Trulala wrote:Beatus Pistor
do tibi epistolam, quam scripsi
in this sentence past action is connected to present.
Correct, but it is more recent past. This is why I told you about the sequence of tenses in Latin; from a Latin point of view there is no difference between an action which has just happened and its implications can be seen in present time, or an action which happened very long ago and its consequences can still be seen in present time. The latin tense system should look something like this:
pluperfect impf. pf. <-present.-> future future perfect
The pf. sometimes can take the force of a preterit, i.e. it has both perfect(closer to current events) and aorist (simple occurrence in the past, as greek aor. ind.). If you read German, there is an excellent book on the subject, it focuses on the latin subjunctive, but has some fascinating insights on other aspects of the latin tenses:
Muller-Wetzel M., Der lateinische Konjunktive : seine Einheit als deiktische Kategorie : eine Erklarung der modalen Systeme der klassischen Zeit
, Hildesheim: Olsm-Weidmann 2001.
However, this is highly technical, I don't recommended it at all for a beginning student as you, as it might confuse you. Nevertheless, the tables and illustrations given in several places clarify several points, better than any beginner's book, even if you don't read the explanations and discussion at all. I can scan and submit them upon request, if scanning 3 pages doesn't violate the copyright.
Re-imperfect in German: imperfect is sometimes used by English grammarians as an alternative name for the preterit
(ich machte, I made/I was making), it should not
be treated as equivalent to the Latin imperfect(e.g. amabat), or the Greek impf.(epauon), not even the English imperfect, unless the german uses several particles, which would denote the continuance of the action. Only the Latin imperfect can certainly and perhaps only be paralleled to the English imperfect(past continuous): currebat: he was running.