# FR: have slept / have been sleeping



## ramaud

bonsoir, 
j'ai une "typically non-native question" sur cette différence de sens (de point de vue) entre ces 2 phrases.

a- I have slept for 2 hours.
b- I have been sleeping for 2 hours.

est-ce que les 2 sont correctes? y-a t-il une nuance? est-ce une question de contexte?

(the way I see it is - in a, 'I've slept....' would mean that I'm no longer tired : résultat de cette sieste - whereas in b, 'I've been sleeping....' would emphasize the activity I've had for the last 2 hours without mentionning that I feel fit now!)

am I getting close?? or is there more to it?
thanks


----------



## marget

ramaud said:


> bonsoir,
> j'ai une "typically non-native question" sur cette différence de sens (de point de vue) entre ces 2 phrases.
> 
> a- I have slept for 2 hours.
> b- I have been sleeping for 2 hours.
> 
> est-ce que les 2 sont correctes? y-a t-il une nuance? est-ce une question de contexte?
> 
> (the way I see it is - in a, 'I've slept....' would mean that I'm no longer tired : résultat de cette sieste - whereas in b, 'I've been sleeping....' would emphasize the activity I've had for the last 2 hours without mentionning that I feel fit now!)


 

To me, I've been sleeping for the last two hours means that I am still asleep.  Therefore, it seems impossible to make such a statement since the person who says it must still be sleeping.  In French, I think it would be  "Ça fait deux heures que je dors"... et je dors toujours, non ?


----------



## ramaud

> To me, I've been sleeping for the last two hours means that I am still asleep. Therefore, it seems impossible to make such a statement since the person who says it must still be sleeping. In French, I think it would be "Ça fait deux heures que je dors"... et je dors toujours, non ?


 

so the second sentence doesn't seem correct to you!?

but if you changed to "he", would my explanation make sense??
 - he's slept for 2 hours ( he's awake now, and feels fit!)
 - he has been sleeping for 2 hours ( and still is!!)

is this the difference?? the fact that he is still doing it?


----------



## marget

ramaud said:


> To me, I've been sleeping for the last two hours means that I am still asleep. Therefore, it seems impossible to make such a statement since the person who says it must still be sleeping. In French, I think it would be "Ça fait deux heures que je dors"... et je dors toujours, non ?


 

so the second sentence doesn't seem correct to you!?

but if you changed to "he", would my explanation make sense??
- he's slept for 2 hours ( he's awake now, and feels fit!)
- he has been sleeping for 2 hours ( and still is!!)

is this the difference?? the fact that he is still doing it?[/quote]

Yes, that's the difference.  The subject doesn't make any difference.


----------



## ramaud

> To me, I've been sleeping for the last two hours means that I am still asleep. Therefore, it seems impossible to make such a statement since the person who says it must still be sleeping. *In French, I think it would be "Ça fait deux heures que je dors"... et je dors toujours, non ?*


 

so it brings another question!! (sorry  )

if you translate "I've been sleeping for 2 hours" by "je dors depuis 2 heures" which I totally agree with!!
how would you translate "I've slept for 2 hours"?? "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures"?? because I thought that "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures" would have been translated by "I slept for 2 hours"..............

I feel like I don't understand anything any more!!
heeeeelp


----------



## marget

ramaud said:


> so it brings another question!! (sorry  )
> 
> if you translate "I've been sleeping for 2 hours" by "je dors depuis 2 heures" which I totally agree with!!
> how would you translate "I've slept for 2 hours"?? "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures"?? because I thought that "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures" would have been translated by "I slept for 2 hours"..............


 
I think it's grammatically correct to say "I slept for two hours", not "I've slept for two hours" because it's over.  It bears no relation to the present.


----------



## disturb_me

ramaud said:


> if you translate "I've been sleeping for 2 hours" by "je dors depuis 2 heures" which I totally agree with!!
> how would you translate "I've slept for 2 hours"?? "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures"?? because I thought that "j'ai dormi pendant 2 heures" would have been translated by "I slept for 2 hours"..............
> 
> I feel like I don't understand anything any more!!
> heeeeelp


 
The thing is, in English we have 2 past tenses whereas in French you only have the one. We have the preterite and the perfect but you only use the perfect... The difference is context...

I've slept for two hours this afternoon... but I still feel tired. - Something you'd probably say later on that same day.

BUT

I slept for 2 hours yesterday afternoon but I still felt tired. - Something you'd say today about yesterday...

Any help?


----------



## ramaud

sorry to insist (that will be my last question!!)

does this mean that using the present perfect tense with 'for' is incorrect unless you use the '-ing' form?

e.g. you'd say "I've been living here for 10 years" (can't you say "I've lived here for 10 years"?)

in the same way, you'd say "I've been playing football since I was 10" but would it be incorrect to say "I've played football since I was 10"?

so do you need to use the '-ing' form unless it's a verb which doesn't express an activity that can still be going on?


----------



## disturb_me

ramaud said:


> sorry to insist (that will be my last question!!)
> 
> does this mean that using the present perfect tense with 'for' is incorrect unless you use the '-ing' form?
> 
> e.g. you'd say "I've been living here for 10 years" (can't you say "I've lived here for 10 years"?)
> 
> in the same way, you'd say "I've been playing football since I was 10" but would it be incorrect to say "I've played football since I was 10"?
> 
> so do you need to use the '-ing' form unless it's a verb which doesn't express an activity that can still be going on?


 
Personally I would say both, depending on the context but I'm not really sure what the context is... Maybe something like this:

"How long have you lived in Bordeaux?" "I've been living here for 10 years."

OR

"I've lived in Bordeaux for 10 years and I've never seen anything like this before!"

Have I helped?


----------



## ramaud

disturb_me said:


> Personally I would say both, depending on the context but I'm not really sure what the context is... Maybe something like this:
> 
> "How long have you lived in Bordeaux?" "I've been living here for 10 years."
> 
> OR
> 
> "I've lived in Bordeaux for 10 years and I've never seen anything like this before!"
> 
> Have I helped?


 
I'm sure I totally get the difference between those 2
- the first might be to emphasize that you're still living there and that it's been going on for 10 years
- the second would be to mention that you live in Bordeaux but to focus on something else (??)

thanks a lot for your help anyway (your first message helped me a lot too!)


----------



## disturb_me

Yeah probably, but both are grammatically correct.


----------



## ramaud

disturb_me said:


> Yeah probably, but both are grammatically correct.


 

ok, both are gramatically correct but which one would you use in this context?

"I'm really tired. I've played / I've been playing soccer all afternoon."

or 

"take off your shoes! can't you see I've cleaned / I've been cleaning the floor?"


----------



## disturb_me

The first sentence I'd say "been playing" and the second sentence I'd say "I've cleaned the floor."

I think it just depends on what you're saying, really sorry I can't be more exact...


----------



## jann

Ramaud, there are two choices here, and I think it best to talk about them separately.

* 1.*  First choice: present perfect vs. preterit
If you choose to use the present perfect, you are emphasizing that the action or condition is *relevent right now in the present* to what you are saying.  Perhaps it is even still true or still going one.  If you choose to use the preterit, you decoupling that action or condition from the present.  It is not relevant.

* 2.* Second choice: "normal" vs. continuous (-ing) - still in the past tense
Using a normal tense focuses more on a fact or a result.  Using a continuous tense focuses more on the *action or the condition*.

This gives us four possible combinations:
(preterit)
(present perfect)
(past continuous)
(present perfect continuous)

_ I slept for 2 hrs._ = Definite duration, over, in the past --> preterit
_ I have slept for 2 hrs _ = I can't imagine a way that 2hrs of sleep would be relevant to the present in such a way as to make you choose the present perfect.
_ I was sleeping for 2 hrs _ = definite duration does not pair with the continuous
_ I have been sleeping for 2 hrs_.  = present perfect continuous implies that you are still sleeping, so you wouldn't be talking.

_ He slept for 2 hrs._ = Definite duration, over, in the past --> preterit
_ He has slept for 2 hrs._ = and he is still asleep, this is therefore still true and relevant in the present for the speaker, focus on the fact that he is asleep --> present perfect
_ He was sleeping for 2 hrs._  = definite duration does not pair with the past continuous
_ He has been sleeping for 2 hrs._ = and he is still asleep, still true and relevant in the present for the speaker, focus on the act of sleeping --> present perfect continuous

_ I've played soccer since I was 10_ = and now I am 20 and I still play soccer every week, so this is still true and relevant in the present --> present perfect.
_ I've played soccer all afternoon_  = how is this still relevant in the present?  it isn't, because it's not afternoon any more, or because you've stopped playing, etc.  
_I've played soccer all afternoon every day this week_ = the week isn't over yet, and you are emphasizing that this condition (the condition of being a person who has played soccer every afternoon) is still true and relevant to you in the present moment --> present perfect
_ I was playing soccer all afternoon._ --> and now I have stopped, emphasis on the continuous nature of the game and the fact that it is now over.  Good answer when you come home a bit late having been gone since lunch and your mother says, "There you are!  So what were you doing?" Perhaps more natural if you omit "all afternoon," but this expression is not of sufficiently definite duration to prevent using the continuous
_ I have been playing soccer all afternoon_. --> and I have only just stopped right this instant, so it is still relevant to me in the present, emphasis on this relevance and on the continuous nature of the game.  Good answer when your mother calls you on your cell phone to ask where you are and what you are doing, and you have to stop the pick-up game with your friends in order to answer her call.

_Can't you see I cleaned?_ = and you're done, the floor is clean, it's a fact, it's over, very natural.
_Can't you see I've cleaned? _= not as natural, but possible in a situation like "I've cleaned since you last were here" which emphasizes the new fact (=clean house) that is still true and relevant in the present
_Can't you see I was cleaning the floor?_ = but I'm not cleaning any more, because you interrupted me.  Points out that you were in the middle of that activity when you were interrupted.
_Can't you see I've been cleaning the floor?_ = maybe you are still cleaning or maybe you are taking a break, but the job isn't finished yet.  Therefore it is still relevant in the present.  The continuous focuses on the process of cleaning.


As you say, these sorts of tense choice difficulties are very common among non-native speakers.  Perhaps these threads will help you, or the links in this post from the Resources sub-forum.


----------

