O co chodzi z rezultatem w present perfect ?

Na wielu forumach, native speakerzy mówią że rezultat jest bardzo mylnym myśleniem jak chodzi o Present prefect vs Past simple. I że tu chodzi o kontekst, ale nie za bardzo tego rozumiem.

Dla przykładu z forumu :

-The city has been devastated (w ich tłumaczeniu powiedzieli że miasto zostało zdruzgotane i dalej jest dewastowany, co bardziej mi przypominało Present perfect continuous)

Często widzę w książkach jak używają past simple pomimo że postacie widzą wynik akcji jaka została wykonana w przeszłości. Ale przecież każda akcja ma swoje konsekwencje więc trochę nie rozumiem tego stwierdzenia "rezultat/wynik akcji w przeszłości"

Jakby ktoś mógłby mi to wytłumaczyć
jezeli jest okreslenie czasu z przeszlosci (kiedy to sie stalo), to musisz uzyc simple past

np.
John has come
John came a minute ago.

moim zdaniem to jest najczestsza przyczyna problemow z uzyciem czasu.
jest tez roznica pomiedzy BrE i AmE i jak te czsasy sa uzywane. Poszukaj na internecie.
Właśnie szukałem w internecie i nie za bardzo to rozumiem. Wiem że są jeszcze określniki czasu jak (last week, albo since.for) ale jak ich nie ma to jest mały problem.

Niby czas present perfect podkreśla rezultat a past simple podkreśla czynność pomimo tego że jest rezultat. Ale ludzie z innych forów mówią że jest to poniekąd błędne myślenie.

Niby to zależy od kontekstu ale tego do końca nie rozumiem
jezeli chodzi o zdania bez kontekstu, to jest np. tak

i have a scar on my forehead
someone has hit me with a stone - to sie zdarzylo niedawno, mo ze dzisiaj, moze wczoraj, blizna to swiezy slad tego, co sie zdaryzlo
someone hit me with a stone - to sie zdarzylo w dalszej przeszlosci.

zwykle jednak dane zdanie jest uzywane w tzw. szerszym kontekscie i czasem w tym kontekscie (zdanie przed, zdanie po) sa wskazowki przesadzajace o uzyciu okreslonego czasu w tym zdaniu.
Ale przecież każda akcja ma swoje konsekwencje więc trochę nie rozumiem tego stwierdzenia "rezultat/wynik akcji w przeszłości"

That's true.Whatever has happened in the past produced some consequences that we recognize today.
But the present-day consequences of past events are (or almost always want to be) different from those that resulted immediately following the past occurrences. If you want to get back your interlocutor to the immediate past of a past event, use the past tense.

Consider this:
I can say "Gutenberg invented the art of printing." (This is a classic textbook example.)
I cannot say "Gutenberg has invented the art of printing." Why?
Let me try this for an answer: Because the results of his invention as seen by his contemporaries were entirely different from what they seem to us today.

Anyway, you have an inquiring mind, which is a good thing. Keep asking "why, why, why..."
edytowany przez Janski: 27 lip 2019
Cytat: Xenon02
Na wielu forumach, native speakerzy mówią że rezultat jest bardzo mylnym myśleniem jak chodzi o Present prefect vs Past simple. I że tu chodzi o kontekst, ale nie za bardzo tego rozumiem.

Jakby ktoś mógłby mi to wytłumaczyć


Every properly articulated present perfect statement is meant to be resultative in some sense.
I'm pretty confused, because in other forums they tried to get rid of me thinking about results.

That more accurate usage of this is (past action ----> still remains)

Like "The city was devastated" (the city was devastated and it's still devastated)

But when it come to this example

"Tony has done his part of job" and "Tony did his part of job" it kind a confuses me...

I've seen a lot of explenation about present perfect(like perfect emphasize the present, and past the past action but it's not true like someone said to me, that is not the point)

And of course I know that when we have time reference (since,for, last month etc.) it's pretty obvious but when they are not implied it's pretty hard to guess which one to use.
I find this extremely useful (Yes, I know I'm boring with Quirk but ... well ... tough. Hey ho. You have to live with it or get me banned) :)

Past tense:

As most commonly used, the past tense combines two features of meaning:
a) The event/state must have taken place in the past, with a gap between its completion and the present moment.
b) The speaker or writer must have in mind a definite time at which the event/state took place.

Present Perfective:

"Past with current relevance" is not an adequate description of the meaning of the perfective aspect. Yet when we concentrate on the present perfective, there is indeed reason for such a description: the present perfective differs from the simple past in relating a past event/state to a present time orientation. Thus in situations (which are not unusual) where either the present perfective or the simple past can be appropriately used, it is generally felt that they are not interchangeable, but that the present perfective relates to the action more directly to the present time:

Where did you put my purse? [the speaker seems to ask the addressee to remember the past action]
Where have you put my purse? [the speaker apparently concentrates in the purse's present whereabouts]

Meanings of the simple present perfective:
a) State leading up to the present
b) Indefinite event(s) in a period leading up to the present
c) Habit (i.e. recurrent event) in a period leading up to the present
Cytat:
labtes

Past tense:

As most commonly used, the past tense combines two features of meaning:
a) The event/state must have taken place in the past, with a gap between its completion and the present moment.
b) The speaker or writer must have in mind a definite time at which the event/state took place.

Present Perfective:

"Past with current relevance" is not an adequate description of the meaning of the perfective aspect. Yet when we concentrate on the present perfective, there is indeed reason for such a description: the present perfective differs from the simple past in relating a past event/state to a present time orientation. Thus in situations (which are not unusual) where either the present perfective or the simple past can be appropriately used, it is generally felt that they are not interchangeable, but that the present perfective relates to the action more directly to the present time:

Where did you put my purse? [the speaker seems to ask the addressee to remember the past action]
Where have you put my purse? [the speaker apparently concentrates in the purse's present whereabouts]

Meanings of the simple present perfective:
a) State leading up to the present
b) Indefinite event(s) in a period leading up to the present
c) Habit (i.e. recurrent event) in a period leading up to the present

So acording to this if I have a situation where :
-a guy stole my watch and I'm screaming :

He's stolen my watch ! Catch him ! (because he still has it, current state of past action "steal")

or maybe something like that

He stole my watch ! Catch him ! (just a past action, the current action is that I'm chassing him)

Btw do you know some exercise that can help me train usage of those 2 tenses.
he stole my watch - kiedys, nie teraz, ale nadal warto go zlapac i ukarac
Cytat: mg
he stole my watch - kiedys, nie teraz, ale nadal warto go zlapac i ukarac

Ale nie polegaj na naszej Policji ze go kiedys zlapie, a jak tak to jeszcze powiedza ze to nie byl twoj zegarek i on tylko odebral swoje :-)
To wszystko zaczyna być coraz bardziej pogmatwane ...
The more examples I give the more doubts I get

like in this video. He said something about "result" but it's more incorrect for me because every past action has it's result.

I know it's long so if somebody is interested then it's [14:53 time]
edytowany przez Xenon02: 27 lip 2019
podreczniki jedyne zawezaja uzycie czasu present perfect
cokolwiek sie wydarzy, juz po chwili jest przeszloscia, to jest logiczny ciag zdarzen na przestrzeni czasu
dlatego past simple jest tym podstawowym narzedziem, aby opisywac zdarzenia z przeszlosci, czyste fakty, bez wiekszego wglebiania sie w nie
natomiast present perfect oprocz tej samej mozliwosci mowienia o rzeczach z przeszlosci, co past simple, ma dodatkowo sile, aby te zdarzenia w jakis sposob 'mentalnie', podkreslam 'mentalnie', przenosic do terazniejszosci
ty, jako uzytkownik jezyka poprzez 'mentalny' tok mysenia, decydujesz, czy chcesz ta sile w jakis sposob wykorzystac, czy tez nie; w normalnych okolicznosciach, czas past simple jest wszystkim, co ci trzeba, aby rozmawiac o przeszlosci, i nie trzeba patrzec na to tylko i wylacznie z perspektywy jakiegos rezultatu czy efektu, bo cokolwiek bys nie zrobil, taki rezultat/efekt bedzie to mialo - najwazniejsze, abys wiedzial, ze twoj rozmowca rowniez wie, ze mowisz o przeszlosci
Someone carried out a lot of - ..ten ktoś może już teraz nie żyć, lub porzucił swą działalność
Someone has carried out a lot of - ..wiele zrobił, ale bez wątpienia ma zamiar jeszcze zrobić coś, to nie koniec kogoś działalności - dlatego widzi się często 'already / 'so far ' itp..
Cytat: Xenon02
Jakby ktoś mógłby mi to wytłumaczyć

We can work out some kind of answer for you, but first things first:

It seems to me that there is a confusion about the term "resultative present perfect." Is it a name given to a sense (or reading) of a present perfect statement? Or is it a category that someone has defined and thereby asserted the existence of more than one grammatical present perfect ?

One can find papers written by renown linguists who classify (according to some criteria arbitrarily formulated) the present perfect as either (1) resultative or (2) existential (aka experiential) or (3) continuative (aka universal) or (4) recent (aka hot) news.

Some magicians negate the very existence of the resultative present perfect. Others say all present perfects are resultative. Resultative because the the resultant state is due to what? Entailment? Implicature? And is what results a state?

Let me provoke your thinking about all of this and say that there is one present perfect and it can be two- or three-way ambiguous between all those readings. (Disregard the hot news type as one full of hot air for now; hot news reading is very much legitimate though.)

Letting your pragmatism sort out those ambiguities would be a good start.
edytowany przez Janski: 03 sie 2019