The past simple and the present perfect can both be used to show actions or events that were completed in the past. In many cases, they can demonstrate the same event – so how do we choose which tense to use? This article explains, very briefly, the fundamental differences between the two, with a look at the two tenses side-by-side, adapted from material discussed in The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide.
Beneath the explanation is an exercise to test your understanding of the past simple vs present perfect, taken from the book The English Tenses Exercise Book.
How to choose between the present perfect and past simple
The present perfect and the past simple can sometimes be used interchangeably, as they both demonstrate complete actions.
The important difference is that the present perfect demonstrates the action affects (or is linked to) something that is relevant now. The past simple does not demonstrate a link to the present.
- We washed the car. (The task was finished.)
- We have washed the car. (It was recently done, and / or it is now clean.)
- He went home. (He finished travelling home in the past.)
- He has gone home. (He travelled home in the past, and should be there now.)
The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for complete actions.
- She escaped from prison. (A single complete action.)
- She has escaped from prison and is running away. (A complete past event that informs us of where she is now.)
- She escaped from prison twenty times. (A total number of completed actions, with no suggestion that it can be increased.)
- She has escaped from prison twenty times. (A total number of completed actions so far, which can be added to.)
Past Simple vs Present Perfect Exercise
Complete the following sentences by putting the verb in brackets in either the past simple or present perfect form, without contractions. Remember, the past simple only tells us something was completed in the past, while the present perfect shows it is relevant to the present. The answers are given below.
For example:
- Q: You _______________ the door open ‒ please close it. (to leave)
- A: You have left the door open ‒ please close it.
- This bread _______________ mouldy. (to go)
- Alison _______________ a website this morning. (to create)
- He _______________ the floor before dinner. (to sweep / not)
- The boiler _______________ again, so there is no hot water. (to break)
- I cannot come to class. Last time, Mr Rogers _______________ me not to come back. (to tell)
- Nathan has passed his driving test because he _______________. (to quit / not)
- My cousin hates spiders, so he _______________ all of his windows. (to seal)
- The garden _______________ with the recent hot weather. (to bloom)
- The sailors _______________ quickly because the winds were favourable. (to move)
- Chloe is visiting, but she _______________ how long she will stay. (to say / not)
- My phone battery _______________, can I use your charger? (to die)
- She could not find her purse, so _______________ with her credit card. (to pay)
- The school want to speak to me because my essay _______________ the competition. (to win)
- Did you receive the coffee machine you _______________? (to order)
- We put our poster up in the hall, _______________ it? (you / to see)
- _______________ the candles when you went shopping yesterday? (you / to buy)
- _______________ in your assignment yet? (you / to give / not)
- Why _______________ all the baguettes? There are none left! (that woman / to take)
- Lola is telling everyone about her new job, _______________ to you about it? (you / to speak)
- _______________ (the farmer / to deliver) that milk, or have you been to the shop?
Answers to the Exercise
- This bread has gone mouldy.
- Alison created a website this morning.
- He did not sweep the floor before dinner.
- The boiler has broken again, so there is no hot water.
- I cannot come to class. Last time, Mr Rogers told me not to come back.
- Nathan has passed his driving test because he did not quit.
- My cousin hates spiders, so he has sealed all of his windows.
- The garden has bloomed with the recent hot weather.
- The sailors moved quickly because the winds were favourable.
- Chloe is visiting, but she has not said how long she will stay.
- My phone battery has died, can I use your charger?
- She could not find her purse, so paid with her credit card.
- Did you see? My essay has won the competition.
- Did you receive the coffee machine you ordered?
- We put our poster up in the hall, have you seen it?
- Did you buy the candles when you went shopping yesterday?
- Have you not given in your assignment yet?
- Why has that woman taken all the baguettes? There are none left!
- Lola is telling everyone about her new job, has she spoken to you about it?
- Did the farmer deliver that milk, or have you been to the shop?
If you have any questions about this exercise or the details above, please let me know in the comments, and if you’d like more exercises to test your understanding of the tenses, do check out The English Tenses Exercise Book, now available from this site.
Want to master the English tenses?
Learn all the rules with The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide, and practise them with The English Tenses Exercise Book, which contains 160 exercises.
Hi Phil,
If I say “They have burned and killed everything”, does this mean that the second verb “kill” is also in the present perfect tense (that is have burned and killed = have burned + have killed)? or is the verb “kill” in the simple past?
Also, is it possible to have two or more verbs in the present perfect within the same independent clause/sentence (e.g. I have washed the car and have painted the house and have also bathed the cat)?
Lastly, if I were to say “I have shaved and have washed and have had breakfast”, with all three verbs in the present perfect tense, does this mean that all the actions occurred sequentially in the order I have described (i.e. shaving occurred first, followed by washing and lastly having breakfast)?
Regards,
Vegito
Hi Vegito,
Typically yes, verbs joined by a conjunction after an auxiliary like that will be understood to share the auxiliary and therefore be in the same tense. And yes, that would extend to your second example, we can stack different verbs and objects after a single auxiliary (and would often not repeat the ‘have’, there, so “I have washed the car, painted the house and also bathed the cat”, would all be understood to be present perfect).
On the last example, not necessarily – ordinarily we would understand past sequences, in the simple or perfect, to be followed in chronologically order but in a case like that, without any time indicators, it could merely be telling us all are complete and not strictly in that order. This is more neutral in the present perfect than with the past simple because the past simple is concerned with completed actions, suggesting a sequence of completion, while as the present perfect is telling us these actions have an impact now, it’s less focused on the sequence.
Hope this helps!
Phil
Hi Phil,
I see. So a series of actions in the simple past will definitely mean that each action occurred consecutively , especially since the simple past is used for completed actions, however, for multiple actions listed in the present perfect – while there is a possibility that these present perfect actions all occurred one after the other in the sequence they are stated, there also exists the possibility that these present perfect actions did not occur one after another and that it simple means that these present perfect actions (which happened in the past) now have an impact in the present, correct?
Another point that In would like to ask about is concerning the meaning of the word “happened”. For instance, the simple past expresses that an action happened in the past (at a definite time which may or may not be explicitly stated) while the present perfect also expresses an action that happened in the past (but at an undetermined or unknown time which is not explicitly stated), but that this present perfect action now has an impact in the present. Referring to the word “happened” for both the simple past use and present perfect use as I’ve just stated here – does “happened (i.e. occurred/ took place)” mean started and ended in the past (that is to say the action started and ended in the past)?
Regards,
Vegito
Hi Vegito,
Yes, you are correct in that interpretation. For ‘happened’, yes you are also correct – in either case it means something started and ended in the past, the difference is with the present perfect that completion is somehow relevant now.
Hi Phil,
For the present perfect tense, is it a case where a single past action has a connection with the present, or can it be a case where two past actions both have a common connection to the present (in other words, must it be one past action = one present connection/result, or can it be two (or more) past actions = one or two (or even more) present connections/results)?
Could you kindly also provide an example to illustrate your explanation? Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka ✨
Hi Shizuka,
I’m not sure if I fully understand the question, but I think it’s to say can we group actions in the present perfect? In which case yes, and they can share an auxiliary, so for example we might say “I have washed the dishes, put away the leftovers and swept the floor.” – all three actions are taken to be in the present perfect, with an impact on the present (these tasks are complete now).
Hi Phil,
So all three actions are considered to be in the present perfect tense since they all share the same auxiliary verb “have”, and also, all three actions started and ended in the past since they are all in the present perfect tense, correct?
Thanks!
Hi Shizuka,
Yes that’s correct.
Phil
Hi Phil,
After reading through your article as well as other articles on the use of the present perfect tense, I realized that the present perfect tense has many uses, but to summarize, the following are the three main uses of the present perfect tense:
(a) for a past actions with a present results [e.g. Sally has just gone out (past action), and thus she is currently not around (present result of the past action)]
(b) to talk about life experience, and where the person must be alive (e.g. I have been to Paris before)
(c) to talk about unfinished action actions and situations and states that began in the past and continue to/in the present (e.g. I have worked since 2014; or she has studied at this school since 2008)
Would the above be an accurate summary of the uses of the Present Perfect Tense? Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes that is a good summary – you are missing one use though, which is to demonstrate duration for a recurring activity. We can use the present perfect to show how long a repeated activity has been done for (taking an example from The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide):
We meet here every Tuesday.
We have met here every Tuesday for four months.
(This is similar to the present perfect continuous use for demonstration, but draws attention to it being a repeated action rather than a process.)
I hope this helps – the nuances are covered in a bit more detail in my book!
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Does “We have met here every Tuesday for four months” mean that the repeated activity started from4 months ago and has lasted till the present time (i.e. four months include the present time)?
In addition, does the use of the present perfect tense for the above example mean that the activity is likely to continue in to the immediate future?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Sorry for the slow response – yes, that’s right, in both cases.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
When using the different tenses, for instance, the simple past tense, we tend to use certain time expressions such as “last night; yesterday; 2 years ago; in 1989 etc”, or for instance, when it comes to the present perfect tense we can use time expressions such as “For; since; yet; never; always; lately; recently; already etc”.
My first question is that I’ve often known/referred to these words as “time expressions, however, sometimes I do come across other grammatical texts which refer to these words as “time words” or “adverbials”. Are these valid terms? and do they mean the same thing as “time expressions”?
Secondly, when it comes to using words such as “always; lately; recently; already” with the various tenses (for example present perfect or an other tense), is it right to call such words “time expressions” even though they do not refer to a specific time (as compared to specific time expressions such as last year or in 1927 etc)?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
In a case like this it’s often a matter of choosing which words best help your understanding, as there can be flexible ways to label such things. Yes, they could be called expressions of time or time words; I would probably refer to them as “adverbs of time” or “adverbials of time” for grammatical purposes.
For those other expressions, it depends a bit. Some do indicate a time, so yes, they would be time expressions/adverbials – ‘lately’ and ‘recently’ referring to a recent time period. ‘Always’ falls more into adverbs of frequency though (answering “how often”), similar to “never” and “often”.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Taking another read through this article, I note that you’ve essentially explained the present perfect using the following two paras (i.e. (a) “The important difference is that the present perfect demonstrates the action affects (or is linked to) something that is relevant now. The past simple does not demonstrate a link to the present” and (b) “The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for complete actions”).
My questions are:
1) Explanation (a) on the present perfect actions having a link to the present essentially means the same as explanation (b) where you said that “the present perfect should be chosen when the action has a current or ongoing effect”, isn’t it? I am asking this because I initially thought they were two different uses of the present perfect, one presented via explanation (a) and the other via (b), but on second glance, it doesn’t seem so to me.
2) Secondly, for explanation (b) where you said “The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for complete actions”. To be more exact, I suppose we can say that “The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for past complete actions that do not have any current or ongoing effect in the present” because the key idea is that both the present perfect tense and simple past tense can be used for actions which were completed in the past (i.e. started and ended in the past), but the difference is that present perfect actions, while completed in the past, have an ongoing/current effect while simple past tense is used simply for actions which were completed in the past. May I know if my amendment to explanation (b), as well as my understanding, is correct?
Thanks! again for your helpful advice
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
On (1), yes you’re right in the explanations and that they are very similar. Technically (b) is almost the same as (a), true, but the distinction with (b) is that it refers more to something that is not necessarily incomplete, e.g. lived experience, “I have been to France.” There is definitely crossover in the definitions, there though.
On (2), yes your definition works, that is the essential meaning, though that’s somewhat contained in the use of the word ‘otherwise’, i.e. if the terms of the first definition aren’t met, then other complete actions should be past simple.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Thanks! Also, just to clarify, when you say “The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for complete actions”, to be clear, “action” (from “when the action either has a current or ongoing effect..”) refers to a finished action (i.e. started and ended) in the past, correct?
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, that’s correct. Perhaps more accurate would be to refer to it as “verb” rather than “action”, which can be limiting, but sometimes finding the best language to explain language is a slightly imprecise process!
Phil
Hi Phil, thanks! Hmm, I suppose “verb” would be a more encompassing term to use, however, to my knowledge there are two main categories of verb, namely stative and action verbs. If we use a term like verb, this could also mean that we are referring to stative verbs. On that, my understanding is that the use of present perfect tense with stative verb is to express a situation that started in the past and continues to the present, but this isn’t what we intend to express when we use the present perfect for actions that happened (i.e. started and ended) in the past. As such, wouldn’t action (to mean action verbs and not stative verbs), be a better term for such a use of the present perfect tense to represent actions that happened/occurred (i.e. started and ended) in the past?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes you are correct, if you’re merely looking to define the difference for action verbs, I’m just considering it for a wider definition of the present perfect. After all, the same definition works for many of the stative verbs if we include them, as stative verbs in the present perfect also start in the past but may have a current or ongoing effect (e.g. “I have owned this computer for ten years.” – I started owning it ten years ago, but it has an ongoing effect that I still own it).
Phil
Hi Phil, thanks for the explanation, however, I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you mean by “with (b) is that it refers more to something that is not necessarily incomplete”. Could you kindly explain this a little further for my understanding? Thanks so much 🙂
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
It’s a semantic point really, but for example “I have been” is referring to a past experience but not something we would necessarily consider complete, i.e. it is an ongoing experience that may be added to – similarly with things such as “I have felt happy before” – it’s not so much defining a specific, complete instance, but may refer to experience rather than isolated events. Hopefully this makes sense?
Phil
Hi Phil,
Apologies for leaving this question out, but another aspect on the use of the present perfect which I would like to seek you advice on is concerning the use of specific time expressions (e.g. last night, last week, yesterday etc) with the present perfect tense.
Firstly, I get the idea that an action/event expressed using the present perfect tense happened (i.e. started and ended) in the past at an unspecified time (i.e. the action/event happened anytime before now but that the specific time is not mentioned, either because it’s not important, or it’s not known). In other words, the focus is on the fact that the action happened in the past, and not on “when” in the past the action actually happened. Is this correct?
Secondly, I’ve read in a grammar text that says “The present perfect tells us about something that occurred at some indefinite period in the past. However, if something happened at a specific point in time in the past (“last night,” “two years ago,” “yesterday,” etc.), then we must use the past simple tense”. Actually this definition is somewhat confusing to me even though I think I get what it’s trying to say.
To me, all past actions must have happened at some specific point in time in the past, so for this definition to say that “however, if something happened at a specific point in the past” seems to suggest that the past action/event described in the present perfect tense did not occur at some specific time in the past, even though it must have. In short, I guess what this definition is trying to drive at is that for actions/events that happened in the past (i.e. started and ended in the past), there are two ways of describing such an action/event – that is, by using the simple past tense or the present perfect tense. If the action/event started and ended in the past with no link to the present, and that we know and can mention the specific time this action/event occurred (maybe because the focus is on when this action/event occurred), in this case we use the simple past tense. However, when describing a past action/event that happened in the past (started and ended in the past), and we do not wish to mention the specific time (either because we don’t know the exact time or because when the action/event occurred is not important but that the focus is simply on the fact that the action happened at some time in the past), we use the present perfect tense. May I know if what I’ve just written is correct?
My apologies for this lengthy post (as I tend to like very exact explanations), and once again thanks so much for all your kind advice.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
It’s no problem, long posts can help other people so it’s worth posting! It’s only bad when I take a long time to answer! But onto the questions;
1) Yes, that’s correct.
2) Yes, what you’ve written is correct, though I think there might be a slightly simpler way to look at it. The point being made is not that the present perfect event did not happen at a specific time, or that we are choosing not to mention it – it is that the past simple and present perfect represent mutually exclusive perspectives relating to time. The past simple necessarily describes a past event completed at a certain time in the past (whether we make note of that time or not) whereas the present perfect describes a past event in relation to the present, which therefore cannot be presented in relation to a specific past time.
I hope that makes sense.
Phil
Dear Phil, thanks for the explanation. Sorry, when you said “which therefore cannot be presented in relation to a specific past time”, “which therefore” refers to the past event described using the present perfect tense correct?
In other words, since the main focus of the present perfect tense is to describe a past completed event which has an effect on the present, the present perfect tense cannot be used (i.e. presented in relation to) with a specific past time?
Thanks again for your patience!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes that’s right – and you are welcome!
Phil
I am still quite confused between the present perfect and simple past. If the present perfect is used for past completed actions, why call it the “present perfect”? seems weird to me.
I also came across two explanations on the use of the present perfect tense. One explanation says that “present perfect tense is used to express actions or events that happened in the past”. The other explanation says “present perfect tense is used to describe actions that started and ended in the past”. Are both explanations correct? And is there any difference between these two explanations?
Hi Tim,
The name has more to do with it’s grammatical definition than the actual usage – though in terms of remembering its application I think it is useful to associate ‘present perfect’ with a ‘present effect/impact’ for a past event. The actual reasoning behind it is that it combines the present tense form of the auxiliary ‘have’ with the perfect (completed) form of the past participle, e.g. ‘done’. So in grammatical terms, we have the present and perfect.
For your second question, I’ve curiously had the exact same question on another post, so I’ll copy the answer from there: That is an incomplete definition of the present perfect and would seem to refer more to the past simple, so I’m not sure if you have wires crossed there (as the present perfect must include the detail that it is relevant to the present moment). But in terms of that definition, I would say that ‘happened in the past’ and ‘started and ended in the past’ do effectively mean the same thing.
Phil
So for the present perfect tense, the proper explanation of its use is that even though the present perfect tense is used to describe actions that started and ended in the past, these actions also have an effect on the present moment?
Hi Tim,
Yes that tends to be the easiest way to look at it. Even with stative verbs, covering lived experience, it’s the same basic principle, e.g. “I have lived in thirteen countries.” because it has an impact on our current experience/can still be added to, rather than be seen as something completed in the past.
Phil
I am a little confused. Since you agreed that the present perfect tense is used to describe actions that started and ended in the past (i.e. something completed in the past), and that these actions also have an effect on the present moment, why say “rather than be seen as something completed in the past” as though present perfect isn’t used to describe something that started and ended in the past?
Hi Tim,
Apologies I probably should have worded that more precisely – referring specifically to the present perfect being used for stative verbs or when discussing lived experience, we do not necessarily see this as something completed in the past as, such as when talking about experiences, it can still be built upon/extended. When we say “I have been to thirteen countries”, for example, the present perfect implies you can still go to more. Lived experience with the past simple suggests it actually is complete and cannot be added to – “I went to thirteen countries” would imply you will visit no more (e.g. “I went to thirteen countries last year.” = the year is now over and you will not visit more that year).
This is a bit of a diversion from the actions you were discussing, though; stative verbs and lived experience do complicate it, but I hope this has helped.
Phil
I have grouped my questions into the following three paragraphs.
Lived Experiences. So for lived experiences, if we say something like “I have been to France three times”, this means that even though my action of travelling to France started and ended in the past, for three times, using the present perfect suggests that I am likely to visit France again?
Present Perfect with Normal Action Verbs. Also, this use of the present perfect with “experiences” is same as how we use the present perfect for normal actions or events, that is to say, even tough the present perfect action started and ended in the past, this same action either affects or is linked to something in the present, or that more more of such actions can be expected to take place (i.e. more can be added to). Am I right?
Present Perfect with Stative Verbs. So for stative verbs, you are saying that using present perfect with stative verbs means that the event described must have started in the past and continues to the present, and therefore this makes it different from using present perfect with normal action verbs because present perfect with normal action verbs mean that the action started and ended in the past?
Hi Tim,
Yes, those are all fair summaries, I think you’ve got it. The only thing I’d change, to be very picky, is that rather than say it’s “likely” that you’d visit France again, I’d merely say it’s “possible”, as it’s about the open-ended nature rather than likelihood.
Phil
My grammar textbook says that “The present perfect is used to give general information about something that happened in the past (anytime “before now”), but which did not occur at a definitive point in time”. Please teach me, what does “which did not occur at a definitive point in time” mean?
Pris
Hi Priscilla,
This goes with what was discussed in other comments above – that when we use the present perfect we can’t use it with a specific time, because the function is to tell us it’s relevant now, not to tell us exactly when something happened. To describe exact timing, we use the past simple. So, for example:
I cooked a pie an hour ago. (tells us when it was complete, i.e. an hour ago)
I have cooked a pie. (tells us it is complete and relevant now, i.e. whenever the pie was cooked, it is available now)
To be honest, though I wouldn’t say that it covers something that “did not occur at a definitive point in time”, as the present perfect doesn’t mean it *didn’t* occur at a definitive point of time, it’s just the present perfect isn’t used to describe that point in time.
I hope this helps.
Phil
Hi Phil,
I’ve always been taught that present perfect simple, when used with “for” and “since”, indicates that something started in the past and continues in the present, but that the present perfect simple without either prepositions (“for” and/or “since”) refers to a past action (i.e. an action which started and ended in the past) but with an result in the present moment.
Firstly, the above summary is correct right?
Secondly, if you came across the following “Tim lived in New York City for three years”, would you say this means (a) that Tim began living in new york three years ago, and still does in the present moment, or would you say that it’s a case of (b) where Tim used to lived in new york but no longer does?
Thirdly, if I say “They have studied for three weeks for this exam” and “The girl has worked for five hours”. Does this mean that for both “study” and “work”, the action/situation began in the past and continues in the present, or is it a case where both started and ended in the past (i.e. took place in the past over the specified period of time in the past)?
Lastly, what about sentences like “He has talked on the phone for almost an hour”, would you say that this means the talking ended in the past or would you say that the talking started an hour ago and still continues in the current/present moment?
Sorry for splitting up the above into four points, but I do have a query specific to each point.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Off the top of my head, that sounds like a reasonable summary – though it is a bit over-simplified. Essentially for it to be an ongoing activity we’d typically have to include a duration of time, which is what ‘for’ and ‘since’ do; some other adverbs or adverbials of time could have a similar use, for example “I have lived here all my life / forever.” And as your third question demonstrates, the duration may continue, but it may be ending as we speak, depending on the context.
For the past simple, the (b) understanding would be the natural one; “He [did something] for 3 years” to mean in the past, not now.
On the third question, you would need a little extra context here. It would mean ‘up to now’, it may continue or not, we’re not specifically saying whether it has ended or not. If ‘this exam’ suggests they are about to sit it, then we would understand that the time for revision is over, but if, for example, we intend ‘this exam we’re discussing, which takes place in another week’ then they may continue to study. Additional context might imply the action will continue, while other contexts might demonstrate an intention to stop.
On the last question, as with above, there’s no absolute here as the context could alter the understanding, but we’d be most likely to say something like that when a call is still in progress. Context that would clarify something like that would be if we’re discussing what he is doing now versus if we have some reason to summarise it as a past action (e.g. “He has talked on the phone for almost an hour this evening, I’m not letting him call anyone else.”).
In all these cases, I should note, if it’s not a state/sense verb then the continuous is more appropriate for ongoing actions (and would make it clearer that the action has not finished), but we might still use the simple perfect to emphasise the duration, as in that last example.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Concerning my post above, specifically on “Thirdly, if I say “They have studied for three weeks for this exam” and “The girl has worked for five hours”. Does this mean that for both “study” and “work”, the action/situation began in the past and continues in the present, or is it a case where both started and ended in the past (i.e. took place in the past over the specified period of time in the past)?”, you replied that ” It would mean ‘up to now’, it may continue or not, we’re not specifically saying whether it has ended or not.”
Just to clarify, what you mean is that when we say things like “The girl has worked for five hours” or even “He has talked on the phone for an hour”, the use of the present perfect in these examples mean that the action/situation (i.e. girl working or man talking on the phone) started in the past and continues to the present (i.e. up until the present moment -aka “now”), but that whether this action/situation will continue past the present moment and into the near/immediate future – this depends on the context?
But again key thing is that such actions/situations does began in the past and continues in the present (i.e. from the past up till now/present moment)?
Thanks 🙂
Regards,
Shizuka
HI Shizuka,
Yes – that is a fair summary. But on your final point, to be more accurate, we cannot say that the verb necessarily ‘continues’ in the present, just that it is possible in the present that it may. When we’re talking about duration, the most accurate way to look at it would be that that duration itself is true up to now, so in theory we can always say that the duration might be added to but it does not necessarily mean the action is ongoing now. E.g. if you say “She has worked for five hours this evening.” – she might still work more hours, but may not be working at this moment. To show how looks in context: “Lisa is on her coffee break. She has worked for five hours this evening and has two more hours to go before she finishes.”
I hope that makes sense!
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Hmm, so in essence, for present perfect with prepositions “for” and “since”, e.g. “The girl has worked for five hours” or even “He has talked on the phone for an hour”, this means that the action or situation started in the past and continues to the present moment (i.e. now), but “now” can mean either that that the action/situation is still indeed happening right now at this very moment/or situation still true right now, but there is also the possibility that the action is not happening exactly right now, correct?
How about the present perfect continuous tense? does the present perfect continuous definitely mean that the action/situation started in the past and continues in the present (i.e. still happening right now)?
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, I think you’ve summarised that well, for what is a rather confusing point!
Strictly speaking, the same could be true of the present perfect continuous; it would mean the process of the action is ongoing, but we might not be physically doing the action at that moment. The distinction between the simple and continuous forms is more to do with if we want to emphasise the result or the process of the action.
Phil
Hi Phil,
My apologies, but to revisit an earlier example and concept quoted, i.e. “Lastly, what about sentences like “He has talked on the phone for almost an hour”, you mentioned that “we’d be most likely to say something like that when a call is still in progress”, meaning to say this call started an hour ago and continues in the present moment (i.e. up till now).
1. That being said, I’ve heard of grammar explanations given that whenever we use the present perfect simple tense with durations of time, e.g. for an hour/week/years, it would first mean that firstly the verb is a stative verb and secondly, such stative verbs in present perfect simple and used together with durations of time, would mean that the situation described by the stative verb started in the past and continues in the present. This is correct right?
2. For non-stative or dynamic (action verbs), such as action of talking on the phone, the use of such action verbs with the present perfect tense would mean that the action started and ended in the past (and thought the action has concluded in the past, it probably has some effect on the present moment), and such actions verbs should not be used with durations of time. Is this true?
3. As such, is it right to conclude that if we want to use action verbs like talking, and to convey the meaning that this action started in the past and continues to the present, we should be using the present perfect continuous (i.e. He has been talking on the phone for almost an hour)?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, you are correct in general on all three points – when the action is ongoing, the perfect continuous is more appropriate. However there is an exception when describing the duration of an action is something that is repeating, for example an event that is regularly scheduled, but might be considered to stop and start, “We have met here twice a week for three years.” (Although in this case the continuous would also work.)
Phil
Hi Phill,
Thanks. I suppose in short, this would mean that:
(1) [Without durations of time] The present perfect simple, when used without any durations of time, and be it whether the verb is a stative or dynamic (action) verb, will mean that the verb started and ended in the past, but that this same verb has an effect on the present.
(2) [With durations of time] Both present perfect simple and present perfect continuous, when used with durations of time and with prepositions such as “for or since”, would mean that the verb (whether stative or dynamic/action) started in the past and continues up to the present moment (emphasis being “up to the present” moment).
(a) [With duration of time] However, to nuance further, when it’s a case of present perfect simple used with stative verbs and with durations of time that last from the past till the present, the default meaning is that the state started in the past and continues in the present moment (emphasis “continues in the present moment” – meaning up to the present moment, and still continuing on)
(b) [With durations of time] When it’s a case of present perfect simple with action/dynamic verbs and also with durations of time that last from the past till the present, the meaning is that this action started in the past and continues up to the present, however, unlike the case for stative verb (as explained in (a) above), the action may or may not be continuing in the present. To tell whether it is continuing in the present, additional context/explanation would be required.
(c) [With durations of time] When it is a case of present perfect continuous with dynamic/action verbs, this would, by default, mean that the action started in the past and continues in the present moment (emphasis “continues in the present moment” – meaning up to the present moment, and still continuing on)
(d) Lastly, would you say it is grammatical and common to use the present prefect continuous without any “preposition + duration of time” to mean that something started in the past and continues in the present?
May I know if I am right regarding (1), (2), (a), (b) and (c)? As may I also have your advice on (d). Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, I think you have written an excellent summary of the points there, I think those are all accurate. As to your point (d), yes, it is grammatical and reasonable to use the present perfect continuous without a duration of time in that way, and that would be the common way to do it if we’re not interested in expressing duration, but merely want to show the verb is ongoing.
Best,
Phil
Dear Phil,
Thanks. To further drive home the point on present perfect continuous, and to reconcile point (c) above with an “earlier point” you mentioned. To recap:
point (c): When it is a case of present perfect continuous with dynamic/action verbs, this would, by default, mean that the action started in the past and continues in the present moment (emphasis “continues in the present moment” – meaning up to the present moment, and still continuing on)
“earlier point”: Strictly speaking, the same could be true of the present perfect continuous; it would mean the process of the action is ongoing, but we might not be physically doing the action at that moment.
While you mentioned that point (c) is accurate, you had also made mention of the “earlier point” as part of your reply. As such, am I right to conclude that for the present perfect continuous:
[Present Perfect Continuous – started in the past and continues in the present, either literally right now or in a larger general sense] When we use the present perfect continuous with dynamic/action verbs, this means that the action started in the past and continues in the present moment (emphasis being “continues in the present moment”, i.e. meaning up to the present moment, and still continuing on). However, to nuance further, when we say that the action started in the past and is still “continuing on in the present”, “continuing on in the present” may mean either (A) that the action is literally going on in the present moment of speaking (i.e. now, as in action literally carrying on as we speak or talk about the action), or (B) it could mean that the process of the action is ongoing in a larger general sense in the present, but that the action may not actually be happening/literally going on right now in the present moment?
[Similarity with the present continuous tense] And to add-on further, am I also right to say that this idea of “process of action is ongoing in the larger general sense” (i.e. as covered in (B) above) is very similar to the usage of the present continuous tense, where we know that the present continuous tense may either refer to action happening now at this very moment, or it could also mean that we are in the process of doing a longer action which is ongoing (i.e. in progress), however we might not be doing it at this very moment (i.e. right now as we speak) – e.g. I could say the following while eating in a restaurant “I am reading the book To Kill a Mocking Bird” or “I am teaching at the university now” – these two longer actions of reading and teaching are in progress, but we are not being carried out literally right now as evidenced from the fact that I said all these while eating in a restaurant. As such, context will make it clear – if i said the above two sentences while eating, its clear I that I mean these two actions are in progress now in a larger general sense but that they are not literally ongoing right now; however if I said the above two sentences while holding a book or while teaching in a class, then obviously this means i am literally carrying out the actions right now.
Sorry for the lengthy post once again, but may I know If I’ve gotten the above right?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
No problem – yes I think you’ve done a good job of exploring those points properly, it’s absolutely right, well done!
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
So sorry for not clarifying this earlier, but you mentioned the following (on on February 15, 2021 at 17:12): “the distinction between the simple and continuous forms is more to do with if we want to emphasise the result or the process of the action”. Actually, when we talk about using present perfect simple (without a duration of time) to mean that something started and ended in the past, but has an effect in the present time – I get this point. But your comment was about the use of present perfect with a duration of time that started in the past and continues to the present moment in time, and to compare such a use of the present perfect simple with the present perfect continuous. So concerning this comparison, I am not quite sure what you mean by “if we want to emphasize the result or the process of the action”. Could you kindly elaborate further on this point?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
My point being that while the action may be ongoing, the present perfect focuses more on the impact of it than the process. For example:
“He has been talking on the phone for two hours.”
“He has talked on the phone for two hours already.”
This could in practice both be used to mean the same thing, but the latter example would really emphasise that this is a period of time already completed that carries some judgement (e.g. we think the amount of time he has already talked for is a lot), while the continuous may more neutrally be used to report how long this action has been going for.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil, apologies, but I thought that with both examples, the time period started in the past and last till the present moment, so to say that “the latter example would really emphasize this this is a period of time completed” – since we consider the time period to be effective till the present moment, how are we able to say “period of time completed”?
Hmm, perhaps am I right to say that what you mean is that for both examples, while the period of time started in the past and last until the present moment, for the present perfect continuous, the meaning is that the action is still continuing on in the present. Whereas for the present perfect simple, while the duration of time is up till now, the action may or may not be continuing in the present – this means effectively that for present perfect simple, while we may consider the duration of time (of the action) to start from past and last till present, the action effectively ended just slightly before the exact current moment (perhaps like 1 sec ago) – and so the “period of time completed” thus refers to the time duration that started in the past and lasts till the present?
Hi Shizuka,
In a way, yes, you have the right idea, but I would say it’s not really an absolute, when it comes to real use. What I meant is that we’re emphasising that amount of time has been completed, as a way of stressing that this action has been done, as opposed to discussing it as an ongoing action. This common across the different tenses – your version would certainly be the grammatical understanding, but in real use the perfect simple might not explicitly mean the action is complete, just that we are more concerned that that specific duration of time has been completed. Hence, it emphasises the time, for example to express irritation or disbelief. Rather like saying “It has been two hours already!”
I hope this helps clear it up; it’s definitely a bit nuanced and I’d caution that native speakers won’t have the grammatical function in mind when they choose one or the other.
Phil
Hi Phil,
I seen an explanation on use of the present perfect continuous tense as follows: “The present perfect continuous is especially useful for putting emphasis on the length of time that has passed while something is happening”. The text then goes on to cite “They have been studying for three weeks for this exam” as an example of such a use of the tense.
Am I right to say that in this explanation, “something” refers to the present perfect continuous action, and “is happening” refers to the fact that the present perfect continuous action started in the past and is still continuing now (in other words, is still happening in the present)?
In addition, am I right to say that this explanation is simply trying to say that the while the present perfect continuous action started in the past and is still ongoing in the present, the fact that we use the present prefect continuous tense here reflects the intention to state how much time has passed (e.g. for three weeks) since the present perfect continuous action started? of course the use of the present perfect continuous tense means that the action is still ongoing, and that this duration can be added to, but it is as if we are taking stock in the present of how much time has lapsed since the action began?
Appreciate your advice as to whether my above understanding is correct, thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, that’s right, the “something” is the present perfect continuous verb; and yes, that is all absolutely correct, this use identifies an ongoing verb started in the past, with our focus in the present on how long it has been happening for.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil, you mentioned that “the “something” is the present continuous verb”. Did you mean to say present perfect continuous verb instead of present continuous verb?
Thanks.
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, sorry my bad!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Thanks again for all the past pointers about the comparison between the present perfect and present perfect continuous. To revisit an earlier example:
Present Perfect Simple – “He has talked on the phone for almost an hour.”
Present Perfect Continuous – “He has been talking on the phone for almost an hour.”
Can I explain the difference between simple and continuous as follows:
(1) While both tenses convey the meaning that the action of talking started an hour ago in the past and continue up to the present, to be more specific, the present perfect continuous convey meaning of in the present (meaning up to the present and still going on), whereas the present perfect simple simple means up to the present, but may or may not be still be going on in the present.
(2) To elaborate further, this means that the present perfect continuous puts the emphasis on how long the action has taken, as well as the fact that it is still happening (i.e. ongoing in the present, aka now). The present perfect simple, however, is simply reporting the completed result (i.e. we are only interested in the fact that the action of talking started in the past and continues up to the present moment, but the present perfect simple is not interested in whether the action of talking is continuing on in the present, and indeed the present perfect simple does not tell the reader for sure whether the action is or is not continuing on in the present, unlike the present perfect continuous) and how long it took (i.e. duration of one hour, when measured from the start point in the past up till the present moment). In other words, for present perfect simple, whether the action of talking is continuing on in the present is not important. The present perfect simple, when used with prepositions “for” and “since” (i.e. durations of time that start from past up till present), can be viewed as an attempt of taking stock, in the present, of what occurred over the period of time starting from a point in the past up till the present, but is not concerned with what is happening in the present.
Just to confirm if points (1) and (2) above are correct, thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, I think you’ve got it exactly there, an excellent summary that I hope will also help other readers clarify this!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Thanks! Of course, just to add on, the above applies to use of present perfect simple/continuous with regards to action/dynamic verbs which may assume both a simple and continuous form when used. However, when it comes to stative verbs, as previously clarified, and re-reproduced here for easy reference, “(a) [With duration of time] However, to nuance further, when it’s a case of present perfect simple used with stative verbs and with durations of time that last from the past till the present, the default meaning is that the state started in the past and continues in the present moment (emphasis “continues in the present moment” – meaning up to the present moment, and still continuing on)”, correct?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes that’s right!
Phil
Hi Phil,
May I know if it is right to call refer to verbs and their forms as “third-person singular form” or “first person plural form” etc? I ask this because typically, terms like first/second/third person are used to classify nouns, but I wonder if it is grammatical to use such terms to refer to or classify verbs.
Firstly, on the topic of nouns, am I right to say that whenever we use a noun (as opposed to pronoun), it is in the third person? This means that if we use any nouns in speech or writing (be it whether this is a generic noun like book, car or specific names of people/things, like Michale, Tom or Shizuka – my name :)) , as long as it is not a pronoun, this noun will be deemed to be in the third person?
Secondly, on the topic of verbs, is it then right to say that verbs in the present tense, verbs in the base form may be referred to as “First/Second/third person, singular/plural”? So a verb with a third person subject (like she, he, it, or any other kind of nouns which are not pronouns – e.g. dog/cat/car/needle/train/plane or names such as John, peter etc), in the present simple tense, can be referred to as a third person singular verb?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Apologies, I totally missed this comment. Yes, I think that’s a fair summary. It’s another of these things where it depends on our purpose, but it can certainly help to clarify sometimes that a verb is referring to first/second/third person in singular or plural. You’re right that technically nouns and many pronouns are third person, and that translates to how we describe the verb usage; to give the other side to your summary, when talking about the subject for verbs, it’s only “I”, “you” and “we” that can be first or second person subjects and any other subject will be third person.
You may even sometimes see verb forms discussed in these terms, instead of referring to the pronouns people may describe the form as first person singular (instead of saying it goes with “I”) or second personal plural (“you”). Useful if, for example, you need to distinguish between singular “you” and plural “you”.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil
I do have some concerns regarding what you mentioned “The present perfect should be chosen instead of the past simple when the action either has a current or ongoing effect, or can still be added to. Otherwise, the past simple should be used for complete actions.”
1). Does it mean that using simple past tense to talk about completed actions or events indicates that actions or events which were happened won’t happen again after the time when they completed or even happen again in the future. For instance, I did my homework last week, I brought something, or I played golf, those statements mean all those actions or events happened(completed) in the past. Does they also indicate those actions or events won’t happen again after that time when was happened, since as you said, if the action or event can still be added to, present perfect should be used.
2). If I understand this way, both simple past and present perfect are used to talk about things happened in the past, but present perfect does indicate the an influence of past actions or events on the present. But as for whether the actions or events will happen again after when those actions or events happened in the past, or maybe happen in the future, there are possibilities for it to happen for both of the simple past and present perfect tense. It that correct?
I know it is kind of weird question, but I’ll appreciate it if you can help me clarify on that point. Thank you in advanced!
Best regards,
Yichun
10/24/2022
Hi Yichun,
No problem, these are very valid questions! Yes, you’re absolutely correct – the grammatical intention, at least, is that an event in the past simple is complete and will not occur again. There’s flexibility here and it might depend on context, for example “I did my homework” means *this* piece of homework is over, but we might still have more, other bits in future. The present perfect could essentially mean the same thing with regards to the action being completed – with “I have done my homework” we’re still saying it’s over and may not happen again, but we use the present perfect to draw attention to it being important now (e.g. “I have done my homework so now I can play.”) However, in some circumstances we might use the present perfect to indicate a past event may not be finished, such as for lived experiences (“I have lived in France”, used because it may be possible to live there again).
I hope this helps!
Phil
Hi Phil
When you said I am correct, which means I am correct on my second point (2). in previous post), right?
Btw If it will be more appropriate to say that:
1). It’s not the function of simple past and present perfect tense to decide whether the actions or event will happen again from the time it was finished into the future(or even unfinished action for present perfect as you mentioned), and it mainly depends on the context.
2). Also it is not a focus for both of those tense to infer whether the actions will happen again or not, while the simple present is more focused on the completion of the actions in the past, and the present present is more focused on the impact of past actions on the present.
Thank you for your feedback!
Best regard,
Yichun
10/26/2022
Hi Yichun,
Yes correct on both points in the first comment; I can see that would be confusing because in some cases they may seem to exclude each other, but both could be considered true! But you are right in these two points, the tenses do not necessarily tell us about the state of the actions/events in the future, in the strictest sense all it tells us is that the action was completed in the past (we can infer from that, though, that that specific event is not going to happen again). The exception, as I said, is that sometimes the present perfect does give an indication of future possibility, where it’s a lived experience which remains open to more experience.
Phil
Hi Phil
Thank you for your patient explanation!
But it really depends on the context, right? for instance, I can also say”I lived in Paris, I felt that was great, and I might live in there again in the future”, which will be same thing as we use the present perfect tense.
And you also agree on those two points I stated by saying “it will be more appropriate to say…..1), 2)” in the last reply, right?
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
Yes, I do agree. And that’s right, it depends a lot on context. Our grammar rules give a rough idea of how the tenses are used, but in practice the context can affect the meaning a lot, as your example shows.
Phil
Hi Phil
Thank you so much for your answers
I am curious about the grammar rules you explained here, and other grammars you’ve talked about in different group(for instances, simple past for states, timeless, and so on) on this website, are they applied only to the British English or in general, for instance, true for American English also?
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
Generally I try and present grammar at its most universal; I’d expect these rules to be understood/used across different regions such as British and American. However, you might come across some minor regional variations where the tense uses overlap, e.g. sometimes in some colloquial American the present continuous is used more for states, and the present perfect may not be used as much (with a simple tense used instead). These tend to be minor variations which I wouldn’t expect to be too confusing, though – for the most part, I’d imagine the tense uses are somewhat standard. I’m not really an expert on the variations, though, and would be interested to know if anyone can further define the differences!
Phil
Hi Phil
When we use the present perfect to show the past actions or events that have an impact on the present, that impact doesn’t necessarily be said explicitly, right?
For instance, I have finished the homework, so I can play now. but without saying I can play now, just say I’ve finished the homework, we can infer from the context which kind of impact the past action has on the present. Is my understanding correct?
Best regards,
Yichun
11/1/2022
Hi Yichun,
Yes that’s right, we don’t need to state it explicitly but how we interpret what that impact is will depend on the context.
Phil
Hi Phil
Actually I am confused about what you said “The grammatical intention, at least, is that an event in the past simple is complete and will not occur again.”
My understanding about past simple tense is that it only means things happened in the past grammatically. As for whether it will happen after that depends on the context, but not on the past simple tense itself. Why you would say the grammatical intention of simple past is that the event completed in the past and will not occur again.
For instance, I ate my dinner at somewhere, just means I finished my dinner in the past and I definitely will eat again after that, otherwise I will be dead. Also I may like that restaurant where I ate at, and still willing to dine in over there again.
Also people always say something like I told you that…, I said that…, just to state the fact I did tell or sad something in the past, but NOT mean I won’t say or tell it again.
I do understand that in certain context simple past tense can mean something happened won’t happen again, but for the past simple tense itself, I do believe it ONLY states something happened in the past.
I got this confusion because what you stated is really different than what I have understood about simple past tense, and I didn’t find this rule of past simple tense in other sources like this(indicate something will not happen again), even though there is supposed to be something consistent about the rules of grammar in general.
I really hope you can correct me if my understanding is wrong, and I will really appreciate it!
Best regards,
Yichun
10/5/2022
Hi Yichun,
I can appreciate your confusion; it does perhaps overcomplicate things. The issue is that the past simple refers to a complete action, which is a single instance of that action. As far as grammar is concerned, we are describing particular instances of events which are finished. You may do the action again in another instance or context, but that instance which is described in the past simple is finished.
So when we say “I ate my breakfast.” that instance of eating is done, that particular breakfast is complete. You may eat again, but not that breakfast which you have just described. Consider “I ate breakfast on Monday and I ate breakfast on Tuesday.” – the verb is the same, but we describe two different complete actions which cannot be added to (while we can say “I ate breakfast on Monday and I will eat it again tomorrow.”, but it will be a different breakfast). Likewise, “I told you that” describes a time when I told you in the past; I can tell you again, many times, but these are different actions.
You are right of course that we can do actions again, but the grammatical purpose with the past simple is to define something as done in the past.
I hope this helps clarify it?
Phil
Hi Phil
I get your point, when you said the action is completed and cannot be added on, basically you are saying the instance is completed at that time(eating that specific breakfast is complete), but it does not mean I won’t eat breakfast again after that or even eat eat the same breakfast again. It that correct?
But you haven’t explained why the grammatical intention of simple past is to define something completed in the past and will not occur again? It’s pretty confusing when you said “will not occur again”.
Thank you
Yichun