# V-ta vs. V-teita



## kyn

I understand that V-ta refers to an action, while V-teita refers to a state, or something lasts for a period of time. But look at this dialogue in my textbook:
-病院へ行ったそうですね。 
-そうなんですよ
-医者は何と言っていましたか。
Isn't "言いましたか" supposed to be used here instead of "言っていましたか"? Because the way I understand it, it's just "what did the doctor say", which is merely an action happening at a time in the past.


----------



## MariposaChou

～ていた　is also used for the past progressive, isn't it?

So couldn't 言っていましたか mean "What was he saying?"


----------



## kyn

So, is it OK to use "itta" here? And does it make much difference, if any, at all?


----------



## Morrow

MariposaChou said:


> So couldn't 言っていましたか mean "What was he saying?"


"言っている" may mean "mean": 私が言っているのはそんなことではない(That's not what I mean).  So "be _doing_" can work.  But here "言っている" just suggests that the speaker is interested in what you have to say, and that you are expected to "report" on what someone said to you.

Morrow


----------



## Flaminius

kyn said:


> So, is it OK to use "itta" here? And does it make much difference, if any, at all?


I prefer 何といっていましたか to 何といいましたか in your example for the different nuances of the two.



Morrow said:


> "言っている" may mean "mean": 私が言っているのはそんなことではない(That's not what I mean).


Now, this is a very pertinent observation.  Given that ている forms are imperfective aspect, いっている signifies longer-lasting actions than a simple act of uttering a phrase or two (いう).  The former can typically mean "mean," "assert," "desire" and other mental activities with a long-term commitment.

A doctor judgement about a patient's condition (hopefully) would still hold true even after the act of telling the diagnosis to the patient ("Mr. Smith, I have completely removed the tumour in your stomach.") is finished in a few seconds.  In *kyn*'s Japanese dialogue, the focus is more on the doctor's diagnosis than the actual words he said to the patient.

If verbatim conversation lines are quoted, 何といいましたか sounds better than it does in this dialogue.  For example, 先生に「腫瘍は全部摘出しました」といわれてあなたは何といいましたか.


----------



## Morrow

Flaminius said:


> いっている signifies longer-lasting actions than a simple act of uttering a phrase or two (いう).


(i) a. She *is saying* that she is not responsible.
    b. 自分には責任がない*と言っている*。
(ii) a. She *says *that she is not responsible.
    b. 自分には責任がない*と言っている*。

Morrow


----------



## Flaminius

I agree that 言っている can be translated into "is saying" as well as "says" in various contexts but this may not be your point.  Some more explanation won't hurt if I could finally get what you meant.


----------



## Morrow

Morrow said:


> "言っている" may mean "mean": 私が言っているのはそんなことではない(That's not what I mean).  So "be _doing_" can work.


Flaminius, you're quoting me wrong.  If we choose "say" for "言う," then the counterpart of "言っている"　has two possibilities: a simple form (says/say) and a progressive form (is/am/are saying).  But neither "言っていました" included in the original Japanese sentence nor its variant "言っていた" corresponds to a progressive form (was saying), as MariposaChou suggests, but to a simple form (said).  That's what I *was saying *(_or _*meant*).

Since you brought it up, the choice between "言う" and "言っている" actually has nothing to do with the idea of length of time.

"Is saying" in (iii) doesn't imply an action that lasts longer than "says," and vice versa.   

(iii) Lisa *is saying* something when she *says *nothing. (where both "Lisa" and "she" refer to the same person)
cf. Lisa was taking a bath when she heard something outside her bathroom.

The same applies to the Japanese version of (iii).  

Morrow


----------



## MariposaChou

Morrow said:


> Flaminius, you're quoting me wrong.  If we choose "say" for "言う," then the counterpart of "言っている"　has two possibilities: a simple form (says/say) and a progressive form (is/am/are saying).  But neither "言っていました" included in the original Japanese sentence nor its variant "言っていた" corresponds to a progressive form (was saying), as MariposaChou suggests, but to a simple form (said).  That's what I *was saying *(_or _*meant*).
> 
> Since you brought it up, the choice between "言う" and "言っている" actually has nothing to do with the idea of length of time.
> 
> "Is saying" in (iii) doesn't imply an action that lasts longer than "says," and vice versa.
> 
> (iii) Lisa *is saying* something when she *says *nothing. (where both "Lisa" and "she" refer to the same person)
> cf. Lisa was taking a bath when she heard something outside her bathroom.
> 
> The same applies to the Japanese version of (iii).
> 
> Morrow



I think you lost me with this.  I just can't see what you mean.


----------



## Morrow

MariposaChou said:


> I think you lost me with this.  I just can't see what you mean.



Let's rephrase it this way.

(1) Someone said something (where "said" may mean "言った" or "*言っていた*" in Japanese).
(2) Someone was saying something (where "was saying" may mean "*言っていた*" in Japanese).

Actually, the "*言っていた*" has two possibilities. One possibility is that "saying something" happened usually or always.  Also, the emphasis may be on "reporting."  In this case, you could translate "*言っていた*" as "So someone said."   

The usage of progressive at issue is found in the pattern in (3).

(3) Someone is doing something (for example, lying) (when they say or do something). 

"Is doing something" in (3) just explains what saying or doing something *really means*, and doesn't have anything to do with the idea of duration or "longer-lasting actions."  The same holds good for "*言っていた*" as well.  This "*言っていた*" doesn't say anything about how long the action of "言う" last.

Morrow


----------



## MariposaChou

Morrow said:


> Let's rephrase it this way.
> 
> (1) Someone said something (where "said" may mean "言った" or "*言っていた*" in Japanese).
> (2) Someone was saying something (where "was saying" may mean "*言っていた*" in Japanese).
> 
> Actually, the "*言っていた*" has two possibilities. One possibility is that "saying something" happened usually or always.  Also, the emphasis may be on "reporting."  In this case, you could translate "*言っていた*" as "So someone said."
> 
> The usage of progressive at issue is found in the pattern in (3).
> 
> (3) Someone is doing something (for example, lying) (when they say or do something).
> 
> "Is doing something" in (3) just explains what saying or doing something *really means*, and doesn't have anything to do with the idea of duration or "longer-lasting actions."  The same holds good for "*言っていた*" as well.  This "*言っていた*" doesn't say anything about how long the action of "言う" last.
> 
> Morrow



I think I get it now.  

In English we also have cases where the "is ~ing" structure does not imply length of an action.

For example, we have the bare present that can be used to express habitual actions.

(1) John lies.
This means that it's John's custom to lie.

We can compare this to

(2) John is lying.
This means that in this particular case, whether or not John habitually lies, he tells a lie this time.  

For sentences (1) and (2), there's no sense of the length of an action.  There's only a difference in regards to how often or when John lies.

But only some verbs work this way.  For many other verbs, whether you use the present or the ~ing form does imply a difference in the length of the action.  Maybe this difference results from ~ing describing an ongoing process instead of just stating a fact.

For example:

(3) John is running.
This means that John is in the state of running.

(4) John runs.
This means that John usually goes running.

For me, it just seems like the action in (3) lasts longer compared to (4) since the sentence is talking about an ongoing action.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello everyone,

A "longer-lasting" action was a misleading term.  I was referring to the fact that a conversation line takes only a few moments to be said but the meaning/decision/opinion which is the content of the utterance is committed to for a longer time.  Measuring "durations" for both いう and いっている may be meaningless since I am increasingly of opinion that the former is an action and the latter is a state (state of one's mind, to be more specific).

In the original dialogue what matters more is the doctor's diagnosis than actual words he said.  His opinion is enquired by 医者は何と言っていましたか since an opinion is more a state than an action.


----------



## tkekte

Maybe it's because of the difference between -wo iu and -to iu? 

Could you explain the nuance in these 3 sentences (if they are possible at all ):
a. 医者は何を言いましたか。
b. 医者は何を言っていたの。
c. 医者は何と言っていましたか。

My guesses:
a. What did the doctor say? (I wasn't there when he said it, can you tell me what it was?)

b. What was the doctor saying? (I heard it, but didn't understand, could you explain it to me?) (and I don't think this thing can work with -masu... it just feels wrong)

c. What did the doctor say? (What was his opinion on the matter?)

Also, how would you say "what was the doctor called?"


----------

