# Present Perfect simple or continuous for finished actions



## Arobaz

Hello everyone!

I'm trying to learn the present perfect continuous, and I've managed it so far.
But... I've some issues with this use of the present perfect continuous : Past actions recently stopped / finished

Here's a sentence :
I have been looking over your resume and I have to say I'm very impressed.

I'm wondering whether I can use the present perfect and what's the difference between :

-> I* have been looking *over your resume and I have to say I'm very impressed.

-> I* have *(*just*)* looked* over your resume and I have to say I'm very impressed.

What's the difference (in the meaning) between those two sentences?? ... I don't understand because the present perfect continuous is usually used with actions still on-going, right? So, why can I see some people use this form in this context : "recently stopped"..?.. I mean, the present perfect simple is used in this context as well, isn't it? "recently stopped with results now. Therefore... what's the difference? When do I use the continuous form and the simple form?

Look at this sentence from a lesson :
I have been waiting for you for half an hour! _I'm not waiting anymore because you have come
=> The lesson says : Use this tense (present perfect continuous) also to talk about actions that began in the past and have recently stopped.

_What about 'I have (just) waited for you...'

*=>* To sum up : my question is : when we talk about an activity that has finished (recently) and has some results now, what should I use? The present perfect simple or continuous? I don't see what differences they have (in this use) :/


Hope you'll can help me..


Thanks in advance.


Arobaz


----------



## JamesM

The present perfect continuous emphasizes the duration of time.  "I have been waiting for you for half an hour!"  emphasizes the ongoing nature of the wait and its duration.  It also implies that the action is recent.

"I have been looking over your resume" does the same thing.  It implies that the person spent some time in evaluating the resume and that he did this recently.


----------



## se16teddy

The present perfect continuous suggests *a period of past time leading up to the present*. Thus "I have been looking over your resume" means that I have spent (some or all of) the last minute/hour/day (etc, period unspecified) looking at your resume.  "I have been looking" does not necessarily imply that I am not looking now, so I'm not sure I agree with your "recently stopped" definition. 

The simple present perfect suggests a *past event with an implied effect on the present*. Thus "I have (just) looked over your resume" may suggest " I know what it contains".  (There may be other possible implied present effects, but I can't think of any likely ones at the moment, especially because "I am impressed".)


----------



## Parla

I differ somewhat with Teddy and definitely differ (here in agreement with Teddy) about what you've been taught. In my opinion:

"I've been looking . . . " = I spent some time at it, it's quite recent, and I may still be doing it.

"I've looked . . . " = I completed the looking quite recently.


----------



## Arobaz

Thank you for answering me =)

Maybe a lot of context will help you.

Actually, that's for a job interview, the job applicant knock at the door and the head of personnel is waiting for her with the resume in her hand. And she say : 'Oh come in, have a seat. I have been looking over your resume and I have to say I'm very impressed'.

So, according to your thoughts, it may mean : "I was looking over your resume when you knocked at the door" ? (and if you hadn't come, I would go on)

Thanks


----------



## rhitagawr

'Statal' verbs such as wait, stand, lie, live are more likely to imply that the action (if waiting etc. are indeed actions) is still going on - "I've been standing here for the past hour" - and I'm still standing here. "I've been looking for a new car" doesn't mean that I'm actually looking for one right at this minute. Neither does "I've been going to the theatre every week for the past five years" mean that I'm at the theatre or I'm going there right at this minute.


----------



## Parla

> So, according to your thoughts, it may mean : "I was looking over your resume when you knocked at the door" ?



Yes, quite possibly. 



> (and if you hadn't come, I would go on)


Not necessarily. If the applicant hadn't shown up, the interviewer would probably have instead gone on to review someone else's résumé.


----------



## Arobaz

Okay thank you so much =)

If I need some help about Present perfect tenses, I'll come back here


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Rhitagawr makes an excellent point, Arobaz.  It's not just a question of tense; you need to consider what sort of verb is being used also.


----------



## boozer

I've looked at your application does not necessarily tell me the action was very recent. It does tell me the action is completed for sure, though...


----------



## rhitagawr

I don't think "I've been looking over your resume" (necessarily) implies that I was looking over it when you knocked on the door. It just means I've spent some time looking over it recently.
However, if you lose your child in a crowd and then find him, you can say "I've been looking for you everywhere."
It depends on the context.


----------



## Arobaz

Actually... I'm back because another sentence where I don't see any differences, between:

- Who have you talked to?

- Who have you been talking to? 

The latter would stress why somebody was talking to someone for so long?.. or I'm wrong maybe..

And as well :

- Why have you been talking to him?

- Why have you talked to him?

However, here, I don't see the difference at all 

Because, actually, I have some issues with Present perfect Continuous* without a time phrase* :S

I hope you'll can enlighten me on that =)

Thanks in advance


----------



## boozer

A. I have talked to someone about our problem and we may be getting some help soon.
B. Who have you talked to? Do I know him?

A. barges into the room and sees B. hanging up the phone in a hurry, looking guilty.
A. Who have you been talking to? I heard your voice and there is no one in the room. I expressly forbade you to call people.
B. No, they called me. It was the wrong number...


----------



## rhitagawr

I don't blame Arobaz for getting confused. Differences in tense aspects in English can be very subtle. You don't need a time phrase with the present perfect continuous and Arobaz shouldn't be surprised to see the tense used without one. I agree with Boozer. Even with "have talked to"/"have been talking to" there's still a (slight) distinction between completed action and a period of time.

Sergeant Smith: We still haven't got any leads on the murder.
Inspector Jones: Who have you talked to? - I.e. who have you asked?
Sergeant Smith: I've talked to all the local residents and everyone who knew the victim.

Tony: You're picking up the Birmingham accent. Who have you been talking to?
Ewa: I've been going out with Tim. - I.e. she's still going out with him.
Tony: That explains it. Tim's lived in Birmingham all his life. His accent's as thick as treacle.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Arobaz said:


> Actually... I'm back because another sentence where I don't see any differences, between : lol
> 
> - Who have you talked to?
> 
> - Who have you been talking to?
> 
> The latter would stress why somebody was talking to someone for so long?.. or I'm wrong maybe..
> 
> [...]


I'm only going to consider one of your pairs, Arobaz.  I find it best to concentrate attention on one instance at a time.

There is a marked difference between these two.

1.  _Who have you talked to?_ - suggests that the consultation is over, and is asking who has been consulted.

2.  Who have you been talking to? - suggests that the consultation may be ongoing - it's not that it has been long in duration, but that it may still be going on, a suggestion not at all present in 1.


----------



## bambina-in-nero

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm only going to consider one of your pairs, Arobaz.  I find it best to concentrate attention on one instance at a time.
> 
> There is a marked difference between these two.
> 
> 1.  _Who have you talked to?_ - suggests that the consultation is over, and is asking who has been consulted.
> 
> 2.  Who have you been talking to? - suggests that the consultation may be ongoing - it's not that it has been long in duration, but that it may still be going on, a suggestion not at all present in 1.



Do things change if we add  _for_ or_ since_?

1 Who have you talked to for half an hour?
2 Who have you been talking to for half an hour?

Both 1 and 2 mean that the person is still talking to someone, don't they?


----------



## rhitagawr

They both seem a bit odd to me. In (2) I'd say "for the past half hour". Apart from that, however, they don't mean the same thing. As Thomas says, "talked to" implies that the talking is over and "been talking to" implies that the talking isn't over. There isn't anything special about the verb "talk" in this regard. Consider:

Keith: Have you lived anywhere for five years or more?
Linda: I lived in Bristol for seven years in the 1980s.

If you haven't seen your friend for six months and you then see him, you can say "What have you been doing for the past six months?" He might say "I've been living in Huddersfield". He still lives there.

It's the same thing with "since". "I've been to Sweden since 1970" - although I'm not there now. "I've been living in Doncaster since 1970" - and I'm still living there.


----------



## bambina-in-nero

rhitagawr said:


> They both seem a bit odd to me. In (2) I'd say "for the past half hour". Apart from that, however, they don't mean the same thing. As Thomas says, "talked to" implies that the talking is over and "been talking to" implies that the talking isn't over. There isn't anything special about the verb "talk" in this regard. Consider:
> 
> Keith: Have you lived anywhere for five years or more?
> Linda: I lived in Bristol for seven years in the 1980s.
> 
> If you haven't seen your friend for six months and you then see him, you can say "What have you been doing for the past six months?" He might say "I've been living in Huddersfield". He still lives there.
> 
> It's the same thing with "since". "I've been to Sweden since 1970" - although I'm not there now. "I've been living in Doncaster since 1970" - and I'm still living there.



In your first  example, though, Linda changes the tense of her answer:
she says "I lived", whereas the question is "have you lived"...as far as I know present perfect + for implies that the action is still ongoing, and a proof of this is that Linda in your example has to change the tense from present perfect to past simple because the action refers to a past period with no connection with the present....  I confess I'm really confused right now


----------



## Arobaz

Hello, thank you very much for all of your answers. 

So, when I use the present perfect continuous, it implies a idea of evidence? As in Boozer and rhitagawr's phrases.

For instance : I see my girlfriend that has just returned to another room after a long absence, at a party. Can I ask her:

Who have you been talking to? with a degree of irritation in a tone.. maybe. I'm interested in the activity, the fact she was talking to somebody for a long time. 


And what about the sentences with 'why...'?

- Why _have you been talking_ to him? : Maybe I see my friend crying after having a conversation with someone, and I ask : why have you been talking to?

- Why _have you talked _to him? : I want to know the reasons.

- Why _were you talking_ to him? <- I believe this one is more common in American English.


----------



## Arobaz

Anyone can help me to see the difference between PPS and PPC with actions (recently) finished, please?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Arobaz said:


> Anyone can help me to see the difference between PPS and PPC with actions (recently) finished, please?


I don't think the fact that the action has recently finished makes any difference, Arobaz.


----------



## rhitagawr

bambina-in-nero said:


> In your first example, though, Linda changes the tense of her answer:
> she says "I lived", whereas the question is "have you lived"...as far as I know present perfect + for implies that the action is still ongoing, and a proof of this is that Linda in your example has to change the tense from present perfect to past simple because the action refers to a past period with no connection with the present.... I confess I'm really confused right now


Sorry if you're confused, bambina-in-nero. Keith's talking about the time up to the present, so he uses the perfect. (He could have said "Have you ever lived...?) At this point he doesn't know what Linda's answer's going to be. Linda says "I lived" because she no longer lives in Bristol. If she still lived there, she'd use the perfect - "I've been living in Bristol for seven years."
You can even say "We've made many mistakes in the past". Although we no longer make mistakes, the past leads up to the present and so we use the perfect.


----------



## bambina-in-nero

Thank you rhitagawr for you explanation, it's clear now, you'r very kind!
I understand that with PPC the action is still ongoing, whereas with PP it's over. But I think it's not always true:
if I say:
I've studied English for 5 years
What do you understand?Isn't the action still ongoing?
And what is the difference with:
I have been studying English for five years


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_I've studied English for five years _- the action isn't necessarily ongoing.  You may have stopped some time back.
_
I've been studying English for five years _- you are definitely still studying English.

That's quite a big difference.


----------



## bambina-in-nero

Ok,thank you Thomas. I knew that PPC was to choice when the duration or repetion is to be emphasized, like in:

"Lucy  has been trying to pass the exam five times" (instead of "She has tried" in order to emphasize the number of Lucy's  attempts)

Do you agree on this point?

Now- thanks to your kind help- I understand it's not the only difference of usage between PPC and PP.

I've just found in the internet an example of what you're trying very patiently to explain and I think this could contribute to help all the people, like Arobaz and me, who are - or were-  confused:

"Pay Attention. The mice at this station *have been attacking* customers. Please place the bottom of your trousers into your socks to avoid being a victim of the Farringdon mice.”

In this sentence they use PPC because the mice started attacking people at some point in the past and they've never topped, and they are still doing it now... have I passed the test?


----------



## rhitagawr

I agree with the mice sentence. Not so sure about the exams sentence, though. I've probably confused you again. I think I'd say "has tried" because the "five times" is still the most important thing even though Lucy may have made five attempts over a long period. I'd definitely say "Lucy has sat the exam five times and failed five times." 
I'd say "I've been trying to phone Steven all morning. I've tried twenty times but there's no one there."
Sometimes you have a choice. You can say "I've been living here for seven years" or "I've lived here for seven years." There's not much difference.

Aboraz was asking about completed actions with the simple and the continuous aspects. If you're looking for your wallet, you might say "I can't find my wallet even though I've looked everywhere. I've looked in all the drawers and all my pockets." The emphasis is on your inability to find your wallet. If you find it later on - even if you aren't looking for it at the time - you might say "Ah! My wallet! I've been looking for it all day." The emphasis is on the length of time you were without it.
A carpenter might say to his apprentice "We've been sawing wood since the crack of dawn. It's time for a cup of tea." At this point they'll probably stop work and have a cup of tea. When they finally stop work in the evening, the carpenter might say "You've sawn a lot of wood today. I'm pleased with what you've done."


----------



## bambina-in-nero

Arobaz said:


> Anyone can help me to see the difference between PPS and PPC with actions (recently) finished, please?[/QUOT
> Yesterday I heard on the radio the following sentence:
> "You've been listening to an episode of xxx"
> The episode had just finished, I mean a few seconds before... why did not the speaker use PP? Wouldn't it have been more correct to say "You've listened to...", because the episode was over?


----------



## rhitagawr

I take your point, bambina-in-nero. It's good that people like you make people like me think about the English language. Announcers use the continuous aspect in this context. Perhaps they're recapitulating what the listener has been doing. There's an implied emphasis on the fact that the listener has spent some time listening to the radio. 
However, a mother might say to a child, "You've watched enough television this evening. It's time for bed." The emphasis - suggested by the word "enough" - is on the fact that the time for watching television is over and it's now time to do something else. Alternatively, she might say, "You've been watching television all evening but now it's time for bed" - emphasis on the length of time.


----------



## Ariel66

se16teddy said:


> The present perfect continuous suggests *a period of past time leading up to the present*. Thus "I have been looking over your resume" means that I have spent (some or all of) the last minute/hour/day (etc, period unspecified) looking at your resume. "I have been looking" does not necessarily imply that I am not looking now, so I'm not sure I agree with your "recently stopped" definition.
> 
> The simple present perfect suggests a *past event with an implied effect on the present*. Thus "I have (just) looked over your resume" may suggest " I know what it contains". (There may be other possible implied present effects, but I can't think of any likely ones at the moment, especially because "I am impressed".)



Hi, se16teddy,
I would like to know, is there a way to understand easily and distinguish when someone is talking to us and using the present perfect continuous for finished actions or for unfinished actions?

Ex. I have been working all day ( and I am still at work)
I have been working all day ( but I have stopped now)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'd say there wasn't, and the speaker would know there wasn't, so he'd feel the need to add information, if it was important.


----------



## Ariel66

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'd say there wasn't, and the speaker would know there wasn't, so he'd feel the need to add information, if it was important.




Thank you Thomas,
now I am sure about something I had already read in a grammar book.


----------



## wandle

LaughterLog has a long-remembered quote from a BBC comedy classic:


> The date — 1st July 1958, the time — just approaching nine o’clock. Nervous fingers tune in the Bakelite set to the BBC Light Programme, and as the valves warm up a voice becomes more audible, recognizable as urbane young announcer, Douglas Smith:
> *‘You have either been listening to, or have just missed Beyond Our Ken'*.



These two alternatives are mutually exclusive and logically justified. There are only two possibilities for the listener: either (a) you have just tuned in to the channel in time to hear this closing link, or (b) you must have heard some of what went before it.

The present perfect simple is correct for case (a), because 'missed' is a verb of accomplishment, so to speak, not action: it simply defines the meaning of the situation.  It does not take any time to miss a programme, in the sense of failing to hear it, and therefore it is not possible in this sense to say 'you have been missing Beyond Our Ken'.

On the other hand, the present perfect continuous is correct for case (b), because if you have heard any of the programme, even a very short bit, that must be something that went on for a period of time. The continuous form of the tense tells us nothing about how long you were listening; it just says that you did listen for some time (even if only a few seconds).

However, it would not be justifiable for the anouncer to say: 'You have either listened to or have just missed Beyond Our Ken' because this would imply you had either heard it all or missed it all.


----------



## Walt Whitman

I have resumed an old thread because I’d like to have a clarification.
In # 24 Thomas Tompion compares and comments on two sentences:
 
_<__<<  1. I've studied English for five years _- the action isn't necessarily ongoing. You may have stopped some time back._2. I've been studying English for five years _- you are definitely still studying English. >>>
 
Thomas, with your comment on sentence (1) (“the action isn’t necessarily ongoing”) do you want to say that (1) could never mean “and I’m still studying it”?
If so, how does your sentence (1) differ from rhitagawr’s in # 26, where he says: <<< Sometimes you have a choice. You can say "I've been living here for seven years" or "I've lived here for seven years." There's not much difference. >>>
Isn’t it correct to say that in rhitagawr’s sentences the “I” is still living in that indefinite place? 
 
I hope I have made myself understood.
WW


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Walt Whitman said:


> I have resumed an old thread because I’d like to have a clarification.
> In # 24 Thomas Tompion compares and comments on two sentences:
> 
> _<__<< 1. I've studied English for five years _- the action isn't necessarily ongoing. You may have stopped some time back._2. I've been studying English for five years _- you are definitely still studying English. >>>
> 
> Thomas, with your comment on sentence (1) (“the action isn’t necessarily ongoing”) do you want to say that (1) could never mean “and I’m still studying it”?
> [...]


No.

*1. I've studied English for five years. * When I said  'the action isn't necessarily ongoing', I meant that it was possible that I had stopped studying English.  I did NOT mean that it necessarily implied that I had stopped.


----------



## se16teddy

As a matter of grammar, the past tenses say nothing about the present. However, as a matter of logic, there may be cases where a speaker uses a past tense and the listener notices that the speaker did not use the simple present tense (which covers past, present and future) and the listener concludes that the action may not be continuing in the present.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> As a matter of grammar, the past tenses say nothing about the present. However, as a matter of logic, there may be cases where a speaker uses a past tense and the listener notices that the speaker did not use the simple present tense (which covers past, present and future) and the listener concludes that the action may not be continuing in the present.


I hope this isn't saying that *I have been studying English for five years* doesn't imply that at the moment, in the present, I am studying English.

If it is saying that, I'd disagree. * I have been studying English for five years* implies that I am now studying English.


----------



## RolandLavengro

'I have read your resume.' It is simpler to communicate and I, the applicant, am hoping it is an open and shut case. When do I start?
If you said 'I have been reading your resume ...' I would visualise you in the process of reading it and expect some detailed feedback or questions. You would probably  have it on your desk, open. 
Adding that you were impressed might make me feel good but would not change my understanding of your statement.


----------



## Walt Whitman

I agree with you, RL.
But let’s consider the following: (1) I have read books on English history for 5 years. 
(2) I have been reading books on English history for 5 years.
I ask: do either sentence imply that I’m still reading books on that subject – maybe because I teach history and I have to keep up with the latest studies? 
The same is true, I think, for 
(1) I’ve studied English for five years
(2) I’ve been studying English for five years.
Maybe, I’ve been planning to move to an English-speaking country soon and I need to know the language.
WW


----------



## RolandLavengro

Yes Walt Whitman (never thought I would write that). The present perfect, simple or continuous, does not preclude the possibility of continuation of the action, either in the present or future.  As in your example, however, I would infer from the continuous (example 2) that you  are still reading history, whereas in the other you may have studied in the past and completed the cycle (or course). However, if the latter were the case I would say 'I studied history for five years'.

As a general rule, I prefer to begin with the example, determine the intention of the sentence then apply the grammar, rather than vice versa, hence Arobaz's contextualisation of the cv. Pedagogically, this functional approach has been jostling with the formal grammar approach as there are usually too many problematic exceptions to any 'rule' - as your question has exemplified.


----------



## se16teddy

Thomas Tompion said:


> If it is saying that, I'd disagree. * I have been studying English for five years* implies that I am now studying English.


The past tense says nothing about the present, but there may be some flexibility in what is meant by the "present". I might say this whether I was at the restaurant or whether I had already gone home: 
_I've been going to this/that restaurant for five years but today was the last time. I am never coming here/going there again. _


----------



## lucas-sp

se16teddy said:


> The past tense says nothing about the present, but there may be some flexibility in what is meant by the "present". I might say this whether I was at the restaurant or whether I had already gone home:
> _I've been going to this/that restaurant for five years but today was the last time. I am never coming here/going there again. _


I'm a little confused here. Where is there a past-tense verb in either of these sentences: "I have been studying...", "I've been going..."?

To me (and to the Elders of Grammar), both of those verbs are in the _present_​ tense.


----------



## se16teddy

lucas-sp said:


> I'm a little confused here. Where is there a past-tense verb in either of these sentences: "I have been studying...", "I've been going..."?
> To me (and to the Elders of Grammar), both of those verbs are in the _present_​ tense.


I think that the following is generally accepted linguistic wisdom across the English-speaking world:
1. _I have been studying _and _I have been going_ are examples of the present perfect continuous tense. 
2. The present perfect continuous tense is one of the English past tenses. 

I may be more at risk of contradiction (and even, God forbid, error) in the following statements. 
3. The simple present perfect tense (such as _I have studied _or _I have gone_) always says something about the past and something about the present. 
4. The continuous present perfect tense speaks only about the past, but a past that continued to the present.
N.B. When I say "present", this doesn't always mean the moment of speaking or writing. _Say I am given a highly effective sleeping pill today. When I wake up next Tuesday I have been sleeping for three days. _


----------



## Liam Lew's

RolandLavengro said:


> As a general rule, I prefer to begin with the example, determine the intention of the sentence then apply the grammar, rather than vice versa, hence Arobaz's contextualisation of the cv. Pedagogically, this functional approach has been jostling with the formal grammar approach as there are usually too many problematic exceptions to any 'rule' - as your question has exemplified.


I agree with you on this point. To me it is a wrong concept to start with an isolated sentence and interpret what it might mean because we can only talk about likelihood of interpretations. You'll find cases in which the present perfect continuous is referring to a continuing state or action and you'll find cases in which it's referring to finished states/action. The same is for the present perfect simple.

It depends all on context and situation.


----------



## Walt Whitman

RolandLavengro said:


> Yes Walt Whitman (never thought I would write that). The present perfect, simple or continuous, does not preclude the possibility of continuation of the action, either in the present or future. As in your example, however, I would infer from the continuous (example 2) that you are still reading history, whereas in the other you may have studied in the past and completed the cycle (or course). However, if the latter were the case I would say 'I studied history for five years'.
> 
> As a general rule, I prefer to begin with the example, determine the intention of the sentence then apply the grammar, rather than vice versa, hence Arobaz's contextualisation of the cv. Pedagogically, this functional approach has been jostling with the formal grammar approach as there are usually too many problematic exceptions to any 'rule' - as your question has exemplified.



A: What job do you do?
B: I teach Medieval history at Oxford University.
A: Do you? Then you must be well-informed about the latest studies. 
B: Well, yes. I have studied / I have been studying Medieval history for 20 years now. 
A: I’m personally interested in the latest studies about William the Conqueror’s invasion of England. 
B: Oh, that’s just my field of research.
[…]

If I were B I would certainly say “I have been studying…”
I ask: would “I have studied…” be ok in this context? I think it’s quite clear that B is still reading history - it’s his/her job, after all.
WW


----------



## lucas-sp

se16teddy said:


> I think that the following is generally accepted linguistic wisdom across the English-speaking world:
> 1. _I have been studying _and _I have been going_ are examples of the present perfect continuous tense.
> *2. The present perfect continuous tense is one of the English past tenses.*


I'm sorry, but that is *totally wrong*. If we describe a verb as "present perfect continuous" we mean that it is in the "present tense" and that it has both a "perfect aspect" and a "continuous aspect." Present perfect verbs are in fact *in the present tense*; the present perfect continuous is *one form of the English present tense*. (The future perfect is a form of the future tense, the past perfect is a form of the past tense.)

In fact, you can see this rather clearly in your example:





> _I am given a highly effective sleeping pill today. When I wake up next Tuesday I have been sleeping for three days._


One natural way to write that would be to use the future perfect:





> _I am given a highly effective sleeping pill today. When I wake up next Tuesday I *will **have been sleeping *for three days._


That shows that the time at which the "being sleeping" is relevant is in the future. But your original sentence works as well because in English we can use present-tense verbs to describe future actions.

I think your confusion comes from the fact that the perfect aspect is used to describe actions that have taken place prior to the time of the verb. But that's a red herring. Linguistically and grammatically, the present perfect (whether continuous or non-continuous) is a form of the *present tense*. *​It is not a past tense.*


----------



## RolandLavengro

Arobaz. which aspect do you have difficulty with?


----------



## MikeLynn

Well, I do agree with Lucas. From what I've read, learned and, hopefully, understood, present simple, present continuous, present perfect simple and present perfect continuous are just four forms of a single tense in English (present tense). Natural for natives, a real nightmare for us.
M&L


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It might be worth mentioning that the nature of the activity and also adverbial expressions of time can influence the application of the present perfect continuous to the present.  For instance:

* I have been studying English for five years* usually implies that I am now studying English.  But you might say it just after you stopped.   
*I have been working all morning* does not imply that you are working now, though it doesn't mean that you've stopped - as long as it's still the morning. You might saying it while relaxing after lunch.
*I have been reading your essay* does not imply that you are reading it now, though the suggestion is that you have spent time recently reading it.


----------



## se16teddy

lucas-sp said:


> If we describe a verb as "present perfect continuous" we mean that it is in the "present tense" and that it has both a "perfect aspect" and a "continuous aspect."


Thank you Lucas, I have been studying languages (mostly not English and mostly with the emphasis on understanding the language rather than analysing it) for 40 years but nobody has explained this for me in this way before. The penny has at least partially dropped!

Apologies for that rare moment of humility on my part. Now, going back to the discussion in #36


Thomas Tompion said:


> I hope this isn't saying that *I have been studying English for five years* doesn't imply that at the moment, in the present, I am studying English.
> If it is saying that, I'd disagree. * I have been studying English for five years* implies that I am now studying English.


But surely I can say 
_I have been working at Widgets & Co for 30 years, but this morning they made me clear my desk and I'm not working there any more. _


----------



## Diddl

Hello everyone, I am reviving this post because I have a doubt related to the topics deiscussed here. 
Actually, yesterday I sent an email to my boss and I am afraid it contains a grammar mistake. We haven't had much to do recently, so I thought I would transalted some papers into English just to keep busy. After spending a working day on a translation, I attached it to an email and sent it to my boss. In the email, I wrote: "attached is my translation - just in case you were interested in checking up on what I have been doing all day". I chose the present perfect continuous because I thought that it would have emphasized the duration of time, while conveying the idea of a just completed action. But a few minutes ago it occured to me that the time reference "all day" is likely to be wrong when in association with a verb in the PPC tense. What do you think about that? Do you have any suggestions to avoid mistakes like that in the future? Thank you in advance. Have a good evening.


----------



## london calling

Diddl said:


> "....just in case you were interested in checking up on what I have been doing all day".


I have absolutely no problems with that.


----------



## se16teddy

Yes, "all day" attracts the continuous tense/aspect when the day is continuing. It is equivalent to "for the last few hours". "What I have done all day" sounds wrong.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

Most probably, it sounds wrong because it _is_ wrong.
The "sequence" _... what I've been doing..._ can be accompanied by a number of expressions of time:

_... what I've been doing... this week; this semester; this month; this year, this decade; etc._ The key-word is "this".

GS


----------



## london calling

se16teddy said:


> "What I have done all day" sounds wrong.


I disagree, sorry. I would quite happily say:

I have been cooking and cleaning all day
I have been up working all night
 etc.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

london calling said:


> I disagree, sorry. I would quite happily say:
> 
> I have been cooking and cleaning all day
> I have been up working all night
> etc.


This misses the point: the analogies are false, of course.  I think we are agreed that continuous tenses marry well with* all day*, *all night*, etc.

The point is would you say *I have cooked all day*, or* I have worked all night*?

 I wouldn't call either out of the question.


----------



## JamesM

I think what se16teddy was talking about was "If you want to know *what I have done all day*, I have been cooking and cleaning."   The "I have done" in that type of context sounds odd.  Assuming that is what he meant, I agree.  It would be odd to hear "What have you done all day?" as a question rather than "What have you been doing all day?"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't think it's very odd in BE, James.

I agree that many people would be more likely to say *What have you been doing all day?*

I'd often prefer *What have you done all day?* because it sounds less nosy, more friendly, to my ear.


----------



## london calling

JamesM said:


> I think what se16teddy was talking about was "If you want to know *what I have done all day*, I have been cooking and cleaning."   The "I have done" in that type of context sounds odd.  Assuming that is what he meant, I agree.  It would be odd to hear "What have you done all day?" as a question rather than "What have you been doing all day?"


Ok. However, the OP doesn't make mention of the question "What have you done all day?".  He/she asked if  this sentence works:

"....just in case you were interested in checking up on what I have been doing all day".

It works perfectly for me, as does (of course) the corresponding question:_ What have you been doing all day?

_Hence my reply. However, I cannot in all honesty say that "What have you done all day?" in unacceptable as a question. I personally prefer the continuous form, but personal preferences are just that, personal preferences.


----------



## Diddl

Thanks to all of you for replying and sharing your opinions with me. I wish you all a great evening. Good bye!


----------

