0

Consider the sentence:

He is said to be the best golf player alive.

From this I can easily infer:

People say that he is the best golf player alive.

Consider another sentence, then:

She is said to have been born in the 3rd century BC.

Which is perfectly grammatical. By analogy, I it makes sense to infer:

People say she has been born in the 3rd century BC.

But it is ungrammatical.

Is there more to the nature of the perfect tense than is usually taught?

user132181
  • 344
  • 1
    "Is there more to the nature of the perfect tense than is usually taught?" Undoubtedly yes. But that's a very vague question for this site. – curiousdannii Apr 16 '15 at 06:49
  • The perfect infinitive is used here out of practical needs: English doesn't have a simple past infinitive. You're looking at it the wrong way around, though: the infinitival construction is derived from the finite construction, not the other way around. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 16 '15 at 08:00
  • How about "She is said to have been seen in a new blue dress." and "People say she has been seen in a new blue dress." ? Seems to work there. – Neil W Apr 16 '15 at 12:25

2 Answers2

2

She is said to have been born in the 3rd century BC. (fine)
People say she was born in the 3rd century BC. (fine)

Both of the above sentences mean the pretty much (there are fine nuances) the same thing.

People say she has been born in the 3rd century BC. (not fine)

She has been (verb) is an ongoing process, or it's a process that occurred in the past but has ongoing ramifications continuing into the present.

She has been dead for twenty centuries.

She died and is dead and will still be dead tomorrow. This is ongoing, but lots of people are still dead. The reason this is used (as opposed to she died twenty centuries ago is predominantly because there is some significance today:

She has been dead for twenty centuries, yet even today she is remembered as the face that launched a thousand ships.

She has been traveling for twenty months.

It's ongoing. Or, there's something more, today.

She has been traveling for twenty months, but it seems she only left a months ago.

People say she has been born in the 3rd century BC. (not fine)

You can't be born in an ongoing manner in the past. Birth may take a long time, but usually less than twenty-three centuries.

People say she has been born again. (fine)
People say she has been reincarnated. (fine)

What is ongoing is a spiritual experience, or that she was born into a new body from a previous life; or it may have a consequence today:

People say she has been born again because of her wonderful life of merciful works.

Please see this excellent post on tenses in English.

Community
  • 1
anongoodnurse
  • 55,278
  • 2
    +1 for "Birth may take a long time, but usually less than twenty-three centuries." – Mari-Lou A Apr 16 '15 at 07:45
  • 2
    The perfect doesn't really describe an ongoing process as such: if I say “I have eaten a whole pizza”, then I'm not currently in the process of eating it. What it describes is the current/present result of an action that started in the past and may or may not still be going on. “I ate a whole pizza” is indifferent to the current moment, whereas “I have eaten…” describes the state I am currently in as resulting from the act of eating that whole pizza. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 16 '15 at 08:03
  • @JanusBahsJacquet the present perfect can also describe a continuous uninterrupted state i.e. "I have been married for 50 years", I am (still) married now, in the present. For an action which continues to the present and is repeated: "She has written several poems but none of them have been published" . It would be VERY wrong to say "She has been born between 200-300 BC" – Mari-Lou A Apr 16 '15 at 08:16
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA Yes, as I said, an action that started in the past and may or may not still be ongoing. The focus of the construction, though, is the present: you are describing yourself as you are right this minute, but doing so in the light of an action or state that at least started in the past. In followed by a past tense marks a specific point in time when an action (in its entirety) occurred, which is incompatible with describing the present result of a state. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 16 '15 at 08:21
0

This is the main thing to have in mind:

If the passive infinitive or gerund refers to a time previous to that of the main verb or construction it is often in the perfective* form, with the auxiliary verb "have."

tense in infinitives and gerunds

but I'd recommend to read the whole discussion linked here.

Marius Hancu
  • 7,714