# I have <been living> <lived> here for twenty years



## Monica238

As I have learnt in these examples "I am moving to a new house today. I have been living here for twenty years/ have lived here for twenty years" either present perfect or present perfect continuous can be used until I leave my house for the last time. When I leave my house for the last time past simple should be used. But present perfect and present perfect continuous can be used too. As I have also found out the same applies to the situation when you stop attending the course:

"Let's say for the sake of argument that your English classes are from 9am until 4pm. Up until 4pm on the last day you can use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous. After 4pm you can still use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous, but now you can also use the simple past (or indeed the past continuous)."

But my question is if either present perfect and present perfect continuous can be used after the person stops doing something as in after 4pm or when I leave the house "today" can they be used on that day only or the next day, next week, next month or even year? How long after 4pm and "today" is it acceptable to use present perfect and present perfect continuous?


----------



## owlman5

If you are in the process of moving out of a house, _I've lived here for twenty years _sounds normal and reasonable. After you have moved, it makes sense to use the past simple: _I lived there for twenty years. I _would use the past simple if I made the comment three hours after I moved.


----------



## Monica238

owlman5 said:


> If you are in the process of moving out of a house, _I've lived here for twenty years _sounds normal and reasonable. After you have moved, it makes sense to use the past simple: _I lived there for twenty years. I _would use the past simple if I made the comment three hours after I moved.


But why in a situation about learning English present perfect and present perfect continuous are correct even after 4 or 10 pm, but with leaving your house they are only used while the speaker is still there?
I am asking about this explanation.
"Let's say for the sake of argument that your English classes are from 9am until 4pm. Up until 4pm on the last day you can use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous. After 4pm you can still use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous, but now you can also use the simple past (or indeed the past continuous


----------



## owlman5

_I have been learning English for twenty years. _(I am still learning English, and I started learning English twenty years ago). But you cannot still be living in a house after you have moved.


----------



## Monica238

owlman5 said:


> _I have been learning English for twenty years. _(I am still learning English, and I started learning English twenty years ago). But you cannot still be living in a house after you have moved.


No, I am not using them to mean those  actions are still in progress. As in this example: "She's been studying English for two years, but last week she moved to another school where they don't teach it." This is written by a native speaker. 
In my original sentences the actions are no longer in progress. You are right. I can't be living in a house after I have moved. But in the example about learning English the speaker is no longer studying English but they are still using continuous.


----------



## owlman5

Monica238 said:


> As in this example: "She's been studying English for two years, but last week she moved to another school where they don't teach it." This is written by a native speaker.


This seems normal. Perhaps she plans to continue studying English somewhere even though they don't teach it at the school that she moved to. Perhaps she will teach herself for a while with the help of a few books...

Whatever she plans to do, the present perfect continuous expresses the idea that her English studies are ongoing or affect the present in some significant way.


----------



## Monica238

I hope I don't misunderstand Glasguensis' explanation. That either present perfect and present perfect continuous is correct even after I leave my house as in the example about learning English.

As I have learnt in these examples "I am moving to a new house today. I have been living here for twenty years/ have lived here for twenty years" either present perfect or present perfect continuous can be used until I leave my house for the last time. When I leave my house for the last time past simple should be used. But present perfect and present perfect continuous can be used too. As I have also found out the same applies to the situation when you stop attending the course:

"Let's say for the sake of argument that your English classes are from 9am until 4pm. Up until 4pm on the last day you can use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous. After 4pm you can still use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous, but now you can also use the simple past (or indeed the past continuous)."

https://forum.wordreference


----------



## Forero

I don't see a post from Glasguensis here, nor do I see an example sentence about English classes.

But I certainly might say "I have been living in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now.

Still, I would not say something like "I have been living in that house until yesterday."


----------



## Roxxxannne

I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years" if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago.


----------



## DonnyB

If you don't mind my saying so, it's going to be easier to help you, I think, if we don't try and look at  different unrelated examples in the same thread. 

The perfect tense doesn't work in "I have been living in that house until yesterday." because _"until yesterday"_ clearly indicates that you're not still living in it _now_. I would say "I *had* been living in that house until yesterday." using the pluperfect, because it refers to an elapsed period of time which has now ended.


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> I don't see a post from Glasguensis here, nor do I see an example sentence about English classes.
> 
> But I certainly might say "I have been living in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now.
> 
> Still, I would not say something like "I have been living in that house until yesterday."


That's exactly what I am trying to understand. So  it's possible to say "I have been studying English and "I have studied English" "I have been living in this house for twenty years" and"I have lived in this house for twenty years" even if I don't live or study anymore to refer to recent actions.  Right? I was wondering "how recent" they can be? As it's wrong with "yesterday" but isn't wrong with "last week" as shown in the example written by a native speaker.. If "last week" works, Can I use them with last month, last year, two years ago, three years ago, etc? 
"She's been studying English for two years, but last week she moved to another school where they don't teach it." Written by a native speaker.
My question: "She has been studying English/has studied English, she has been living here for twenty years/she has lived here for twenty years" but last month/week/last year/two years ago she moved to another place."


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> I don't see a post from Glasguensis here, nor do I see an example sentence about English classes.
> 
> But I certainly might say "I have been living in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now.
> 
> Still, I would not say something like "I have been living in that house until yesterday."


That's Glasguensis' explanation below in quotes. I was wondering if the same applies to other situations with verbs such as "live". If after 4 pm or after the time when the person is no longer studying English he can say "I have been studying/studied/have studied, does the same apply to "I have been living/I have lived/I lived  and how recent the action should be?

My question: "She has been studying English/has studied English/ she has been living here for twenty years/she has lived here for twenty years" but last month/week/last year/two years ago she moved to another place." Can they be used with "last year/month/week/one/two years ago?



"Let's say for the sake of argument that your English classes are from 9am until 4pm. Up until 4pm on the last day you can use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous. After 4pm you can still use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous, but now you can also use the simple past (or indeed the past continuous)."


----------



## Monica238

owlman5 said:


> If you are in the process of moving out of a house, _I've lived here for twenty years _sounds normal and reasonable. After you have moved, it makes sense to use the past simple: _I lived there for twenty years. I _would use the past simple if I made the comment three hours after I moved.


Could you tell me please if the present perfect continuous also works  if I am in the process of moving out of a house, as in everything is packed and I am about to leave it and say "I have been living in this house (or here) for twenty years"?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Monica238 said:


> Could you tell me please if the present perfect continuous also works  if I am in the process of moving out of a house, as in everything is packed and I am about to leave it and say "I have been living in this house (or here) for twenty years"?


Yes, I think that would just about work. I'd be more inclined to use the simple aspect at that point, but you could use the continuous.

[In agreement with Owlman5 and Roxxxannne]


----------



## owlman5

Monica238 said:


> Could you tell me please if the present perfect continuous also works if I am in the process of moving out of a house, as in everything is packed and I am about to leave it and say "I have been living in this house (or here) for twenty years"?


I don't think that the continuous version adds anything that the simple version doesn't express, but it wouldn't sound bizarre to me if you used it. These two sentences mean pretty much the same thing to me: (1) _I have lived here for twenty years._ (2) _I have been living here for twenty years._


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> Could you tell me please if the present perfect continuous also works  if I am in the process of moving out of a house, as in everything is packed and I am about to leave it and say "I have been living in this house (or here) for twenty years"?


I think it's fine if you are looking back over the 20 years in your memory; you're still in the location of all those memories, even though you are standing on the doorstep. As soon as you close the door and get in the car and drive away, you switch tenses.


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> I think it's fine if you are looking back over the 20 years in your memory; you're still in the location of all those memories, even though you are standing on the doorstep. As soon as you close the door and get in the car and drive away, you switch tenses.


Our grammar books don't say anything about that. I think that's why there are a lot of threads about the use of present perfect continuous and present perfect simple. 
In post 9 (thanks for mentioning another possible context)  you said "I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."  
Present perfect simple is also correct, isn't it?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Let's switch examples.  The moving-house one doesn't work so well for one of the situations where I would use the continuous version:
A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been busy. I've been taking a French class.  We're reading novels by Georges Simenon.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class.  The final exam is this afternoon; I have to give an oral report on _L'Homme qui regardait passer les trains, _by Georges Simenon.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class.  It ended two days ago.  Next week I'm starting a painting class.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: Oh, I've been busy.  I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France.


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> Let's switch examples.  The moving-house one doesn't work so well for one of the situations where I would use the continuous version:
> A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
> B: I've been busy. I've been taking a French class.  We're reading novels by Georges Simenon.
> 
> A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
> B: I've been taking a French class.  The final exam is this afternoon; I have to give an oral report on _L'Homme qui regardait passer les trains, _by Georges Simenon.
> 
> A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
> B: I've been taking a French class.  It ended two days ago.  Next week I'm starting a painting class.







Roxxxannne said:


> A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
> B: Oh, I've been busy.  I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France.


If you added "It ended a few/two  days ago"  in your last example as you did with your present perfect continuous example, would you still use the present perfect simple?
As in

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?

B: Oh, I've been busy.  I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France. It ended a few/two days ago.


----------



## Forero

Monica238 said:


> B: Oh, I've been busy.  I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France. *It* ended a few/two days ago.


What do you mean by _it_?


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> What do you mean by _it_?


I meant a French class.


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> What do you mean by _it_?


I understand that  the present perfect continuous can be used if the action ended a few days ago as in here:

A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class.

And here as Roxxxannne said "I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years" if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."

But would a native speaker also use the present perfect in both sentences  if the actions ended a few days ago?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> Our grammar books don't say anything about that. I think that's why there are a lot of threads about the use of present perfect continuous and present perfect simple.
> In post 9 (thanks for mentioning another possible context)  you said "I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."
> Present perfect simple is also correct, isn't it?


It's too late for me to delete post #9, but you should ignore it.

When I said "I have been living in that house for 20 years if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago." I meant that the speaker might still use the present perfect a few days later if they hadn't really gotten used to the idea that they weren't living there any more.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> I understand that  the present perfect continuous can be used if the action ended a few days ago as in here:
> 
> A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
> B: I've been taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class.
> 
> And here as Roxxxannne said "I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years" if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."
> 
> But would a native speaker also use the present perfect in both sentences  if the actions ended a few days ago?


Please ignore the part I struck through:
"I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years" if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> It's too late for me to delete post #9, but you should ignore it.
> 
> When I said "I have been living in that house for 20 years if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago." I meant that the speaker might still use the present perfect a few days later if theyhadn;t really gotten used to the idea that they weren't living there any more.


I see now. But it's still a possible context. So unless there is a very specific context as your example present perfect continuous and present perfect simple wouldn't be used to refer to actions that ended a few days ago. Right?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> I understand that  the present perfect continuous can be used if the action ended a few days ago as in here:
> 
> A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
> B: I've been taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class.
> 
> And here as Roxxxannne said "I would only say "I have been living in that house for 20 years" if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago."
> 
> But would a native speaker also use the present perfect in both sentences  if the actions ended a few days ago?


I'm a native speaker, and the reason I used the present perfect in the sentence that begins "I've been taking ..." is because B is thinking of the French class and the painting class as things that are part of what she has been doing between the time that A saw her last and the present. She has been in the process of taking various classes, and that process is still ongoing.


----------



## Chasint

I think there is a basic misunderstanding about tenses in English. You cannot tie them down by stating precise times and dates. They aren't based on that. Their significance is* relative. *Tenses are relative to the surrounding context, and they are also relative to the temporal point of view of the speaker.

I have been living here for 20 years now. 

I lived here for 20 years now. 

I lived here for 20 years until yesterday. 

I have lived here for 20 years until yesterday. 

I could go on but I would have to write a new grammar book based on this idea of relativity in verb tenses!

__________________________________________________________

*Note*

Even native speakers don't always understand the nomenclature of the tenses, even if they know intuitively how to use them.

Present perfect is so-called because it relates to the present it does not relate to the past. Similarly, past perfect refers to the past, e.g.

_I *have* eaten nothing but baked for two weeks *now*.

I *had *eaten nothing but baked for two weeks at *that time*.

_________________________________________________________

Note also subtleties such as the following where the grammatical tenses are the same but the meaning is different. Only a single word at the end makes the difference.

_I will have eaten nothing but baked for two weeks by* then*._ [This refers to a result at a future date]

versus

_I will have eaten nothing but baked for two weeks by *now*._ [This refers to an estimate of the length of time following a past event]


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> I'm a native speaker, and the reason I used the present perfect in the sentence that begins "I've been taking ..." is because B is thinking of the French class and the painting class as things that are part of what she has been doing between the time that A saw her last and the present. She has been in the process of taking various classes, and that process is still ongoing.



The studying hasn't finished and that is why you used the present perfect continuous. Right?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> The studying hasn't finished and that is why you used the present perfect continuous. Right?



The speaker is thinking of the classes in general as a series that relates, as a whole, to the present (see Chasint's definition in #27).  The whole series is continuing, even though some parts of the series are complete.  

I think I'm following the nomenclature that Chasint's using (I learned Greek and Latin grammatical terminology before I learned the terminology for English grammar, so sometimes I make mistakes in the English Only forum).


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> The speaker is thinking of the classes in general as a series that relates, as a whole, to the present (see Chasint's definition in #27).  The whole series is continuing, even though some parts of the series are complete.
> 
> I think I'm following the nomenclature that Chasint's using (I learned Greek and Latin grammatical terminology before I learned the terminology for English grammar, so sometimes I make mistakes in the English Only forum).


Thank you so much! In post #18 you used present perfect simple in your last example only. Is it unnatural and wrong grammatically in the other examples? Or is it also possible?


----------



## Monica238

owlman5 said:


> I don't think that the continuous version adds anything that the simple version doesn't express, but it wouldn't sound bizarre to me if you used it. These two sentences mean pretty much the same thing to me: (1) _I have lived here for twenty years._ (2) _I have been living here for twenty years._


If I want to express the same idea in a similar situation. For example, I am in the process of leaving my office I am looking back over the 20 years in my  memory, I am  still in the location of all those memories, even though  I am  standing on the doorstep where I worked for 20 years. I am about to leave it. Can't I use both the present perfect continuous and present perfect simple and say "I have been working/I have worked in this office for 20 years"?


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Monica238 said:


> If I want to express the same idea in a similar situation. For example, I am in the process of leaving my office I am looking back over the 20 years in my  memory, I am  still in the location of all those memories, even though  I am  standing on the doorstep where I worked for 20 years. I am about to leave it. Can't I use both the present perfect continuous and present perfect simple and say "I have been working/I have worked in this office for 20 years"?


The situation is the same.  I think "I've worked in this office for 20 years" would be the more natural thing to say, as it emphasises the completion of those 20 years. 

The continuous aspect is also possible. You could say "I've been working.." and the meaning would be the same. However, as Owlman5 says, the continuous version doesn't add anything. So there is no particular reason to use it.


----------



## se16teddy

Monica238 said:


> If I want to express the same idea in a similar situation. For example, I am in the process of leaving my office I am looking back over the 20 years in my  memory, I am  still in the location of all those memories, even though  I am  standing on the doorstep where I worked for 20 years. I am about to leave it. Can't I use both the present perfect continuous and present perfect simple and say "I have been working/I have worked in this office for 20 years"?


Yes. I think there is a subtle difference in aspect: "I have worked here for 20 years" celebrates the *present total* number of years. "I have been working here for 20 years" thinks of the daily grind, gradual accumulation of experience, and other aspects of the *continuity over the period* - maybe a bit like a perfective/imperfective distinction.


----------



## owlman5

Monica238 said:


> Can't I use both the present perfect continuous and present perfect simple and say "I have been working/I have worked in this office for 20 years"?


Yes, I think that you can. _I_ would probably use the past simple in a remark about something that I didn't plan to continue doing: _I worked here for twenty years, but all of that is over now. _Once I decide or realize that something is finished, I don't need much time to relegate it to the past in my thoughts.


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> But I certainly might say "I have been living in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now.


Could you tell me if you are talking about the same possible use Roxxxannne mentioned in post 9? Or is it something else?


----------



## se16teddy

It looks like the same idea to me. The point is: the present perfect continuous tense places the action in a period of past time that continued to the present. It implies that the action was reasonably continuous or continual over the period; but it does not imply that the action occupied the whole of the period, including not the very last past.


----------



## Forero

Monica238 said:


> Could you tell me if you are talking about the same possible use Roxxxannne mentioned in post 9? Or is it something else?


I think post 9 is Roxxxannne's reply to my post 8, so yes, we are talking about the same type of sentence.

"I have been living" is present tense, but it is not about "living" in the present. Yes, we can add "now":

_I have been living in the same house for twenty years now._

But this does not say whether I am living in that house now. It just says that my time in that house is now twenty years. Maybe last year it was only nineteen years.

The term _perfect_ refers to the fact that my living in that house for twenty years is fact, not subject to present or future events or conditions. Once "I have lived in that house for twenty years" becomes true, it will always be true.

Present perfect is about a frame of reference, an interval of time being talked about. That interval of time ends when the present begins. In other words, the twenty years in question are "perfect", i.e. behind us. But present perfect does not say whether my life in that house is over yet.

Using "I have been living" rather than "I have lived" does not extend the "perfect" into the present. It just expresses something in progress at some point or points in the time interval. (The term _continuous_ is misleading since we don't mean to imply uninterrupted action.)

Does "I have been living ..." necessarily mean that my living there was in progress when the present began? Or shortly before the present? Not really.

So why not just say "I have lived ..."?

Maybe I do want to suggest, without actually saying so, that my living there extends beyond the twenty years per se.

Or maybe I am just thinking of "the daily grind, gradual accumulation of experience" as suggested by Se16teddy, though I would not go so far as to suggest continuity.

Maybe, just maybe, I am thinking of moments in time within the time interval in which my living there might have been seen to be in progess.

I agree with Chasint that "I could go on but I would have to write a new grammar book based on this idea of relativity in verb tenses!".


----------



## Roxxxannne

Forero said:


> I think post 9 is Roxxxannne's reply to my post 8, so yes, we are talking about the same type of sentence.


Yes.


----------



## Monica238

Forero said:


> I think post 9 is Roxxxannne's reply to my post 8, so yes, we are talking about the same type of sentence.
> 
> "I have been living" is present tense, but it is not about "living" in the present. Yes, we can add "now":
> 
> _I have been living in the same house for twenty years now._
> 
> But this does not say whether I am living in that house now. It just says that my time in that house is now twenty years. Maybe last year it was only nineteen years.
> 
> The term _perfect_ refers to the fact that my living in that house for twenty years is fact, not subject to present or future events or conditions. Once "I have lived in that house for twenty years" becomes true, it will always be true.
> 
> Present perfect is about a frame of reference, an interval of time being talked about. That interval of time ends when the present begins. In other words, the twenty years in question are "perfect", i.e. behind us. But present perfect does not say whether my life in that house is over yet.
> 
> Using "I have been living" rather than "I have lived" does not extend the "perfect" into the present. It just expresses something in progress at some point or points in the time interval. (The term _continuous_ is misleading since we don't mean to imply uninterrupted action.)
> 
> Does "I have been living ..." necessarily mean that my living there was in progress when the present began? Or shortly before the present? Not really.
> 
> So why not just say "I have lived ..."?
> 
> Maybe I do want to suggest, without actually saying so, that my living there extends beyond the twenty years per se.
> 
> Or maybe I am just thinking of "the daily grind, gradual accumulation of experience" as suggested by Se16teddy, though I would not go so far as to suggest continuity.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, I am thinking of moments in time within the time interval in which my living there might have been seen to be in progess.
> 
> I agree with Chasint that "I could go on but I would have to write a new grammar book based on this idea of relativity in verb tenses!".



I may be wrong of course, but I don't think that I should ignore and forget post 9 in which Roxxxannne said:

 "I said "I have been living in that house for 20 years if I still live there or if I moved a few days ago." I meant that the speaker might still use the present perfect a few days later if theyhadn;t really gotten used to the idea that they weren't living there any more."  

Can't I just take this use into account and in case I need to express the same idea in some context,  use it next time? Perhaps it's not a very common use , but it's possible. From a non-native speaker's perspective it's quite helpful to  know as many possible uses as possible. 
So many thanks to both of you for mentioning that. Nothing similar exists in my language.


----------



## Roxxxannne

It depends on how nostalgic and wistful you are about the place where you lived and on how much you are living in the past still. It's _sort of_ like when people talk about someone who has recently died: "He's the nicest father anyone could have ... I mean he _was_ the nicest ...".  They use the present tense at the beginning of the sentence because they still think of the person as existing in the present, and then they correct themselves.
I don't advise incorporating it into a 'toolbox' of tenses and moods to use every day or even every month.   But if someday you are feeling nostalgic a few days after you move out of a house where you lived for 20 years, then no one will think you are being ungrammatical if you use the present perfect.


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> It depends on how nostalgic and wistful you are about the place where you lived and on how much you are living in the past still. It's _sort of_ like when people talk about someone who has recently died: "He's the nicest father anyone could have ... I mean he _was_ the nicest ...".  They use the present tense at the beginning of the sentence because they still think of the person as existing in the present, and then they correct themselves.
> I don't advise incorporating it into a 'toolbox' of tenses and moods to use every day or even every month.   But if someday you are feeling nostalgic a few days after you move out of a house where you lived for 20 years, then no one will think you are being ungrammatical if you use the present perfect.


One more question if you please. Neither you nor Forero used the present perfect simple in these situations below that  we talked about. Would it be ungrammatical or is it a personal preference?


 "B: I've been taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class."


 "But I certainly might say "I have been living in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now."


----------



## Roxxxannne

They both sound grammatical to me.  I used "I've been taking a French class" instead of "I've taken a French class" because the speaker was thinking of the act of going to class meetings and doing homework as continuing over a fairly long period of time.  The same is true of the house: the person continued to live there over a long period of time.


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> They both sound grammatical to me.  I used "I've been taking a French class" instead of "I've taken a French class" because the speaker was thinking of the act of going to class meetings and doing homework as continuing over a fairly long period of time.  The same is true of the house: the person continued to live there over a long period of time.


Sorry, my question wasn't clear. Do you mean the present perfect simple is grammatical in both? I changed the sentences and used the present perfect simple instead:

"B: I have taken a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class."


"But I certainly might say "I have lived in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now."


----------



## se16teddy

The difficulty with discussing the present perfect simple tense is that the whole point of the sentence, the present consequence, is unstated and understood from the context.

“I have taken a French class” can be grammatical. Without context, we don’t know what its present tense equivalent is. In other words, without context, we have no idea what it means.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Monica238 said:


> Sorry, my question wasn't clear. Do you mean the present perfect simple is grammatical in both? I changed the sentences and used the present perfect simple instead:
> 
> "B: I have taken a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class."
> 
> 
> "But I certainly might say "I have lived in the same house for twenty years" when I don't live in that house now."


By "they both..." I meant that the present perfect simple and the p. p. continuous both sound grammatical to me.
Which tense I choose depends on what I want the sentence to imply.


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> By "they both..." I meant that the present perfect simple and the p. p. continuous both sound grammatical to me.
> Which tense I choose depends on what I want the sentence to imply.



Thank you and everyone so much  for this interesting discussion!!! 


One final question. Examples  1, 2 that I numbered refer to unfinished actions, don't they?

1. A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
B: I've been busy. I've been taking a French class. We're reading novels by Georges Simenon.

2.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class. The final exam is this afternoon; I have to give an oral report on L'Homme qui regardait passer les trains, by Georges Simenon.

3.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class.

4.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things?
B: Oh, I've been busy. I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France.


----------



## tracer2

Monica238 said:


> Thank you and everyone so much  for this interesting discussion!!
> 
> One final question. Examples  1, 2 that I numbered refer to unfinished actions, don't they?
> 
> 1. A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things *going*?
> B: I've been busy. I've been taking I'm taking a French class. We're reading novels by Georges Simenon.
> 
> 2.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things *going*?
> B: I've been taking I'm taking a French class. The final exam is this afternoon; I have to give an oral report on L'Homme qui regardait passer les trains, by Georges Simenon.
> 
> 3.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things *going*?
> B: I've been taking I was taking a French class. It ended two days ago. Next week I'm starting a painting class.
> 
> 4.A: I haven't seen you for a while. How are things *going*?
> B: Oh, I've been busy. I've taken I am taking a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France.


Notes: Many of your sentences are correct so I'm not correcting them here.  What I'm doing is showing you what a US native speaker would most likely say in an everyday, colloquial style.

1- Adding "going" to your "How are things?" in sentences 1-2-3-4 adds a touch of informality and friendliness.  How?  I don't know....it just does.
 2- Using the present perfect in sentences 1B-2B-3B is correct.....but....unnecessary.  A native speaker would most likely use what I show you in these sentences.
3 - In 3 you say:  "It ended two days ago."  Therefore, it's more logical to say "I was taking a French class"
4 - No need to use the present perfect (I've taken) (this means you aren't taking them at present)....what you mean is:  I'm taking (now)....in preparation for.....


----------



## Roxxxannne

tracer2 said:


> Notes: Many of your sentences are correct so I'm not correcting them here.  What I'm doing is showing you what a US native speaker would most likely say in an everyday, colloquial style.
> 
> 1- Adding "going" to your "How are things?" in sentences 1-2-3-4 adds a touch of informality and friendliness.  How?  I don't know....it just does.
> 2- Using the present perfect in sentences 1B-2B-3B is correct.....but....unnecessary.  A native speaker would most likely use what I show you in these sentences.
> 3 - In 3 you say:  "It ended two days ago."  Therefore, it's more logical to say "I was taking a French class"
> 4 - No need to use the present perfect (I've taken) (this means you aren't taking them at present)....what you mean is:  I'm taking (now)....in preparation for.....


Just to make it clear (and to uphold my status as a native English speaker), I am the original author of these sentences (they're in #18).  The point was to illustrate different situations in which one might use the present perfect.
A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been busy. I've been taking a French class.  We're reading novels by Georges Simenon.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class.  The final exam is this afternoon; I have to give an oral report on _L'Homme qui regardait passer les trains, _by Georges Simenon.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: I've been taking a French class.  It ended two days ago.  Next week I'm starting a painting class.

A: I haven't seen you for a while.  How are things?
B: Oh, I've been busy.  I've taken a French class and two painting classes in preparation for my trip to the south of France.


----------



## Roxxxannne

First, I didn't use 'going' because to me that implies to me, ever so slightly, that things might not be going well. 

I wrote these sentences specifically to illustrate when one _might _use the present perfect in ordinary conversation.  So I set them in the context of a conversation between two people who hadn't seen each other for a long time. B is catching A up on what has been going on in her life since the last time she saw A.  I wanted B to have been doing something that continues through a long span of time, so I decided that she would take classes, since one class (i.e. one course) could be, say, 12 weeks long.

I used the present perfect continuous in 1B and 2B because the classes began in the past and are continuing into the present. 

To me, the present perfect continuous works in 3B because the speaker is thinking of everything she has been doing from the last time the two people met until now, and the French class is part of a series of classes that is still going on.


----------



## Roxxxannne

tracer2 said:


> 4 - No need to use the present perfect (I've taken) (this means you aren't taking them at present)....what you mean is:  I'm taking (now)....in preparation for.....


This was not a mistake.  I used the present perfect simple on purpose here, because I meant to show that this is a completed action that has an effect on the present, but the action is being viewed as not taking place through a span of time.


----------



## tracer2

Roxxxannne said:


> This was not a mistake.  I used the present perfect simple on purpose here, because I meant to show that this is a completed action that has an effect on the present, but the action is being viewed as not taking place through a span of time.


As I said in #47, I'm not suggesting your entries are incorrect.  I'm simply saying what the average man on the street would most likely say in the Midwest, USA.

The average level of education in the USA is surprisingly low - an average person can in no way compare with your (Roxxxannne's) undoubted high academic achievements and position.

But at the same time, the average person can't be expected to look at, deal with and use language in the same way as a highly educated individual would.  For example, the use of the present perfect is surprisingly limited in everyday speech.  For instance, in my 3B, the sentence was "I've been taking a French class."  I said the average man would more likely say:  "I was taking a French class.".....especially when the next sentence is "It ended 2 days ago". 

Your version is not wrong....neither is mine.  I'm simply saying I suggest strongly that the average person in a Midwest USA street would likely use my version more naturally.


----------



## sound shift

tracer2 said:


> I said the average man would more likely say:  "I was taking a French class.".....especially when the next sentence is "It's ended 2 days ago".


In #48 Roxxxannne proposed "I was taking a French class. It ended 2 days ago." Not even those of us who use the present perfect a lot would use it before a point in the past, such as "two days ago".


----------



## Monica238

Roxxxannne said:


> This was not a mistake.  I used the present perfect simple on purpose here, because I meant to show that this is a completed action that has an effect on the present, but the action is being viewed as not taking place through a span of time.


Thanks a lot. Each sentence/use  is clear to me.


----------



## Roxxxannne

In everyday reality, I probably wouldn't use the present perfect in 3B either.  But as tracer2 says, it's not grammatically wrong.  I made up those sentences specifically as examples of how someone_ might_ use the present perfect.  I didn't mean them as examples of how the majority of people in the US would express those ideas. As I said in #26, "B is thinking of the French class and the painting class as things that are part of what she has been doing." She is in the middle of an ongoing process of taking classes. 

Having lived in Illinois and Indiana for a while in my life, I doubt very much that, overall, the grammar of midwesterners is much different from anywhere else in the US. I write like I'm well educated (which I am), but how I write is a tad bit more high-falutin than how I talk.


----------

