Terra Nova

or finished. "I've closed the door", "I've had my medicine", "I have given up studying English" . These situations refer the present moment, emphasizing that situation is over at the moment. To contrast: "I've had my medicine. It was a moment ago".

And what about my illness?

I'm going to Czechia

As I understand the English tenses, the perfect ones are used to emphasize the fact that something is done at the moment of speech (i.e. they show the sequence of actions - something is done before the moment we refer happen). The past tenses emphasize that something was preceding. Here you refer the moment as "a week ago", which is clearly in the past, so you can't use any present tense.

On the other hand there seems to be nothing to emphasize with regards to the completeness of action. Since even a week ago you don't refer particular event or time. I mean you might have said "I had caught a cold a week ago, before my vacation started, and I'm getting better now.". Here using past perfect makes clear the event sequence - got a cold before the vacation began.

As a rule of thumb: if you refer some time in the past (i.e. it was "some time ago", even "a moment ago") - you should use the past tense. If you say that something is over by now - it's the present perfect tense.

One more way is to put a point: "I've got a cold. (It was) A week ago. And I'm getting better now"

The difference in Russian might be illustrated like this:

Я читал эту книгу. (Когда-то. Пять минут назад, вчера, или сто лет как, мы не знаем. Читал, читал, может и не дочитал вовсе...) I read the book.
Я прочитал эту книгу. (Сейчас, в данный момент, чтение закончено полностью. - но все таки непонятно, когда я ее читал - то ли только что закрыл, то ли уже и забыл). I have read the book.

Oleg, your explanation is incomplete and partially incorrect. Sorry to say that .

So let us clarify the differences between Present Perfect and Past Simple.

1. Past Simple is used to describe actions that happend in a DEFINITE time in the past.

Example: I bought a new dress a week ago.

Present perfect is used to describe actions that are happened in an INDEFINITE time in the past.

Example: I've bought a new nail polish. (I am not telling you when exactly did I buy it).

2. Past Simple is used to describe a past habit or a state that no longer are happening.

Example: When I was young I lived in a village. (I am not young anymore)

Present Perfect is used to identify actions that happened in the RECENT past, so that you still can see results of these actions.

Example: I've just painted the room. (You can still smell paint in the air).

3. Past Simple is used to identify several actions, that happened one after another.

Example: She put on her coat, took her bag and left the house.

Present Perfect is used to identify actions that started in the past, but are still happening in the present.

Example: I've lived here for two years. (And I still am)

However, if I no longer live there, I'd say: I lived in Kiev for two years.

4. Past simple is used to identify past events that happened in an indefinite time in the past, and that can NO LONGER happen neither in the present, nor in the future.

Example: I saw Gianni Versace. (I will never see him again because he passed away).

Present perfect is used to describe events that happened in an indefinite past, but that can be repeated now or in the future.

Example: I have met Vladimir Putin. (He is still alive, so I have a chance to meet him again ).

Actually, with Past simple you usually use such words and phrases as: yesterday, last week\month\year\Monday, ago, how long ago, just now, then, when, in 1987

With Present Perfect you would use: just, ever, never, always, already, yet, for, since, so far, how long, recently, today, this week\month\year\Monday, once, several times.

People, I'm confused.





I meant that I was sick (or I've got a cold) for a week (I've treated), and I'm getting better (in comparison with my past condition) now. My present condition however (tak ili inache?) is connected with my past condition which was a week ago.

It is incorrect.

Look, if you say "I cought a cold a week ago" you imply that you are not ill NOW. So Oleg is mistaken by saying that Present Perfect is used to indicate an action that is over by now. Come on, Present Pervect is a PRESENT tense, so how can it indicate an action that is completely OVER, that is completely in the PAST? It makes no sense.

On the other hand, if you are ill NOW, but you say "I've caught a cold a week ago", then it is correct, because the results are still happening in the PRESENT.

Pretty sure it should be. Do not remember the rules, just trying to explain my understanding from the cases I could think of at the moment. Besides I don't think they are incorrect. The idea might be somewhat unusual, but it works for me.

Actually I read these rules vice versa and try to explain them in that order:


To choose between these two I'd read then as "if you want to describe a series of actions in order happened in the past you can use Past Simple, if you want to emphasize that something happened before the he specific time use Past Perfect".
I.e. use some specific time because there is necessity want to express some idea, not use the specific time because the things are happened like this or that.

"She put on her coat, took her bag and left the house." is to describe what happened.
"She had put her coat on, took her bag and left the house." to emphasize that she had her coat on before doing anything else.


Here the key for me is the before now.

"I've bought a new nail polish." - I did it and it influences time being somehow. F.e. I might have the nails polished or it has replaced the old one since we meet (i.e. something has changed).
"I bought a new nail polish." - I did it once. And there is nothing to refer to the time being.

"She had put her coat on, took her bag and left the house." to emphasize that she had her coat on before doing anything else. Actually, this example is not appropriate to illustrate that. If you want to emphasize that something occured before another action in the past, it should be evident from the context.

Example: When I came home, she had already cooked the dinner. (you ephasize that something happened before another action took place by the word "when")

Could you please clarify what do you mean by saying "there is nothing to refer to the time being"?

Вообще это зависит от того что считать событием. На мой взгляд "простудиться, заболеть" - явления ограниченные по времени небольшим промежутком времени (день или даже меньше), а вот болеть - протяженные. Из вашего обхяснения следует, что "Я заболела неделю назад" и "я все еще заболеваю". В то время как из моего - "я заболела неделю назад" и "я все еще болею" (что уже следствие)?

То есть различие (и соответственно корректность того или иного выражения) в семантике английской идиомы "catch cold". Не хочу сказать, что точно знаю что семантика ее именно такова, как я ее описываю, скорее всего это аппроксимация русского выражения.

Поиск в гугле показывает такие примеры использования:

Well, I've quoited the reference, which says that the tenses are used to express some ideas. Anyway, context is not enough:

When I asked her, she had already cooked the dinner. (к моменту когда я ее попросил, она уже все приготовила)
When I asked her, she had been cooking the dinner (for a long lime). ([долго] возилась с ужином, когда попросил)
When I asked her, she was cooking the dinner. (готовила в тот момент, когда попросил)
When I asked her, she cooked the dinner. (не хотела готовить, пока не попросил)

Here the context is exactly the same, the only difference is the tense used, and the meaning is quite different. So context is not enough, you need to use appropriate tense to express exact idea.

The last one is a bit rough, but still correct.

This has no connection with the current moment at all (as well as with any other moment in the past). I.e. "I bought a new nail polish once. Have not used it though. Still use the old one.". The action (buying the polish) and the consequences of are entirely in the past.

Хмм... Смотрите, по правилам если мы говорим о том, что человек простыл на прошлой неделе, но все еще лечится (т.е., испытывает последствия факта заболевания СЕЙЧАС), то мы используем Present Perfect. Само по себе слово "рresent" означает "настоящее". То есть, некое продолжительное действие началось в прошлом, но продолжается в настоящем времени. Это если говорить об этом конкретном случае с простудой: I've cought a cold, but I am getting better now (or I am still caughting and feeling bad).

В то же время слово "рast" в словосочетании past simple означает что некое действие начлось и завершилось в прошлом, то есть к моменту разговора человек уже здоров: I caught a cold last week.

Но это что касается именно этого случая с простудой, различий и нюансов употребления этих двух времен есть достаточно много. Я их упоминала выше.

In all cases it is appropriate to use "when", because you want to show whether the action was over\still happening\was about to happen etc. by the time you asked.

In the example that you used before (She had put on the coat, took her bag and left) it looks like the sequence of actions. Nothing indicates that you want to emphasize that something happened before she took her bag and left, you need to show that by using some special words. Ex: Before she took her bag and left she had put on the coat. Here one can understand that you want to emphasize that one action happened before another. If you just say "She had put on the coat, took her bag and left" it looks like a sequence of actions with a grammatical mistake.

Actually here it is more appropriate to say "I've bought a new nail polish" because we do not know the exact time. If you did that last week or yesterday, you would say "I bought a new nail polish yesterday".

But actually, I have many English-speaking friends, and they use Present Perfect and Past Simple interchangeably, when talking, say, about recent purchases. So I believe it is not that strict in this case.

Is "to catch a cold" the same expression as "have got a cold"?

To my understanding "To catch a cold", as the idiom suggests, means "the process of becoming ill" (you know - cold weather, wet boots, strong wind from the corner, et cetera), "to have a cold" means "to be ill with cold" due to catching the cold earlier.

Well, I believe both can be used, but not interchangeably. It depends on that we are trying to express.

Hmm... I guess you are right. To be honest, I do not always understand the difference in meanings. Which means that I will keep learning.

Hi all. Have you ever seen any series or shows in the original (I mean English)? Do you use subtitles while you watching movies in the original?
I have seen Merlin, The Tudors, House MD.
Btw, I downloaded House 2nd season today, and now I'm enjoying it.
My favourite characters are dr.House indeed, dr Foreman and especially dr Chase.
Dr House is rude and sarcastic, drug-addicted. An adult man with such manners should be unpleasant and disguisting, but dr House is charming.
Dr Foreman has got an outstanding facial expression. He often is an opponent of Dr House and his face expresses disapproval to House's methods.
Dr Chase is cute )) I like him and I don't know why

It sounds like nobody has seen any shows/series ((

And it seemed like nobody cares... ((

or nobody wants to confess?