Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: I saw or I have seen?

Quando uno e quando l'altro?
Grammaticalmente me lo spiego con il fatto che I saw è past simple mentre I 
have seen è present perfect.
Però ho l'impressione che ci sia una relazione più incisiva del semplice 
fatto temporale.
Mi spiego meglio, se io dico - I saw Luisa - è come se dicessi ho visto 
Luisa, ma anche una Fiat Punto, un gatto che traversa la strada e così via.
Cioè non me ne frega nulla, descrivo solo.
Se invece dico - I have seen Luisa - allora intendo che questa Luisa mi ha 
in qualche modo colpito, magari perché è un gran bel pezzo di....
O mi sbaglio?
 
.. 
 
 

 O mi sbaglio?
 
Ti sbagli. Dire "I saw Luisa" indica che c'� una situazione specifica in 
cui hai visto quella ragazza. Dire "I have seen Luisa" indica che c'� 
stata una volta (o due o tre) in cui l'hai vista.
 
 

Tony the Ice Man ha scritto:

Scusate se m'intrometto, ma per vedere se ho capito .. Potrei quindi dire:
 
Last week I saw Luisa while she was swimming.
 
I have seen Luisa last week.
 
Giusto?! Grazie mille,
saluti,
Giuseppe
--
http://giuseppedecesaris.blogspot.com
 
 
 
-- 
 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it
 
 
 

 I have seen Luisa last week.
 
Since you specified that it happened last week, I think that the past 
simple would be more appropriate in this case.
 
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
 
Correct. Further:
 
-Last week I saw Luisa while she was swimming.
-I *saw* Luisa last week. (This is the same situation as above, really. The 
time when you saw her is determined.)
-I have seen Luisa swimming several times in the past few weeks. 
(Undetermined.)
-I saw Luisa swimming several times last week. (Determined.)
 
-- 
Joey from New York
Among those whom I like or admire, I can findï¿œno common denominator,
but among thoseï¿œwhom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh.
ï¿œ ï¿œ-- WH Auden
 

 -I saw Luisa swimming several times last week. (Determined.)
 
Also:
   - I have seen Luisa swimming several times this week.
Here the time is determined but not entirely in the past, because "this 
week" is still not over.
It's very similar to "... in the past few weeks" since in both cases 
we're talking of a period of time that starts in the past but extends to 
the present.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
 
NCR. (No correction required.) :)


 I have seen Luisa last week.
 
La prima frase va bene. Per la seconda frase � meglio dire "I saw Luisa 
last week." Se vuoi dire che l'hai vista ma non puoi, non vuoi, o non 
riesci a specificare il giorno o l'evento, allora puoi dire "I have seen 
Luisa within the last week."

 Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
You're not wrong, but your rationale leaves me a bit uneasy. You can say 
either of the following two sentences but they have different connotations.
 
I saw Luisa swimming several times this week.
I have seen Luisa swimming several times this week.
 
In the first sentence, you imply that there are specific days and times 
that you witnessed this behavior. It implies that you could then provide 
more specific information about the behavior, for example, whether she 
was practicing the breast stroke or the butterfly stroke.
 
The second sentence says the same thing but does not imply that you can 
necessarily provide more specific information. Perhaps you really can 
provide it, but the certainty of the observation is less specific.
 
All that stuff you said about the "time is determined but not entirely 
in the past" does not work for me, but then I didn't learn the language 
from a grammar book.


 
Here's the relevant part:
"In British English, the use of Simple Past and Present Perfect is quite 
strict. As soon as a time expression in the past is given, you have to 
use Simple Past. If there are no signal words, you must decide if we 
just talk about an action in the past or if its consequence in the 
present is important.
 
Note that the following explanations and exercises refer to British 
English only. In American English, you can normally use Simple Past 
instead of Present Perfect. We cannot accept this in our exercises, 
however, as this would lead to confusions amongst those who have to 
learn the differences."
 
Unfortunately, many web sites teach British English without stating that 
in any clear way.
 
Kiuhnm

 in any clear way.
 
Gi�.
 
.. 
 
 

 an action in the past or if its consequence in the present is important.
...
 


Si dovrebbe anche aggiungere che, con alcuni avverbi (still, yet, 
already, never, ever), la regola classica vuole che in BritEng si usi il 
present perfect.
In realt�, nella lingua parlata (mi riferisco sempre al BritEng), mi � 
capitato spesso di sentire frasi come "Did you ever...?" e "I did it 
already".

 in any clear way.
 
British English is more restrictive in this case, but I imagine that 
more and more Brits are assimilating this kind of linguistic shortcut.
 
On a further note, it is interesting, at least to me, that in my 
response to Giuseppe, I started to write about how "I have seen Luisa" 
could be used as emphasis, but I deleted the passage out of concern that 
I might be muddling the clarity of the answer to the original question. 
The passage you cited discusses the difference of emphasis on action 
versus result. I'm not sure that explanation captures the treasury of 
connotations shared and unique between the two phrases but it does 
provide a peg upon which you can hang your understanding.

 ...
 
Quella mi sembra che sia d'accordo con l'inglese americano.


 
Kiuhnm

 the two sentences would share the same meaning.
 
Oddly enough, this is the case where the british english rule that I've 
been taught would require the present perfect...


Yes, I know. That's the difference I was pointing out. An American might 
say "I have just phoned Mary," but most would say "I just phoned Mary." 
In truth, most would really phrase it as "I just got off the phone with 
Mary."

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:jr5er3$6vd$1...@dont-email.me...

Ma parla anche dell'uso reale britannico, mi par di capire, al di l� di 
quanto prescrivono le grammatiche.
E per "reale" non intendo  solo colloquiale, ma anche nelle news, nella 
narrativa, ecc.
 
QUOTE
...
W. Zydatiss (1986) or M. Swan & C. Walter (1990), among others,
studied the textual functions of temporal linking; they focused on the use 
of
the present perfect in news events and observed how the present perfect is
very frequently chosen so as to highlight the topicalising sentence, whereas
the past simple is used to describe further details: "A British firm has 
landed
a huge shipping contract with Brazil. The deal was signed at a meeting today
in London".
 
Tense and aspect choices have also been related to discourse
segments in academic writing, with a predominance of the present perfect in
the 'introduction' section, for instance, and in more ordinary contexts, 
such
as the telling of stories or jokes (see Schiffrin 1981). She noted how the
speaker switched from the past to the present and from the historical 
present
tense to continuous aspect to emphasize particular stages in the narrative.
This is a clear interpersonal device as it involves the addressee in a 
direct
way. Let us illustrate this shift to the present continuous for emphatic
purposes in the recounting of a ghost story:
 
A: Not all that long since, perhaps ten years ago, this friend of mine,
her son was in hospital, and he'd had a serious accident and he
was unconscious for a long time... anyway, she went to see him
one day and she said 'Has anybody been to see you?', and he says
'No, but a right nice young lady came to see me,' he said, 'she was
lovely, she stood at the foot of my bed, you know, she. . . had a
little word with me.' Well eventually he came home, and they'd a
lot of the family in the house, and Emma, this friend of mine,
brought these photographs out, of the family through the years,
and, passing them round, and he's looking at them and he said
'Oh! That's that young lady that came to see me when I was in
bed.' She'd died when he was born . . . so.
B: Good God.
A: He'd never seen her.
B: No . . . heavens. (In McCarthy 1991:61)
 
From this extract it can be deduced that the choice of tense and
aspect is not just a matter of precise location in time but also a sign of 
the
speaker/writer's intentions to foreground certain elements:
 
The tenses and aspects do not seem so much strictly bound to time
as to issues such as the sender's purpose, the focus on different elements 
of
the message, and the projection of a shared framework within which the
receiver will understand the message. (McCarthy 1991:62)
 
The role of the hearer/reader will be to interpret these sentences by
establishing temporal assumptions/presuppositions and capturing inferences
based on tense and aspect choice. Thus, temporal inference is vital in a
discourse/ pragmatic approach to a text.
 
This becomes particularly so when reading narrative, as the
complexity of literary texts makes them less regular or predictable with
respect to tense and aspect choice. The writer is free to highlight the 
events
and segment the text into temporal frameworks, involving or 'detaching' the
reader according to his/her purposes. Twentieth-century narrative, for
example
[...snip...]
UNQUOTE
 


There's no argument that both the Brits and Americans use the present 
perfect for emphasis. I think what Kiuhnm was saying was that for the 
Brits the present perfect is prescribed "when its consequence in the 
present is important." (He actually said "the time is determined but not 
entirely in the past" but this is what he really meant.) If you are 
saying that it is not strict or prescribed, I've yet to see the evidence 
excerpted from this thesis you chose to reference.

Okay, this section is about an entirely different thing, the mixing of 
the present and past. I'm not sure of the literary value of this 
technique. For me, the most it achieves is variety in presentation. Who 
likes to read "he said" over and over again? Temporal inference my ass! 
If the writer wanted to bring the reader and characters to the present 
for some particular purpose it might be useful, but I don't see it here. 
To an American ear it is too reminiscent of the substandard "so, I 
says..." to make it any more than just an exercise in temporal 
flexibility for the reader.
 
In regard to the main topic of this thread, I see no reason to confound 
a perfectly too complex topic by introducing an unrelated and different 
complexity. Am I being too harsh on the poster? I don't intend to be, 
I'm probably just irritated at having to slog through reading such a 
mire of academic phrasing. After going through my own phase of academic 
reverence I'm just not easily impressed by thesis' that use complicated 
phrasing and academic jargon to veil vague and poorly supported simple 
propositions.
 
"From this extract it can be deduced..." says the writer. The passive 
voice was aptly chosen. I wouldn't want to be the responsible party in 
an assertion that the verbs in present tense highlight the related text 
more than do verbs in the past tense or other stylistic choices in this 
particular excerpt.

 in the past tense or other stylistic choices in this particular excerpt.
 
I see your point. I don't know who is right on matter at hand, but just 
saying "From this extract it can be deduced..." is weak proof.