Hi Tim,

Sorry, I’ve been away from the computer. Yes what you’re saying makes sense, ideally we’d be looking for timeless and highly generalised definitions in a dictionary though I suppose it might depend on context here – I can imagine certain words that might by their nature carry some time-dependent definition, for example ‘result’ and similar would refer to something being completed so a definition referring to past events could help. Though it’d depend then on the specific examples you have in mind.

Phil

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 Yichun,

Yes sorry, absolutely right, I meant present simple.

Phil

I am sorry that I just saw your reply. And when you said “And you’re correct, without that additional context, the present won’t indicate something repeating/recurring.” the present you used here means the present simple tense, right?

Thank you!

Best regards,

Yichun
1/30/2023

Hi Yichun,

Yes, sorry for the slow reply on the other questions; you’re correct, the indicators would generally be adverbs of frequency, though they could be phrases or clauses that provide similar information (for example you could indicate frequency with a time phrase like ‘On Wednesday evenings at 7pm,’, to the same effect as an adverbial like ‘every week’). And you’re correct, without that additional context, the present won’t indicate something repeating/recurring.

My use of ‘extra’ wasn’t to mean the present simple contains some of that information, just to emphasise that is additional context.

Phil

Hi Phil,

I am posting this comment to follow up with my last questions, since I’ve heard from you yet.

Besides those two questions I posted before, I am also wondering when you said ” EXTRA indicator of frequency, do you mean the simple present already has the indicator of frequency or meaning of frequency?

I look forward to hear from you, thank you in advance!

Best regards,

Yichun Li
1/16/2023

Hi Phil

Thank you so much for your explanation.

1). When you said “Generally speaking if there’s no extra indicator of frequency then the present simple will be treated as timeless.”, the extra indicator of frequency you mentioned are the adverbs of frequency like often, sometimes, always and etc., right?

2). Just double check what I understood, if there are no adverbs of frequency mentioned and no specific context indicating the frequency, the actions or states in simple present just tell us something in general or in the present, and it doesn’t mean that the actions or states continuous repeating itself multiple times in the present. Do I understand it right?

I really appreciate your help!

Best regards,

Yichun
1/12/2022

Hi Yichun,

Generally speaking if there’s no extra indicator of frequency then the present simple will be treated as timeless. It can suggest that action recurs, but in a rule-based/regular way as opposed to with any particular repetitions (i.e. if we say something like “I enjoy films”, it suggests they are enjoyed often/regularly, particularly as we have a plural, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about that frequency). As with everything in language though, context could change this; if there’s an understanding that we’re discussing frequency the simple tense could still be understood that way (for example if it’s answering a question that contains that information).

For you examples, in (1), without extra context these statements would only tell us it is true in the present. For (2), likewise it doesn’t tell us anything about frequency, only that this is done in general.

I hope this helps.

Phil

I am wondering that if the simple present tense always indicates that actions or states are repetitive in the present or it has to be joined with the adverbs of frequency to show that.

1). For instance, I am happy, I am tired, the story is exciting and etc. are those statement indicate the states are repetitive or it just means those states are true in the present?

2). Another case is that when we use simple present to state facts without the adverbs of frequency, does actions in the simple present tense are repetitive? For example, AI is utilized in different fields, does the action of utilizing is repetitive or we just see it as a general truth.

I know the question may sound weird, and I may overthink about it, but I do appreciate your response, thanks!

Best regards,

Yichun
1/7/2023