Simple Past or Present Perfect?

[wiberg]

What is a difference between these two tenses with regard to past? Which of
them should be used in reports describing past actions?

For example - how to translate?

1. W trzecim kwartale 2003 roku zaobserwowano oznaki poprawy sytuacji
gospodarczej.

In the third quarter of 2003 signs of upturn in economy "were observed"
or "have been observed"?

2. W tych warunkach nastąpił wzrost produkcji przemysłowej. (dalszy ciąg
myśli ze zdania 1)

Under these conditions industry output "increased" or "has increased".

[nowamloda]

wiberg napisał:

> What is a difference between these two tenses with regard to past? Which of
> them should be used in reports describing past actions?
>
> For example - how to translate?
>
> 1. W trzecim kwartale 2003 roku zaobserwowano oznaki poprawy sytuacji
> gospodarczej.
>
> In the third quarter of 2003 signs of upturn in economy "were observed"
> or "have been observed"?
>
> 2. W tych warunkach nastąpił wzrost produkcji przemysłowej. (dalszy ciąg
> myśli ze zdania 1)
>
> Under these conditions industry output "increased" or "has increased".


Past, ale lepiej czynnie niz biernie i o articlach tez lepiej nie zapominac:
The economy showed signs of recovery in the 3rd qtr 2003. Given these
conditions, the industry output increased (or started to pick up?).

[Gość: abby]

a, that's a nice question. I would say: present perfect if we are still in the
third quarter of 2003. But if the period you are talking about is past - then
you'll have PAST simple.

[Gość: alienfiend]

doesn't matter if we are in the third quarter or not. the key is the time in
which the readers will be.

[mr_watchman]

I would be more likely to translate the sentences as follows:

1. Some signs of economic upturn were noticed in the third quarter of 2003.
2. Under these conditions an industry output has increased.

But I strongly agree it depends on period of time when the sentences are being
published - except the first sentence which contains the date of occurrence
clearly stated (by "occurrence" I mean a report on economic condition). In the
second sentence I assumed the tendency of economic growth is still remarkable.

To alienfiend: You are wrong. Suppose I have written a sentence today: "On
Monday, October, 20, I will start a new project." (and suppose I will). Do you
suggest I shall get back in time to correct this sentence after October, 20,
to "On Monday, October, 20, I started a new project."?

[Gość: alienfiend]

mr_watchman napisał:

> I would be more likely to translate the sentences as follows:
>
> 1. Some signs of economic upturn were noticed in the third quarter of 2003.
> 2. Under these conditions an industry output has increased.
Are you suggesting mixing tenses that refer to the same event?? Some would call
it outrageous.

> But I strongly agree it depends on period of time when the sentences are
being
> published
That's what I wrote, isn't it?

> To alienfiend: You are wrong. Suppose I have written a sentence today: "On
> Monday, October, 20, I will start a new project." (and suppose I will). Do
you
> suggest I shall get back in time to correct this sentence after October, 20,
> to "On Monday, October, 20, I started a new project."?
First you strongly agreed, and then you disagree.
And your example only stresses the lack of understanding.

If you know when the text is going to be published you could try and put
yourself in the position of the readers. That often helps.

[mr_watchman]

Gość portalu: alienfiend napisał(a):

> > 1. Some signs of economic upturn were noticed in the third quarter of 2003.
> > 2. Under these conditions an industry output has increased.
>
> Are you suggesting mixing tenses that refer to the same event?? Some would
> call it outrageous.

I'm not. First sentence refers to the occurrence with the date strictly
denoted. The second one relates to the effects.

> > But I strongly agree it depends on period of time when the sentences are
> > being published.
>
> That's what I wrote, isn't it?

No, it's not. You wrote:
"doesn't matter if we are in the third quarter or not. the key is the time in
which the readers will be."

Date of publish might not be the same as date of reading (and usually it's
not). That's why I used "publishing" (which is being made once) in contrast
for your "reading" (which can be repeated frequently).

> First you strongly agreed, and then you disagree.

With different ideas, didn't you notice that?

> And your example only stresses the lack of understanding.

Well, why did you relate to "reading" then? If date of READING is actually so
important for the author while creating a sentence then you have to correct
use of tense in every sentence when reading. Sounds stupid? Yes, indeed. But
it's not my fault; these are just consequences of your way of thinking.

> If you know when the text is going to be published you could try and put
> yourself in the position of the readers. That often helps.

But the same text can be read as well a minute or twenty years after its
publish. Or even later. Do you follow?

[Gość: awalk]

wiberg napisał:

> What is a difference between these two tenses with regard to past? Which of
> them should be used in reports describing past actions?
>
> For example - how to translate?
>
> 1. W trzecim kwartale 2003 roku zaobserwowano oznaki poprawy sytuacji
> gospodarczej.
>
> In the third quarter of 2003 signs of upturn in economy "were observed"
> or "have been observed"?
>
> 2. W tych warunkach nastąpił wzrost produkcji przemysłowej. (dalszy ciąg
> myśli ze zdania 1)
>
> Under these conditions industry output "increased" or "has increased".

Blah blah blah. That's a load of baloney. This sentence doesn't make any sense in the first place. What conditions are they talking about? Industry output doesn't increase because of signs of upturn in economy.

As to PP and PS the rules are simple. You use PP to talk about the present and PS to talk about the past.

[Gość: Lynne]

Simple past - when referring to something that is finished (normally with a
time reference).

"Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away."

Present perfect - when referring to something that is not finished yet or has
only just finished.

"This quarter profits have risen by 3%. Last quarter they fell by 2%."

We do this because in this quarter things might change whereas last quarter's
figures cannot change.

Hope this helps 8-)

www.learnenglish.de

[wiberg]

Thank you for explanations. I also usually use SP than PP for past actions
with finished time of reference, but... there is "Angielski w biznesie" by
Philip Wilson and I found there, for example, these phrases:

1. Zyski poszły w górę o 2% w poprzednim roku.
Profits have gone up by 2% in the past year.

2. Ceny akcji skoczyły do rekordowego poziomu.
Share prices have jumped to a record high.

3. Gospodarki azjatyckie doświadczyły znaczącego spadku koniunktury w ostatnich
latach.
Asian economies have experirnced a significant downturn in recent years.

[Gość: awalk]

1. wrong
2. ok
3. ok

[zegar4]

Don't confuse the past year, the last year, recent years, etc., with last year.
All three examples that you quoted are OK, but only you know what you want to
say. The key to this tense business is your clear understanding of what YOU
want to tell the reader. Picking somebody else's sentences and using them as a
model for your thought is a bad idea.
I almost forgot. Disregard the loopy comments by this awalk guy.

[Gość: awalk]

Don't listen to this irregular clock, it's off again. To talk about the past we usually use past tenses. There are four of them.

[Gość: alienfiend]

wiberg napisał:

> For example - how to translate?
>
> 1. W trzecim kwartale 2003 roku zaobserwowano oznaki poprawy sytuacji
> gospodarczej.
>
> In the third quarter of 2003 signs of upturn in economy "were observed"
> or "have been observed"?

were observed

> 2. W tych warunkach nastąpił wzrost produkcji przemysłowej. (dalszy ciąg
> myśli ze zdania 1)
>
> Under these conditions industry output "increased" or "has increased".

increased

IT'S ALL PAST for everybody, OK?

[mr_watchman]

Gość portalu: alienfiend napisał(a):

> wiberg napisał:
>
> > For example - how to translate?
> >
> > 1. W trzecim kwartale 2003 roku zaobserwowano oznaki poprawy sytuacji
> > gospodarczej.
> >
> > In the third quarter of 2003 signs of upturn in economy "were observed"
> > or "have been observed"?
>
> were observed
>
> > 2. W tych warunkach nastąpił wzrost produkcji przemysłowej. (dalszy ciąg
> > myśli ze zdania 1)
> >
> > Under these conditions industry output "increased" or "has increased".
>
> increased
>
> IT'S ALL PAST for everybody, OK?

Man, you're such stubborn... Whether it's past or not depends on auhtor's
decision. When analyzing reported conditions as PAST events the author uses
PAST TENSE. In contrast, when analyzing CURRENT tendencies the author uses
PAST PERFECT (to create 2nd sentence only), because an industry output started
at some moment and stays remarkable as an effect - and so it HAS INCREASED
(and the author doesn't know whether it's going to keep the tendency or start
to run down).
Is that clear?

[Gość: alienfiend]

mr_watchman napisał:


> Man, you're such stubborn... Whether it's past or not depends on auhtor's
I think you'd better use nouns after 'such'; generally adjectives are preceded
by 'so'
> decision. When analyzing reported conditions as PAST events the author uses
> PAST TENSE. In contrast, when analyzing CURRENT tendencies the author uses
> PAST PERFECT (to create 2nd sentence only), because an industry output
I haven't noticed any PAST PERFECT there.

> starter at some moment and stays remarkable as an effect - and so it HAS
INCREASED
> (and the author doesn't know whether it's going to keep the tendency or start
> to run down).
> Is that clear?
If you had been more attentive, you'd have noticed that the author was
referring to the third quarter of the year and we have the fourth one since
October started.

cool down, man (or woman)

[mr_watchman]

Gość portalu: alienfiend napisał(a):

> I think you'd better use nouns after 'such'; generally adjectives are
> preceded by 'so'

Yes, that's my fault. Firstly it was "you are such a stubborn man", then I
changed it into above version with a mistake.

> > decision. When analyzing reported conditions as PAST events the author
> > uses PAST TENSE. In contrast, when analyzing CURRENT tendencies the author
> > uses PAST PERFECT (to create 2nd sentence only), because an industry
> > output
>
> I haven't noticed any PAST PERFECT there.

And this is your mistake. Suppose you are going to say that industry output
started to increase and its increase is still remarkable. What sentence would
you produce?

> If you had been more attentive, you'd have noticed that the author was
> referring to the third quarter of the year and we have the fourth one since
> October started.

When analyzing the third quarter only as a past - my "yes" goes for PAST TENSE
as I said before. But what I comprehended was the author tended to say that an
industry output started to increase reported time and this process is not
finished. By the way - your last opinion means you agree with the rules of use
PRESENT PERFECT which I mentioned.
Do you know when the report was published and have you read the whole text?

> cool down, man (or woman)

I am cool.

[Gość: awalk]

mr_watchman napisał:


> ...
> And this is your mistake. Suppose you are going to say that industry output
> started to increase and its increase is still remarkable. What sentence would
> you produce?
>

It has been increasing since the third quater.

[nowamloda]

OK, but the POlish text said nothing about the revorery since the third qtr, it
said that IN THE 3RD QTR the recovery was observed.