# English: present continuous and stative verbs



## dihydrogen monoxide

In English every verb except the one mentioned above can get suffix -ing when forming present continuous. So that means, forms such as wishing,wanting,needing,feeling and such are considered ungrammatical and unacceptable. 
I am curious as to why you cannot form present continuous with such verbs but you're forced to use present simple + the word now.
However, I've noticed a slight exception. Apparently the verb want can get its 
-ing suffix in but a one phrase. That is: »«Will you be wanting... I am, however not familiar with other verbs regarding these exceptions or are you allowed to say »Will you be wishing,needing...« without sounding weird.
What are the historic reasons for these verbs not to be formed with present continuous and were they ever formed with present continuous.
Also, there is another exception that I am familiar with and that is Indian English which uses these verbs in present continuous without the use of the word now. This is explainable by analogy with their verb systems.


----------



## modus.irrealis

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> In English every verb except the one mentioned above can get suffix -ing when forming present continuous. So that means, forms such as wishing,wanting,needing,feeling and such are considered ungrammatical and unacceptable.


Not only those (there's also have, be, see, equal), and not in all usages of those verbs. Also, note that it is not the form itself that is ungrammatical but its usage in the present continuous -- it's perfectly grammatical to say for example "all persons wanting to leave may do so now."




> I am curious as to why you cannot form present continuous with such verbs but you're forced to use present simple + the word now.


The now, though, is not necessary to refer to the present.




> However, I've noticed a slight exception. Apparently the verb want can get its -ing suffix in but a one phrase. That is: »«Will you be wanting... I am, however not familiar with other verbs regarding these exceptions or are you allowed to say »Will you be wishing,needing...« without sounding weird.


There are many exceptions, if you want to call them that. The basic idea is that verbs that denotes states do not form the present continuous, while verbs that denote actions do.

But verbs can mean different things in different contexts, so that leads to one kind of exception. For example, you don't say "she is being tall" but "she is being silly" is acceptable. Similarly you don't say "I'm having a car" (at least to mean that you own a car), but "I'm having dinner" is fine.

In other cases, the difference is more subtle. "I'm living" and "I live" mean the same thing to some extent but "I'm living" suggests that your living arrangements are new or are temporary or so on.

But all verbs are amenable to this kind of extension. I regularly say "I was wanting to ask you", where "want" has a somewhat more active meaning. Others though might find that usage odd. McDonald's recently had an ad campaign that used "I'm loving it" and it can sound odd to me. I think different people will have different judgements about the acceptability of some of these constructions.

For your specific example, though, I'm not sure how to explain it -- possibly "want" means the same as "have" does in "have a drink/something to eat", so its meaning is more active. But oddly, it seems limited to the future tense (although my "I was wanting to ask you" example only works for me in the past tense).



> What are the historic reasons for these verbs not to be formed with present continuous and were they ever formed with present continuous.


From what I know, the present continuous was originally used to indicate a progressive aspect (and to a large extent still does), in that it indicated that an action is going on, and so it originally was used with verbs that denoted actions while did not occur with verbs that denoted states, and you'll see that most, if not all, of the exceptions are stative verbs.

 


> Also, there is another exception that I am familiar with and that is Indian English which uses these verbs in present continuous without the use of the word now. This is explainable by analogy with their verb systems.


Yes, that's a feature I've noticed about Indian English as well. Sometimes I think that all English is headed that way, and that the continuous tense will shift to marking imperfective aspect.


----------



## Joannes

I'm kindof sleepy, but you should look up definitions of stative and dynamic verbs, preferably combined with explanations about progressive tenses. Hope this helps.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, Dihydrogen.

There is really no such rule in English, but some non-native speakers tend to overuse the present progressive/continuous form, which is less common with these verbs, and 
sometimes brings in a different meaning, especially with _be_ and _have_:

_I'm wishing for the one I love to find me today._ [Disney's _Snow White_]
_I am feeling under the weather today.
What you are hearing is not my actual voice but a synthesized sound resembling it.
__I'm having my car fixed._
_
She has a baby.
She is having a baby.
_
_He is silly.
He is being silly.
_


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

The prescriptive rule tells us: "Stative verbs cannot be used in the continuous forms". Examples of those verbs normally include the verbs  "believe, understand, think (opinion), want, hope, smell, taste, feel, sound, look, seem, appear".
Nice rule, very compact, very clear, but very far removed from reality and actual language usage. At least if I may believe the search results for "I am wanting" (985,000), "I am hoping" (6,080,000) and "I am feeling" (3,980,000).

I am tempted to conclude from this that in _real_ language (as opposed to the _prescribed_ variant), there is a marked tendency to use (at least a few) 'stative' verbs with a continuous form. 

Can anybody point out when this tendency started? Is the use of continuous forms (no matter whether it's 'correct' or 'incorrect', that's not the point of EHL anyway) a recent phenomenon?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Frank06 said:


> I am tempted to conclude from this that in _real_ language (as opposed to the _prescribed_ variant), there is a marked tendency to use (at least a few) 'stative' verbs with a continuous form.


For beginners in English, though, like Dihydrogen Monoxide, I'm not sure that it's useful to give too much weight to such rare exceptions. It is true, after all, that _most of the time_ English stative verbs are not used in the present continuous.

This is important for a speaker of a Slavic language, because the continuous is roughly equivalent to the imperfective aspect in their languages, which can mislead them into overusing the continuous in English. It certainly is a good lesson to take home that _The present imperfective of Slavic languages is often translated with the present simple in English, rather than the present continuous_.


----------



## palomnik

Frank06 said:


> Can anybody point out when this tendency started? Is the use of continuous forms (no matter whether it's 'correct' or 'incorrect', that's not the point of EHL anyway) a recent phenomenon?


 
I'm tempted to say that it is actually influence from speakers of other languages acquiring English, most particularly Irish speakers in the nineteenth century.

English in Ireland tends to use progressive forms more than standard English does, mainly because, I believe, Irish uses the verb _to be _in a lot of verbal constructions. Since Irish immigration is so widespread to so many areas of the English speaking world - the USA and Australia in particular - it has become quite generally accepted although still substandard.


----------



## Flaminius

English speaking posters,

What exactly the difference between a simple present of a stative verb and the _ing_-form for the present continuous tense, assuming that both can be observable in the same speech variety of English?

If the difference is not about tense or aspect, would that not mean that, despite the changes, stative verbs are inherently conceived in the continuous tense and don't need _-ing_ to add that meaning?


----------



## Forero

Personally, I would not advocate teaching anyone a rule none of us are taught in school and that does not represent actual usage.  Where I live, the _be_ + _-ing_ construction is well used with most of these verbs at all levels of discourse. I will make an exception for _b__e seeming_ and _be equaling_ though: at least these two must be extremely rare.

I do feel there is good reason to talk with non-native learners of English about stative verbs of various types, if such can be easily identified, and to mention that they may have a rather more dynamic meaning, if that can be appropriately explained, when used in certain constructions.

Is there a difference between a continuous meaning (?) and a progressive meaning (action(s), etc., in progress)?


----------



## Forero

Flaminius said:


> English speaking posters,
> 
> What exactly the difference between a simple present of a stative verb and the _ing_-form for the present continuous tense, assuming that both can be observable in the same speech variety of English?
> 
> If the difference is not about tense or aspect, would that not mean that, despite the changes, stative verbs are inherently conceived in the continuous tense and don't need _-ing_ to add that meaning?


That is a really good question.

I think it depends on the verb, or at least the type of stative verb, in question.

For example, "I am feeling ill" says that I feel ill but that I believe the feeling is likely temporary.  In contrast, "I feel ill" says nothing about outlook.

"You are hearing, not my voice, but a recording" says that sounds are reaching your ears and are likely triggering your perception of them.  I use this form instead of "you are listening to a recording, ..." when I have no knowledge of whether you are actively participating in the hearing.

"She is having a baby" is a special case.  It means that she is (or is going to be) giving birth.

"He is being silly" means that he is doing something silly.

"I am wishing" is what the girl in the Disney cartoon says at the Wishing Well, where she is spending time and energy in wishing for romance.


----------



## Outsider

Forero said:


> "She is having a baby" is a special case.  It means that she is (or is going to be) giving birth.


I agree that that particular example corresponds to a special construction. It's present continuous in form, but its meaning is more of a kind of future. Something that is expected to happen soon.

Unless, of course, we literally mean that the woman is giving birth to the baby as we speak...


----------



## modus.irrealis

Flaminius said:


> What exactly the difference between a simple present of a stative verb and the _ing_-form for the present continuous tense, assuming that both can be observable in the same speech variety of English?



I agree with Forero that there's not a single difference, but I do think the main difference is that the progressive tense is used when the verb is being reinterpreted as dynamic rather than stative.

To add a strange use of the progressive, with some words of perception, you can use the progressive tense with imaginary things: "She's hearing voices again" or "My fever was crazy and I was seeing all sorts of strange things last night." In general if I were relating a vision or some kind of visualization, I might use the progressive.

Sometimes, though, there doesn't seem to be any reason at all. Why are both "you look good" and "you're looking good" alright, but "you're sounding good" doesn't sound good (to me at least)?

About any rule for learners, I've always looked at it the other way and that learners need to know when it's possible to use the simple present to mean now. My experience has been that there are more errors by foreign speakers in over-using the simple present rather than the progressive. But it's by no means a clear rule to mention stative rules because the meaning of a verb is not a clear indication that English will treat the verb as stative (e.g. from what I've read, languages that do indicates a distinction between stative and dynamic usually classify "sleep" and "stand" as stative, but English does not).



Forero said:


> Is there a difference between a continuous meaning (?) and a progressive meaning (action(s), etc., in progress)?


I think the difference is that continuous includes states but progressive does not, so progressive is always continuous, but continuous is not necessarily progressive. Then there's imperfective which includes continuous but also includes habitual.


----------



## palomnik

I would say that this is really a syntactical issue and every bit as nuanced as the use of aspect in Slavic languages.  There are relatively few verbs (like "to want") that would _never _take the present progressive, there are a fair number that may or may not take it, depending on how they are used.

Verbs in this second category really need to be covered in detail by a native teacher or a really good text so that the student can make up his or her own mind about the differences involved. In my erstwhile career as a TESOL teacher we discussed individual verbs and what their usages were on a case-by-case basis.

Cute, flippant advertising using phrases like "I'm loving it" didn't make my job any easier.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Outsider said:


> For beginners in English, though, like Dihydrogen Monoxide, I'm not sure that it's useful to give too much weight to such rare exceptions. It is true, after all, that _most of the time_ English stative verbs are not used in the present continuous.
> 
> This is important for a speaker of a Slavic language, because the continuous is roughly equivalent to the imperfective aspect in their languages, which can mislead them into overusing the continuous in English. It certainly is a good lesson to take home that _The present imperfective of Slavic languages is often translated with the present simple in English, rather than the present continuous_.


 
I don't wish to sound rude but I would just like to point out that I am not a beginner in English. Question was asked because  I was interested in as to why is it so and I believe I've got the information I need. I agree with your statement that Slavic people tend to overuse the continous. I'm not a novice in English looking for rules but I was curious and wanted to know of this English syntactical feature. Because it is interesting to me that English is one of the languages known to me, however, I could be wrong, that has a verb construction that indicates that you or something is doing something at a present moment. 
I know about stative verbs aren't used in present continuous.


----------



## Outsider

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I don't wish to sound rude but I would just like to point out that I am not a beginner in English.


You got me. I just couldn't think of a better word than "beginner". I was already using "learn", so "learner" didn't sound good.


----------



## Joannes

Forero said:


> Is there a difference between a continuous meaning (?) and a progressive meaning (action(s), etc., in progress)?


In general terms continuous aspect is 'non-habitual imperfective aspect', progressive aspect is a subcategory that denotes 'continuous aspect of non-stative verbs'. I wouldn't suspect languages to both formally mark them in distinctive ways, though.


----------



## Flaminius

Joannes said:


> In general terms continuous aspect is 'non-habitual imperfective aspect', progressive aspect is a subcategory that denotes 'continuous aspect of non-stative verbs'. I wouldn't suspect languages to both formally mark them in distinctive ways, though.


Reading the thread so far, I presume what _-ing_ suffix does for stative verbs is to provide progressive aspects.


modus.irrealis said:


> I agree with Forero that there's not a single difference, but I do think the main difference is that the progressive tense is used when the verb is being reinterpreted as dynamic rather than stative.


This reinterpretation, therefore, makes it possible for a stative verb to express a different continuous aspect with _-ing_ from that it expressed before the interpretation shift.

Here I make an assumption.  Judging from many comments that stative verbs do not take _-ing_ suffix because they are already progressive, the aspect of stative verbs may be very similar to that of non-stative verbs suffixed with _-ing_.  If that is the case, a stative verb with _-ing_ has an aspect different, however slightly, from that of a non-stative verb with _-ing_.



> To add a strange use of the progressive, with some words of perception, you can use the progressive tense with imaginary things: "She's hearing voices again" or "My fever was crazy and I was seeing all sorts of strange things last night." In general if I were relating a vision or some kind of visualization, I might use the progressive.
> 
> Sometimes, though, there doesn't seem to be any reason at all. Why are both "you look good" and "you're looking good" alright, but "you're sounding good" doesn't sound good (to me at least)?


I am wondering if all the cases you have mentioned can be situated in an aspect for "progressive actions that are expected for a very short time" (linguists can sweat blood to come up with a single xyz-tive term for it   ).  Regardless of the physical or mental health of the speaker, the voices and the things are expected only for a short time.  This definition is able also to account for the ungrammaticality of "*You are sounding good."  Since one's speech (not one's ability to make utterances) is expected to be more ephemeral than one's looks, the new progressive aspect for statives may be bad at ease with "to look."


----------



## Forero

I don't think "You are sounding good" is ungrammatical, but it is unusual.  I have no problem with:

_He may not be looking his best, but he is sure sounding better today than yesterday._

My interpretation of this is that, on the occasions I have heard him speak, he has sounded better today than yesterday.

I don't think "he is feeling better" is particularly Irish phraseology, but a nineteenth-century Irishman might say something like:

_Don't ye be atelling me he's aflirtin' with ye again._

In this case, the _be_ + _-ing_ constructions seem to be stressing the poor chap's unabating interest in a way the simpler verb forms would not.


----------



## wonderment

Flaminius said:


> What exactly the difference between a simple present of a stative verb and the _ing_-form for the present continuous tense, assuming that both can be observable in the same speech variety of English?
> 
> If the difference is not about tense or aspect, would that not mean that, despite the changes, stative verbs are inherently conceived in the continuous tense and don't need _-ing_ to add that meaning?





Forero said:


> Is there a difference between a continuous meaning (?) and a progressive meaning (action(s), etc., in progress)?


The terms seem to be used interchangeably in English grammar. As for the present _tense_ with continous/progressive _aspect_, there are two components to this aspect: process (action that is in progress, on-going now) and duration (the state or condition has an endpoint, is not permanent). Stative verbs tend to be static and apply to states that are not changing or likely to change; this is why they don’t usually take the present continuous/progressive form. But as we’ve seen, it’s not uncommon for a nominally “stative” verb to take on non-stative functions. 

To add to Forero’s observations in post#10:

“I’m feeling happy” and “you are being silly” refer to a states which are likely temporary; they have a duration with an endpoint. They are also momentarily in progress, not static. By contrast, “being tall” is a property that is likely to be permanent. That is why “I am tall” is fine, but “I am being tall” sounds odd. 

The simple present “you look good” can mean “you look good (now).” Or it can mean that you’re generally attractive, as a permanent attribute. But “you’re looking good” means that you are especially beautiful on this particular occasion, and that condition may change. I think the same can be said for “you’re sounding good.”

“I am wishing (upon a star)” refers to an action that is in progress; it’s happening right now. I think this helps to explain the corollary (in post #1) that if “you cannot form the present continuous with [static verbs]...you’re forced to use the present simple + ‘now’.” “I wish _now_” would be equivalent to “I am wishing.” 

In short, there is no hard and fast rule. A verb is not of necessity inherently stative or dynamic; it is stative or dynamic depending on context.



Forero said:


> _Don't ye be atelling me he's aflirtin' with ye again._
> 
> In this case, the _be_ + _-ing_ constructions seem to be stressing the poor chap's unabating interest in a way the simpler verb forms would not.


Also as a narrative technique, the progressive aspect renders a description more vivid and immediate than the simple form: compare “he’s flirting with you” with “he flirts with you.” Similarly, “she’s hearing voices again” with “she hears voices again.”


----------



## Forero

wonderment said:


> Also as a narrative technique, the progressive aspect renders a description more vivid and immediate than the simple form: compare “he’s flirting with you” with “he flirts with you.” Similarly, “she’s hearing voices again” with “she hears voices again.”


I agree with everything you are saying, Wonderment.

I want to add that "she's hearing voices again" is more likely to mean that she has again started repeatedly hearing voices than "she hears voices again."  This is in a sense a different aspect than a continuous "action" observed at a moment of time.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Flaminius said:


> Here I make an assumption.  Judging from many comments that stative verbs do not take _-ing_ suffix because they are already progressive, the aspect of stative verbs may be very similar to that of non-stative verbs suffixed with _-ing_.  If that is the case, a stative verb with _-ing_ has an aspect different, however slightly, from that of a non-stative verb with _-ing_.


Well in some cases it's simply a matter of the verb having more than one meaning, where it's the non-stative meaning that can take the progressive, e.g. have = possess or eat or see = perceive or date. It's examples like this that I had in mind when I thought that this reinterpretation is the main use of the progressive with stative verbs. I think it's especially clear with the verb _be_ + adjective where the progressive will be reinterpreted as an activity, e.g. I'm silly = I am by nature a silly person, I'm being silly = I'm acting silly; he's a good boy = he is by nature a good boy, he's being a good boy = he's behaving well.

A similar thing happens in English with the imperative which is also normally not used with stative verbs unless they're interpretable as non-stative, e.g. be silly! or be a good boy! is okay but be tall! sounds wrong.

So I'm not sure that the progressive used with stative verbs has a different meaning than with non-stative verbs. I think it's just the main use of the progressive with non-stative verbs simply doesn't apply to stative verbs but all the minor uses of the progressive can be used with either to various degrees.



> I am wondering if all the cases you have mentioned can be situated in an aspect for "progressive actions that are expected for a very short time" (linguists can sweat blood to come up with a single xyz-tive term for it   ).


I think temporariness is part of it but it can't be the whole story. For example, the progressive can combine with the perfect in sentences like "I've been living here for over fifty years." Then there's usages like "she's always buying new shoes" (where I'm not sure what the progressive adds beyond some kind of emotional overtone) which aren't temporary either. Perhaps the progressive marks instability of some kind, which will normally imply lasting for a short time (although this doesn't seem to apply to the perfect progressive).



> Regardless of the physical or mental health of the speaker, the voices and the things are expected only for a short time.  This definition is able also to account for the ungrammaticality of "*You are sounding good."  Since one's speech (not one's ability to make utterances) is expected to be more ephemeral than one's looks, the new progressive aspect for statives may be bad at ease with "to look."


But it's "look" that takes the progressive without any problems in English.

And in general, I'm not sure we can always find semantic motivations for this kind of thing. One reason is that judgments about grammaticality aren't the same for all speakers, and then there seem to be some verbs that resist the progressive no matter what -- I can't find a context where "I'm knowing" would be acceptable even though I can with "I'm understanding" or "I'm recognizing."


----------

