# I've been travelling/I've travelled for  4 hours



## old woman

It is now 1 p.m and I've been travelling for 4 hours and have just arrived. The journey was quite exhausting so I say: "I'm tired because I've just been travelling for 4 hours. 

At 4 p.m I'm still tired of the journey, but a couple of hours have passed. Can I still say: " I'm tired because I've been travelling for 4 hours, or would it be better to use present perfect simple: "I'm tired because I have travelled for 4 hours ( today).


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> It is now 1 p.m and I've been travelling for 4 hours and have just arrived. The journey was quite exhausting so I say: "I'm tired because I've just been travelling for 4 hours.


This is fine.


old woman said:


> At 4 p.m I'm still tired of the journey, but a couple of hours have passed. Can I still say: " I'm tired because I've been travelling for 4 hours, or would it be better to use present perfect simple: "I'm tired because I have travelled for 4 hours ( today).


Don't use the present perfect with a duration unless the duration continues up to the presemt (there are exceptions, but it is so easy to come unstuck that it is probably best to assume this is never possible). Use the past tense instead. Actions with durations usually use continuous forms:
I'm tired because I was travelling for 4 hours.​
Without the duration, the present perfect is fine:
I'm tired because I've been travelling.​
It is very common in English to need to need to decide whether to include a duration and lose the significance in the present, or emphasise the significance in the present and not mention some aspects of the past action, such as when it took place or how long it lasted. Often people use two sentence, the first using the present perfect and the second using the past tense:
I'm tired because I've been travelling. It took me 4 hours to get here and I didn't arrive till one.​However, there would be nothing at all wrong with saying:
I'm tired because I was travelling this morning. It took me 4 hours to get here and I didn't arrive till one.​


----------



## lingobingo

Your first sentence is fine, although adding “just” is unnecessary.

But if referring to the journey some time later, you’d be much less likely to use the present perfect. It makes sense if you relate your comment to *today* (which is still current/now) but not if you relate it to an earlier part of the day such as this morning (which is over/finished).

Why are you tired? — Because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today!​I’m tired because I was travelling for 4 hours this morning.​I’m still tired after driving for 4 hours without a break this morning.​


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> there are exceptions


Is this an exception? "I have walked for an hour today, so I have reached my goal". This expresses accomplishment, pride.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> Your first sentence is fine, although adding “just” is unnecessary.
> 
> But if referring to the journey some time later, you’d be much less likely to use the present perfect. It makes sense if you relate your comment to *today* (which is still current/now) but not if you relate it to an earlier part of the day such as this morning (which is over/finished).
> 
> Why are you tired? — Because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today!​I’m tired because I was travelling for 4 hours this morning.​I’m still tired after driving for 4 hours without a break this morning.​


Do you think "I've travelled for 4 hours today" is fine?


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t think it is, I know it is. 

However, a more natural way to say it would be “I’ve spent 4 hours travelling today” (still present perfect).


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> although adding “just” is unnecessary.


why is "just" unnecessary? To me it makes clear the journey came to an end shortly before.


----------



## lingobingo

You can add it if you wish. To my ear the proposed sentence sounds more natural without it, since you’ve very obviously _just_ arrived.

However, it works well in your explanatory sentence right at the beginning of your post.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> unless the duration continues up to the presemt


Or until shortly before the present, correct? Because i have just arrived.


----------



## kentix

lingobingo said:


> To my ear the proposed sentence sounds more natural without it, since you’ve very obviously _just_ arrived.




I would say you shouldn't add it.



lingobingo said:


> However, it works well in your explanatory sentence right at the beginning of your post.


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> Is this an exception? "I have walked for an hour today, so I have reached my goal". This expresses accomplishment, pride.


Yes. Adding a time period that includes the present ("today", this month" and things like that) allows far greater flexibility in how the present perfect is used.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> Actions with durations usually use continuous forms:


Would "I'm tired because I travelled for 4 hours today" be possible?


----------



## sinukg

lingobingo said:


> I don’t think it is, I know it is.
> 
> However, a more natural way to say it would be “I’ve spent 4 hours travelling today” (still present perfect).


Can we say "I've spent 4 hours *for* travelling today." or "Today I've spent 4 hours *for* travelling."?


----------



## sinukg

Uncle Jack said:


> This is fine.
> 
> Don't use the present perfect with a duration unless the duration continues up to the presemt (there are exceptions, but it is so easy to come unstuck that it is probably best to assume this is never possible). Use the past tense instead. Actions with durations usually use continuous forms:
> I'm tired because I was travelling for 4 hours.​
> Without the duration, the present perfect is fine:
> I'm tired because I've been travelling.​
> It is very common in English to need to need to decide whether to include a duration and lose the significance in the present, or emphasise the significance in the present and not mention some aspects of the past action, such as when it took place or how long it lasted. Often people use two sentence, the first using the present perfect and the second using the past tense:
> I'm tired because I've been travelling. It took me 4 hours to get here and I didn't arrive till one.​However, there would be nothing at all wrong with saying:
> I'm tired because I was travelling this morning. It took me 4 hours to get here and I didn't arrive till one.​


Can we say "I'm tired because I *travelled for* 4 hours"?


----------



## lingobingo

sinukg said:


> Can we say "I've spent 4 hours *for* travelling today." or "Today I've spent 4 hours *for* travelling."?


No. That *for* would imply “for the purpose of”, so in effect you’re saying you spent 4 hours in order to travel!


sinukg said:


> Can we say "I'm tired because I *travelled for* 4 hours"?


You could say that, but without further explanation it sounds strange. It’s not a natural way to say I’m tired now because of what I’ve just been doing (all present tense). Why put it in the past tense?


----------



## sinukg

lingobingo said:


> No. That *for* would imply “for the purpose of”, so in effect you’re saying you spent 4 hours in order to travel!
> 
> You could say that, but without further explanation it sounds strange. It’s not a natural way to say I’m tired now because of what I’ve just been doing (all present tense). Why put it in the past tense?


Thanks a million for the clarification


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> Would "I'm tired because I travelled for 4 hours today" be possible?


It's possible, but both the effect in the present (I am tired now) and the use of a period of time that includes the present (today) point to the present perfect being the obvious choice. Also, it would be more usual to use the continuous form with an action and a duration.

I think that most people would instinctively avoid phrases that prompted use of the present perfect with a duration, where the duration does not extend up to the present. The core sentence should be "I'm tired because I was travelling for four hours", using the past continuous because it is an action with a duration, and the duration does not extend up to the present. They would then find a time marker that works with the past tense and does not suggest using the present perfect. This rules out "today" or "this morning" (if it is still morning), but "this morning" would be fine if it is now afternoon, or you could say "earlier today", or "earlier this morning" if it is still morning.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> Why put it in the past tense?





lingobingo said:


> I’m tired because I was travelling for 4 hours this morning.


The past continuous is past tense as well, #3. Why is the past continuous preferable over the simple past: "I travelled for 4 hours this morning"?


----------



## lingobingo

old woman said:


> The past continuous is past tense as well, #3. Why is the past continuous preferable over the simple past: "I travelled for 4 hours this morning"?


I’m losing track of all these slightly different statements. In deciding how native speakers would be most likely to say something, you have to take everything into account – tense, aspect, mood, and (above all) context.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> I’m losing track of all these slightly different statements. In deciding how native speakers would be most likely to say something, you have to take everything into account – tense, aspect, mood, and (above all) context.


I was just wondering why past continuous tense : "I'm tired because I was travelling for 4 hours this morning" is fine, but past simple: "I'm tired because I travelled for 4 hours this morning" isn't.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s just a matter of what’s more idiomatic. The progressive aspect indicates the actual progress of the action, thus making the reference more personal/physical/real than if you just state the fact like a statistic, with no such nuance.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> It's possible, but both the effect in the present (I am tired now) and the use of a period of time that includes the present (today) point to the present perfect being the obvious choice. Also, it would be more usual to use the continuous form with an action and a duration.
> 
> I think that most people would instinctively avoid phrases that prompted use of the present perfect with a duration, where the duration does not extend up to the present. The core sentence should be "I'm tired because I was travelling for four hours", using the past continuous because it is an action with a duration, and the duration does not extend up to the present. They would then find a time marker that works with the past tense and does not suggest using the present perfect. This rules out "today" or "this morning" (if it is still morning), but "this morning" would be fine if it is now afternoon, or you could say "earlier today", or "earlier this morning" if it is still morning.


"I'm tired because I've been travelling for four hours today". Is that a good sentence that can be said throughout the day?


----------



## lingobingo

Assuming that took place in the morning, by the afternoon it would be more natural to say “I was travelling for four hours this morning”.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> Assuming that took place in the morning, by the afternoon it would be more natural to say “I was travelling for four hours this morning”.


My sentence # 22 says: "I'm tired because I've been travelling for four hours today", not "this morning".


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, I know. And I’ve given you a more natural/idiomatic way of saying it.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> Yes, I know. And I’ve given you a more natural/idiomatic way of saying it.


I thought "today" could be used throughout the same day.


----------



## lingobingo

It could. But in real life, as I’ve tried to convey, we tend to refer to this morning, this afternoon, this evening, tonight – depending on which applies.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> It could. But in real life, as I’ve tried to convey, we tend to refer to this morning, this afternoon, this evening, tonight – depending on which applies.


In # 3 you say: "Why are you tired? — Because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today!" That sentence is said in the morning as well and not later in the day?


----------



## kentix

I would not say this in American English.

- I'm tired because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today! 

I'd say:

- I'm tired because I spent 4 solid hours driving earlier today! 

Or even better:

- I'm tired because I drove for 4 solid hours earlier today!


----------



## lingobingo

old woman said:


> In # 3 you say: "Why are you tired? — Because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today!" That sentence is said in the morning as well and not later in the day?


It depends. It’s unlikely that you’d mention *today* at all if it was already obvious that you meant today. But the point I was making is that we only use the present perfect in the current part of the day that’s mentioned.

I have been doing that this morning (can only be said during that morning)
I have been doing that this afternoon (can only be said during that afternoon)
I have been doing that this evening (can only be said during that evening)
I have been doing that today (can only be said during that day)


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> In # 3 you say: "Why are you tired? — Because I’ve spent 4 solid hours driving today!" That sentence is said in the morning as well and not later in the day?


As I said in post #17, the present perfect with a duration usually means that the duration extends up to the present. There are exceptions, some of which we accept because there can be no possibility of confusion, ambiguity or what might be called "oddness", such as "This whisky has been aged for 12 years" (the whisky ceased aging when it was bottled, which may have been years previously). But in other situations, even though the sentence may be grammatically correct and fit within the "rules" of using the present perfect, such as "I've been travelling for four hours today," we generally avoid using the present perfect if the time period (four hours, in this case) did not occur immediately before the present time. Since "today" more or less requires the the present perfect to be used, the obvious thing to do is to change it to some other time expression, such as "this morning" (if it is no longer morning) or to something like "earlier today", when we can then use the past tense instead.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> we generally avoid using the present perfect if the time period (four hours, in this case) did not occur immediately before the present time.


Does this apply to the present perfect simple with a duration as well?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Yes. There is no essential difference between the present perfect simple and the present perfect continuous; they are both used in much the same way (following the general rules for choosing between simple and continuous verb forms that apply to all tenses).


----------



## old woman

Is this an exception? "I have walked for an hour today, so I have reached my goal". This expresses accomplishment, pride.


Uncle Jack said:


> Yes. Adding a time period that includes the present ("today", this month" and things like that) allows far greater flexibility in how the present perfect is used.


Does my sentence: "I have walked for an hour today" also mean the walking continues until the present? Or could it be a total of 60 minutes achieved throughout the day?


----------



## lingobingo

No. It means the latter – *in that particular context*. In another context, it might not:

I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.​


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It doesn't tell you the action continued until the present, no. It tells you that the time is still the present, it is still 'today', or whatever time period is relevant.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> No. It means the latter – *in that particular context*. In another context, it might not:
> 
> I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.​


What do you mean by "No"? The walking does not continue until the present and it does mean a total of 60 minutes?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I don't think there's any suggestion that the hour spent walking has to be a continuous period.
"I've studied for six hours today, three this morning and three this afternoon."

We might assume that one hour would be without stopping, but that's an assumption.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> As I said in post #17, the present perfect with a duration usually means that the duration extends up to the present. There are exceptions, some of which we accept because there can be no possibility of confusion, ambiguity or what might be called "oddness", such as "This whisky has been aged for 12 years" (the whisky ceased aging when it was bottled, which may have been years previously). But in other situations, even though the sentence may be grammatically correct and fit within the "rules" of using the present perfect, such as "I've been travelling for four hours today," we generally avoid using the present perfect if the time period (four hours, in this case) did not occur immediately before the present time. Since "today" more or less requires the the present perfect to be used, the obvious thing to do is to change it to some other time expression, such as "this morning" (if it is no longer morning) or to something like "earlier today", when we can then use the past tense instead.


Could you explain why in the sentence ""I have walked for an hour today" it doesn't mean the duration extends to the present? It is present perfect with a duration, so what is the difference?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> Could you explain why in the sentence ""I have walked for an hour today" it doesn't mean the duration extends to the present? It is present perfect with a duration, so what is the difference?


When you have a period of time that includes the present, such as "today", this accounts for your use of the present perfect. If you then include a duration, then it does not mean that the duration extends up to the present, but that the duration took place within the longer time period.

However, you need to be a little wary of including a duration for the action. Really, it needs to have some significance in itself, such as being something remarkable, or it matches some target. You probably wouldn't use it for an ordinary mundane task, such as "I have been washing dishes for two hours today".


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> If you then include a duration, then it does not mean that the duration extends up to the present.


In #17 and 31 you say present perfect with a duration usually means the duration extends up to the present: 
"we generally avoid using the present perfect if the time period (four hours, in this case) did not occur immediately before the present time." I'm confused now


----------



## old woman

Hermione Golightly said:


> "I've studied for six hours today, three this morning and three this afternoon."


And this can be said in the evening of the same day?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> In #17 and 31 you say present perfect with a duration usually means the duration extends up to the present:
> "we generally avoid using the present perfect if the time period (four hours, in this case) did not occur immediately before the present time." I'm confused now


There are exceptions. Including a time period that refers to the present, such as "today" is one exception, where it is possible to use a duration for an action that does not extend up to the present. It is possible, but in practice, we generally avoid it for mundane tasks, even though we would use the present perfect for a duration that extends up to the present. Consider:

I have been washing my car for two hours. This is fine; the time period extends up to the present.
I have been washing my car today. This is fine. "Today" includes the present, and no duration is given for the action.
I have been washing my car for two hours today. This is grammatically correct, but it is unlikely unless spending two hours washing your car has some particular significance.
I was washing my car for two hours today. This is correct. "Today" does not rule out using the past tense, particularly if the speaker is thinking primarily of the action as being in the past, rather than being associated with the present. Of course, the duration "for two hours" is fine with the past tense.

However, where the duration has significance, then we may well use the present perfect. There are some good examples in this thread:


lingobingo said:


> I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.


The duration is significant - the person has a target to reach.


Hermione Golightly said:


> "I've studied for six hours today, three this morning and three this afternoon."


The present perfect might be used because six hours is a remarkable time for the person to have studied. If the time was not remarkable, I doubt the present perfect would be used.


Uncle Jack said:


> "This whisky has been aged for 12 years"


Here, there is no time period that includes the present, but the duration of its aging is important to the whisky's taste in the present. This is a far less common use of the present perfect than the previous two sentences, but it is a good example of the duration having importance in itself.


----------



## nightowl666

old woman said:


> why is "just" unnecessary? To me it makes clear the journey came to an end shortly before.


I think there might be a logical error here, unless the matrix clause is in negative form. For example: I'm *NOT *tired because I've just been travelling for 4 hours. In my mind, "I've *just *been travelling for 4 hours." implies 4 hours are not long enough. I hope to continue with my travel. This is my interpretation of its meaning based on my instinct for the language.  But I am not a native speaker of English.


----------



## kentix

In that sentence, it would be far more natural to say:

- I'm *NOT *tired because I've *only* been travelling for 4 hours.


----------



## TGW

Uncle Jack said:


> Here, there is no time period that includes the present, but the duration of its aging is important to the whisky's taste in the present. This is a far less common use of the present perfect than the previous two sentences, but it is a good example of the duration having importance in itself.


I got inspired reading your comment. So it boils down to that *context is all that matters*. Am I right? Thanks 🙏

You think I’ve spent all day doing nothing but playing phone games? I’ve done many things: I’ve washed my car, *for one hour*; I’ve studied, *for two hours*; and I’ve also had that old washer fixed.


----------



## Uncle Jack

TGW said:


> I got inspired reading your comment. So it boils down to that *context is all that matters*. Am I right? Thanks 🙏
> 
> You think I’ve spent all day doing nothing but playing phone games? I’ve done many things: I’ve washed my car, *for one hour*; I’ve studied, *for two hours*; and I’ve also had that old washer fixed.


Context is vital, as is the perception of the speaker. In your sentence, I can imagine someone using the present perfect, although after "I've done many things", I'd probably change the to the past tense. This is also common.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> There are exceptions. Including a time period that refers to the present, such as "today" is one exception, where it is possible to use a duration for an action that does not extend up to the present. It is possible, but in practice, we generally avoid it for mundane tasks, even though we would use the present perfect for a duration that extends up to the present. Consider:
> 
> I have been washing my car for two hours. This is fine; the time period extends up to the present.
> I have been washing my car today. This is fine. "Today" includes the present, and no duration is given for the action.
> I have been washing my car for two hours today. This is grammatically correct, but it is unlikely unless spending two hours washing your car has some particular significance.
> I was washing my car for two hours today. This is correct. "Today" does not rule out using the past tense, particularly if the speaker is thinking primarily of the action as being in the past, rather than being associated with the present. Of course, the duration "for two hours" is fine with the past tense.
> 
> However, where the duration has significance, then we may well use the present perfect. There are some good examples in this thread:
> 
> The duration is significant - the person has a target to reach.
> 
> The present perfect might be used because six hours is a remarkable time for the person to have studied. If the time was not remarkable, I doubt the present perfect would be used.
> 
> Here, there is no time period that includes the present, but the duration of its aging is important to the whisky's taste in the present. This is a far less common use of the present perfect than the previous two sentences, but it is a good example of the duration having importance in itself.


"I'm tired because I have traveled for four hours today". If the duration of the action doesn't extend up to the present, the present perfect is unlikely, because the duration has no significance.  In this sentence the duration is the cause of the tiredness, so to me that's significant. Am I wrong in thinking there's a significance and therefore the present perfect is justified?


----------



## lingobingo

See post #30. 

We only use the present perfect in a sentence with a specific reference to a current time frame – this morning, this afternoon, this evening, tonight, today, this week, this month, this year – if we are still inside that time frame as we speak.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> See post #30.
> 
> We only use the present perfect in a sentence with a specific reference to a current time frame – this morning, this afternoon, this evening, tonight, today, this week, this month, this year – if we are still inside that time frame as we speak.


"I have traveled for four hours today" is a current time frame. I'm speaking later the same day. It is the significance I'm confused about.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes. It’s in the list I just gave. Your *present* perfect sentence can be used at any time during the whole of “today”, since it describes something that happened during that present time frame.

But for the same reason, if, in the afternoon or evening of that day, you want to make a specific reference to what you did during that morning, then it’s natural to use the past tense, because the morning is now over.

Said at 11.30 am:
I'm tired because I have traveled for four hours this morning. 
I'm tired because I traveled for four hours earlier this morning. 

Said at any time in the afternoon or evening:
I'm tired because I have traveled for four hours this morning. 
I'm tired because I traveled for four hours this morning.


----------



## kentix

"You think I’ve spent all day doing nothing but playing phone games? I’ve done many things: I’ve washed my car, *for one hour*; I’ve studied, *for two hours*; and I’ve also had that old washer fixed."

This isn't natural to me in U.S. English. Your car washing is done, as is the washer repair.

"You think I’ve spent all day doing nothing but playing phone games? I’ve done many things: *I spent an hour washing my car*; I’ve studied, *for two hours*; and I also got that old washer fixed."

The possibility remains that you will study some more. You won't get the washer fixed again and it's unlikely your car needs more washing.


----------



## old woman

lingobingo said:


> No. It means the latter – *in that particular context*. In another context, it might not:
> 
> I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.​


Does the walking in your example above continue until the present?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> Does the walking in your example above continue until the present?


No. The present perfect is common with two different types of time period:

A period that continues up to the present (but not beyond). This is usually in the form "for three hours" or "since Wednesday", but it also includes things like "all my life". With this use of the present perfect, the action took place (or the state was true) during the stated time period, and continues up to the present (but it might just have stopped).
A period that includes the present, such as "today", "this year" or "this morning" (but only if it is still morning). Here the action took place at some point during this time period and there is no suggestion that it continues up to the present. In general, we assume it does not continue up to the present, because if it did continue up to the present, a different form of words would most likely be used and there would be no need to mention "today" or whatever the time period was.


----------



## lingobingo

I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.


old woman said:


> Does the walking in your example above continue until the present?


The walking has stopped for the moment and will continue again later the same day.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> because if it did continue up to the present, a different form of words would most likely be used


The present perfect continuous I assume?


----------



## se16teddy

I have walked for an hour today.


old woman said:


> Does the walking in your example above continue until the present?


No, and this sentence illustrates an important distinction. The present perfect tense never in itself means that the action continued to the present (though it may have done, and that might in context be an implication). 

One of the (two common) functions of the present perfect is to place the action in a TIME PERIOD that continued to the present. But this is normally the present perfect continuous (I have been painting the ceiling today - the time period is “today”, which we interpret as the portion of the present day up to the present moment. It definitely does not imply that I got up at midnight to start, or that I am still working.) 

The present perfect simple normally points to a present consequence. Here, the present total number of hours (for today) is (present tense) one.

(I say “normally” because stative verbs mess up the basic pattern.)


----------



## old woman

se16teddy said:


> I have walked for an hour today.
> 
> No, and this sentence illustrates an important distinction. The present perfect never means that the action continued to the present. One of the (two common) functions of the present perfect is to place the action in a TIME PERIOD that continued to the present. Here the time period is “today”, which we interpret as the portion of the present day up to the present moment.


What is the other common function?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> The present perfect continuous I assume?


I was including both the present perfect simple and the present perfect continuous in both of my alternatives in post #54. The choice of simple or continuous does not affect whether something continues up to the present. It *may *give some indication of whether the action was completed or not, but that is probably a topic that is beyond the scope of this particular thread.


----------



## old woman

Uncle Jack said:


> because if it did continue up to the present, a different form of words would most likely be used


could you give an example of the different form of words?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> could you give an example of the different form of words?



To remind ourselves, the original sentence was 
I’ve already walked for an hour today, but my aim is to do three hours, so I’m off on a longer walk this afternoon.​
If the hour has just ended, then likely things to say are "I've just walked for an hour", or "I've been walking for an hour". The sentence still requires "today", but not in this part of the sentence. Instead, "today" gets moved to the next clause: "but my aim is to do three hours today".


----------



## old woman

se16teddy said:


> I have been painting the ceiling today
> 
> 
> se16teddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It definitely does not imply that I got up at midnight to start, or that I am still working.)
Click to expand...

So "I've been painting the ceiling today" doesn't mean I'm still painting, it means I spent part of today painting the ceiling, correct?


----------



## Uncle Jack

old woman said:


> So "I've been painting the ceiling today" doesn't mean I'm still painting, it means I spent part of today painting the ceiling, correct?


Correct.


----------



## se16teddy

old woman said:


> What is the other common function?


To indicate an unstated present consequence of the specified past action.


----------

