present perfect

[sejpdw]

Is it make sense, "How long have our ancesors developed animism?"
It seems akward to me because 'ancestors' and 'present perfect tense' don't match each other, but I don't know how to change this sentence. Please help me.

[Bridget]

Our ancestors are dead, so the past tense forms are needed.

Possibles:

How long did our ancestors develop animism for?
For how long did our ancestors develop animism?
For how long had our ancestors develop animism before X came along/replaced it?
How long had our ancestors develop animism for before X came along/replaced it?

I'm not sure why you chose "develop" there. Could you explain?

[Marius Hancu]

>Is it make sense

Use instead:

Does it make sense ... ?

[OddThomas]

"How long ago did our ancestors develop animism?"

"How long had our ancestors practiced animism?" (before something else)

[MrPedantic]

It seems akward to me because 'ancestors' and 'present perfect tense' don't match each other

That's an interesting observation. I think it's generally true, where the "ancestors" are the subject of an active, dynamic verb. With a passive construction, or a stative verb, the present perfect may be possible:

1. His ancestors have been greatly maligned [passive]
2. His ancestors have always been a source of great embarrassment [stative]

Best wishes,

MrP

[Bridget]

2. His ancestors have always been a source of great embarrassment [stative]

But that would be, the actions of his ancestors, or similar, right?

[Cossette]

Present Perfect Tense indicates continuous time from a vague past to the present. The emphasis is on the present meaning.

I think the question "How long have our ancestors developed animism?" makes sense.

[Bridget]

Present Perfect Tense indicates continuous time from a vague past to the present. The emphasis is on the present meaning.

I think the question "How long have our ancestors developed animism?" makes sense.

So what is the present meaning in that sentence?

[MrPedantic]

But that would be, the actions of his ancestors, or similar, right?

Not necessarily.

We know only that his ancestors are now, and have always been, a source of embarrassment.

MrP

[Bridget]

Not necessarily.

We know only that his ancestors are now, and have always been, a source of embarrassment.

MrP

For their looks, then? :rolleyes:

[MrPedantic]

For their social status, their wealth, their poverty, their excess of fingers...

[OddThomas]

Then you've met Polly Dactilly, I see.

[Bridget]

For their social status, their wealth, their poverty, their excess of fingers...

Still, it's the memory/result of those things that embarrass the speaker and not the ancestors themselves.

[MrPedantic]

Still, it's the memory/result of those things that embarrass the speaker and not the ancestors themselves.

That's one of the odd things about the past. It tends to exist only in memories, results, etc.

MrP