Does each of these sentences conveys the same thing? I think people use the second sentence more often on emphasizing the “duration” of an action right? While the first sentece one is just simply stating the “duration” but not necessarily emphasizing it…
Eg:
“This is a very efficient technique. I’ve been teaching it for years.” (emphasizing)
Did I got it correct?
The first one means that you once taught it, but not anymore. The second one suggests you are still practising.
Another question:
EnglishClub: Present perfect tense for continuing situation
Just to make sure I really got this. So if I say “I have worked here.” or “I have worked here for two years.”, it is a present perfect tense for finished “experience”. But if I add the word “since” like “I have worked here since two years ago.”, it changes the meaning to ‘still happening now’.
Did I got it correct?
I think, It means you still work there if you say: I have worked here. Note that, Present perfect means, something started to happen in the past and it is still happening.
I had worked here – Past perfect which means something started to happen in the past and finished before the present.
When you say since you mark the starting point when you started to work. But all depend on the context, in my opinion.
But I’m not native speaker just try to word what I studied.
Though “I have taught it.” or “I have taught it for years.” is a completed action right?
I’m just confuse on the distinction of the first rule to the other rule on EnglishClub.com that states:
Present perfect tense
1. Present perfect tense for experience. (completed action)
“He has lived in Bangkok”
“I have seen ET.”
3. Present perfect tense for Continuing situation. (still hapenning)
“I have worked here since June.”
Sentence like “I have seen ET.” is easier to distinguish as completed action but I am having trouble to identify forms like “He has lived in Bangkok” if it’s on #1 or #3 rule, because there are same forms like “I have worked here” which is continous. Though, I know “I have learned a lot today” is a complete action but still… their structure looks the same as the continous.
This is why I just told my English proffesor yesterday “So English is not as easy as 1+1 eh?” :lol:
Yes, both sentences can be used to mean the same thing. Yes, using the continuous form (have been teaching) emphasizes duration.
In this particular case (and without any context), the only other difference I sense is that “I have taught it for years” can be used to refer to a series of individual “teachings of it” up to now, but at the moment I am not in the middle of one of those “teachings of it”. Therefore, the latest round of “teaching it” is finished. However, there may well be further “teaching of it” in the future. So, the series is not necessarily finished.
On the other hand, “I have been teaching it for years” can more readily be used to refer to a series of “teachings of it” when you are right in the middle of the latest round of “teaching it”.
Thus, “I have been teaching it for years” seems slightly more likely to refer to something that will continue into the future.
However, it is also possible to use the present perfect continuous to refer to something that has already ended. For example, if I go outside and see that there are puddles of water on the ground, and everything is wet, I might say “It has been raining” – even if the rain has already stopped.
The precise meaning of the present perfect tends to be rather dependent on the broader context.
[color=darkblue]_______________________________________
[size=75]“Nostalgia is like a grammar lesson: you find the present tense, but the past perfect!”[/size]
It makes sense to me even better now.
So it’s like:
Guy1: I have studied seduction for two years.
Guy2: Really, what are you doing now though?
Guy1: For now, I’ve been focusing my time on working on my marketing. Though, I’ll get back to that when things starts to fall into place.
Even in this sentence the action may or may not be finished: if you were in a language course that took place from 9 am to 6 pm, and if someone whispered to you in class that he found all the teachers incompetent, you could say: “well, I have learned a lot today”. You might have added “already” in this case, though.
If I may quote EE: “The precise meaning of the present perfect tends to be rather dependent on the broader context.” This broader context may be a specific word, such as “since”, which usually means that the action is probably still going on; but it is also the previous sentence, the story or discourse as a whole, the fact that you are reminded of a certain passage in Pride and Prejudice - you name it. It may also be the verb itself: in “he has died”, it is clear that the dying cannot continue into the future.
The present perfect is just a tense used for things that happened in the past but are mostly relevant for what you are saying about the present; in the continuous sense of the p.p., it is simply indicated by context - not by the tense itself - whether or not the action described has just stopped, will immediately stop, or will not stop soon.
Aikuzo, I can see that you are a systemic thinker: you like getting to the bottom of things, which is very good! In the case of the p.p., I am afraid you are trying to find more certainty than there is.
As a test for yourself, you could Google some forms of the present perfect, such as “has helped”, “have read”, and “has learned”, and see whether you can determine from context whether the action has just stopped, is still going on, or will even go on further. You could copy and paste these sentences with their contexts onto this forum with your interpretation, and get comment on it. I have a feeling that you would find this easier than the sentences with little context that we have talked about so far. If you want sentences from comparatively respected sources, you can add site:timesonline.co.uk or site:nytimes.com to find results from those sites only. You could also use asterisks, as in “I have worked at * for * years”.
Heyyyy, my thousand gratitude to you Cerberus! xD
Round 1: :lol:
[i]Cara: First of all, Congratulations on your new position as contemporary curator at the Baltimore Museum of Art! There are a lot of excited people here in Baltimore who are thrilled you are coming on board. After your 8 year tenure at the Hirshhorn, what made you want to switch from DC to Baltimore?
Kristen: Thank you. I am excited about the new position and the new city. [color=darkred]I have worked at the Hirshhorn for eight years, and it is an amazing institution with a great collection, fantastic staff, and lively and dedicated supporters. I am glad that I will still be able to pop down to Washington to see exhibitions and attend lectures there.[/i]
[color=darkred]It wasn’t still clear at this point whether she’s still working(and about to quit) or have just quit.
Cara: At the Hirshhorn you worked with a number of big name artists on some very ambitious projects. What were and are some of your favorite exhibits and artists you have worked with?
[color=darkred]It wasn’t still clear at this point. Cara just mentioned “worked with a number of big name artists” but she could still said it even if Kristen was still working on the Nirshhorn.
My comments are in bold black; I also made a few corrections to your comments in bold red.
I’ll go offtopic for a sec:
- It still wasn’t (or isn’t?) clear at this point.
So “was” is not suggested to use to talk about someone you are not familiar with — on formal situations. So it’s better to use “were” or either perfect or perfect continous eh.
Talking with my friends: (about my boss I’m wasn’t familiar with)
So we can use “were” on 3rd person singular if we have to use it on “formal talk” to replace ‘was’ right?
Hi Aikuzo,
I feel you are chasing your tail and making mountains out of molehills. Let’s get one thing straight This is gibberish:
and so is this:
Lighten up, please.
Alan
I am sorry for not explaining myself; this misunderstanding is my fault.
There are two entirely separate “problems” here:
Whether the past or present tense is better for things that are true in both past and present: this is not very important, just choose the tense that you like; either tense is right.
The past subjunctive versus the simple past.
Example:
A - Deirdre had (past simple) a favourite slave; when he died, she was very sad.
B - She is still a bit sad. She has never bought another one; I think she would be happier now if she had (past subjunctive) a new slave.
In the first sentence, we are talking about a situation that was simply true in the past. She had a slave.
In the second one, we are talking about an unreal situation now: “if she had a new slave” - she doesn’t have a new slave, but what if she did? This is the usual construction for a hypothetical (not real at the moment) situation:
if + past subjunctive (subordinate clause), would + infinitive (main clause).
As you see, “had” can be both past simple and past subjunctive: they have the same form. There is only one verb where they have different forms, and even then only for “I” and “he/she/it”: the verb “to be”.
Simple past:
I was
you were
he was
we were
you were
they were
Past subjunctive:
I were
you were
he were
we were
you were
they were
Because both tenses have the same form for most persons of “to be”, and the same form for all persons of other verbs, past simple and past subjunctive are often confused. Using “was” for the subjunctive may pass in speech, but it is actually not right. Google is your friend: search “conditional subjunctive” or something like that to learn more.
Question: - Phoebe was very rich before the crash; do you think she is still rich?
Reply: - She used to pay for my dinner when we went to town, but not anymore; I am sure she would pay for me now if she were still rich.
Thanks for pointing this out Alan.There, I’ve just learned past subjunctive. Thanks Cerberus!
Now Round 2: 
Although I don’t feel like [color=darkred]I have lived in London long enough, [it needs more context to know if he still lives there or not] I thought this was both funny and true and will give you some more interesting tidbits about life in London. [At this point, for me this sentence gives a slight hint that he doesn’t live in London anymore BUT again, it’s not “absolute”] Oh, I cannot take the credit for this one as a friend passed it along. Enjoy.
You don’t even bother looking out of the window when you get up in the morning to check what the day is like. You know it is overcast.
You believe that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are all good nights for drinking. Sunday day is also entirely reasonable.
You can’t remember what ‘customer service’ means.
[No clues]
I agree that there are no definite clues in this text. I’d assume by default that he is still living in London, though that is by no means certain. First, if someone tells you about daily life in London, the first expectation that naturally comes up is that he lives there himself; that would be the most common situation for someone telling us about living in London - though it is no requirement. Secondly, the action of living somewhere is not easily stopped, as you’d need to move, which takes quite some time and is quite an important event. That gives me these small clues:
a.) If he had just moved or were in the process of moving, wouldn’t he mention this important and relevant fact somehow?
b.) If he had just moved, the moving itself would have taken so much time - at least a few days - that his living there would not have ended just now, but some time ago already; in that case, he might have switched to past simple. However, this is not necessarily so.
You shouldn’t worry too much about the issue. I think it works like this: whether the action of the p.p. is still going on or has just stopped is often left unclear, because it is usually not very important for the situation; and when it is important, you will know it, because either its context will tell you or its author will make sure that it is clear. The two examples you have so far provided do not give us definite clues, because the distinction isn’t important enough in either one.
Hi,
I would like to intervene here, if I may. There seems to be developing in this long running discussion a confusion between grammar and philosophy. My concern is about over interpreting the meaning of a tense and imagining situations which are purely hypothetical and to some extent ‘philosophical’. If I might make reference to this sentence, which seems to be causing a bit of a rumpus:
Does it really matter whether he is still living there, packed his bags, ordered a taxi, arranged for a removal van?? The point is that the tense is present perfect because there is no reference to a specific time. If there was (were) a reference, it would be past simple. That’s really all you need to know in a grammar sense. Incidentally the subjunctive is a dying force in English and there is now a belief that in that sentence (if it was), the ‘if’ sufficiently suggests the hypothetical nature of it and doesn’t require the subjunctive. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the present subjunctive is still alive and kicking in expressions like: If need be - far be it from me - heaven forbid. And another ‘incidentally’, can I refer you to a piece I’ve written for the site on the subjunctive: english-test.net/lessons/15/index.html
With that I’ll bow out.
Alan
That was a graceful bow! First, I agree that the discussion has strayed from the path of grammar into the hills and crevices of philosophy or linguistics. Secondly, I hoped Aikuzo had realized this in the course of the discussion; it has been pointed out several times in this thread that the distinction between “just stopped” and “still going on” does not lie in the tense itself. I hope that the discussion has not been much less entertaining to others than it has been for me.
It is interesting that you regard the past subjunctive as dying; the question is, then, whether it is worth an attempt at resuscitation. There is one argument in favour of keeping it alive that I can think of: the past subjunctive enables us to distinguish a hypothetical if-clause about the present from an if-clause containing an assumption about the past.
Example:
Impartial witness: - Mister Humphrey was not in the garden at the time of the murder, I assure you.
Detective: - Okay, I believe you; so if he was not in the garden, then who could the intruder have been?
Here the detective assumes the witness is right; he assumes that Mr. Humphrey was not in the garden as she assures him. The if-clause stands for “if we assume that he was not, which I will do for the moment”, or “if it is true that he was not”: it is, to the detective, a real possibility about something that happened in the past. This is clearly different from the hypothetical past subjunctive, which expresses that something in the present is probably not the case. The past subjunctive and the simple past are both used to express distance between the speaker and the situation; the simple past expresses a distance in time, whereas the past subjunctive expresses a distance in plausibility; that is, the speaker creates distance between himself and the situation because he does not (yet) assume it to be true.
Incidentally, I stumbled upon a hypothetical “if it was” while reading Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh a few months ago; I guess some of the best writers have done it.
That said, the main reason why I corrected Aikuzo’s “if he was” was my belief that most teachers and exams (still) do not allow it; or am I mistaken? They would certainly have corrected me for this at school in the nineties.
Hey guys, I’m revising the basics again so I’ve been skipping the posts for a while. Though, offcourse I’ll read those through as soon as I get back. I’m not done assessing what I’ve learned yet but anyway, check this out, I think I’m starting to “get it” a little better now.
Impressing you all :lol: , enjoy my latest writing. (for my English class)
We are a class with similarities and differences in our backgrounds and circumstances. Though I feel emphatic to just realized that most of my classmates, just like me are facing tough challenges in life. As I was reading through the pages, I felt their personalities by knowing where they’re coming from and where they want to go. Some of us tells a story of what we are proud of such as life accomplishments like winning a contest on certain fields.
In terms of hobbies, others mentioned the things that we are passionate about. Most of us have sports we enjoy while others have indoor past times like reading novels. Some loves to play sports likefootball and basketball. There is someone who tells an entertaining story back when he tries to take care of wild animal and ended up regretting it.
I am glad to hear few of my classmates still have reunions with their relatives. For them, It must have been fun because I assume most of us have relatives on our origin countries, or other states that we don’t see anymore by moving a lot. Others talked about their closeness with their relatives. It seems that others have build closeness to their relatives more thantheir own families.
I came from the Philippines and other guys from other parts of the world as well, but as expected, majority of the class is still from Texas. Nevertheless, I still have classmates who came from countries like Germany and other parts of Europe. There’re few guys who have Hispanic origin but were still born here and learned their original language first before English.
It must have been tough for others who move a lot. Luckily, our family doesn’t move often so I never experienced the hardship they’ve been through. Although, I could still remember how stressful it is, having those restess days of work packing things and moving furnitures on the truck.
I’m glad to know that most of us have friends we really enjoy to hang out with and have considered like our siblings. Few mentioned that they still have their friends since they were in highschool, which is a good thing. Others talked about friends that they love and hate but still wants to hang out with. Still, in our tough day to day lives, I am glad to hear all of us have someone we can depend on for support.
P.S. I’ll be back in few days.
Hi Cerberus,
I can see that you enjoy rummaging about in the subtler points of the English language and you’ve certainly found a willing sparring partner in Aikuzo. I should point out that I am not the one regarding the subjunctive in its hypothetical and unreal state as ‘dying’, it is the world at large that regards it so. It has to be accepted that ‘If I was you’ is now all right even though old timers like me are happier with ‘If I were you’ despite the fact that at heart I know this is now more ‘stylistic’ rather than grammatical. The point is that indicative and subjunctive in the past form in English can’t physically be detected except for the awkward devil ‘be’.
Let me take you to task on your example:
The fact that our friend, the detective says he believes the witness, doesn’t alter the fact that as soon as the word ‘if’ appears on the horizon, unreality kicks in.
What I really saying is that it is more sensible to talk about the ‘unreal past’ rather than the subjunctive.
Alan
Well done, Aikuzo! Don’t worry about skipping posts. I assume your teacher has already read your essasy: what did he say?