[nelson13]

.....

[susan53]

Re : hear

Yes, it's fine to use "I hear..." . The meaning doesn't really imply that you "heard" something - you might have read it. It's just another way of saying "I understand" or " I know". How you found out is irrelevant. So eg :

I hear that they're making a film of the Shannara novels = I understand that they're making a film of the Shannara novels.

If the speaker wanted to refer to a specific moment when s/he found out, then "I heard" would be used :

A : I understand that they're making a film of the Shannara novels.
B : Yes, but I heard on the news a few days ago that they're way over budget and the whole project might be scrapped.

Re : understood

Sorry, but I'm not completely sure I understand your question. If you "understand" (or know) something, that understanding (or knowledge) is (usually) permanent, so the first form verb (which expresses permanent facts) is necessary, as in :

I understand the theory of relativity. / I understand they're making a film.... / I know they are making a film...

and as you say, the use of the second form would, here, imply a past and finished action:

I understood the theory of relativity when Albert explained it to me, but I'm confused again now.

I understood they were making a film of the Shannara novels, but I can't find any mention of it in the film magazines. I must have been mistaken.

[nelson13]

......

[susan53]

Both are possible. Grammar expresses meaning, and the speaker has the choice of which meaning s/he wants to express. So it depends whether you want to emphasise general understanding or specific past understanding.

A : (stream of words) Oh, I'm sorry. Am I speaking too fast? Do you want me to repeat that?
B: No, no. I understand you fine. Go on.


but emphasising past understanding would also be possible.

A : (stream of words) Oh, I'm sorry. Am I speaking too fast? Do you want me to repeat that?
B: No it's fine. I understood everything you said. Go on.

[nelson13]

.....

[nelson13]

......

[susan53]

Have you heard... is correct. 2 would not be logical as this form (the second form of the verb) expresses an event which is distanced from the "here and now" - in this case confined to the past.

have + past participle on the other hand expresses and event which is relevant to both past and present - in this case, a past event which has a result in the present. If I "heard" about something in the past, the result is that I "know" about it now. And in this context the present result is the focus of the speaker's attention, not the moment in the past when the event happened. Compare :

Did you hear that explosion this morning? - I'm interested in something which happened a while ago and is no longer current.

Have you heard the new album by Sting? - I'm interested in what the listener thinks about the album, ie her present opinion, and not the moment in the past when she first turned the CD on.

[uscollegeranking]

great info. Thanks for sharing this

[uscollegeranking]

Susan53, great info, I learn a lot of grammar here, Thank you!

[nelson13]

......

[nelson13]

......

[susan53]

No it's not. Your meaning is permanent. You meant XXX before, you mean the same thing now, and you'll mean the same thing in two minutes time. It's not going to change. The first form verb expresses permanent facts - and so is usable here. The second form verb would only be used if the speaker wanted to emphasise what s/he meant at a particular time in the past. Compare :

a) I don't think he can be very happy. John, I mean.

b) When I said it wasn't necessary to be exactly on time, I meant I didn't mind if you were a few minutes late. I didn't mean three hours late!

[nelson13]

......

[susan53]

Oh - I hope not. But in that case, I'd better stop answering....

[nelson13]

.......

[Beatrix]

I have a question about Nelson's question.

Quote nelson13

thanks


Don't feel strange that a Chinese student will ask so many questions about tenses, as there is not inflection in Chinese and when it comes to speaking, the dilemma of tenses often causes a stammer.

is it natural to say "causes a stammer" instead of "causes stammering"?

[nelson13]

.....

[susan53]

Causes stammering is grammatically correct and more natural than causes a stammer. However, in terms of meaning it's not really accurate. I think you mean causes hesitation . Stammering is a speech problem that affects an individual all the time - not just because of a specific problem at one moment - and which may have genetic or neurological causes, whereas what Nelson is describing is insecurity about making a mistake when speaking a foreign language. A different issue.

[nelson13]

.....