# The house has been <built> for one year.



## lingkky

"The house has been built for one year."

This sentence means that the house took a year to be built or it has a history of one year?


----------



## waltern

It is not a very natural sounding English sentence - where did you see it?

We might say something like:

The house was built a/one year ago.
The house has been under construction for a/one year.
The house took a/one year to build.


----------



## lingkky

Is it possible to say the house took one year to be bulit by saying
"The house has been built for one year"?


----------



## Copyright

Not really. "The house took a year to build" is natural.


----------



## lingkky

Copyright said:


> Not really. "The house took a year to build" is natural.


But usually I hear a sentence with this type of structure said 
"The teacher has taught for 10 years in the school.Now she is retired."

Is it natural and does it work?


----------



## Chelle62099

Saying it was 'built' implies the construction was already completed, in the past; therefore, the house has been built for one year (doesn't sound natural) would essentially indicate that it has existed, post-construction and built completely, for one year.


----------



## lingkky

Chelle62099 said:


> Saying it was 'built' implies the construction was already completed, in the past; therefore, the house has been built for one year (doesn't sound natural) would essentially indicate that it has existed, post-construction and built completely, for one year.



why "the house has been built for one year "(not natural) does not indicate that the house was already in the process of construction for one year??(may be the construction has not been completed yet)but it means the house has existed for one year.

I think it when comparing to another sentence“The teacher has taught for five years"which means she was already in the process of teaching for five years .

can I know why???


----------



## dojibear

Hello, Lingkky. I will try to explain this confusing thing.

"Built" is the past tense of "build". "Taught" is the past tense of "teach". Teacher can "teach", but buildings cannot "build". Buildings can only be the object of the verb "build". So you are not comparing matching sentences.

Here are two matching sentences:

The teacher has taught children for five years.
The carpenter has built houses for five years.

Here are two matching sentences:

The student was being taught for five years.
The house was being built for five years.

Here are two sentences with matching grammar:

The student has been taught for one year.
The house has been built for one year.

That last sentence has correct grammar, but it has two different correct meanings:
- "has been built" as past tense of "is being built": the house is not finished
- "built" meaning "finished construction", with "has been for one year" around it saying when it finished

To an AE speaker, both meanings are clear, and it's clear there are two. We don't do that. We don't say things that could mean two totally different things. Instead we say some other sentence whose single meaning is clear.


----------



## ali7772016

I feel that the house will vanish after one year.


----------



## lingkky

dojibear said:


> Hello, Lingkky. I will try to explain this confusing thing.
> 
> "Built" is the past tense of "build". "Taught" is the past tense of "teach". Teacher can "teach", but buildings cannot "build". Buildings can only be the object of the verb "build". So you are not comparing matching sentences.
> 
> Here are two matching sentences:
> 
> The teacher has taught children for five years.
> The carpenter has built houses for five years.
> 
> Here are two matching sentences:
> 
> The student was being taught for five years.
> The house was being built for five years.
> 
> Here are two sentences with matching grammar:
> 
> The student has been taught for one year.
> The house has been built for one year.
> 
> That last sentence has correct grammar, but it has two different correct meanings:
> - "has been built" as past tense of "is being built": the house is not finished
> - "built" meaning "finished construction", with "has been for one year" around it saying when it finished
> 
> To an AE speaker, both meanings are clear, and it's clear there are two. We don't do that. We don't say things that could mean two totally different things. Instead we say some other sentence whose single meaning is clear.


I see your point.if "bulit"means finished construction
In the same way "taught" means "graduated" or "finished studying"
and

Then why
1.The student has been taught for five years.(correct)

2.The house has been built for five             years.(has two meanings)

Why do the first one has only a meaning ?Why is it accepted and the second one is not?because I think the first one can also mean "finish studying".


----------



## lingkky

Newer discussion added to previous thread.  Cagey, moderator 

Can"built"be used as an adjective meaning "finished"?

For example,
The house is built(finishd construction) for five years.
The house has been built(finished construction) for five years.


----------



## Tegs

It can be used as an adjective, but only to describe people (the shape of their body). It can't be used as an adjective to refer to houses. To make your sentence correct, you would need to say: 

The house was built five years ago.


----------



## PaulQ

In your examples, "built" is the past participle of "to build" -> it is not an adjective.

"Built" can be used as an adjective as Tegs says above or it can mean "made of several/many parts" but it is usually used together with another adverb or adjective - ready-bulit; built-up; well-built; Chinese-built, etc.


----------



## lingkky

I would think that because of an sentence 
"The house has been built for five years"

Although the sentence does not sound natural but it can mean the house has existed for five years besides it took five years to be built by someone.Thus,I think "built"can be an adjective.

Why be like that if "built"cannot be an adjective?


----------



## Tegs

lingkky said:


> "The house has been built _existed _for five years"


If you want to use that particular sentence structure you can't use the word built. Use _existed _instead and then your sentence will be ok.


----------



## lingkky

"The house has been built for five years"
Can I know what does it mean originally?Because it is gramatically correct so I think it works and has meaning even though it is not a natural English.


----------



## pob14

lingkky said:


> Because it is gramatically correct so I think it works and has meaning even though it is not a natural English.


I disagree.


----------



## lingkky

pob14 said:


> I disagree.


 
I think that because there is a similar structure sentence which is correct.but this one is a active sentence while the before one is a passive sentence.
"The teacher has taught for five years"
I am sure this sentense is correct and it works.


----------



## lingkky

There must be a reason but I cannot really see it.


----------



## JulianStuart

lingkky said:


> "The house has been built for five years"
> Can I know what does it mean originally?Because it is gramatically correct so I think it works and has meaning even though it is not a natural English.


Nope  You seem to think that the sentence can mean either:
1) The house has been under construction for five years.
2) The house was completed five years ago.

The problem with your sentence is that "been" can function as *either* part of the present perfect  "The house has been there for five years." *or* part of a passive construction: "Thr house has been occupied for fve years" - *but not both at the same time*

Past coninuous PASSIVE is what you need for 
1)  -> 1a) The house has been being bulit for five years.
but it is felt to be clumsy have been being built
For 2) simply 2a) The house was built five years ago.


----------



## e2efour

The "built environment" is an established technical phrase, but _built_ here, although an adjective, does not really mean _finished._


----------



## lingkky

JulianStuart said:


> Nope  You seem to think that the sentence can mean either:
> 1) The house has been under construction for five years.
> 2) The house was completed five years ago.
> 
> The problem with your sentence is that "been" can function as *either* part of the present perfect  "The house has been there for five years." *or* part of a passive construction: "Thr house has been occupied for fve years" - *but not both at the same time*
> 
> Past coninuous PASSIVE is what you need for
> 1)  -> 1a) The house has been being bulit for five years.
> but it is felt to be clumsy have been being built
> For 2) simply 2a) The house was built five years ago.



Thus,you mean that the whole sentence does not have any meaning at all and it does not make any sense instead of ambigious due to two meanings??


----------



## JulianStuart

See this response in your other thread


----------



## lingkky

JulianStuart said:


> See this response in your other thread


I think your response given is not related to my question.the examples you gave in other thread are in active voice.


----------



## JulianStuart

We have been discussing the use of "been built" in both threads and the problem that arises because "been" is used on both active AND passive voice constructions, but in different ways that lead to ambiguity.


----------



## lingkky

Thank you for the dicussions.I am very happy to have them.I will ask again if I get problems.


----------



## Andygc

lingkky said:


> Can "built" be used as an adjective meaning "finished"?
> 
> For example,
> 
> The house has been built for five years.


Yes. It can also be written "The house has been built five years". I am not suggesting that it is in any way a common way of expressing this meaning, but I don't understand the objections to this usage.


----------



## JulianStuart

A little bit of context goes a long way here between the two possible intended meanings discussed so far
"Is this house new" "No, it's been built for five years." (once the meaning of finished has been suggested this is fine, and been is clear in that context).
"Isn't the house finished yet? It's been built for five years" (Does not mean it has been under construction for five years, the desired meaning).  
I think this is the distinction lingkky is having difficulty with.


----------



## Andygc

The question was not about possible meanings, it was specific:


lingkky said:


> Can"built"be used as an adjective meaning "finished"?


The first answers were, I suggest, wrong:


Tegs said:


> It can be used as an adjective, but only to describe people (the shape of their body).





PaulQ said:


> In your examples, "built" is the past participle of "to build" -> it is not an adjective.


In "The house has been built for five years", the adjective "built" is correctly applied to a house, not a person, and does not refer to body shape. It is also an adjective which can be taken to mean "finished".


JulianStuart said:


> I think this is the distinction lingkky is having difficulty with.


Why? The OP clearly said


lingkky said:


> built(finishd construction)


That is not compatible with your illustration using a deliberately incorrect sentence:


JulianStuart said:


> "Isn't the house finished yet? It's been built for five years" (Does not mean it has been under construction for five years, the desired meaning).


The desired meaning lingkky was asking about was not "under construction".

If lingkky is having difficulty, it's because of the answers, not confusion over possible meanings.


lingkky said:


> "The house has been built for five years"
> 
> Although the sentence does not sound natural but it can mean the house has existed for five years besides it took five years to be built by someone.Thus,I think "built"can be an adjective.
> 
> Why be like that if "built"cannot be an adjective?


The sentence *does *sound natural. It *does *mean that the house has existed for 5 years. In this sentence "built" *is *an adjective.


----------



## JulianStuart

The discussion in the other thread has complicated things.  The OP included two examples:


lingkky said:


> Can"built"be used as an adjective meaning "finished"?
> 
> For example,
> The house is built(finishd construction) for five years.
> ...


You would use that form?


----------



## lingkky

JulianStuart said:


> A little bit of context goes a long way here between the two possible intended meanings discussed so far
> "Is this house new" "No, it's been built for five years." (once the meaning of finished has been suggested this is fine, and been is clear in that context).
> "Isn't the house finished yet? It's been built for five years" (Does not mean it has been under construction for five years, the desired meaning).
> I think this is the distinction lingkky is having difficulty with.


That is it.

But somehow there is a sentence which show the intended meaning differently.
For example,
"She has taught at there for five years"
The period five years means the period of teaching instead of "stopping teaching."
It seems opposite with the sentence
"The house has been built for five years."as "five years" does not mean the period of construction but period of the finished construction has existed.


----------



## JulianStuart

Andygc said:


> Why? The OP clearly said.





lingkky said:


> Can"built"be used as an adjective meaning "finished"?
> 
> For example,
> The house is built(finishd construction) for five years.
> The house has been built(finished construction) for five years.


I believe the insertion of "(finished construction)" came after the first few replies because the OP ended up specifiying the context with the edit. If you had not seen the original post, that would explain your (by then) justifiable reaction and explanation


----------



## JulianStuart

lingkky said:


> That is it.
> 
> But somehow there is a sentence which show the intended meaning differently.
> For example,
> "She has taught at there for five years"
> The period five years means the period of teaching instead of "stopping teaching."
> It seems opposite with the sentence
> "The house has been built for five years."as "five years" does not mean the period of construction but period of the finished construction has existed.


The problem here is not particularly with the verb forms but their meanings.  Teach is a verb that describes an action that is repeated - "She has taught there for years" is understood as something she has done regularly over that time period (regular teaching events).  And if it continues to this day, we use the present perfect to indicate that it continues in the present.  _Building a house only happens once_, so once its completion is in the past we know it cannot mean the same as the teach example (regular building events )) so it cannot have the meaning of the duration of the one (building) event.


----------



## Andygc

JS, the OP doesn't show that it has been edited, so I don't think I have missed anything. Note that I have not been confused by another thread - I haven't read it.



JulianStuart said:


> You would use that form?


"The house is built for five years."? Of course not - it doesn't matter which adjective you put there, it's ungrammatical. (The house is green for 5 years"  -  in an uneducated idiolect, perhaps )



lingkky said:


> "She has taught at there for five years"


Not really relevant here - "taught" is not an adjective in that sentence.


----------



## JulianStuart

Andygc said:


> JS, the OP doesn't show that it has been edited, so I don't think I have missed anything..


 There is a period of time after posting in which you can edit a new post where it is not noted in the post itself. (5 minutes, 10 minutes, I forget).  I do not recall seeing that edit when I first saw the thread, although I was responding in the other one before coming back to this one but did not re-read the OP (so did not notice the edit before responding). If I had seen that in the first time I saw this thread, I doubt if I would have responded how I did - i.e. with the context pre-selected)


----------



## lingkky

Hello thank you so far.

But now I am going to change the passive voice to active voice.
"The worker has built the house for five years."
What is the intended meaning?it means the house made by workers has existed for five years or the worker took five years in construction?


----------



## Loob

It doesn't mean anything.
"The worker has built the house for five years."


----------



## lingkky

Loob said:


> It doesn't mean anything.
> "The worker has built the house for five years."


Really?I think that because of a sentence.
"The teacher has taught English for five years."
Because the sentence has meaning.but why the before one does not work like the sentence above as they have same structure?


----------



## Loob

We're going round in circles, lingkky.
Your sentence does not work.


----------



## JulianStuart

lingkky said:


> Really?I think that because of a sentence.
> "The teacher has taught English for five years."
> Because the sentence has meaning. (space) but why the before one does not work like the sentence above as they *have same structure*?


Just because they have the same structure does not address the problem because they have different meanings:

As noted above "*Teach is a verb that describes an action that is repeated* - "She has taught there for years" is understood as something she has done regularly over that time period (regular teaching events). And if it continues to this day, we use the present perfect to indicate that it continues in the present. *Building a house only happens once,"  Teach is different from build.*


----------



## lingkky

Loob said:


> We're going round in circles, lingkky.
> Your sentence does not work.


I have posted a sentence in other thread to be discussed which is
"The teacher has taught there for five years."
Someone replied me it works and it means she has been a teacher for five years.Now,you told me it does not work.I am really confused now.


----------



## Cagey

Where did JulianStuart say that "_The teacher has taught there for five years"_ does not work?


----------



## Loob

Lingkky, I wonder if you are deliberately misunderstanding what people are saying to you?
_The teacher has taught there for five years. 
The worker has built the house for five years._


----------



## lingkky

Loob said:


> Lingkky, I wonder if you are deliberately misunderstanding what people are saying to you?
> _The teacher has taught there for five years.
> The worker has built the house for five years._


I know the problem.The problem is it is impossible to build the house for "five years."
To make it possible,I change to shorter duration
"The worker has built the house for one month"
I think it would be logic now.
is it correct now?


----------



## Loob

No.
Please re-read post 40.


----------



## Cagey

No, we don't use 'built' for an on-going activity. 
Changing it to one minute won't make a difference.  
We would say, _"The worker has been building the house for one minute."
_
Cross-posted.


----------



## lingkky

Cagey said:


> No, we don't use 'built' for an on-going activity.
> Changing it to one minute won't make a difference.
> We would say, _"The worker has been building the house for one minute."
> _
> Cross-posted.


"The house has been built by workers for one month."
in passive form ,does it work?
I am sure it works when the subject (workers)is absent which means the house has existed for one month.
"The house has been built for one month"(it works)
Does it work when the subject (workers)is added ??what does it mean ?
"The house has been built by workers for one month"(does it work?)

Is it possible to think that the house made by workers has existed for one month?


----------



## Cagey

"Has been built" meaning has 'existed' is unusual, but possible. Adding 'by [someone]' to make it a passive form doesn't work.  


lingkky said:


> Does it work when the subject (workers)is added ??what does it mean ?


What do you want it to mean? Why do you think that making the workers plural changes the grammar?


----------



## Glenfarclas

lingkky said:


> "The house has been built by workers for one month."
> in passive form ,does it work?



49 posts later, and the answer is still no.  Please just stop trying to use "has been built" with time periods.  It doesn't matter whether you intend "built" to mean "completed" or "under construction." It doesn't work.  Why don't you accept that answer and move on?


----------



## lingkky

Glenfarclas said:


> 49 posts later, and the answer is still no.  Please just stop trying to use "has been built" with time periods.  It doesn't matter whether you intend "built" to mean "completed" or "under construction." It doesn't work.  Why don't you accept that answer and move on?


Ok.I am just curious and try to find the consistency.I tried to make my mind systematic.I just want to find out the reasons and now I know because of the verb difference"taught" and "built" can change the condition to use such structure.


----------



## JulianStuart

lingkky said:


> *Ok.I* am just curious and try to find the consiste*ncy.I *tried to make my mind systematic.


(You keep forgetting to insert a space after each punctuation mark - it makes your posts harder to read if you won't do it properly  )


----------



## Glenfarclas

There's nothing inconsistent. Dojibear explained the difference between "has taught" and "has been built" way back in post #8.


----------



## lingkky

JulianStuart said:


> Just because they have the same structure does not address the problem because they have different meanings:
> 
> As noted above "*Teach is a verb that describes an action that is repeated* - "She has taught there for years" is understood as something she has done regularly over that time period (regular teaching events). And if it continues to this day, we use the present perfect to indicate that it continues in the present. *Building a house only happens once,"  Teach is different from build.*


Anyway I disagree that building a house only once.if that was a big banglow or flat ,it would take many times of "building process" to take place and the duration was longer.In this case ,"teach"does not have difference with"build".Workers can also work regularly like they worked every morning.


----------



## JulianStuart

lingkky said:


> Anyway I disagree that building a house only *once.if th*at was a big banglow or fla*t ,it* would take many times of "building process" to take place and the duration was *longer.In *this *case ,"t*each"does not have difference with"*build".W*orkers can also work regularly like they worked every morning.


You are wrong to disagree.  The verb build is *not* used the way you suggest in English.  Until the house is complete, it is not yet built, it is "being built".  "We built the house on Friday and took off for the weekend.  Then on Monday we built the house again."

Don't confuse the apparent similarity of the building process - a series of activities resulting in a "complete house", with the process of teaching - a series of lessons resulting in an "education" - just because the processes are similar does not mean the verbs can be used identically.


----------



## Myridon

Teaching "1 + 1 = 2" is an act of teaching. You have taught someone something. A teacher performs many acts of teaching per day.
Hammering one nail is an act of "building", but not an act of "building a house". You have not built a house by hammering one nail.  The workers only perform one act of "building a house" per house.


----------



## Cagey

This thread is closed. 

People have done their best to explain how 'built' is used in English. 
Lingky prefers not to accept this explanation. 
There is no point in continuing the discussion. 

Thank you to everyone who contributed.  

Cagey, moderator .


----------

