When I create something in the past and do not mention the time, the first thing that comes to my mind is: Present Prefect (PP)
I'd use the PP to describe an action when the time is not important and an action incomplete , unlike Simple Past to describe when something happened and an action completed.
I found this sentence on Wikipedia and the author used the Simple Past. I'd use Present Perfect but it always confused me.
Simple Past:
Doctor Manhattan was created by writer Alan Moore with artist Dave Gibbons.
Present Perfect:
Doctor Manhattan has been created by writer Alan Moore with artist Dave Gibbons.
Answer
Just the fact that the exact time is not mentioned should not make you use present perfect automatically.
Think of present perfect as describing the present result of an action that is perfect (completed). It is useful to connect a past event to the present time.
If the main discussion is about about how "Doctor Manhattan" is doing these days, then the statement about its creators does describe a completed action, and present perfect is a good choice.
However, if the main point of the sentence is the creation, rather than the current state, then present perfect is not a good choice. It might leave the reader with a feeling of "... and then what?"
For describing events in the past without relating them to the present, persent perfect should not be used. Past simple is preferrable (and simple!)
No comments:
Post a Comment