non-natives who have learnt American English. Most deny what you say, but I agree with you. As an example, the phrase "I didn't do it, yet" makes no sense to my British brain.
@MorrowLanguageLounge2 ай бұрын
@@PastTenseofBanana yes, exactly! Conversationally, British people, especially people in medium to small-sized cities use present perfect more often than native speaking US Americans. Also, your explanation about "action that started in the past yet has present consequences" is really brilliant because it does help a learner differentiate better than "...has present relevance." Even in grad school, I found this explanation suspect because it isn't really accurate in helping a learner differentiate verb tense and aspect.
@UBrittesEnglish2 ай бұрын
I beg to differ rsrs actually It is an action in the present the important here is the concept of present You could say for instance that this month is present; so if sonething has happened or not this month, It has happened (or not) in the present. If you say It has happened in your life (present again), so use the present perfect. In a nutshell, If It is contextualized in the present, use the present perfect. The Key point here is the concept of present.
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
You say: "If it is contextualised in the present, use present perfect" "I am English" - that is contextualised in the present. Should we abandon present simple? "I am writing a comment" - that is contextualised in the present. Should we abandon present continuous? "I have been teaching English most of my adult life" - that is contextualised in the present. Should we abandon present perfect continuous? Present Perfect requires the action to be completed in the past. You can beg all you wish, it will not change the use of grammar.
@marieclairej30912 ай бұрын
Thank you!! This is the best explanation of the present simple I have ever heard!! As a semi retired English teacher, this one has frustrated me for many years. Teachers simply do not know how to teach this verb, which leaves learners totally confused. The most common erroneous explanation is that it is 'an action which started in the past and still continues in the present'. My advice to all English teachers: watch this video and please don't parrot what you read/hear on the internet.
@nikiniki5862 ай бұрын
talking about the results which are true now - present perfect, talking about the results which are true now but still in progress present perfect continuous: i have lived in London for three years but now i'm gonna move to Canada. i have been living in London for 3 years and i like it. am i right? i'm not a native speaker.🙁
@eeeeee87622 ай бұрын
So present perfect: "I ate an egg, I have to puke now." ? Past perfect would be: "I ate an egg, and I puked." ? Future perfect would be: "I just ate an egg, I might have to puke soon." ? Oh, final question; what's simple perfect?
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
Present perfect: "I have eaten an egg, so I have to puke now" Past Perfect: "I had eaten an egg, so I puked." Future Perfect: "I will have eaten an egg, so I will puke." Simple perfect is the perfect form exampled above. The alternative is perfect continuous.
@user-cc2ux9ew1r2 ай бұрын
What about the submarine? Though we can walk and stand in it, we say in not on submarine, maybe it's not a public transport, is it?
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
We say "in a submarine". The use of in or on has nothing to do with public transport. Don#t let anyone convince you otherwise.
@ksenial63862 ай бұрын
So what's the consequence in the sentence 'I've lived here for three years'? 🤔
@PastTenseofBanana2 ай бұрын
You have three years of knowledge of the city. Compare that to the statements: "I have just moved here" and "I have lived here all my life"
@ksenial63862 ай бұрын
@@PastTenseofBanana gotcha, thank you so much. I'll give it some more thought definitely. I really appreciate the new wat to look at it. Have a wonderful day. And thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge ❤