We became/have become friends.

[5jj]

Before I respond to any more questions I'll remind you of Piscean's words that jutfrank quoted: This is a choice between seeing things as past-time events or thinking of the present-time result.

Though far from perfect, these words are useful to keep in mind when we are discussing the sentences you keep posting.

Let's sidetrack a little and look at these two utterances:

1. She died.
2. She has died.

The first thing to note is that neither of these utterances will ever be made in isolation. There will always be some form of context when they are uttered.

The second thing to note is that we have no idea who or what is referred to by She. She might be inanimate (the speaker's car), animate but not human (the speaker's cat), or human - but not necessarily these days a human with female genitalia. We also have no idea what 'died' means. If the speaker is referring to their car, we probably infer that It is not possible to drive it any more. If they are referring to their cat, it almost certainly means that its life ended. If they are referring to their sister, we can probably infer that her life ended, though the speaker may be referring to what happened when their sister went on stage for their first time as a comedian - their show was a flop.

Note, thirdly, that we have no idea when the dying happened. With (2) it is not unreasonable to assume that the dying did not happen in the distant past, but we cannot be 100% certain.

Finally, in exceptional circumstances, the situation of a person dying may not necessarily imply that they are not alive. On the very first Easter Monday, Mary Magdalene could have said "He died, but he is alive".

I admit that some of the situations I have outlined are a little far-fetched, but I hope they make the point that, if we want to know as precisely as possible what situations are denoted by utterances, we need full context.

In my next post, I'll move on to fully contextualised situations

 

[diamondcutter]

Mom: Tom, close your room window.
Tom: I've closed it, Mom.

Is Tom's room window closed or open? I think it’s closed because he uses the present perfect tense, which means the result of the action still exists.

If I'm right, how to explain if somebody says "we have decided to do something to save electricity", but we don't know whether they do these things or not? I mean how to understand the effect of the present perfect tense of the verb “decide” to the present.

 

[5jj]

Now let's move on from post 21 to a situation in context.

Andy and Ted, good friends, both know that Andy's sister was involved in a serious car accident two days ago. They also know that she underwent major surgery yesterday. Her chances of survival were slim. Ted phones Andy this morning, twelve hours after the operation.

Ted: How's your sister?
Andy: (1a) She died.
............(2a) She has died.


From context of situation we know that (1a) and (2a) both tell us that she is dead, and that her death occurred in the twelve-hour period before Ted asked his question. My situation as a native speaking teacher of English tells me that both utterances are possible. Common sense tells us that exactly the same situation (Andy's sister dying) is referenced in both sentences.

Does this mean that in this particular situation there is no difference in the messages conveyed by (1a) and (2a)?

No.

This is a choice between seeing things as past-time events or thinking of the present-time result. In (1a), Andy is presenting the dying as a past-time event. In (1b), he is presenting a retrospective thought of the sister's past-time dying as as having present-time effects.

The fact that we may see no significant difference in 'meaning' (the situation referenced) between the two utterances in this particular situation is not relevant to considerations of 'meaning' suggested by tenses/aspects.

 

[5jj]

how [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] do we explain if somebody says "we have decided to do something to save electricity", but we don't know whether they do these things or not? I mean [STRIKE]how to[/STRIKE] do we understand the effect of the present perfect tense of the verb “decide” to the present.

The decision, made in the past, still stands. The thing decided on may or may not yet have happened. This become obvious in an utterance such as" I have decided to stop smoking next week".

 

[diamondcutter]

Thank you so much for your detailed replies, 5jj.
I will read them some more times to get a complete understanding.

 

[jutfrank]

I'd like to develop one of 5jj's points.

We should be clear to distinguish sentence meaning from implication.

I noticed this exchange.

It has been five years since Tom became a teacher.
Does this sentence indicate Tom is still a teacher or not?

Not in itself.

If Diamondcutter had used the word imply instead of indicate, 5jj's answer would have been different.

This is what I read in some English grammar books in Chinese.
The simple past tense tells a fact which is not true now. For example, if you say “Tom was a teacher years ago”, you mean that he is not a teacher any more.

If the book had said imply instead of mean, it would have been clearer and more accurate.

 

[diamondcutter]

I'd like to develop one of 5jj's points.

We should be clear to distinguish sentence meaning from implication.

I noticed this exchange.





If Diamondcutter had used the word imply instead of indicate, 5jj's answer would have been different.



If the book had said imply instead of mean, it would have been clearer and more accurate.

Thanks, jutfrank.

I try to understand your words like this.

When you say something is the case, if you use “mean” or “indicate”, you are 100% sure; if you use “imply”, you are about 50% sure.

It has been five years since Tom became a teacher.
This sentence implies Tom is still a teacher.

When you say Tom was a teacher years ago, you imply that he is not a teacher any more.

What do you think of my understanding?

 

[Tarheel]

It has been five years since Tom became a teacher.

It is highly likely that Tom is currently a teacher. Also, the speaker almost certainly knows if that's the case.

In real life there is always context for a sentence.

 

[Tarheel]

When you say Tom was a teacher years ago, you imply that he is not a teacher anymore.

It is highly likely that both the speaker and the listener already know that information.