# have been reading / have read for hours



## amphona

Zdravím a přeji pěkné léto. Omlouvám se za otázku pro začátečníky, ale není mi to pořád jasné. Je mezi větami I have been reading for hours a I have read for hours rozdíl? Většinou se všude píše, že je mezi nimi rozdíl malý, ale nenašla jsem jaký. Nějaký rodilý mluvčí psal, že průběh znamená, že stále ještě čtu, ale jiný rodilý mluvčí mu odepsal, že prostý předpřítomný taky znamená, že stále ještě čtu. Jde zase o Anglii a Ameriku? Děkuji moc za odpověď.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi amphona, it's impossible to be precise with a single standalone sentence out of context. Usually the rest of the context will make it clear if I am still reading or not. 
_
I have been reading for hours._ The action (of reading) has been continuing for several hours up to the time I make this statement. 


> Nějaký rodilý mluvčí psal, že průběh znamená, že stále ještě čtu, ale jiný rodilý mluvčí mu odepsal, že prostý předpřítomný taky znamená, že stále ještě čtu.


The* suggestion* is that I am probably still reading. But this verb form can also be used* if the action of reading has only just finished. *_Been reading_ is a progressive or continuous form, and therefore is used when we want to indicate that the reading is still in progress or is continuing. (see here: ef.com):
_"*FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS*
The present perfect continuous refers to an *unspecified time* between 'before now' and 'now'. The speaker is thinking about something that started but perhaps did not finish in that period of time. He/she is interested in the *process as well as the result,* and this process may still be going on, or may have just finished.
_
*ACTIONS THAT STARTED IN THE PAST AND CONTINUE IN THE PRESENT*
_She *has been waiting* for you all day (= and she's still waiting now).
*I've been working* on this report since eight o'clock this morning (= and I still haven't finished it).
*They have been travelling* since last October (= and they're not home yet).
_
*ACTIONS THAT HAVE JUST FINISHED, BUT WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS*
_*She has been cooking* since last night (= and the food on the table looks delicious).
*It's been raining* (= and the streets are still wet).
*Someone's been eating* my chips (= half of them have gone)."_

_I have read for hours_. I have spent several hours reading. It is not clear if I am still reading or not.


----------



## ritter66

Hello

I am struggling with these two tenses as well as you, amphona. Even my English teacher can´t explain the difference perfectly. What´s more I have already posted very similar question to different forums and unfortunately have been given different answers from native speakers. It seems to me that I am not to learn it in this life. It might help if the questions below were answered - otherwise I don´t really know where to learn this. There isn't any book explaining this. Books usually provide examples with verbs like "live", "work", "teach" but these work little bit differently.

Really hope it is ok to add some additional questions here.

*I have been studying* all day.
This is the normal (and most common) way to say that I have been studying all day and now I am tired etc.

However I also meet with sentences like:
*I have studied* all day.

The two sentences above are perfectly normal however the thing I am struggling with is that sometimes present perfect simple "version" is not (ar at least is _less_) acceptable and I don´t know why. For example "_*I have written*_ letters all day" is one of those sentences which I was told was not correct - don´t really understand what makes that huge difference compare to the sentence "*I have studied* all day". Teacher told me that she can´t imagine a context where should could use "I have written letters all day". But she can for the latter one! How come?

I´ll give you another examples I did with my teacher:

*I have used* this racket (tennis racket) for 10 years.
( Now I will start using a new type) - in her opinion this sounds ok and could be used.

*I have used* this phrase for months and nobody has ever told me it wasn't correct English.

Here,for some reason, my teacher wouldn't use present perfect simple and instead she would prefer to use present perfect continuous. HoweverI don´t see much difference between this sentence and the one above.

Would it be possible to explain me, please, why sometimes one sentence is possible and another is not even though they are very similar to each other. I´d really like to learn to use this "strange" use of present perfect simple. If you could give me some examples showing in which context it might be possible to use present perfect simple sentences - it would mean world to me.

Thank you.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi ritter66, there is no difference in "meaning" in the basic sense of the word. We use a progressive/continuous form when we want to express the duration or continuation of the action, because that has some bearing on, or relevance to, the present. How can we judge what that relevance might be? Only from the rest of the context. All the sentences you quote are correct and can, in theory, be spoken in context, but some are unidiomatic in context, and that's why we are unlikely to say them.

Your teacher is right that a sentence like "I have studied all day" and "I have written letters all day" are not likely to be spoken. Why? Because the whole point of the utterance is to emphasise the _continuation_ or _duration_ of the activity ("all day") and it is for that specific purpose that the progressive/continuous forms exist, and that is why we will choose the progressive/continuous form in that context. 

In the "tennis racquet" (AE racket) and "used/been using this phrase" examples, there is *no difference* whether you use the present perfect or the continuous/progressive form, both are correct and idiomatic. Why? Because the sense of duration is conveyed by the adverbial phrases (10 years, months) and not by the form of the verb, so we don't feel we *must* use the continuous/progressive form, though we are more likely to do so. The "duration" sense is clear (from the adverbial phrase) whichever form we choose.  

When there is an *extended* period of time (10 years, months) there may also be a nuance of "continual duration" versus "interrupted duration" or "repeated activity" which may influence our choice of verb form. It's possible (loosely) to "have been studying all day" in one almost uninterrupted concentrated session, but with using a tennis racquet for 10 years, it's not an uninterrupted continuous activity. I used it on and off, off and on, now and again, from time to time - "přetržitě" - on the many different occasions that I played tennis, but I didn't play tennis continuously for 10 years, so "I have used this racquet for 10 years" may be preferred, though "I have been using this racquet for 10 years" is certainly ok here too.  

"I have studied all day" answers the question: "how long have you studied today?" We are interested in the duration.
"I have studied" answers the question what have you done today? We are not interested in the duration, we are interested in what sort of activity took place. It is the *adverb of duration* ("all day") here combined with a *tense that isn't used for duration*, but is used to express a completed action with no relevance to the present (have studied), that creates the clash of logic. Why would you use a toothbrush to stir your coffee when you have a teaspoon designed for that very purpose?

The same applies to amphona's original post. "For hours" is an adverbial phrase which stresses duration. The verb form that expresses duration is the continuous/progressive form "I have been reading for hours".

In actual fact, the idiomatic answer to _what have you done today?_ is not _I have studied, _or_ I have read,_ but_ I have done some reading, I have done some studying - četl jsem, učil jsem se.  _The imperfective Czech verb used without an object is often best translated by _do some ~ing. _That's another reason why we are unlikely to say _"I have studied all day" _as a complete sentence, without anything further, and without an object_. _There's nothing grammatically wrong with it, but it's unidiomatic._ I have spent all day working/studying_ is the idiomatic response. But as always, we have to consider the context.


----------



## ritter66

Thank you EM! I might have been confused by this thread : have worked/been working  where many native speakers agree on that "I´ve worked all day" is perfectly ok at the end of the day when I am finished working. Therefore I thought it should be possible to use both (in the same context) - I have studied all day, I have written letters all day.


----------



## ritter66

Nevertheless I am still failing to understand why "I have written letters all day" is wrong compare to the sentence "I have studied all day" - when it is said at the end of the day. Thanks to you , EM, I understand that it is more common to use present perfect continuous (even if it is said at the end of the day) but the fact that many native speakers sometimes choose the other (p.p. simple) tense makes me still wondering how it really works.

Have been thinking about it for some time and here are some new thoughts:

The interesting and at the same time confusing thing is that I was told I could use "I have written letters ...." but I would have to write it a bit differently - "I have written letters all my life" - not "all day". Does it really matter how long I have been doing something? How will I recognize when I can use preset perfect simple in these cases? Is one month long enough or does it really  have to last for more than one year, ten years or even all my life?

Also, I was told that I should not say "I have played computer games all day." but "I have played for this team for 15 years" is ok. But I can say (I don´t have to be doing that for e.g. 15 years) - "I have worked on this painting all day" or the already mentioned "I have studied all day". Therefore I wonder whether it might depend on a verb? But then there is still the thing with the lenght of the period I am mentioning above....


----------



## amphona

Zdravím, že bych po dvaceti letech studia začínala rozumět předpřítomnému času? Teď mi došlo, že rozdíl mezi průběhovým a prostým časem je stejný jako v jiných časech. Takže:
1.  I have been reading for four hours.
2.  I have read books in English for years.

V té druhé větě možná nečtu právě teď. Podle toho, co jsem vyrozuměla z vašich rad, podle mně tady by průběh být neměl. 
Mám pravdu? Děkuji moc za odpověď.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Ach jo, strašně nerad Vás zklamu, ale poslušně hlásím, že i v té druhé větě je průběhový čas možný: _I have been reading books in English for years . _Stejně tak, jak je tomu v české větě _celá léta čtu knihy v angličtině, _nemusím číst právě ted'.

(from #2 above)_* FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS*_
_The present perfect continuous refers to an *unspecified time* between 'before now' and 'now'. The speaker is thinking about something that started but perhaps did not finish in that period of time. He/she is interested in the *process as well as the result,* and this process may still be going on, or may have just finished. (....)_

Hlavně se s tím až tak moc netrapte. Použitím průběhového tvaru totiž klademe důraz na průběh děje, ale význam se nemění. Vizte odkaz (zdroj: helpforenglish.cz, a také grammar.cz)


----------



## Enquiring Mind

> Also, I was told that I should not say "I have played computer games all day."


 This is not wrong, but the whole point of the sentence is to stress how long I have played the games, and for that we have a specific form, which is the continuous. Let's say you want to eat soup. Ok, you _*can*_ eat it with a fork, but why use a fork when something (it's called a spoon ) has been invented which suits the purpose better?

_I've been playing computer games all day_.  Perfectly good and idiomatic.  _Celý den hraji ..._
Another option:_ I've spent all day playing computer games.  Celý den hraji ... _
Another option:_ I've been spending the whole day playing computer games.  Celý den hraji ... 
_
Let's remember too that meaning is not conveyed by the verb form alone. Stress, intonation, word order, body language, tone of voice and other factors, depending on the context, also help to convey or reinforce meaning.


----------



## amphona

Díky moc za vysvětlení, ještě pár let a ono to půjde. Teď myslím na toto pravidlo: Učili jsme se, že pokud cítíme nebo vidíme následky něčeho, máme použít průběhový čas. What's the smell? You have been smoking(!). Tady se mi nezdá, že jde o dobu trvání. Vyjadřuje to, že se to stalo krátce před tím výrokem? Ještě jednou děkuji za trpělivost.


----------

