I note that the simple present tense’s main use is to express timeless truths (things which are true in the past, present and future). As such, one such use of the simple present tense is for the definitions listed in dictionaries, since the definitions are deemed unlikely to change and hence timeless in this sense. However, I have come across dictionaries whose definitions make use of the present perfect tense (e.g. definition of the word reason – a cause or an explanation for something that has happened or that somebody has done). I find that such a definition, which uses the present perfect tense, is not ideal considering that the present perfect tense cannot be used to express timeless truths, and may the mistaken impression that the word reason can only be used “for something which has happened or that somebody has done” ( i.e. past events with a connection to the present), but not for something which is happening (present)/ will happen (future); or that somebody is doing (present)/ will do (future).

Therefore, my view is that for such cases, the dictionary in question would do well to amend the definition to say for instance reason – a cause or an explanation for something that happens or that somebody does.

Do you think that the dictionary’s decision to use present perfect tense is reasonable? and if so, why?

Additionally, would you agree that my proposal to use the simple present tense (e.g. reason – a cause or an explanation for something that happens or that somebody does) is fair?

Thank you.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the question – I must confess I’ve not come across it referred to as that before, but from what I can see with a little research it does indeed seem to be used to refer just to the Past Simple. I could be wrong but at first look it appears to me that the term has come from a foreign source (i.e. possibly non-English native) and somehow spread – specifically most places citing it appear to be Indian references – so I wonder if it’s something where something got mixed up in translation. But if I had to guess I’d say perhaps it comes from the label being used for Present Simple with regard to timeless events, which could be seen as “indefinite”, with the term then applied to the past equivalent without making quite so much sense. I agree though it sounds counter-intuitive because the Past Simple is perhaps the most definite of any of the aspects of tenses, clearly defining something complete.

It does appear to be valid in that a lot of references online are in agreement about using it for the Past Simple, but I would avoid it personally as it could cause confusion and I’m unclear on where such a name has come from… There might be another, logical explanation that makes sense of it, but I’m afraid I don’t know it myself so I’d stick to Past Simple!

Phil

As such, may I know if it is indeed valid to refer to the the Simple Past Tense as the Past Indefinite Tense? And if Yes, then why the term “indefinite” when the simple past tense is often clearly used to refer to an action which started and finished at a specific time in the past (i.e. even if the specific time is not mentioned, the speaker or writer has a specific time in mind)?

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

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

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,

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

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,

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

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