-1

I just have happened to see an article with the headline:

Has Trump noticed Putin has cut off Ukraine's Black Port Sea Ports?

Now, I am a bit confused, so I would like to picture a time line

Past notice of Trump : just now or hours or 1-2 days.

What Putin had done prior to the notice of Trump

Apparently before Trump noticed what Putin did.

Therefore, shouldn't the title be

Has Trump noticed Putin had cut off Ukraine's Black Port Port Sea Ports?

I received an answer but unfortunately that does not make sense.

The answerer says if in the subjective clause the had is used, it would not make sense. I don't think it does not make sense.

Could anybody else provide me with another insight?

So many people are trying to convince me with many difficult jargons/words, but nothing has not convinced me yet.

Yes, Putin, had closed the ports and the condition had been in continuation ( until Trump has ( or probably has ) noticed.

  • Putin has ( if grammatically correct ) cut off Ukraine's Black sea ports. This insinuates the date the ports had been closed about at maximum a day ago. Suddenly, this sentence is asking if Trump is noticing it. It looks like a simulation game like CIA info matter ( which is not a big problem basically. ) –  Aug 24 '17 at 16:24

4 Answers4

2

Trying to picture a time line might only add to your confusion.  There are two verbs in the sentence: "has noticed" and "has cut [off]".  These are both present tense verbs.  More completely, both are transitive verbs in the active voice, present tense, perfect aspect and indicative mode. 

The present tense relates to now.  The perfect aspect relates not to the verb's action but to some state of being which results from that action.  Grammatically, there's no line in time here.  There is only a point. 

Obviously, there is some implication that at least some portion of the actions must exist in the past so that the resultant states exist in the present.  Equally obviously, the state that results from this "to cut [off]" must have existed before the state that results from this "to notice" is possible.  There is a time line that the semantics and particularly the pragmatics of the sentence clearly present. 

The headline's question is only about now.  Does Trump now possess one state of being in relation to another state of being that Putin now possesses? 

Gary Botnovcan
  • 13,349
  • 19
  • 35
  • And please be reminded it was Putin who had closed the ports. Time passes. It would be almost impossible Trump knows simultaneously ( especially this is a question type title. ) –  Aug 24 '17 at 16:29
  • 2
    If, as you say, Putin had closed the ports, that places that state of being in the past tense (or, alternately, the subjunctive mode). Aren't the ports closed at the "now" when the headline is relevant? This headline makes sense only if the ports are closed and Putin has closed them. Your version with "had" sounds like you expect Trump to notice something that is no longer the case, or might never have been the case. – Gary Botnovcan Aug 24 '17 at 21:35
2

"Had cut off" means that they were cut off in the past. "Has cut off" means that they were cut off in the past and they are still cut off. Assuming the ports are still cut off, "has cut off" is correct. "Had cut off" would not be wrong. It does not mean that they are NOT still cut off, it means that we are not saying whether they are still cut off or not. In context, I think "has cut off" is superior because it makes clear that the issue still exists, rather than it all being a dispute over a problem that is already resolved. (I'm assuming the ports are still cut off. Frankly I don't know the details of this issue.)

Jay
  • 65,313
  • 1
  • 69
  • 142
  • Would you then refrain from answering if you do say such as Frankly I don't know the details of this –  Aug 24 '17 at 16:37
  • 3
    @KentaroTomono I meant that I don't know the details of the political situation being discussed. It's not necessary to know the politics to discuss the grammar, as long as one can say, "If the reality is X than you should say A, while if the reality is Y then you should say B." – Jay Aug 24 '17 at 16:44
2

I agree with Jay and Gary Botnovcan's answers regarding the grammar differences between "has" and "had," but more to the point, here is why I do not think the suggestion of changing "Putin has" to "Putin had" is a good one in this case: because it makes a fairly substantive change in meaning.

The use of "has cut off" as opposed to just "cut off" and especially in contrast with "had cut off" implies that the action happened relatively recently. Indeed, if we read the article, that is the case.

The article states that mercantile vessels and some other vessels should have access to Ukraine's port as per an agreement that took place in 2003. But Putin only closed the straight leading to the port two weeks ago.

The action of Putin cutting off the ports happened in the past, sure – so Trump has had time to notice – but it's not that far in the past, and that is the real point here.

Russia's aggression in the Ukraine is a slow-moving event. Putin isn't launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine; instead, he's making baby steps toward having more and more control over Ukraine over a number of years. (The article mentions that it's been three years since Russia annexed Crimea.) So the headline is basically saying "has Trump noticed that Russia is taking yet another step toward taking over Ukraine as we speak?"

As Jay mentions, the use of "has cut off" indicates the ports are still cut off, but it also indicates that the period where other governments could respond to what they perceive as a political threat by Russia is also still happening – we're not so far past the ports being cut off that everybody is just accepting that they did it. It's still a relatively new event, and there's still an opening for other governments to speak up about it.

Another reason I don't think we can change "Putin has" to "Putin had" here without making any additional changes to the headline is because it wouldn't make sense in contrast with "has Trump noticed." If Putin had cut off the ports in the past, the verb for Trump noticing would have to change.

You don't notice something that already happened. You notice it when it's happening, or else you find out about it later. So if the verb is "had," the headline would have to say something like:

  • Did Trump notice that Putin had cut off Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports? or – Was Trump aware that Putin had cut off Ukraine's Black Sea Ports?

But those headlines don't make sense at the moment because the ports just closed. They might make sense in some future article about what happened after Putin closed the ports.

cjl750
  • 3,003
  • 12
  • 17
  • 2
    @KentaroTomono Respectfully, the debate is only ended because you accepted the first answer you got, which agreed with you and did not go into any detail at all. So far three others disagree with you and the accepted answer, and each of us is just trying to explain things in a different way to try to get the idea across to you. I'm not sure what else you want in order to be convinced that any of us are right. The "proof" is explained in the answers. For certifications, I am a native English speaker with an English degree, and I'm sure Jay and Gary are plenty knowledgeable as well. – cjl750 Aug 25 '17 at 02:56
  • @KentaroTomono If you have not already seen it, here is a great post you can read for more info on this subject: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13255/canonical-post-2-what-is-the-perfect-and-how-should-i-use-it – cjl750 Aug 25 '17 at 03:01
-3

I agree with you The title should be: Has Trump noticed Putin had cut off Ukraine's Black Port Port Sea Ports? Present Perfect and, before that in the timeline, Past Perfect. The original title sounds translated from Italian :D

Pete Hollow
  • 73
  • 1
  • 5