1

When I say I've put something in the fridge, It means that it's still in the fridge or it maybe out of the fridge?

Does this sentence mean a finished action or an unfinished action?

Ben Kovitz
  • 27,566
  • 3
  • 53
  • 109
Abc
  • 511
  • 2
  • 8
  • 16
  • I'm not sure what your question is, but if you say you put something in the fridge, it describes only that action, that you put it there. Anything can happen after that, and your sentence doesn't address what happens later. – fixer1234 May 31 '17 at 20:11
  • I mean in this sentence it's considered a finished action or not ? – Abc May 31 '17 at 20:34
  • If you're asking about "have put", that would be a completed action. "Am putting" would describe something you intend to do or are in the process of doing but have not yet completed. – fixer1234 May 31 '17 at 20:42
  • 1
    @fixer1234 Reading between the lines, I'm getting the feeling that the OP is struggling with the difference between present perfect and simple past. Of course, I could be wrong. – BobRodes May 31 '17 at 21:18
  • 1
    Yes actually I mean the difference between present perfect and simple past – Abc May 31 '17 at 21:26
  • Please wait at least a day or two before accepting an answer. This meta post explains why this is usually wise. I think both of the current answers are mistaken, though they contain an important part of the truth. A correct answer might take more time to write. – Ben Kovitz May 31 '17 at 22:04
  • @BenKovitz What do you think is wrong with my answer? Not defensive, just curious. – BobRodes May 31 '17 at 23:20
  • @BobRodes It's hard to explain! After I get some work done tonight, I'll see if I can post an alternative answer. Of course, I could be the one who's mistaken. ;) – Ben Kovitz May 31 '17 at 23:24
  • Thanks Ben. I'll be interested to read what you have to say! – BobRodes May 31 '17 at 23:25
  • @BobRodes I'm not sure if it's clear, but it's up. Criticism welcome. :) – Ben Kovitz Jun 01 '17 at 16:17

3 Answers3

5

No, "I have put something in the fridge" does not mean that it's still in the fridge.

The present perfect can be tricky to learn because it refers to a time interval supplied by the context of the sentence. The simple past tense really is simple: it just means "before now". The present perfect means "It happened in whatever time interval is most salient in the context and includes the present, and it happened once, or many times, or is still happening, or just stopped, or just started, depending on what you're talking about and why you're talking about it." Consequently, the meaning of the tense shifts a lot to suit the context—in many, many different ways, depending on what you're talking about, what you just said, and sometimes even what you're about to say next. This is best explained with examples, so here goes.

Examples

"Have you ever put cookie dough in the fridge? I heard it makes the cookies come out better."
"Yes, I have put cookie dough in the fridge—many times. It really works!"

The salient time interval here is the second person's previous life experience cooking. The second statement means that the speaker has, on many previous occasions, put cookie dough into the fridge, to chill it before baking. There is no suggestion that cookie dough is in the fridge now.

I have put the wine in the fridge. It should be chilled in 2½ hours.

Assuming that it takes 2½ hours to chill wine in the fridge, the salient time interval in this example starts when the statement was made, and ends 2½ hours after the statement was made. This statement does mean that the wine is now in the fridge. It's an announcement that the speaker put the wine in the fridge just now (not in the past).

If you put the wine in the fridge earlier than just now, and it's still there, you would most likely not use the present perfect. Instead, you would probably say:

I put the wine in the fridge. It should be chilled in one more hour.

This implies that the wine is in the fridge now.

I put the wine in the fridge at 6:00. I took it out about ten minutes ago.

This time, the wine is not in the fridge now.

I have put wine in the fridge. I'm never doing that again. It gets too cold.

In this example, the salient time interval starts at the beginning of the speaker's life, and ends now. The statement means that the speaker has put wine in the fridge at least once in the past, possibly more times. The number of times is not stated. The statement suggests pretty strongly that the wine is not in the fridge now.

I have put the cookie dough in the fridge three times today—and each time, someone took it out!

This suggests that the cookie dough is not now in the fridge. The present perfect indicates the speaker's probable intention to try again—to put the cookie dough back into the fridge a fourth time (maybe even more times if necessary). The present perfect makes the listener's mind search for a continuous span of time that the speaker probably has in mind, which the speaker is thinking of as containing the three events of putting the cookie dough in the fridge. In this case, that salient time interval is either the on-going conflict between the speaker and whoever took out the cookie dough, or perhaps the whole process of making the cookies, which has been going on all day and is not yet done. If the speaker wanted you to think of the three times putting the cookie dough into the fridge as isolated events, or the speaker is giving up and won't try to put it back in again, the speaker would most likely have used the simple past tense.

So, neither tense by itself implies that the "something" is or is not still in the fridge. But context often makes it clearly imply one or the other.

It's not in the sentence, it's in the context

It probably seems reasonable to think that you can tell what time a sentence in the present perfect tense refers to just by reading the sentence. Most tenses are like that. For example, the future tense, "I will put wine in the fridge", really does just mean that in the future, the speaker will put wine in the fridge (or intends to). But the perfect present is not like that. The information needed to tell what time it refers to is not in the sentence. It's in the context.

Consequently, questions about the present perfect that are framed very abstractly, without a specific context, like "What does 'A has done X' imply about the present?" or even "What is the salient time interval in 'I've decided to do something'?", usually don't have an answer. The present perfect is like a finger pointing to something. You can't see what someone is pointing to by looking at their finger. The only way to find out what they're pointing to is to follow where their finger is pointing and look at the thing yourself. What may seem a little strange is that the present perfect doesn't point to a physical object, it points to a time interval.

English isn't just words and ways of combining them, it's also a certain way of orienting yourself to time. To speak English—at least, to use the present perfect—you need to see events as contained within (or filling) continuous spans of time. Sometimes, the time interval is made explicit, like this:

I haven't washed my car this year.

The present perfect suggests that the speaker might still wash his or her car this year. Since the year isn't done yet, it could still happen. If you were talking about last year, you'd use the simple past: "I didn't wash my car last year." Since last year is already over and in the past, it wouldn't make sense to use the perfect present. There is a break in time between the end of last year and the present.

Most often, though, the time interval is understood implicitly from context:

Have you eaten lunch?

A person would most likely say this from around 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.: the usual time interval during which people eat lunch. The present perfect suggests that if you did not each lunch yet, there is still an opportunity to do so. Consequently, "Have you eaten lunch?" is often an invitation to go to lunch with the speaker. At 4:00 p.m., it's too late for lunch, so you would use the simple past: "Did you eat lunch?" The time for lunch ended before the present, so the opportunity is over. Between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., "Did you eat lunch?" is just a question, less naturally an invitation, because it doesn't refer—point to—the still-not-finished time interval when you can still eat lunch.

This is why there can be no simple rule for what the present perfect refers to or what it implies about whether an action is finished or whether its result still remains unchanged now. There are as many ways that time intervals can be salient as there are topics that a person could talk about and reasons why they would want to talk about them. Just notice how differently the present perfect functioned when we were talking about lunch, car-washing, and cookie dough. On a day when the sky looks like it will rain pretty soon, "Have you washed your car?" probably means "If you haven't washed it yet, you'd better do it soon, before the rain starts." In this case, the present perfect reminds the listener—points out—that it's going to rain soon, because of the sky (which you can both see). Under other circumstances, "Have you washed your car?" could mean something else, because some other time interval would be salient.

Some other languages treat time this way, too, such as other Germanic languages, but most don't. I gather that the Romance languages do not, judging by the difficulties that learners from those languages encounter when they try to learn the English present perfect—that and the fact that their own present perfect works completely differently. If your native language doesn't have a tense that orients to salient time intervals, then every attempt you make to understand the English present perfect in terms of the tenses from your native language will be wrong. You have to start with a clean slate and understand the English present perfect as an entirely new and different way to refer to time in language. If you start noticing what people are trying to suggest when they use the present perfect, you'll gradually catch on and start seeing events as being contained in or filling continuous spans of time, too. After a while, it becomes effortless. Most native speakers don't even know they're doing it.

No consensus

You should know that what I've said about time intervals is not the consensus among grammarians or linguists about what the present perfect in English means. As far as I know, there is no strong consensus about exactly what the present perfect means, though there is a strong consensus that it implies that something about the past is relevant now. (My explanation mostly agrees with that.) I think the examples I've given are all uncontroversial, though, and anyway, native speakers understand the present perfect by example, not by an abstract rule.

Ben Kovitz
  • 27,566
  • 3
  • 53
  • 109
  • But, when the thing is still in the fridge this is a relevance thats why we use present perfect in such examples – Abc Jun 01 '17 at 23:57
  • @Mmm See the examples. Usually one would use the simple past, unless one were announcing having just put it in. (There's no exact rule, of course.) Relevance depends on what your point is, which may or may not involve the current location of the "something". This is important: learners often get seriously wrong ideas about the present perfect, because they're looking for a simple, dependable rule for what it means—but there just isn't one. Here's another question, specifically about whether there's a simple rule. – Ben Kovitz Jun 02 '17 at 00:27
  • I've read the other question before but I don't understand this part " the time interval that ends at present " – Abc Jun 02 '17 at 01:32
  • @Mmm Here's an example of a time interval that ends in the present: the range of time from 5 minutes ago to right now. Here's another: the time during which a foot race was run, which ended just now. If the foot race started 30 seconds ago and someone just reached the finish line now, then the time interval is that period of 30 seconds. – Ben Kovitz Jun 02 '17 at 01:38
  • It could be" something just happened " ? – Abc Jun 02 '17 at 01:45
  • @Mmm Yes. See the seoond example above. Or "Jones has won the race!" in the other question. It all depends on the kind of thing you're talking about and why you're talking about it. – Ben Kovitz Jun 02 '17 at 01:51
  • Okay, my last qyestion : what's the relation between the time intervals and the presnet relevance – Abc Jun 02 '17 at 02:13
  • @Mmm The time interval always includes the present moment. The reason why this is relevant can vary greatly, depending on what you are talking about. Sometimes the present moment is not very relevant, as in my first example above ("I have put cookie dough in the fridge"). Sometimes it's very relevant, as in my second example above and "Jones has won the race!", which are announcements of events that happened just now. There is no simple rule. – Ben Kovitz Jun 02 '17 at 11:59
  • Okay, so we use present perfect when there is a present relevance to a past action and also there should be a salient time intreval to determine in which period the action accoured is that right ? – Abc Jun 02 '17 at 14:33
  • @Mmm Yes. Using the perfect present is like "pointing" at or into the time interval so your listener can "find" the event. "It's in there." This is much better learned through many examples than through any abstract rule, though. – Ben Kovitz Jun 04 '17 at 19:56
  • Your answer is certainly more complete than mine, and does a good job of expanding on the need for context to know what is actually implied. I don't think that it shows my answer to be "mistaken," though. The one example that you give ("I have put the cookie dough in the fridge three times today—and each time, someone took it out!") which represents an exception to the implication that the "wine is still in the fridge" clearly uses context to override the default implication. ... – BobRodes Jun 04 '17 at 20:00
  • ... I thought about mentioning that but decided against it so as not to complicate the issue. (I do not mean to imply that your answer is too complicated. My goal was to give the OP a better, although still basic, understanding of the difference, and yours was to give a complete understanding. Both worthwhile goals.) The other two examples that you give are related but different, because they don't precede the noun with "the." Those were other examples that I decided to omit. – BobRodes Jun 04 '17 at 20:04
  • @BobRodes We might have to disagree, but here's my thinking: When people are trying to learn (or explain) the present perfect, they often confuse present relevance with asserting or emphasizing that the direct result of the action named by the verb is still present—but that's not how it works. In the first example, the cookie dough is long gone; what persists to the present is its incorporation into the speaker's life experience. – Ben Kovitz Jun 04 '17 at 20:41
  • Two questions. 1) For your last cookie dough example, why would "have" be appropriate, why not just "I put the cookie dough in the fridge three times today—and each time, someone took it out!"? What does "have" add? 2) To my comment on Lambie's answer, are you saying that the speaker using "have" implies that the speaker believes that the item is still there? i.e., does the sentence refer only to the act of putting it there, or does it also imply a belief by the speaker that the situation is unchanged? – fixer1234 Jun 04 '17 at 21:47
  • @fixer1234 1) The most likely reason for "have" in the last example is because the speaker is thinking that the game is not yet over: the speaker is thinking of putting the dough back in again—going another round with the miscreant. Without that idea, yes, the simple past is more natural. 2) No, I just meant that whether the item was taken out unbeknownst to the speaker is a separate matter from what the speaker meant. That is, bringing up the possibility of being mistaken is likely adding another layer of confusion to an already confusing topic. :) – Ben Kovitz Jun 04 '17 at 21:56
  • That makes sense. 2) OK, that wasn't what you meant by your comment, but what is the implication of "have" there. Does it imply a belief by the speaker that the situation is unchanged, or does it simply place the action in a recent time period and the sentence only addresses the act of putting it in?
    • – fixer1234 Jun 04 '17 at 22:03
  • @fixer1234 2) In that situation, I think you would normally use the simple past tense: "Where's the milk?" "I put it in the refrigerator." There's no salient time interval. You would say "have" if you wanted to make some time interval salient—for example, if you wanted to imply that the listener should leave it in the refrigerator for some purpose that is not yet accomplished (like, er, chilling it, which seems to be the only kind of example I can come up with for this context). "Have" can be a way of reminding the listener of that action in progress, or simply orienting the listener to it. – Ben Kovitz Jun 04 '17 at 22:18
  • Not to belabor this, but this is sort of a key point in other answers--situation: the person has said, "I have put the milk in the fridge" and is referring to an action that just happened (not life experience), and doesn't add any other context as to a special way in which the statement might be important. A) Can we only guess at the meaning because there is insufficient context? B) Can we infer that the speaker believes the situation is unchanged. C) Does "have" bear no implied meaning as to the speakers beliefs, it just orients the listener to the time frame? or D) all of the above? :-) – fixer1234 Jun 04 '17 at 22:27
  • 1
    @fixer1234 C and maybe A. The main point I'm trying to make is that the present perfect refers to context. Trying to figure out what it means from the sentence alone is like looking at someone's finger when they're trying to point something out. To understand the meaning, you have to look at what they're pointing at. This is really hard for many non-natives with regard to the present perfect, because they don't have prior experience with this "way of pointing". – Ben Kovitz Jun 04 '17 at 22:36
  • @benkovitz .. when I say for example "I've decided to do something" or "I've changed my mind" how can I determine the time interval in such exampls ? – Abc Jun 05 '17 at 16:20
  • @Mmm It depends on what you have in mind—what time interval you want to suggest to your listener, if any. Very abstract examples, like "I've decided to do something", can't shed light on this. I just rewrote the second cookie-dough example and the section "It's not in the sentence, it's in the context". Do those help? (It might take a while to read them and understand them. What they say might come as a big surprise. Seriously, it might take a day or two to sink in.) – Ben Kovitz Jun 05 '17 at 18:22
  • I mean should all examples have a salient interval? For example when I say for someone "I've prepared lunch" this indicates that the action is done recently because the lunch is now ready, So what's the time interval in this case ? – Abc Jun 05 '17 at 23:08
  • @Mmm It depends on context—and to some extent, on what you want it to mean. If it's noon and you just walked from the kitchen to the living room and it's filled with hungry people, then "I've prepared lunch" means that lunch is ready to eat right now. The time interval would be "lunch time". If it were 6:30 a.m., you could say "I've prepared lunch" to announce that you just finished preparing it and to suggest that you and your listener can leave for your camping trip now. In that case, the time interval would be the preparation time, which just ended. – Ben Kovitz Jun 06 '17 at 13:32
  • 1
    @BenKovitz, OK, this has gone from merely excellent to knocking it out of the park. Wish I could upvote again. – fixer1234 Jun 06 '17 at 21:00
  • So when the action is just finished the time interval starts when I started doing the action and ends now "the moment when I stop doing the action", correct? – Abc Jun 07 '17 at 15:30
  • @Mmm There's no rule. The more you search for a rule beyond "the speaker is referring to some time interval that somehow includes the present", the more you will be frustrated and disappointed. Instead, treat each new use of the present perfect as a new, unique, possibly surprising way of using the notion of a salient time interval. That's how native speakers do it (without even knowing!). – Ben Kovitz Jun 07 '17 at 15:49