Correct tense for events which happend long time ago but still have direct connection with present time


Suppose that a man disappeared twenty years ago and I haven't had a notice about him since then. What should I say to my interlocutor if I want to tell him about this story?



You know, Harry has disappeared.



Though it sounds like he has disappeared recently. Or:



You know, Harry disappeared.



But my opponent could think that Harry had disappeared some time ago and then again had been discovered. Or:



You know, Harry had disappeared.



But here... Why, it's rather strange usage here itself IMHO. That would mean I think that I wanted to tell about some events which had occurred in the past and that Harry had disappeared before those events and had never been discovered until then.


Can anybody throw light upon this matter?



Answer



It wouldn't be Harry had disappeared because that would require two times and two actions to be involved - "When I went to the house, Harry had disappeared".


You could use Harry disappeared if you are stating it as a fact. "Harry? Oh yes- Harry disappeared"


You could use "Harry has disappeared" if his disappearance has present consequences - "We can probably sell his car now, because Harry has disappeared"


There is nothing inherent in present perfect that limits how far back in time it can go, but in practical terms the further back it goes, the less likely it is to have present consequences.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

First floor vs ground floor, usage origin

usage - "there doesn't seem" vs. "there don't seem"

pronunciation - Where does the intrusive R come from in “warsh”?

Abbreviation of "Street"

etymology - Since when has "a hot minute" meant a long time?

meaning - What is synonyme of "scale"?