# present perfect continuous tense



## ortonn

Hello,

One of my friend says that in present perfect continuous tense if the time period is not mentioned then it means that the action has just stopped..But i dont agree with his statement..i believe that the continuity of the action is totally independent of the time period..
For example.. i have been playing football
My friend says " the action has stopped recently because the time period is not mentioned.. Had it been i have been playing football for 2 hours then it would mean that action is still continuing "
but i say " the continuity of the action is independent of the time period..it can mean both depending on the context..Maybe he is still playing or maybe he has just stopped playing "
So who is right ?? Me or my friend ?? I'm too confused.

The reason I am asking this question is that present perfect continuous tense is used for an action which started in the the past and is still continuing or for an action which have stopped recently...So how do we get to know that the action has just stopped or is still continuing ? Waiting for your reply.


----------



## sandpiperlily

You are right -- it depends on the context.

"I have been playing football" -- it's not clear whether she is still playing football.
"I have been playing football for two hours" -- she's probably still playing.
"I have been playing football on weekends, but I can't today because I'm out of town" -- she's not playing now


----------



## e2efour

Welcome to the forum, ortonn.

I agree that it is best determined by the context. I also think that your friend is partly right.

You can normally assume that the action is complete unless there is a time expression indicating duration.
The second of sandpiperlily's examples contains a reference to duration. I disagree about the first unless it is an answer to the question _What have you been doing since I saw you this morning?_

Examples without a relevant time expression, i.e. the action has stopped:
1) _Your eyes are red. Have you been crying?_ (Clearly the person has stopped crying)
2) You look out of the window when you wake up and say _Look! It's been snowing. _(It is no longer snowing. If it was, you would say _It's snowing._)
3) _Why is your lip bleeding? Have you been fighting?_
4) _Why are you tired? Have you been decorating the kitchen?_


----------



## ortonn

Thanks a lot for replying..

e22four,  

I agree with your view..but in your mentioned examples the results are clearly visible..i.e For example -
1)  I'm tired because i have been running..(Clearly this means that the person is not running at the moment of speaking)
2) Why are you wet ?  I'm wet because i have been watering the garden...(In this also he/she is not gardening at the moment of speaking)

What if the examples are -
1) Jerry has been relying on a pay rise to pay his student loan..(Does this mean that he is still relying or has just stopped relying or can it mean both ?? )
2) Americans have been spending billions of dollars on space research..(Does this mean that they are still spending or have they just stopped spending or can it mean both ??)


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

1) "Jerry" & 2) Americans", without further context, would imply that the depending on and the spending continue, for me. Somehow, they don't "feel" the same as your first two sentences in post # 4, which are the "Present Perfect continuous to explain a recent finished activity of which the result is seen in the present" use of this tense. 
And welcome to the forum, ortonn!


----------



## e2efour

ortonn said:


> What if the examples are -
> 1) Jerry has been relying on a pay rise to pay his student loan..(Does this mean that he is still relying or has just stopped relying or can it mean both ?? )
> 2) Americans have been spending billions of dollars on space research..(Does this mean that they are still spending or have they just stopped spending or can it mean both ??)



It may be due to the nature of these verbs, which often have no end in sight, unlike crying or snowing.
So it's not always possible to say whether or not the action is continuing.

The past perfect progressive can also have a habitual meaning, e.g. _I have been spending a lot of money in this store every week._
The same sentence without _every week_ could also mean something similar.


----------



## ortonn

e2efour said:


> It may be due to the nature of these verbs, which often have no end in sight, unlike crying or snowing.
> So it's not always possible to say whether or not the action is continuing.
> 
> The past perfect progressive can also have a habitual meaning, e.g. _I have been spending a lot of money in this store every week._
> The same sentence without _every week_ could also mean something similar.



So basically two points i concluded from your reply - 

1) You mean to say that if the time period is not mentioned in present perfect continuous tense then it can mean that either the action is still continuing or the action has     stopped recently..The continuity or the completion of the action is determined by the context.. Right ??

2) For example - Jerry has been relying on a pay rise to pay his student loan..It means that Jerry might still be relying on a pay rise, or he might have just received the pay rise. We cant tell from this      sentence..To tell about the completion or continuity, it depends on the context. (Am i right about this example ?? )

Thanks


----------



## e2efour

In a sentence like _She has been crying_, this is something you have to stop doing at some point. Without any context, it means that she is not crying now.
_She has been crying since 2 o'clock_. This means she is still crying.
_She has been crying every Tuesday_ is a different kind of sentence. It seems to describe habitual action, and it does not make clear whether or not she is crying at the moment.

I think that a verb like _spend_ used in the present perfect continuous is either a habitual action or has no time reference to indicate whether the action has stopped or not. If America has been spending billions on space research, we cannot tell whether or not it is still doing so. _Is he spending money_? is not like _Is it snowing?_ I don't think you can compare _He has been spending money_ with _It has been snowing._
We can still say _Jerry has been relying on a pay rise to pay his student loan_ even if he has paid his student loan. If we want to emphasise that he no longer relies on a rise, we would probably say _Jerry has stopped relying on a pay rise.

_I am not sure exactly why, but I agree with ain'ttranslationfun? that the two sentences in #3 are different.

If there is any doubt, you have to go by the context.


----------



## ortonn

Sir you please go through the two links below - 
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/present_perfect_progressive_tense.htm
http://www.eslcafe.com/grammar/present_perfect_progressive_tense03.html


Both the links contradict each other.
One says that if the time period is not mentioned in present perfect continuous tense then it means that the action has stopped recently. 
Ex- Joe has been studying at State University.
(Joe isn't studying there now, but he was studying there in the very recent past.)

The other link says that if the time period is not mentioned, then the action might be still continuing or might have just stopped.
Ex- Amanda has been relying on a pay rise to pay her student loan.
(Amanda might still be relying on a pay rise, or she might have received the pay rise. You can't tell from this sentence. However, this information is just setting the scene for some more information about Amanda's present situation.)

So which one is correct ??


----------



## e2efour

There is no simple rule. I don't agree with the link which says that _Joe has been studying at State University_ "suggests that the activity was happening (in progress) in the very recent past" and "he isn't studying there now" [which I understand to mean that he is studying somewhere else]. This may be true, but note the use of "suggests". Without any context it is not easy to decide one way or another. He (or she) could still be studying there. For example, "What is Joe doing now? He's been studying at the university." 
With this context, he is still studying there. But _study_ is a different kind of verb to _cry. _"He has been crying" = he is not crying now. This refers to the present moment.
"He  has been studying there" may not refer to the "here and now" -- it may be going on in the background all the time but in reality it may not be taking place at this particular moment. For example, He may be  having breakfast and not studying. But he is still studying at the  university. That is why studying or spending money are not "here and now" verbs. If you say to someone _He's spending a lot of money at the moment_, this does not have to mean that he is spending it here and now. He may be sitting down watching TV.

So I think that the type of verb is important, and where you cannot tell from the verb, you must decide from the context.

One has to make a judgment about the context and different people will think of different contexts.
Also the link you gave is a very brief explanation of the grammar. In such a short space it is easy to state something which is not always true.

The case of Amanda is as I said in #8.


----------



## ortonn

As you said that the sentence "He has been crying" suggests that he is not crying now...I don't agree to this..
I believe that this sentence suggests that he may still be crying or might have just stopped crying..Because there is not any context available to support that he has just stopped crying..
And if the sentence were "His eyes are red because he has been crying" then it would mean that he has just stopped crying because the result ( red eyes) of an action (crying) is clearly visible.

So to sum up all our discussions, can I say that if the time period is not mentioned in a present perfect continuous sentence, then the action might be still continuing or might have just stopped..???


----------



## ortonn

Sir i am too confused regarding this tense..
You just tell me that if suppose the sentence is - I have been studying. Does this sentence means that is he still studying or has he just stopped studying or could it be both depending on the context ???


----------



## e2efour

_I have been studying_ does not tell you whether I am still studying or not. The context will help you decide.
For example, you don't normally say this except in answer to a question.
The verb _study_ has two meanings:
1) Like _cry _(something you are either doing or not). _I am tired -- I have been studying_ probably means that you have stopped studying when you say this, e.g. you have been studying for the last six hours.
2) It can mean to attend a course at university, i.e. you are currently a student. Someone asks you what you have been doing. You reply _I have been studying. _If you mean you are at university, this activity is ongoing. But the person who asks the question cannot tell what you mean unless you say something like _I have been studying for the last six months. _i.e. you are still studying.
This is what I mean by saying that it depends on the context. It is not clear whether you are using the verb as in 1) or 2).

Does that help?



ortonn said:


> As you said that the sentence "He has been  crying" suggests that he is not crying now...I don't agree to this..
> I believe that this sentence suggests that he may still be crying or might have just stopped crying.
> 
> So to sum up all our discussions, can I say that if the time period is  not mentioned in a present perfect continuous sentence, then the action  might be still continuing or might have just stopped..???



_He has been crying_ does not mean _He is still crying _unless the context tells you this(e.g._ for the last ten minutes_).If the time period is not mentioned, you cannot always assume that the action has stopped.


----------



## ortonn

Sir could you give me a PPC sentence in which there is no mention of time reference and the action is still continuing ???
PPC - present perfect continuous


----------



## e2efour

"She has been living in Moscow."
"He has been sleeping on the sofa." (habitual)
"She has been thinking of buying a car."
"They have been learning to swim."
"I have been suffering from a nasty cough."


----------



## flamboyant lad

I think when we use this tense for an action that has already finished then it tells us the continuity of the activity is emphasized as *an explanation of something. *e.g.

Why are your clothes so wet?
I've been watering the garden.

So I think this tells us that in this case context is must otherwise we'll think the action is still continuing.


----------



## flamboyant lad

e2efour said:


> Welcome to the forum, ortonn.
> 
> I agree that it is best determined by the context. I also think that your friend is partly right.
> 
> You can normally assume that the action is complete unless there is a time expression indicating duration.
> The second of sandpiperlily's examples contains a reference to duration. I disagree about the first unless it is an answer to the question _What have you been doing since I saw you this morning?_
> 
> Examples without a relevant time expression, i.e. the action has stopped:
> 1) _Your eyes are red. Have you been crying?_ (Clearly the person has stopped crying)
> 2) You look out of the window when you wake up and say _Look! It's been snowing. _(It is no longer snowing. If it was, you would say _It's snowing._)
> 3) _Why is your lip bleeding? Have you been fighting?_
> 4) _Why are you tired? Have you been decorating the kitchen?_



All of these sentences are fine except sentence no. 2

It should be like,
Everything is covered in snow so it has been snowing.


----------



## ortonn

e2efour said:


> "She has been living in Moscow."
> "He has been sleeping on the sofa." (habitual)
> "She has been thinking of buying a car."
> "They have been learning to swim."
> "I have been suffering from a nasty cough."




Thanks for your reply..
So all these above examples mean that the action is still continuing like (she is still living in Moscow, still sleeping on a sofa, still thinking of buying a car, still learning to swim, still suffering from a nasty cough ).. Right ??


----------



## Forero

The present perfect continuous is not about continuity at the present moment but about continuity at some time or times within an interval that extends up to and ends with the present.

For example, "I have been playing football" does not say whether I still play football. It takes further context to say one way or the other: "I have been playing football ever since I moved here" (most likely I still play), "I have been playing football off and on since I moved here, but I can no longer play because of a knee injury" (I don't still play).

Of course the type of verb is part of the context, so "I have been enjoying my stay" suggests (but does not actually say) that I am still enjoying my stay, and "I have been running a mile" suggests, but does not really say, that I have completed that mile.

And context also includes things that are not being expressed in words:

Person getting out of a car: "I have been driving for a thousand miles straight."


----------



## ortonn

I totally agree with you but what i'm asking is that if suppose the time period is not mentioned in the sentence, then can the sentence indicate that the action is still continuing ???? For example - American have been spending a lot of money on space research.. Does this sentence indicate that the Americans are still spending on the space research OR Does it indicate that the American have just stopped spending on the space research ?? 

Awaiting your reply


----------



## e2efour

ortonn said:


> For example - American have been spending a lot of money on space research.. Does this sentence indicate that the Americans are still spending on the space research OR Does it indicate that the American have just stopped spending on the space research ??


You have had two replies to this question (in #4 and #6). It probably suggests that billions are still being spent, but it is not clear without a context.
If the spending has just stopped, it could be made clear by saying _America is no longer spending billions on space research_ or_ America has just stopped spending billions on space research._
But, more importantly, it is not the same as saying _She has been crying_ because of the different kind of verb.


----------



## ortonn

Forero said:


> The present perfect continuous is not about continuity at the present moment but about continuity at some time or times within an interval that extends up to and ends with the present.
> 
> For example, "I have been playing football" does not say whether I still play football. It takes further context to say one way or the other: "I have been playing football ever since I moved here" (most likely I still play), "I have been playing football off and on since I moved here, but I can no longer play because of a knee injury" (I don't still play).
> 
> Of course the type of verb is part of the context, so "I have been enjoying my stay" suggests (but does not actually say) that I am still enjoying my stay, and "I have been running a mile" suggests, but does not really say, that I have completed that mile.
> 
> And context also includes things that are not being expressed in words:
> 
> Person getting out of a car: "I have been driving for a thousand miles straight."




I totally agree with you but what i'm asking is that if suppose the time period is not mentioned in the sentence, then can the sentence indicate that the action is still continuing ???? For example - American have been spending a lot of money on space research.. Does this sentence indicate that the Americans are still spending on the space research OR Does it indicate that the American have just stopped spending on the space research ?? 

Awaiting your reply


----------



## ortonn

e2efour said:


> "She has been living in Moscow."
> "He has been sleeping on the sofa." (habitual)
> "She has been thinking of buying a car."
> "They have been learning to swim."
> "I have been suffering from a nasty cough."




So all these above examples mean that the action is still continuing like (she is still living in Moscow, still sleeping on a sofa, still thinking of buying a car, still learning to swim, still suffering from a nasty cough )
 YES OR NO ??


----------



## e2efour

It's not a black or white question; the context is all important.
I think that that the action is more likely to be continuing, but it is possible to create contexts where the actions have stopped.

The point is that if there is no context, the listener or reader will have to create one.
I find it difficult to imagine that she is no longer living in Moscow in the first example.
Context where the action is no longer continuing:
_She has been thinking of buying a car, but she's just changed her mind.
I've been suffering from a nasty cough, but I'm feeling better now.
They have been learning to swim, but the baths have just been closed for maintenance._ (There is, of course, a sense in which they are still learning.)


----------



## ortonn

Sir, what i'm asking is that if suppose there is no mention of time period and there is no context available, then is there any possibility that the action is still continuing ???

For example - _She has been thinking of buying a car. (Is there any possibility that she is still thinking of buying a car ??)

_


----------



## e2efour

Without a context it's impossible to tell whether she is no longer thinking of buying a car.
I gave you a context where the action has stopped in #24.
In _She doesn't like travelling by bus. She's been thinking of buying a car_, the action is continuing.

If you meet a friend in the street and he or she says to you "I saw Julie yesterday. She's been thinking of buying a car."
Would you not assume that she is still thinking of doing this?


----------



## ortonn

Yes sir i know that context plays a vital role in determining the continuity of an action but what i have been asking is that if the time period is not mentioned then can the sentence indicate that the action is still continuing..?  Because in one of the blogs it was written that if the time period is not mentioned then it means that the action has just stopped..they say that its a thumb rule..And i don't agree to this because if suppose the example says that - he has been living in Moscow. Then irrespective of the context it suggests that he still lives there..So i think that this example contradicts the point which was mentioned in the blog..


----------



## Forero

ortonn said:


> I totally agree with you but what i'm asking is that if suppose the time period is not mentioned in the sentence, then can the sentence indicate that the action is still continuing ????


Only with context, verbal or nonverbal. A sentence can suggest that something is continuing by using references to "here" (rather than "there") or "my friend" (rather than "my former friend"):

_I have been living here with my friend for eight days._
_I have been living there for eight days and am glad to be back home._

But suggesting something is not the same as saying it. Further context can still make a difference:

_I have been living here with my friend for eight days, but I was forced to move out this morning._
_I have been living there for eight days and am glad to be back home. However, I find it hard to come here as often as I used to._


> For example - American*s* have been spending a lot of money on space research.. Does this sentence indicate that the Americans are still spending on the space research OR Does it indicate that the American*s* have just stopped spending on the space research ??


Neither. That sentence is not about Americans' current spending but about their having been spending.

And it does not say when they have been spending.


----------



## Andygc

ortonn said:


> Sir, what i'm asking is that if suppose there is no mention of time period and there is no context available, then is there any possibility that the action is still continuing ???
> 
> For example - _She has been thinking of buying a car. (Is there any possibility that she is still thinking of buying a car ??)
> 
> _


The answer to your question is "yes, it is possible". However, without additional context you have no way of knowing whether or not that is the case. If you said to me, sitting in my house, "She has been thinking of buying a car" and then said nothing more, I would not know if she was still considering buying a car. If you said it to a salesman in a car showroom with "she" standing beside you, he would assume that she was still considering buying a car.


----------



## ortonn

e2efour said:


> Without a context it's impossible to tell whether she is no longer thinking of buying a car.
> I gave you a context where the action has stopped in #24.
> In _She doesn't like travelling by bus. She's been thinking of buying a car_, the action is continuing.
> 
> If you meet a friend in the street and he or she says to you "I saw Julie yesterday. She's been thinking of buying a car."
> Would you not assume that she is still thinking of doing this?




Yes, i believe that she would still be thinking of buying a car..

Actually the whole confusion started from the blog which says that "if the time period is not mentioned in PPC sentence, then it means that the action has just stopped"..But i don't agree to this explanation..that's why i asked the same question to you..So now as per your explanation i think that "if the time period is not mentioned in PPC sentence, then it means that the action might be continuing or it might have just stopped..it either depends on the context or on the verb involved in the sentence "

For example - I'm wet because i have been watering the garden (I presume it means that the action watering has just stopped )  YES OR NO
If suppose in another example, no context is given and the sentence is only "i have been thinking of buying a car" (Is there any *possibility* that he/she is still thinking of buying a car ??) YES OR NO ??
 If the answer is YES then it would mean that the explanation given in that blog is wrong because it says that its a thumb rule that if the time period is not mentioned then it means that the action has just stopped. 

Awaiting your reply


----------



## Forero

ortonn said:


> Yes, i believe that she would still be thinking of buying a car..
> 
> Actually the whole confusion started from the blog which says that "if the time period is not mentioned in PPC sentence, then it means that the action has just stopped"..But i don't agree to this explanation..that's why i asked the same question to you..So now as per your explanation i think that "if the time period is not mentioned in PPC sentence, then it means that the action might be continuing or it might have just stopped..it either depends on the context or on the verb involved in the sentence "
> 
> For example - I'm wet because i have been watering the garden (I presume it means that the action watering has just stopped )  YES OR NO


This does not say the watering has stopped. Nor does it say the watering continues.





> If suppose in another example, no context is given and the sentence is only "i have been thinking of buying a car" (Is there any *possibility* that he/she is still thinking of buying a car ??) YES OR NO ??


Yes, there is that possibility.





> If the answer is YES then it would mean that the explanation given in that blog is wrong because it says that its a thumb rule that if the time period is not mentioned then it means that the action has just stopped.
> 
> Awaiting your reply


I believe you are right and that "rule" is inaccurate.


----------



## old woman

e2efour said:


> I disagree about the first unless it is an answer to the question _What have you been doing since I saw you this morning?_


Do you disagree, because in your opinion "I have been playing football" ( without time expression) means she is no longer playing?


----------



## e2efour

I don't think that I said that _I have been playing football_ means that this action is complete. I said that you could _normally _assume this to be true.
But context plays a part so you cannot necessarily tell in every case whether the action is still ongoing.
In sentences like _I have been living in Moscow _it is not possible to make statements about whether the action is complete or otherwise.

Congratulations anyway for reading something that was written over 7 years ago.

I assume that by "the first" I meant the first sentence of the ones in post #2.


----------



## old woman

e2efour said:


> I don't think that I said that _I have been playing football_ means that this action is complete. I said that you could _normally _assume this to be true.
> But context plays a part so you cannot necessarily tell in every case whether the action is still ongoing.
> In sentences like _I have been living in Moscow _it is not possible to make statements about whether the action is complete or otherwise.
> 
> Congratulations anyway for reading something that was written over 7 years ago.
> 
> I assume that by "the first" I meant the first sentence of the ones in post #2.


What is the reason you disagreed about the first sentence in post#2?


----------



## e2efour

The reason is lack of context.
If someone comes up to you and says _I have been playing football_ it seems reasonable to assume that they are no longer playing football at that moment. It's much more likely that the action is complete.
Of course, by saying this I am introducing a degree of context.


----------



## old woman

Forero said:


> This does not say the watering has stopped. Nor does it say the watering continues.


What does it say? That the watering is the cause of the wet clothes?


----------



## Uncle Jack

ortonn said:


> For example - I'm wet because i have been watering the garden (I presume it means that the action watering has just stopped ) YES OR NO





Forero said:


> This does not say the watering has stopped. Nor does it say the watering continues.





old woman said:


> What does it say? That the watering is the cause of the wet clothes?


It certainly says that the watering is the cause of the person being wet (it isn't necessarily their clothes that are wet). The word that tells us this is "because". The present perfect is used because watering the garden is an action in the past that has an effect in the present, and the present perfect continuous rather than the simple present perfect is used because it was the continuous action of watering the garden that resulted in the person being wet.

Although this use of the present perfect continuous does not say that the person has finished watering the garden, I cannot imagine the sentence being spoken if the person were still watering the garden at that time (although they may resume watering it later). In any case, it is probably obvious to both people whether watering the garden is a completed activity or not.

I think e2efour's statement early on in this thread is valid:


e2efour said:


> You can normally assume that the action is complete unless there is a time expression indicating duration.



However, most of the time, we get the meaning from context. If Sarah has just come round to your house for lunch, and she says "I'm wet because i have been watering the garden", she clearly isn't watering the garden now, nor will she be watering the garden for the next hour or so while you and she are having lunch together. Perhaps she'll do some more watering in the afternoon.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> It certainly says that the watering is the cause of the person being wet (it isn't necessarily their clothes that are wet). The word that tells us this is "because". The present perfect is used because watering the garden is an action in the past that has an effect in the present, and the present perfect continuous rather than the simple present perfect is used because it was the continuous action of watering the garden that resulted in the person being wet.
> 
> Although this use of the present perfect continuous does not say that the person has finished watering the garden, I cannot imagine the sentence being spoken if the person were still watering the garden at that time (although they may resume watering it later). In any case, it is probably obvious to both people whether watering the garden is a completed activity or not.
> 
> I think e2efour's statement early on in this thread is valid:
> 
> 
> However, most of the time, we get the meaning from context. If Sarah has just come round to your house for lunch, and she says "I'm wet because i have been watering the garden", she clearly isn't watering the garden now, nor will she be watering the garden for the next hour or so while you and she are having lunch together. Perhaps she'll do some more watering in the afternoon.


So she can say "I'm wet because i've been watering the garden" even if she has finished watering and isn't going to resume the watering later?


----------



## sound shift

old woman said:


> So she can say "I'm wet because i've been watering the garden" even if she has finished watering and isn't going to resume the watering later?


Yes.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> I cannot imagine the sentence being spoken if the person were still watering the garden at that time


In that case is "I am wet because I am watering the garden" possible?


----------



## kentix

It's possible in the right context with the right understanding of "am".

If you came to someone's house and they were standing by their garden with a hose in their hand and they were wet, the sentence would never be spoken. It's so obvious that it's unnecessary. So the fact that it's being said indicates it's not obvious.

So the context has to be different in some way. One possible way is that the garden is in the back, out of sight of the road. Further, they heard your car pull up in front of their house and they put down their hose and came around to the front to see who it was. In this case, the obvious context, the hose and the garden, is gone and they feel the need to explain their condition.

"I'm wet because I'm watering the garden."

In that context, that means "I'm in the ongoing process of watering my garden and the only reason I am not doing it right this second is because I came around to see who was visiting. As soon as that's taken care of, I will go back to watering."

The "I'm watering" refers to an ongoing process that in the person's mind has only been temporarily interrupted. It has not been completed. In that sense, they are still watering their garden, even while they don't have a hose in their hand and can't actually see the garden.

I am = I'm (casual conversation defaults to I'm)


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> It's possible in the right context with the right understanding of "am".
> 
> If you came to someone's house and they were standing by their garden with a hose in their hand and they were wet, the sentence would never be spoken. It's so obvious that it's unnecessary. So the fact that it's being said indicates it's not obvious.
> 
> So the context has to be different in some way. One possible way is that the garden is in the back, out of sight of the road. Further, they heard your car pull up in front of their house and they put down their hose and came around to the front to see who it was. In this case, the obvious context, the hose and the garden, is gone and they feel the need to explain their condition.
> 
> "I'm wet because I'm watering the garden."
> 
> In that context, that means "I'm in the ongoing process of watering my garden and the only reason I am not doing it right this second is because I came around to see who was visiting. As soon as that's taken care of, I will go back to watering."
> 
> The "I'm watering" refers to an ongoing process that in the person's mind has only been temporarily interrupted. It has not been completed. In that sense, they are still watering their garden, even while they don't have a hose in their hand and can't actually see the garden.
> 
> I am = I'm (casual conversation defaults to I'm)


Another native speaker told me the "I am wet because I am watering the garden" is not idiomatic, because it implies you get wet as soon as you start watering.


----------



## kentix

It all depends on context. It's fine in the context I gave you. It describes the situation of your condition after you have spent some time watering.

It's really not necessary to add "and some water sprayed on me while I've been doing it". That part the listener can figure out themselves.


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> It all depends on context. It's fine in the context I gave you. It describes the situation of your condition after you have spent some time watering.
> 
> It's really not necessary to add "and some water sprayed on me while I've been doing it". That part the listener can figure out themselves.


So you don't agree that it can only be said if you get wet the moment you start watering.


----------



## kentix

No. But I don't know the context in which the other statement was made.


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> No. But I don't know the context in which the other statement was made.


"I'm wet because I've been watering the garden" implies that I have stopped watering. I want to know how to express that I'm wet, but haven't stopped watering yet. That is why I thought "I'm wet because I am watering the garden" would be good because I'm still watering. He says present continuous implies that you get wet immediately after you start watering, so present perfect continuous is more idiomatic, but to me present perfect continuous without a duration implies i've stopped a short while ago.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

If you are still watering the garden, I agree that the present continuous is a more than likely choice.
I don't agree that use of the present perfect continuous always means the activity has stopped. It might suggest that it has stopped but if that is important information, then it would need clarification.


----------



## kentix

> "I'm wet because I've been watering the garden" implies that I have stopped watering.


It doesn't imply stopped. The same as the other sentence, it might only imply a temporary pause and that you will resume shortly. I repeat that it comes down to your understanding of the sense in which you are using the verb.

1) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I have been taking lessons."

That does not imply you have stopped taking lessons.

2) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I am taking lessons."

That doesn't imply you are in the middle of a lesson. It only says you are in the middle of an ongoing process. It's the "habitual" meaning of present tense. It says it directly. Sentence 1 doesn't say it directly but strongly implies that you are still in the process of taking lessons. If you want it to be clear you have stopped, using a past form is the obvious choice.

3) "I can play the guitar a bit now because, until recently, I was taking lessons."
3a) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I recently took some lessons."

All that applies to the watering.

_I want to know how to express that I'm wet, but haven't stopped watering yet._

G1) "I'm wet because I'm watering the garden".

"Am" refers to an ongoing process, like "I am taking guitar lessons". It's not exactly habitual, but it's ongoing. Even if you go in the house to get a drink, you are _still_ watering the garden because you have not finished the process. Just like you are _still_ "taking guitar lessons" even when you are sleeping and going to work. It's a reference to being in the middle of a process, even if you are not doing that thing at the exact moment you are speaking.

G2) "I'm wet because I've been watering the garden."

Up to the present moment, you have been watering the garden. You have been interrupted to speak to the person. When you finish, what you do next is up to you. 1) You might return to watering, which in that case makes it like G1. It was a temporary interruption that did not end the ongoing process. You have been watering the garden and you're still in the process of watering it. 2) Or you could do something else, in which case, the process is complete.

Which one the sentence means is up to the speaker and what they see in their mind as what is complete and what is not.

G3) "I'm wet because I was watering the garden".

This fairly firmly implies you are done with watering. It's past tense, and that's the normal use of past tense. It doesn't actually state that directly, though. It's more of an obvious implication. It's possible the speaker plans to have lunch and then return to the task. So they see this first phase as complete but plan to water again after lunch.

_I want to know how to express that I'm wet, but haven't stopped watering yet._

To be very clear you could say:

"I'm wet because I am in the middle of watering the garden."

No, being in the middle doesn't cause you to be wet. Watering the garden causes you to be wet. And you are in the middle of that task.

If you want to be pedantic, you can say:

"I'm wet because I am in the middle of watering the garden, _and everyone knows that while watering a garden it's very likely that you might get wet because of water splashing on you accidentally or being blown by the wind in your direction, which is what happened to me_."

But who would dream of saying that piece of obvious wisdom?


----------



## old woman

Hermione Golightly said:


> If you are still watering the garden, I agree that the present continuous is a more than likely choice.


So if you've recently stopped watering, the present perfect continuous is possible? I mean in the sense of a recently stopped action that has an effect in the present.


----------



## old woman

Hermione Golightly said:


> I don't agree that use of the present perfect continuous always means the activity has stopped.


I am referring to #3: You can normally assume that the action is complete unless there is a time expression indicating duration.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Yes, for a recent activity that may have stopped. Effect in present time is not necessarily relevant.


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> It doesn't imply stopped. The same as the other sentence, it might only imply a temporary pause and that you will resume shortly. I repeat that it comes down to your understanding of the sense in which you are using the verb.
> 
> 1) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I have been taking lessons."
> 
> That does not imply you have stopped taking lessons.
> 
> 2) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I am taking lessons."
> 
> That doesn't imply you are in the middle of a lesson. It only says you are in the middle of an ongoing process. It's the "habitual" meaning of present tense. It says it directly. Sentence 1 doesn't say it directly but strongly implies that you are still in the process of taking lessons. If you want it to be clear you have stopped, using a past form is the obvious choice.
> 
> 3) "I can play the guitar a bit now because, until recently, I was taking lessons."
> 3a) "I can play the guitar a bit now because I recently took some lessons."
> 
> All that applies to the watering.
> 
> _I want to know how to express that I'm wet, but haven't stopped watering yet._
> 
> G1) "I'm wet because I'm watering the garden".
> 
> "Am" refers to an ongoing process, like "I am taking guitar lessons". It's not exactly habitual, but it's ongoing. Even if you go in the house to get a drink, you are _still_ watering the garden because you have not finished the process. Just like you are _still_ "taking guitar lessons" even when you are sleeping and going to work. It's a reference to being in the middle of a process, even if you are not doing that thing at the exact moment you are speaking.
> 
> G2) "I'm wet because I've been watering the garden."
> 
> Up to the present moment, you have been watering the garden. You have been interrupted to speak to the person. When you finish, what you do next is up to you. 1) You might return to watering, which in that case makes it like G1. It was a temporary interruption that did not end the ongoing process. You have been watering the garden and you're still in the process of watering it. 2) Or you could do something else, in which case, the process is complete.
> 
> Which one the sentence means is up to the speaker and what they see in their mind as what is complete and what is not.
> 
> G3) "I'm wet because I was watering the garden".
> 
> This fairly firmly implies you are done with watering. It's past tense, and that's the normal use of past tense. It doesn't actually state that directly, though. It's more of an obvious implication. It's possible the speaker plans to have lunch and then return to the task. So they see this first phase as complete but plan to water again after lunch.
> 
> _I want to know how to express that I'm wet, but haven't stopped watering yet._
> 
> To be very clear you could say:
> 
> "I'm wet because I am in the middle of watering the garden."
> 
> No, being in the middle doesn't cause you to be wet. Watering the garden causes you to be wet. And you are in the middle of that task.
> 
> If you want to be pedantic, you can say:
> 
> "I'm wet because I am in the middle of watering the garden, _and everyone knows that while watering a garden it's very likely that you might get wet because of water splashing on you accidentally or being blown by the wind in your direction, which is what happened to me_."
> 
> But who would dream of saying that piece of obvious wisdom?


I am still confused about that native speaker saying the use the present continuous implies the watering immediately causes wetness as soon as you start.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It's the continuity that's important. I have nothing to add to the excellent and thorough comments already made in this thread. Please note the stress placed time and time again on the importance of wider context. This and the purpose of the statement affect the speaker's choice.


----------



## kentix

I think that is probably a case of being hyper precise, but I still don't know the context.

Lots of ideas in conversation are understood without being spoken and explained in detail. Common sense plays a part.

"I'm wearing a hat  because it's raining."

Does this imply that when rain starts to fall a hat magically appears on my head?

You could interpret it that way but you would be foolish.

It would be equally foolish to think I need to say "I'm wearing a hat  because it's raining and when it rains my head will get wet, so by putting a hat on my head I prevent that from happening.

Who else could you possibly think put the hat on my head? And what other reason could there possibly be in that context?

There is such a thing as "the obvious".

When I water the garden getting wet is a potential consequence, not a guaranteed consequence, and certainly not an automatic cause and effect.



> "I am wet because I am watering the garden" is not idiomatic, because it implies you get wet as soon as you start watering.​


Using common sense, the reasonable interpretation of this sentence is that I have decided to water the garden, and in doing so I have taken on the the risk inherent in that - that at some point in that process I might get wet. It's not guaranteed, but it's possible and in this case it happened. That's why I'm wet.

You can see I'm wet, and I can guess you might be wondering about that. That's not exactly normal. There are many possible reasons for that, so I want to clarify the situation.

"I'm wet, as you can clearly see, because I'm in the process of watering the garden." In other words I'm telling you, I haven't been walking in the rain, I haven't been swimming, no one dumped a bucket of water on my head as a prank. Those reasons are all eliminated. The reason I'm wet is because I've been using a hose that is spewing water. I'll leave it to you to figure out the connection between those two things. I don't think I really need to explain it.


----------



## owlman5

old woman said:


> So if you've recently stopped watering, the present perfect continuous is possible?


Yes. As Clara walks into the house, Clark asks her why she is wet:

Clark: _Why are you wet?_
Clara: _I've been watering the garden._


----------

