Doubts about 判明する and verb tenses


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?




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)

