I was checking the example sentences of 判明する on the Weblio EN-JA dictionary
and it seems that, when it means "to turn out (that)", 判明する is written in the
dictionary form (it turns out) or in the past tense (it turned out).

I don't understand why is it not 判明している, like when that same verb means "it is
known".

I understand why it appears as 判明した, because that could mean "it became
known". But I don't understand why 判明する. I'd think that meant "it will become
clear (later on)".

I know the English verb is actually in the same tense, but I still don't get
it. Can some Japanese verbs in dictionary form express a current situation
even if they're not stative?

The sentences I saw were:

> 彼が正しかったことが判明する
>
> It turns out that he was right

and

> この証拠によって多くの連累者のあることが判明する
>
> The evidence implicates many people in the affair

I'd write the first one as

> 彼が正しかったことが判明している

and the second one as

> この証拠によって多くの連累者のあることが判明している

to mean essentially the same thing.

By the way, in the case of this sentence:

> しかし、のちに偽書であることが判明している
>
> Later on it came to light that the document was a forgery

Shouldn't it be 判明していた? Why not? Because it is still known that those
documents are false? Wouldn't 判明していた imply that as well?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T03:09:01.133
68798
2019-06-11T05:00:47.760
2019-06-11T05:00:47.760
29268
29268
question
grammar verbs
Doubts about 判明する and verb tenses
The core part of your question has been explained in detail in this question:
[When is Vている the continuation of action and when is it the continuation of
state?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3122/5010)

判明する is a "instant state change" (aka "punctual") verb.

  * 判明する: It turns out / It will turn out
  * 判明した: It turned out
  * 判明している: It has been turned out = It is known (continuation of state)

So 判明した refers to an event in the past, and 判明している focuses on the current,
"known" status.

* * *

> のちに偽書であることが判明している。

This focus on the current "known" status of the document. Today, the fact that
the document is a forged one is known. But it also implies the document was
believed to be genuine at the time of the event in question.

> のちに偽書であることが判明した。

This means "It later turned out to be a forged document." This is used when
this fact was revealed in some time in the past, and that fact may have
affected the past story in question.

> のちに偽書であることが判明していた。

判明していた is "past perfect", and this is the most tricky one. This refers to the
continuation of state up until a certain event in the past. That is, the fact
that the document was a forged one was known to many at some important time
point in the past. See my answer here: [Is 寝る a stative or active
verb?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/57193/5010)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T03:54:30.740
68800
2019-06-11T03:54:30.740
5010
68798
answer