Grammar Question: Which is correct...

[ha98ed14]

and why? To me they communicate the same sequence of events. Can you explain the distinction if I am wrong?

Poll coming.

[kedss]

I think they mean the same thing. :)

[hillview]

I think they mean the same thing. :)
:yeahthat:

[kedss]

I'd probably say something like 'they ate around 5 and now they are playing'

[wellyes]

I voted other because I think they are both proper and they both communicate the same thing.

"The kids have eaten" implies they completed their meal very recently, while "ate" could mean any time in the past (from a minute ago to a week ago). But in this context, since both end "and now they are playing", they both imply the kids ate very recently.

The other difference is "have eaten" communicates what the kids did, while "ate" could either communicate the same thing OR could be used to say what they ate. "The kids ate lunch", "the kids ate bananas" or "the kids ate". Again, in this context, I don't think that matters.

[mommylamb]

I voted other because I think they are both proper and they both communicate the same thing.


Same here.

[Pyrodjm]

Only thing that jumped out was the comma before the word "and" in both sentences. I was taught not to do that.

I'm pretty sure that both sentences communicate the same thing and could be used interchangeably.

[PAfirsttimemom]

Only thing that jumped out was the comma before the word "and" in both sentences. I was taught not to do that.

I'm pretty sure that both sentences communicate the same thing and could be used interchangeably.

I agree about both sentences communicating the same thing.

I would keep the comma. It separates two independent clauses.

[ett]

I think they mean the same thing. :)

:yeahthat:

[Nicsmom]

They are both correct and they do communicate the same thing, but when using the present perfect (have eaten) you are stressing the process of eating which has been completed, whereas when using the simple past the emphasis is on the completion of the action.

It is easier to explain it in the negative:

They have not eaten vs. They did not eat.

The first one, because it stresses the process, makes us think that they can still eat. They have not eaten (yet).

The second one stresses the completion, so it does not make us think that they can still eat, although they could.

It's a matter of emphasis, but it does mean the same thing. That's the way I understand it.

[ha98ed14]

They are both correct and they do communicate the same thing, but when using the present perfect (have eaten) you are stressing the process of eating which has been completed, whereas when using the simple past the emphasis is on the completion of the action.

It is easier to explain it in the negative:

They have not eaten vs. They did not eat.

The first one, because it stresses the process, makes us think that they can still eat. They have not eaten (yet).

The second one stresses the completion, so it does not make us think that they can still eat, although they could.

It's a matter of emphasis, but it does mean the same thing. That's the way I understand it.

THIS is the explanation I was hoping for. Thank you. I'm forwarding to the person I was debating with.

[Nicsmom]

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help :)