# I have learned how to swim for ten 15 days.



## stephenlearner

Hi,

I have two sentences here: 
1. I have learned how to swim for ten 15 days. 
2. I have been learning how to swim for 15 days. 

"Learn" has different meanings in the two sentences. 
In sentence 1, it means to have finally acquired a skill. 
In sentence 2, it means to take lessons; study.  

Because of this, sentence 1 does not work. 

How can I correct sentence 1? 
Should I say "It's been 15 days since I learned how to swim"? 
But here, does "learn" mean to "have finally acquired a skill" or "take lessons"? If it means the former, I think the corrected sentence works; but if it means the latter, it would not work. 

Thank you very much.


----------



## Chez

Your sentence is fine. You could also say:
I learnt how to swim 15 days ago.


----------



## stephenlearner

stephenlearner said:


> "It's been 15 days since I learned how to swim"


 Does it not cause ambiguity? When you say it to other people, would they be puzzled whether you began to take lessons on it 15 days ago or acquired it 15 days ago?


----------



## Chez

It shouldn't cause ambiguity because it would be an *incorrect* way to say that you started lessons 15 days ago.

'I've been learning how to swim *for 15 days*' is the correct way to say this. You need a continuous tense and the time expression 'for X days'


----------



## kentix

stephenlearner said:


> Should I say "It's been 15 days since I learned how to swim"?


The trouble with the example sentence is that no one expects learning how to swim to happen on/in one day or to be finished on a single day. It's a process of gradual improvement.

So anything like "I learned to swim 15 days ago" sounds very odd. "I learned to swim last summer" sounds much more normal. It took place over a period of time.

"I'm learn*ing* how to swim. I've been tak*ing* lessons for fifteen days."

It's a process, not an event.

The other kind of sentence works with things where the process is short.

"I learn*ed* how to make chocolate chip cookies five days ago."

When I woke up that day, I didn't know how to make chocolate chip cookies. By the time I went to bed, I had acquired that skill from someone teaching me. It can be done in one day.

But it would be silly to say "I learned how to bake five days ago."

Baking, like swimming, is a skill acquired over a period of time which takes practice. You don't become an accomplished swimmer or baker on a single specific day.


----------



## stephenlearner

kentix said:


> So anything like "I learned to swim 15 days ago" sounds very odd. "


Why do you think it's odd? "I learned to swim 15 days ago" does not say when you started to learn how to swim; it just says you acquired it 15 days ago. Maybe you started to learn it 25 days ago.




kentix said:


> But it would be silly to say "I learned how to bake five days ago."


Does not it refer to just the result, not the process? There was a process before the result, which is "I mastered it five days ago". It tells you the result, not the process.

If "learn" means to "have finally acquired a skill", does it mean an event, rather than a process?


----------



## Shooting Stars

I think you misunderstood "learn".

It takes a period, especially of two or more days, to learn a skill. The period starts with the day you start to learn, and ends with the day you acquire the skill.
Saying "I learned how to swim 15 days ago ", you are suggesting you acquire within one day a skill that takes ordinary people days to acquire. That is why it sounds odd.

"I learned to swim last summer" is OK because a summer lasts roughtly 60 days. No one will be surprised to know that you take a summer/60 days to learn.

This thread may be helpful to you.(will verb+by (time))

I am not a native. Should there be any mistakes, correct me.
Thank you.


----------



## Slater1768

"I have learnt how to swim for 15 days" - this is not a correct use of the present perfect.

1. I have been learning to swim for 15 days - this is OK. You have been learning that long, and are still learning.
2. I learnt how to swim in 15 days - you've completed the process of learning, and it took 15 days.
3. I learnt how to swim 15 days ago - this implies you took lessons for a single day, fully mastered the skill of swimming, and can now swim.


----------



## TGW

Slater1768 said:


> 3. I learnt how to swim 15 days ago - this implies you took lessons for a single day, fully mastered the skill of swimming, and can now swim.


Interesting. I’m a bit confused now. ‘I learned English yesterday’ implies I studied English for a single day, fully mastered the skill of English language, and now I have a good command of English? But It seems it’s not what I mean.


----------



## Slater1768

I studied English yesterday: this means I spent a day engaged in the study of English.
I learnt English yesterday: this means you learnt the whole language in one day and are now fluent after a single day's study.


----------



## TGW

Slater1768 said:


> I studied English yesterday: this means I spent a day engaged in the study of English.
> I learnt English yesterday: this means you learnt the whole language in one day and are now fluent after a single day's study.


Thanks a million 👍 I always think study and learn are synonyms and totally interchangeable in any situations. Never thought ‘I learnt English yesterday’ would mean that way. 

So if I want to let you know my whole process of learning to swim, I have to break it down as follows?

1. I started to learn how to swim 30 days ago. (Starting point of learning action)
2. I learned to swim in 15 days. (The whole process from start to end)
3. I finished my learning to swim 15 days ago (the ending point of the action and I got the skill) 

The third sentence somehow sounds awkward to me, it seems we can’t use ‘learn’ with ‘15 days ago’ doesn’t it? I only have to say ‘ I could / was able to swim 15 days ago’ or ‘ I got the swimming skill 15 days ago’ to express myself clearly?


----------



## Slater1768

"I finished my learning to swim 15 days ago"-I would delete the word "my" here.


----------



## stephenlearner

So, are the followings true?

Generally speaking, when we use the continuous "be+ learning" or the infinitive "to learn", we mean the process of acquiring a skill.
_I am learning it.
I was learning it.
I have been learning it. 
I start to learn it. _

When we use AmE "learned" or BrE "learnt", we mean the result of acquiring a skill.
_I learned it. 
I have learned it. 
I'll have learned it. _


----------



## Vronsky

Slater1768 said:


> I studied English yesterday: this means I spent a day engaged in the study of English.


Does it mean that I spent the whole day? If I studied English for an hour, may I say, "I studied English yesterday"?


----------



## TGW

Slater1768 said:


> "I finished my learning to swim 15 days ago"-I would delete the word "my" here.


Thanks again. I got it. If we don’t go to detail as far as ‘how many days ago’, it still safe to say ‘ I learnt to swim 15 years ago or I learnt to swim when I was a child’😄


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> 1. I have learned how to swim for 15 days.


The only sense I can place on this is unlikely: _I have acquired the ability to swim for 15 days continuously._

In that time most people would have either died of exhaustion or been eaten by a shark.


----------



## kentix

stephenlearner said:


> Why do you think it's odd? "I learned to swim 15 days ago" does not say when you started to learn how to swim; it just says you acquired it 15 days ago. Maybe you started to learn it 25 days ago.


Exactly. You didn't learn it 15 days ago, you learned it over a period of time. Learning is a process, not an event. If the entire process occurs within a period of one day you can say you learned it on that one day - like my cookie baking example above. But if it took more than one day, you can't say you learned it on one day. 

If you finished four years of college studying mechanical engineering on June 5th, 2019 can you say, "I learned mechanical engineering on June 5th, 2019"? It would be a silly thing to say. Saying "I learned how to swim" on one specific day would be silly, too, unless you started your first lesson that morning and were a competent swimmer by the evening.

If you are an ice skater trying to learn a difficult jump you might practice it for weeks and fall many times. One day, finally, you are successful and make the jump and land how you are supposed to, instead of falling. You can't say you learned the jump that day. You can say you finally made a successful jump that day. But the learning took a long period of time. In fact, you'll probably fall many more times as you continue to practice. When the day comes where you perform the jump well almost every time then you can say you have mastered it. But even that doesn't happen on one day.

Next year you could tell someone, "I learned that jump last year." It's simple past tense because your learning phase of that jump is over. But last year contains many more days than just one, so you are not claiming to have learned it on one specific day. You are saying you learned it over a period of days last year.


----------



## stephenlearner

Then, what does "learn" really mean?

In Chinese, we have two words related to the question under discussion. One word is for the process of studying, practicing, adjusting, and making progress, and the other is for the result of acquiring a skill. So we would take this idea into English and make mistakes.

But it seems that in English "learn" can mean the process or the process and the result or the result alone.

Are these sentences and my comments below correct?
1. I have been learning how to swim. (process)
2. I learned how to swim last summer. (process and result)
3. I learned how to swim during a month. (process and result)
4. I have learned how to swim in the past month. (process and result)
5. I have learned how to swim for a month. (result)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Then, what does "learn" really mean?
> 
> In Chinese, we have two words related to the question under discussion. One word is for the process of studying, practicing, adjusting, and making progress, and the other is for the result of acquiring a skill. So we would take this idea into English and make mistakes.
> 
> But it seems that in English "learn" can mean the process or the process and the result or the result alone.
> 
> Are these sentences and my comments below correct?
> 1. I have been learning how to swim. (process)
> 2. I learned how to swim last summer. (process and result)
> 3. I learned how to swim during a month. (process and result)
> 4. I have learned how to swim in the past month. (process and result)
> 5. I have learned how to swim for a month. (result)


3. doesn't work, Stephen.  I suspect you mean_ I learnt how to swim in a month_, or _over a month_.  The problem is with the use of the expression of time, not with the meaning of _learn_.

5. I can't deal with because you've crossed out some of it.

1,2, and 4 seem fine to me.


----------



## stephenlearner

stephenlearner said:


> 5. I have learned how to swim for a month. (result)





Thomas Tompion said:


> 5. I can't deal with because you've crossed out some of it.



I crossed it out, because I knew it was wrong with the time ("for a month"). 
Why does "for a month" make the sentence wrong? 
I would think "for a month" or "for two months" involves a continuous verb, suggesting a process, rather than a single event. 
We can say "I have studied for ten minutes", because "study" is a continuous verb. We can't say "I have entered the house for ten minutes", however, because "enter" is not a continuous verb. It is an event, not a process. 
Because sentence 5 does not work with "for a month", I think it refers to a single event, not a process. That single event is the result of acquiring the skill.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> I crossed it out, because I knew it was wrong with the time ("for a month").
> Why does "for a month" make the sentence wrong?
> I would think "for a month" or "for two months" involves a continuous verb, suggesting a process, rather than a single event.
> We can say "I have studied for ten minutes", because "study" is a continuous verb. We can't say "I have entered the house for ten minutes", however, because "enter" is not a continuous verb. It is an event, not a process.
> Because sentence 5 does not work with "for a month", I think it refers to a single event, not a process. That single event is the result of acquiring the skill.


We don't use a precise time indication with the present perfect generally.

Remember that the present perfect often refers to the experiences you have NOW in your suitcase of experiences.

I think what you want 5. to mean would usually be expressed by something like_ I have learnt how to swim over the past month_.  You might say _during the past month_, but not _during a month_. It's tricky because we are dealing with the acquisition of an accomplishment over time.

I know this isn't easy, for we have very particular ways of using the present perfect and past perfect tenses with expressions indicating duration.


----------



## TGW

stephenlearner said:


> 5. I have learned how to swim for a month. (result)



I think you can say it another way, It’s been a month since I learnt to swim


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TGW said:


> I think you can say it another way, It’s been a month since I learnt to swim


You can certainly say that, but it means something else.

_It’s been a month since I learnt to swim_ means that I became able to swim (ie. the learning process was complete) a month ago, and that way of putting it stresses that this is quite a long time. You might say it if someone suggested you were still a complete beginner.

You need to be very careful with these expressions of time in English because we don't follow the rules prevalent in many romance languages.


----------



## stephenlearner

Hi Thomas Tompion, 
Can you please confirm whether the number 5 sentence describes the result, excluding the process? 


stephenlearner said:


> 5. I have learned how to swim. (result)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Hi Thomas Tompion,
> Can you please confirm whether the number 5 sentence describes the result, excluding the process?


I'm not quite clear how you exclude the process, but _*I have learnt how to swim*_ means that I can now swim, and it tells us little about how this result was achieved.

It's saying that being able to swim is now one of your accomplishments.  The verb _*learn*_ suggests that it wasn't a sudden violent process like being thrown into the water and having to thrash about, to save oneself from drowning.


----------



## stephenlearner

If  "I have learnt how to swim" meant the process is involved, I think, it would be correct to say *"I have learnt how swim for a month".  It would be like "I have studied for a month".

I would think _*I have learnt how to swim*_ talks about the result of acquiring the skill of swimming. It does not talk about the process.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> If "I have learnt how to swim" meant the process is involved, I think, it would be correct to say *"I have learnt how swim for a month". It would be like "I have studied for a month".


You cannot draw this inference I fear.

_*I have learnt how to swim*_ means that the process of learning is complete, whereas the process of studying is never complete.

As I've mentioned, the use of the present perfect with expressions of time is problematic.

We would not say_* I have learnt how to swim for a month*_, but we could say _*I have been learning how to swim for a month*_   .

Remember that I'm speaking for British English; I don't speak American English.


----------



## Shooting Stars

Verbs can be divided into 3 groups. "Work", "live" etc. belong to the group 1; "learn", "clean" etc. group 2; and "die" "borrow" etc. group 3.

Group 1: You can use either the present perfect or present perfect progressive with a for-phrase to express the same meaning.
e.g. 1. I have worked here for 10 year.
2 I have been working here for 10 year.

Group 2: The verbs in the present perfect suggest a completed action, indicating the action is over. So it cannot be followed by a for-phrase.
The verbs in present perfect progressive means a continuous, action. It can be followed by a  for-phrase.
3. I have learnt how to swim.
4 I have been learning how to swim for 15 days.
5. I have learnt how to swim for 15 days.

Group3: These verb don't have a perfect progressive tense, suggesting a momentay action. The verbs in both the present perfect progressive and present perfect cannot be followed by a for-phrase.
6. He has died.
7. He has died for a year.
8. He has been dying for a year.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Shooting Stars said:


> e.g. 1. I have worked here for 10 year.
> 2 I have been working here for 10 year.


These years should be plural of course - _for 10 year*s*_.



Shooting Stars said:


> 8. He has been dying for a year.


This would be possible in British English, though the process doesn't usually last that long.

_He has been dying for a year_.

_To die_ certainly can have a continuous sense - _I am dying, Egypt, dying_.  I know who said that but not who said _If this is dying, I don't think much of it._
We can also say things like _I've been borrowing money for the last year_.

Whoever told you these things, Shooting Stars?


----------



## Shooting Stars

Thomas Tompion said:


> _To die_ certainly can have a continuous sense - _I am dying, Egypt, dying_. I know who said that but not who said, _If this is dying, I don't think much of it._



Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Saying they don't have progressive tense, I mean V+ing doesn't mean the action is happen, but the action will happen soon.

"He is dying" means he will die soon. not mean his death is in progress/ happening.


----------



## Florentia52

"He is dying" can mean either one. We might say "He's dying of cancer" to refer to someone whose death is still weeks away, or we might say, of someone whose death is imminent, "He's dying. If you want to say goodbye to him, come right now."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Shooting Stars said:


> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Saying they don't have progressive tense, I mean V+ing doesn't mean the action is happen, but the action will happen soon.
> 
> "He is dying" means he will die soon. not mean his death is in progress/ happening.


You didn't answer my question about the source of your division of verbs into three types.


----------



## Shooting Stars

Thomas Tompion said:


> You didn't answer my question about the source of your division of verbs into three types.


I draw the conclusion from my experience and my understanding of English.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Shooting Stars said:


> I draw the conclusion from my experience and my understanding of English.


Thanks for saying this.  I hope you won't mind if I say that I think you should wait before putting them forward as guidelines for others.


----------



## Vronsky

Shooting Stars said:


> I draw the conclusion from my experience and my understanding of English.


You basically did what Zeno Vendler (1957) had done, who classified verbs into four categories: those that express "activity", "accomplishment", "achievement" and "state".
Lexical aspect - Wikipedia

Your Group 1 is "activities", Group 2 is "accomplishments", and Group3 is "achievements."

Good job.

You can find more about these groups in this pdf: Lexical Semantics of Verbs IV


----------



## stephenlearner

Thomas Tompion said:


> _He has been dying for a year_.


What does this mean?
Does it mean "it's been a year since he died" or "He began to die a year ago; now he may or may not be dead."?


Thomas Tompion said:


> We can also say things like _I've been borrowing money for the last year_.


Isn't better to say "it's been a year since I borrowed money"? I can understand "to die" can have a process, even a long process, but I can't understand "to borrow" can mean you continue to borrow. You can continue to be in the state of being in debt, but can you continue to borrow?


----------



## Shooting Stars

stephenlearner said:


> Isn't better to say "it's been a year since I borrowed money"? I can understand "to die" can have a process, even a long process, but I can't understand "to borrow" can mean you continue to borrow.


No. You misunderstood.
_"I've been borrowing money for the last year_" means I borrowed money *regularly* over the past year.
Present perfect progressive can suggest a *regular* action.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Does it mean "it's been a year since he died" or "He began to die a year ago; now he may or may not be dead."?


_He's been dying for a year_ means _He became seriously ill about a year ago and is now mortally ill.

"it's been a year since he died"  _means_ He died a year ago._


stephenlearner said:


> Isn't better to say "it's been a year since I borrowed money"? I can understand "to die" can have a process, even a long process, but I can't understand "to borrow" can mean you continue to borrow. You can continue to be in the state of being in debt, but can you continue to borrow


_I've been borrowing money for the last year_.   means I started borrowing about a year ago, and have been borrowing regularly since, and am still in debt.

Stephen, you must get used to the English_ present perfect + for + a period of time.  I've been here for five minutes _means I arrived five minutes ago and am still now here.

"it's been a year since I borrowed money", your suggestion, means I haven't borrowed money in the last year, so I probably paid back my last loan about a year ago.


----------



## stephenlearner

WR dictionary has this definition for "borrow":

to obtain (something) with a promise to return it
I borrowed money from Peter a year ago. I obtained money a year ago. I promised to pay it back later.
Maybe I have returned the loan; maybe I haven't.
1. If I have returned the loan, I would not say "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter". I would say "I borrowed money from Peter a year ago, and I have returned it."
2. If I haven't returned the loan, I would say "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter." I don't understand why you say "I've been borrowing money from Peter for the past year."  "Borrow", according to its definition, does not mean to obtain money and continue to be in debt. It just means to obtain money or other things. It's not a continuous action, in my opinion. 

But to you, "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter"  seems to say "It's been a year since I paid back the money to Peter."

I don't understand your logic.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> WR dictionary has this definition for "borrow":
> 
> to obtain (something) with a promise to return it
> I borrowed money from Peter a year ago. I obtained money a year ago. I promised to pay it back later.
> Maybe I have returned the loan; maybe I haven't.
> 1. If I have returned the loan, I would not say "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter". I would say "I borrowed money from Peter a year ago, and I have returned it."
> 2. If I haven't returned the loan, I would say "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter." I don't understand why you say "I've been borrowing money from Peter for the past year."  "Borrow", according to its definition, does not mean to obtain money and continue to be in debt. It just means to obtain money or other things. It's not a continuous action, in my opinion.
> 
> But to you, "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter"  seems to say "It's been a year since I paid back the money to Peter."
> 
> I don't understand your logic.


If you used to borrow from him but haven't done so for a year, you probably paid him back a year ago and haven't borrowed from him since.

"I borrowed money from Peter a year ago, and I have returned it."  - would mean something different.  If you haven't borrowed from him for a year, then you used to borrow from him until a year ago, when you repaid him.

If I haven't returned the loan, I would say "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter." It should be It's been a year since I borrowed *the *money from Peter. (ie. this particular money, not money in general).


stephenlearner said:


> I don't understand why you say "I've been borrowing money from Peter for the past year." "Borrow", according to its definition, does not mean to obtain money and continue to be in debt. It just means to obtain money or other things. It's not a continuous action, in my opinion.


  When you borrow from someone, you are in debt to them.  Borrowing can be a continuous action, because it can be repeated.  "I am borrowing from the bank" can mean I am repeatedly taking out bank loans.


----------



## stephenlearner

Please put up with me when I contradict you, but I don't think your logic is very convincing. 
"Enter" a house is not a continuous action, for example. Once you enter a house, you finish that action. Now you are inside the house. We can't say "enter" means to go into a house and continue to be in the house. So we can't say "I have entered the house for ten minutes", but rather we should say "It's been ten minutes since I entered the house".

Yes, entering can be repeated, but that does not mean it is a continuous action.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Please put up with me when I contradict you, but I don't think your logic is very convincing.
> "Enter" a house is not a continuous action, for example. Once you enter a house, you finish that action. Now you are inside the house. We can't say "enter" means to go into a house and continue to be in the house. So we can't say "I have entered the house for ten minutes", but rather we should say "It's been ten minutes since I entered the house".
> 
> Yes, entering can be repeated, but that does not mean it is a continuous action.


I agree you cannot say 'I have entered the house for ten minutes' unless you mean that you have come in with the purpose of staying for ten minutes - a complication I have been avoiding.

But you can say 'I have borrowed money for ten years' - ie. I have repeatedly taken out loans over a period of the last ten years.  It can mean other things but I don't think they are relevant.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thomas Tompion said:


> "I borrowed money from Peter a year ago, and I have returned it."  - would mean something different. If you haven't borrowed from him for a year, then you used to borrow from him until a year ago, when you repaid him.


 To me, the colored sentence which was made by me, means "I borrowed a sum of money a year ago, and I have returned it to Peter in the past year." But to you, it means "I borrowed money and repaid him a year ago." Right?

I don't know why we have so big a difference in understanding it. Does it lie in the culture of borrowing money or in the definition of "borrow"?


----------



## Shooting Stars

Thomas Tompion said:


> "it's been a year since I borrowed money", your suggestion, means I haven't borrowed money in the last year, so I *probably* paid back my last loan about a year ago.





stephenlearner said:


> But to you, "It's been a year since I borrowed money from Peter" seems to say "It's been a year since I paid back the money to Peter."



I think you should read his explanation carefully.
In his explanation, the word "probably" clear shows he thinks there is a possibility I paid back.
But you take the possibility as a fact that I paid back.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

"I borrowed money from Peter a year ago, and I have returned it."  


stephenlearner said:


> To me, the colored sentence which was made by me, means "I borrowed a sum of money a year ago, and I have returned it to Peter in the past year." But to you, it means "I borrowed money and repaid him a year ago." Right?
> 
> I don't know why we have so big a difference in understanding it. Does it lie in the culture of borrowing money or in the definition of "borrow"?


The difference is not so big: I'd take it to mean that you took out the loan a year ago, and have repaid the money.  When you repaid him is not specified, but obviously it must have been in the past year.

_*A year ago*_ tells us when you borrowed the money;_* I have returned it *_indicates that you have repaid the loan - it says nothing about when you did so.

There's not much difference between us, as far as I can see.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thomas Tompion said:


> "It's been a year since I borrowed money", your suggestion, means I haven't borrowed money in the last year, so I probably paid back my last loan about a year ago.





Shooting Stars said:


> I think you should read his explanation carefully.
> In his explanation, the word "probably" clear shows he thinks there is a possibility I paid back.
> But you take the possibility as a fact that I paid back.



It is not a possibility, but rather a probability. If Thomas Tompion had said "...so I *possibly* paid back my last loan about a year ago", I would not have argued. I can accept it is possible, but not probable that I repaid a year ago.


----------



## lentulax

stephenlearner said:


> "Learn" has different meanings in the two sentences.
> In sentence 1, it means to have finally acquired a skill.
> In sentence 2, it means to take lessons; study.


Not really ; in 1) I have acquired a skill; in 2) I have been acquiring a skill (the latter implies nothing about the eventual completion of the process of acquiring a skill ; 'he was training to be a teacher' doesn't imply he ever finished the course.) Same verb, same basic meaning, the difference derives from the tenses used. 
(It's been a long thread; apologies if I've inadvertently repeated something already said.)


----------



## stephenlearner

lentulax said:


> Not really ; in 1) I have acquired a skill; in 2) I have been acquiring a skill (the latter implies nothing about the eventual completion of the process of acquiring a skill ; 'he was training to be a teacher' doesn't imply he ever finished the course.) Same verb, same basic meaning, the difference derives from the tenses used.
> (It's been a long thread; apologies if I've inadvertently repeated something already said.)


Thank you for bring the topic back to its original focus.


In my OP, I said the following:


stephenlearner said:


> I have two sentences here:
> 1. I have learned how to swim for ten 15 days.
> 2. I have been learning how to swim for 15 days.
> 
> "Learn" has different meanings in the two sentences.
> In sentence 1, it means to have finally acquired a skill.
> In sentence 2, it means to take lessons; study.
> 
> Because of this, sentence 1 does not work.



Upon reconsideration, I don't think the first definition is precise. I think the first definition should be "*the process of acquiring a skill *and the completion of the process, i.e., the acquisition of a skill ".

If the first definition in my OP were correct, it would be correct to say "I learned how to swim 15 days ago". But it sounds very odd.


kentix said:


> So anything like "I learned to swim 15 days ago" sounds very odd. "I learned to swim last summer" sounds much more normal. It took place over a period of time.


We can certainly say "I acquired the skill of swimming 15 days ago", in my opinion.
The fact that we can't say "I learned how to swim 15 days ago" is the reason why I don't think "learn" mean "to finally acquired a skill".

Why can we say "I learned how to swim last summer"? Because "learn" means "the *process* and the result of acquiring a kill".

What do you think?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> The fact that we can't say "I learned how to swim 15 days ago" is the reason why I don't think "learn" mean "to finally acquired a skill".


I feel  you should consider the nature of the process, too.

We could say_ I learnt how to ride a bike 15 days ago._

Some people learn how to swim very quickly, so I'm one who doesn't think _I learnt how to swim 15 days ago_ is unidiomatic. _ Knowing how to swim_ can mean knowing how to save oneself from drowning, or it can mean becoming accomplished in the water in many ways.

Where the process is almost inevitably long, we wouldn't use an eventive tense with _to learn_; I'd say that _I learnt how to sew 15 days ago_ would be intentionally absurd, where _I learnt how to ride a bike 15 days ago_ would be fine.

I'm saying that there are areas where the process is so short that it's silly to try to separate the process from the acquisition of the skill.

WR dictionary's 1st definition - _to gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, instruction, or experience:  to learn a new language. Where did you learn (how) to throw a ball like that? She learns quickly_. - is consistent much of what you are saying, though I wish you would always define your verb with a verb.

Certainly the nature of the process of acquisition of the knowledge or skill strongly influences our use of tenses and of expressions of time with the verb _learn_.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thank you, Thomas Tompion. 

Can I use "learn" in this way?
(I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. ) 
Almost every day in the one month, I learned how to swim. 
But I did not learn it 15 days ago, because I was ill that day. 
Yesterday I learned it. Today I have learned it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Thank you, Thomas Tompion.
> 
> Can I use "learn" in this way?
> (I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. )
> Almost every day in the one month, I learned how to swim.
> But I did not learn it 15 days ago, because I was ill that day.
> Yesterday I learned it. Today I have learned it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


No, you cannot.

We'd say _I have been learning how to swim for the past month_: _Almost every day, I've had a lesson, but I didn't have a lesson 15 days ago, because I was ill.  Today I had a lesson, or today I've had a lesson.  I'll have a lesson tomorrow._

You see the problem of trying to isolate the process from the result.  We don't use _to learn_ in that way.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thomas Tompion said:


> (I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. )
> Almost every day in the one month, I learned how to swim.
> But I did not learn it 15 days ago, because I was ill that day.
> Yesterday I learned it. Today I have learned it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


 I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. This sentence is talking about the process. It does not talk about the result. 
"I learned it every day" talks about the every-day-part of the process. 
Why doesn't it work?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We don't say 'the past one month' we say 'the past month'.



stephenlearner said:


> "I learned it every day" talks about the every-day-part of the process.
> Why doesn't it work?


I think because _to learn_ includes the attainment as well as the process, when the verb is transitive.

_I learned a little_ every day would be fine.   _I learnt it_ (how to swim) _every day_ doesn't work, because, while learning how to do something is continuous for many processes_, I learnt it_ suggests the final complete act.  If you learnt it yesterday, you can't learn it again today.  

Because of the emphatic nature of some senses of _to learn_, we fine tune with expressions like _take lessons_.


----------



## Myridon

stephenlearner said:


> Can I use "learn" in this way?
> (I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. )
> Almost every day in the one month, I learned how to swim.
> But I did not learn it 15 days ago, because I was ill that day.
> Yesterday I learned it. Today I have learned it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


No.  You cannot continue something that is completed without starting again.
Almost every day last month, I broke my leg.  I now have 25 different broken places in my leg.
Almost every day last month, I learned that 2 + 2 = 4.  Each morning when I woke up, I had forgotten it and had to learn it again.

Almost every day last month, I took a swimming lesson, but I didn't have a lesson 15 days ago.
Yesterday, I was learning it. Today, I have been learning it.  I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


----------



## stephenlearner

Myridon said:


> Yesterday, I was learning it. Today, I have been learning it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


 Is this part a joke like the one you gave earlier about breaking leg and learning 2+2+4 every day, or do you mean I can use "learn" this way to express I took a lesson yesterday, have had a lesson today, and will have a lesson tomorrow?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Is this part a joke like the one you gave earlier about breaking leg and learning 2+2+4 every day, or do you mean I can use "learn" this way to express I took a lesson yesterday, have had a lesson today, and will have a lesson tomorrow?


No jokes.  Jokes are out of order in this thread.

Notice the use of continuous tenses. _ I am learning_ to swim refers to the process. _ I have learnt_ to swim means the accomplishment has been acquired and_ I learnt to swim last year_ tells us when that accomplishment was acquired.

Clearly, because learning to swim or to sew takes time we often use continuous tenses to describe the process.

We've done so quite often in this thread to illustrate this fact.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thanks a lot. 
I'd like to have your confirmation please. So I can use "Yesterday, I was learning it. Today, I have been learning it.  I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.” Right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> Thanks a lot.
> I'd like to have your confirmation please. So I can use "Yesterday, I was learning it. Today, I have been learning it.  I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.” Right?


Yes, that's fine.  'It' sounds rather odd, but if you substitute 'to swim' for 'it' in each case, that would be fine.

Well done, Stephen!  I think we are making progress.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thank you so much, Thomas Tompion, for your great help. I'd like to thank other people too. Thank you all.


----------



## Myridon

stephenlearner said:


> Is this part a joke like the one you gave earlier about breaking leg and learning 2+2+4 every day, or do you mean I can use "learn" this way to express I took a lesson yesterday, have had a lesson today, and will have a lesson tomorrow?


It was not a joke.  It was an example to help you understand the incorrect way in which you are using "learn."
The two sentences at the end are correct.  You can talk about learning something as an ongoing process but the way you used "learn" is repeating completed processes not continuing one process.  
I was learning it yesterday but I haven't learned it yet - there are two more lessons next week to finish the course.  
I learned it yesterday but I haven't learned it yet  - there are two more lessons next week to finish the course.


----------



## stephenlearner

OK. I see. Thank you.


----------



## lentulax

stephenlearner said:


> Can I use "learn" in this way?
> 1 (I have been learning how to swim for the past one month. )
> 2 Almost every day in the one month, I learned how to swim.
> 3 But I did not learn it 15 days ago, because I was ill that day.
> 4 Yesterday I learned it. Today I have learned it. I'll continue to learn it tomorrow.


Numbers added by me.

You could spend a lifetime searching English texts and speaking to English people without coming across any of the last 3 sentences . This is the problem, yet again, about asking advice about made-up, contextless sentences. Perhaps in some world of grammatical abstraction, regardless of what any English speaker has ever said or would say, these sentences are acceptable, but if by 'Can I say?' you mean 'If I used these sentences , would they be found acceptable by a native English speaker', the answer, as already explained, is 'No!'

What Thomas Tompion has said is to the point. The problem is one of *meaning*, not of grammar. Some things are learnt (the skill/knowledge is acquired) more or less instantaneously, others take a long period of practise/study/extended experience. Our recognition of the difference is a matter of basic knowledge/experience of life. Using the past tense means that the skill/knowledge has been acquired (whether instantaneously or as a result of long study/practice); using it sensibly means not using it in a sentence which suggests that the acquisition was achieved within a time-limit we know to be impossible. We know that it is commonly within the bounds of possibility to learn  one word of a foreign language each day, so 'I learnt a word yesterday; I have learnt a word today; and I shall learn a word tomorrow' makes sense. We know that the skill of flying an aeroplane is not a skill that is acquired in one day - in fact, it is an aggregation of a great many skills and a great deal of knowledge, the acquisition of which takes a lot of time, so 'I learnt to fly yesterday' sounds ridiculous (unless you supply the context of some ridiculous fantasy story about a superhero). 
There are plenty of obvious alternatives to make clear whether you are referring to a process of learning, or to the final acquisition.


----------

