# I've ------- here all my life...



## Artrella

Good evening!

I have this sentence and three possibilities for filling in the gap:

a) lived

b) been living

c) Either could be used here


I chose a), but why cannot I use b)...I mean alternative c).  The book says the correct form is a), but I'm not sure about b).

Is the "all my life" related here to the choice of the alternatives?

Thank you


----------



## VenusEnvy

Artrella said:
			
		

> I've _______________ here all my life.
> 
> a) lived
> 
> b) been living
> 
> c) Either could be used here
> 
> I chose a), but why cannot I use b)...I mean alternative c).  The book says the correct form is a), but I'm not sure about b).



Artrella: I can't wait to hear what others (grammarians) say. Either sounds fine, and correct, to me! If I were a student answering this question, I would choose (c.)! I'm stumped, too!   

Not all textbooks are correct 100% of the time . . .  Let's wait for some more opinions.


----------



## Benjy

it *sounds* wrong to me.
however:



> i have been eating pudding all day.


sounds fine to me.


> i have been eating pudding all my life.


i just dont like it. i dont know why


----------



## Artrella

Benjy said:
			
		

> it *sounds* wrong to me.
> 
> i just dont like it. i dont know why




Maybe because it conveys the idea of "annoyance"?  

You can say  "I've lived here all my life, I love this place! I am so sad I have to move to another place!"

Or you can say:

"This place is very noisy... and I have been living here all my life, mind you!"


JUst an idea... to try and find the explanation... What do you think Benjy?


----------



## JJchang

I feel like "be + gerund" kind of stresses on the action. I dunno.


----------



## Benjy

> What do you think Benjy?


my gut response is that i would say i have lived here all my life is what i would say and i would reject the second one. i have learnt that to try and analyse why i think that whilst having absolutely no idea as to what constitutes correct english grammar is to simply get even more confused


----------



## timpeac

I think either is fine depending on the context. Usually you'd say "I've lived here all my life" but if you want to stress the continuity you could make it continuous "I've been living here all my life but I've never seen someone dressed like that". "I have lived here" would still be correct though.


----------



## la grive solitaire

As soon as I saw the blank in the title of your thread, my mind filled in "lived": I've lived here all my life. I can't explain it either; it's in my bones.

At the moment, the only context I can think of for "have been living" would be as a rejoinder in a heated conversation: (Excuse the melodrama--it was the first thing that came to mind...)

"We've decided to raze this block to build a skyscraper, so you'll have to move."

"But--but--but--you can't do that! I've been living here all my life!"


----------



## VenusEnvy

I notice that all who have posted can think of at least one sitution where both could be used correctly. (Of course, this goes to show us how important context it.) 

I'd also like that Art be provided with a somewhat more concrete explanation other than, "it sounds ok". As a learner myself, I know that this answer leaves me feeling "left in the dark".

What does your book give as an explanation, Art? (Did this come from a book?)


----------



## Artrella

Well, you know? My first idea was "I've lived" but then ... so... yes Benjy, the more you think the more mistakes you make...

So it's the same old story, if you use "ing" you emphasise the continuity of the action involved...

Thank you very much all of you for your quick help!!


----------



## Artrella

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I notice that all who have posted can think of at least one sitution where both could be used correctly. (Of course, this goes to show us how important context it.)
> 
> I'd also like that Art be provided with a somewhat more concrete explanation other than, "it sounds ok". As a learner myself, I know that this answer leaves me feeling "left in the dark".
> 
> What does your book give as an explanation, Art? (Did this come from a book?)




Ohh little V!!    I know what you mean, but sometimes if you don't study the grammar of your own language you cannot explain why sth is the way it is... I understand... sometimes it happens to me with Spanish.

About the context, no.. I don't have context and the book does not explain why they chose that alternative...


----------



## EricB

Like a lot of other native English speakers, I've heard both used frequently, and while neither struck me as wrong, "I've lived here all my life" does sound a little better.  So I had to go look it up and see what the grammar reference books say.

Please feel free to differ, but the key appears to be the use of "all my life" as a reference point.  "I have lived" is present perfect, while "I have been living" is combination of the present perfect ("I have lived") with the progressive ("have been _____-ing").  Both of these tenses describe past actions continuing into the present, but the latter combination is generally used with a specific reference point -- e.g., "As of today, I've been living here 14 years."  Or "I've been living here all week, while my roommates try to sort their problems out."

"All my life" is a more open-ended reference point.  Because it's not specific like "as of today" or "all week," it doesn't need to have a specific combination of present perfect plus progressive, and so the present perfect may sound slightly cleaner to native English speakers.


----------



## Artrella

EricB said:
			
		

> Like a lot of other native English speakers, I've heard both used frequently, and while neither struck me as wrong, "I've lived here all my life" does sound a little better.  So I had to go look it up and see what the grammar reference books say.
> 
> Please feel free to differ, but the key appears to be the use of "all my life" as a reference point.  "I have lived" is present perfect, while "I have been living" is combination of the present perfect ("I have lived") with the progressive ("have been _____-ing").  Both of these tenses describe past actions continuing into the present, but the latter combination is generally used with a specific reference point -- e.g., "As of today, I've been living here 14 years."  Or "I've been living here all week, while my roommates try to sort their problems out."
> 
> "All my life" is a more open-ended reference point.  Because it's not specific like "as of today" or "all week," it doesn't need to have a specific combination of present perfect plus progressive, and so the present perfect may sound slightly cleaner to native English speakers.





YES Eric!!! that was the idea I had in mind!! So do you think it is connected to the use of the present perfect simple (not continuous)???
I think we have sth here...


----------



## VenusEnvy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Ohh little V!!    I know what you mean, but sometimes if you don't study the grammar of your own language you cannot explain why sth is the way it is... I understand... sometimes it happens to me with Spanish.


It's good to know someone understands my pain!   



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> About the context, no.. I don't have context and the book does not explain why they chose that alternative...


This makes me angry; look at my face


----------



## EricB

Yes, I do think it's connected to the use of the present perfect simple.  I'm hoping some grammar experts can expand on this.  I feel like this is on the right track, but it could use a little further illumination.


----------



## germinal

Perhaps does not sound quite right because we know instinctively that one of the words is redundant.

You could say 'I have been here all my life' so 'living' is not really needed - in fact, with it, it almost has the meaning - 'I have been being here all my life'  

Germinal.


----------



## garryknight

Benjy said:
			
		

> i have been eating pudding all my life.
> i just dont like it. i dont know why


Because it's fattening!

Art: I would say that both forms are correct.



			
				germinal said:
			
		

> You could say 'I have been here all my life' so 'living' is not really needed


 
As soon as I read "I have been here all my life" I thought, "where? - standing on that exact spot?". The word "living" makes the meaning much more specific, in my view.


----------



## Nick

I think the sentence is fine with either "I've lived" or "I've been living".

I prefer "I've lived ..." to "I've been living ...", but "I've been sitting here all day." to "I've sat here all day." I don't think it makes a difference, though.


----------



## te gato

Hey Art GF;
Bear with me on this one...

'Lived'.. is  past simple...verb base + ed..
and when added to I've..it becomes an affirmative past simple...
and when you are referring to moments and periods of time as in...'all my life'..then a past simple verb should be used..

Affirmtive...
I...played/lived
You..played/lived
He/She...played/lived

But in a negitave form you do not add the 'ed'...
I...didn't play/live
You....didn't play/live..
He/She..didn't play/live..

tg


----------



## gaer

I think your book is "full of baloney"

I would definitely pick "C". I think either way is fine. To me it's a matter of style.

Actually, I'd vote for "D"

D- The author(s) of this book is/are seriously anal-retentive. 

I suspect great authors would score poorly on such tests based on books like the one you are using. The rules are so inflexible and lacking in imagination that they are creatively stifling. I'm sure you book contains some questions that have clear answers. But this question is not one of them.

Here is my reasoning. First I particularly dislike books that try to make English so lifeless. Just Google "I have lived" vs. "I've been living", and examine the sentences that come up. Is there really a difference? Does it really matter? Who is making these rules?

In my opinion, such rules are never made by writers or people who are very comfortable using English. They are always made by pendants, the same kind of people who write "grammars" asserting that usage A or usage B is right/wrong based on nothing but personal preferences.

Another point: have any of you noticed that "haven't" appears more often in BE and "didn't" more often in AE?

Consider:

1) I haven't posted at all today.
2) I didn't post at all today.

I think we all pay too much attention to so-called "experts" who in fact are no more right or wrong about what is good or bad English than we are. 

Gaer


----------



## te gato

gaer said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd vote for "D"
> D- The author(s) of this book is/are seriously anal-retentive.
> I vote for 'E'--'I'm here'...
> 
> Who is making these rules? Why..me of course...
> 
> In my opinion, such rules are never made by writers or people who are very comfortable using English. Yup they sure is.!!!
> 
> another point: have any of you noticed that "haven't" appears more often in BE and "didn't" more often in AE? mmmm...No I haven't..but didn't you say this same thing somewhere else?....
> 
> Gaer


 
Hey gaer;
I so agree with you on the 'Rules' thingie...
I know I have a heck of a time trying to remember half of them!! 

tg


----------



## germinal

gaer said:
			
		

> I think your book is "full of baloney"
> 
> I would definitely pick "C". I think either way is fine. To me it's a matter of style.
> 
> Actually, I'd vote for "D"
> 
> D- The author(s) of this book is/are seriously anal-retentive.
> 
> I suspect great authors would score poorly on such tests based on books like the one you are using. The rules are so inflexible and lacking in imagination that they are creatively stifling. I'm sure you book contains some questions that have clear answers. But this question is not one of them.
> 
> Here is my reasoning. First I particularly dislike books that try to make English so lifeless. Just Google "I have lived" vs. "I've been living", and examine the sentences that come up. Is there really a difference? Does it really matter? Who is making these rules?
> 
> In my opinion, such rules are never made by writers or people who are very comfortable using English. They are always made by pendants, the same kind of people who write "grammars" asserting that usage A or usage B is right/wrong based on nothing but personal preferences.
> 
> Another point: have any of you noticed that "haven't" appears more often in BE and "didn't" more often in AE?
> 
> Consider:
> 
> 1) I haven't posted at all today.
> 2) I didn't post at all today.
> 
> I think we all pay too much attention to so-called "experts" who in fact are no more right or wrong about what is good or bad English than we are.
> 
> Gaer


 

Good morning Gaer old bean!  No, I don't really talk like that.

About grammar - Like you I have never had much time for the dry rules and the ugly, baffling names (terminology) used by grammarians - and in English I have got away with it - perhaps because we grow up with the language all around us and its uses become fairly obvious. 

I have tried to learn French, Spanish & German simply using dictionaries to struggle through novels etc. and, although I can now read pretty well in Spanish and French and a little less well in German, I find I really need to try to get to grips with the basic Grammar. 

I don't think it is really a case of bossy, analy-retentive people (ugly expression that - just my opinion) laying down the law - but rather that a universally accepted tool has been created that helps people to strip down any language, look at the way it is constructed and see how it compares with other languages.

Having said that, I still find that the names (and the meanings) of the various tenses, for instance, are hard to keep in my head and I am toying with the idea of giving them pet names that mean something to me: 

Jehova = Present Indicative (I am the alpha and the Omega...)

Tennessee Waltz = Imperfect indicative (I was waltzing...)

Julius Ceasar = Preterite ? (I came, I saw, ...)

As you can see I am struggling now - maybe someone can suggest others? 

Germinal.


----------



## irishstu

OK. I hope I can help clear this up. 

"I have lived here all my life." is correct.
"I have been living here all my life." is also correct (gramatically), but using the progressive implies *temporary* status, so it seems somewhat illogical, unless you've been waiting your whole life to move somewhere else.

The progressive would be better used in this sort of example:
"I've been living here for a year." 



*Note that the whole present perfect question actually depends a lot on context. In the case of the original post in this thread it was determined by "all my life". In other cases, such as "today" completely different rules apply.

Sorry if this seems rather long, but it's actually not very simple. If anything's not clear, please ask. I've spent years explaining the difference between these tenses to students, so I'm more than happy to explain it a few more times .


----------



## germinal

irishstu said:
			
		

> OK. I hope I can help clear this up.
> 
> "I have lived here all my life." is correct.
> "I have been living here all my life." is also correct (gramatically), but using the progressive implies *temporary* status, so it seems somewhat illogical, unless you've been waiting your whole life to move somewhere else.
> 
> The progressive would be better used in this sort of example:
> "I've been living here for a year."
> 
> 
> 
> *Note that the whole present perfect question actually depends a lot on context. In the case of the original post in this thread it was determined by "all my life". In other cases, such as "today" completely different rules apply.
> 
> Sorry if this seems rather long, but it's actually not very simple. If anything's not clear, please ask. I've spent years explaining the difference between these tenses to students, so I'm more than happy to explain it a few more times .


 

Thanks for the explanation Irishstu - so you're a teacher? I thought you must be a policeman  (It's the way I tell em!) 

Germinal.


----------



## EricB

Yay, irishstu!

If I may weigh on grammar, pedantry, et al., I think understanding the rules is extremely useful, when it leads to clearer, more engaging, well thought out speech and writing.  E.B. White and George Orwell both wrote extremely well on this point, in my opinion.

It only becomes tiresome when it turns into a sticklers' game of pointing out linguistic infractions, whether real or imagined, to assert one's own status as King of All Nerds.  When a discussion of grammar is no longer about clear expression, it's pointless.


----------



## gaer

I think your explanation was excellent. 


			
				irishstu said:
			
		

> *Note that the whole present perfect question actually depends a lot on context.


That was the point I wanted to make, although I did it very poorly. Again and again topics are started that deal with an "A or B" choice, but we don't have enough context to get a true "feel" for what is going on.

Last night, after writing here, I began to wonder what would make me say: "I've lived here my whole life."

Let's suppose, for a moment, that all of us talking about this subject were asked these questions:

1) How long have you lived here?
2) How long have you been living here?

I might answer either question with an incomplete sentence: "Since the age of five." But if I gave a more complete answer, I _think_ I would respond using the same structure:

1) I've lived in South Florida most of my life, actually, since the age of five.
2) I've been living in South Florida most of my life, actually, since the age of five.

In other words, I believe many of us answer in a way that carries on the preceeding sentence structure, without even thinking about it. In just the way that a chord may sound horrible or wonderful, depending on which chord preceeds and follows it, the same thing is frequently true of a word, phrase or even a sentence.

When native speakers are confused about whether or not something sounds correct—or does not—I always suspect that there is "more to the story". 

Gaer


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> In my opinion, such rules are never made by writers or people who are very comfortable using English. They are always made by pendants, the same kind of people who write "grammars" asserting that usage A or usage B is right/wrong based on nothing but personal preferences.
> 
> Gaer


 Hi Gaer,

Let me join you (and te gato & EricB after you) in the cry against "rules for rules' sake" -- or for boosting the egos of the rule-makers  

Rules which help clear communication or help you remember useful things : OK, fine. 

Things that are imposed simply to satisfy rules (that have no other reason for their miserable existence!): very bad news  

By the way, I don't want to be _pendantic_, but these _pendants_ who write grammars: I guess they're the kind of people you wouldn't want to _hang _ out with. I knew one once, a real pain  in  _round_ the neck! - LOL 

W


----------



## Artrella

So... after having read all these posts... can anyone tell me if both are right or only the first alternative is the correct one?


----------



## VenusEnvy

Clearly, we all have different opinions, Art.
I'm sticking with my original inclination: They are both fine.


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi Gaer,
> 
> Let me join you (and te gato & EricB after you) in the cry against "rules for rules' sake" -- or for boosting the egos of the rule-makers
> 
> Rules which help clear communication or help you remember useful things : OK, fine.
> 
> Things that are imposed simply to satisfy rules (that have no other reason for their miserable existence!): very bad news
> 
> By the way, I don't want to be _pendantic_, but these _pendants_ who write grammars: I guess they're the kind of people you wouldn't want to _hang _out with. I knew one once, a real pain  in  _round_ the neck! - LOL
> 
> W


 
Absolutely and positively!Couldn't agree more.


----------



## cuchuflete

Artrella said:
			
		

> So... after having read all these posts... can anyone tell me if both are right or only the first alternative is the correct one?



It depends on the context, and what you wish to convey to the listener.


----------



## Artrella

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It depends on the context, and what you wish to convey to the listener.




I don't have context Cuchuflete, could you please show me some examples and tell me which context you are thinking of ?  It'd be really useful to me!!
Thank you


----------



## Wordsmyth

Artrella said:
			
		

> So... after having read all these posts... can anyone tell me if both are right or only the first alternative is the correct one?


 Sorry Art

In my last post I got so carried away with rules and Gaer's pendants that I forgot to add my vote  .

For me they're both right. 

Personally I'd use "I've lived" associated with a distinct event, and "I've been living" related to a more 'continuous' concept.

- "I've lived here all my life and now they want to evict me"

- "I've been living here all my life and I've always been happy in this town"

But that's just native speaker's instinct, NOT a rule . You could swap "lived" and "been living" in my examples and they'd still sound right. In fact I probably wouldn't even notice if we hadn't been discussing the subject.

W


----------



## garryknight

gaer said:
			
		

> Another point: have any of you noticed that "haven't" appears more often in BE and "didn't" more often in AE?


No, I didn't notice.  



			
				germinal said:
			
		

> maybe someone can suggest others?


Simple Perfect: I have been simple (but now I'm perfect).


----------



## germinal

garryknight said:
			
		

> No, I didn't notice.
> 
> 
> Simple Perfect: I have been simple (but now I'm perfect).


 

Simply perfect - thanks Garry I'll remember that one at least.       Germinal.


----------



## garryknight

Actually, you could use something similar for the Imperfect (I'm perfect) tense.



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> how do you do to think all these funny, brilliant phrases???


I just think of the phrases (or rather, they just pop into my head). If you think they're brilliant and funny then that's your contribution to the process, so thank you.  



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I admire you!!!!


Igualmente, Art, igualmente.


----------



## VenusEnvy

Artrella said:
			
		

> I don't have context Cuchuflete, could you please show me some examples and tell me which context you are thinking of ?  It'd be really useful to me!!
> Thank you


Haven't we been doing this for the entire thread?   

Specific examples using context can be found in post numbers: 7, 8, 20, 23, and 26


----------



## Artrella

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Haven't we been doing this for the entire thread?
> 
> Specific examples using context can be found in post numbers: 7, 8, 20, 23, and 26




Yes, Venus! Thank you


----------



## EricB

Artrella, I think irishstu did a good job of articulating what the difference between the two choices was and why "a" is grammatically correct (i.e., the progressive "I have been living" implies a temporary state which seems to contradict the seemingly more permanent "all my life"), at least for the purposes of an exercise in which we're only seeing one sentence on its own.


----------



## irishstu

> Originally Posted by *gaer*
> _ In my opinion, such rules are never made by writers or people who are very comfortable using English. They are always made by pendants, the same kind of people who write "grammars" asserting that usage A or usage B is right/wrong based on nothing but personal preferences.
> 
> Gaer_


_

Hey man, don't shoot the messenger 




			I thought you must be a policeman  (It's the way I tell em!) 

 Germinal.
		
Click to expand...


Thanks, Germinal. I wonder how many people apart from us got that joke. 

Seriously though, I also have a real problem with people forcing their "100% perfect grammar" on people. In this case I happened to know the rule, since after teaching it for five years in Spain, it became obvious that it needed to be explained very clearly.

Here's another example that I thought of where the progressive would fit well with "my whole life". I hope you can see why this is slightly different from the original quote.

"I've been waiting to do this my whole life."

The whole point here is that they've been in this temporary state their whole life and finally it's about to change.


Gaer made a very good point about it depending on the way the question is asked in the first place. People often don't know when they ask the question if you've been living somewhere on a temporary or permanent basis and generally we would answer with the same structure as the question.

I have to say that in real life, this sort of thing really doesn't matter at all. If you have to answer it in an exam though, remember the temporary/permanent rule.
_


----------



## gaer

irishstu said:
			
		

> Hey man, don't shoot the mesenger


Wait a second. Did you read the first thing I wrote, replying to you? 


			
				Gaer said:
			
		

> I think your explanation was excellent.


How is that shooting the messenger?  

Gaer


----------



## irishstu

Sorry man. Just messing. 

Also, I didn't mean to direct that at you specifically, Gaer. A lot of people were quoting what you said and using it to imply that many of the grammar rules in English were just there so people could feel smart for making them up in the first place. 

The point I was trying to make was that these rules DO exist and sometimes there is a good reason. It's just not immediately obvious until you finally find a clear explanation. I for one have definitely been guilty of saying "That's just stupid." on many occasions, especially when I was training to be a teacher. After finally giving in, though, I often found myself saying "Hwmm... well... I guess that IS quite sensible after all."


HOWEVER, I still think a lot of rules in English grammar are just stupid. 


P.S. Just noticed from your quote that I spelt "messenger" wrong.


----------



## mjscott

I've lived here all my life.
I've been living here all my life.

Could the second be redundant in that both _to be_ and _to live_ both mean _to exist_?

I've sat her all my life.  
I've been sitting here all my life.  
I've existed sitting here all my life.  
I've lived here all my life.  
I've existed here all my life.  
I've existed existing here all my life.  

Is that why it would be marked wrong (even though true life is depicted more like what Gaer said--that we reply in the same tense as was asked the question)?


----------



## te gato

mjscott said:
			
		

> I've lived here all my life.
> I've been living here all my life.
> 
> Could the second be redundant in that both _to be_ and _to live_ both mean _to exist_?
> 
> I've sat her all my life.
> I've been sitting here all my life.
> I've existed sitting here all my life.
> I've lived here all my life.
> I've existed here all my life.
> I've existed existing here all my life.
> 
> Is that why it would be marked wrong (even though true life is depicted more like what Gaer said--that we reply in the same tense as was asked the question)?


Hey Mj;
would her butt not get sore after a while?..and why will you not let her up..she has some existing to do?
tg


----------



## mjscott

Why is it whenever I post anything and I see that you've posted after me, I start giggling even before I look and see what it is that you've written? You don't know if I was referring to babysitting--however, if I've sat her all my life, she probably is old enough that I don't have to be her sitter for much longer.

I concede, te_gato!

I've sat here all my life.


----------



## te gato

mjscott said:
			
		

> Why is it whenever I post anything and I see that you've posted after me, I start giggling even before I look and see what it is that you've written? You don't know if I was referring to babysitting--however, if I've sat her all my life, she probably is old enough that I don't have to be her sitter for much longer.
> 
> I concede, te_gato!
> 
> I've sat here all my life.


mj;
Is there nothing you don't do..on top of everything...you are a nanny/nursemaid/wetnurse as well...and 'all your life!!'

tg


----------



## timpeac

irishstu said:
			
		

> Sorry man. Just messing.
> 
> Also, I didn't mean to direct that at you specifically, Gaer. A lot of people were quoting what you said and using it to imply that many of the grammar rules in English were just there so people could feel smart for making them up in the first place.
> 
> The point I was trying to make was that these rules DO exist and sometimes there is a good reason. It's just not immediately obvious until you finally find a clear explanation. I for one have definitely been guilty of saying "That's just stupid." on many occasions, especially when I was training to be a teacher. After finally giving in, though, I often found myself saying "Hwmm... well... I guess that IS quite sensible after all."
> 
> 
> HOWEVER, I still think a lot of rules in English grammar are just stupid.
> 
> 
> P.S. Just noticed from your quote that I spelt "messenger" wrong.


 
Since I supported Gaer's original comment about grammar rules, I will now support this now that you've nuanced it. You do make a good point.

Grammar rules are useful if they teach us how to mimic general usage. Personally I expect a grammar rule to "prove itself" eg "why should I adhere to that rule that you, another human being, suggest?". Too often people follow rules "just because that was what they told me in school". Often such rules are even counterproductive, going against what a lot of people actually do do, and that is when it seems the rules are just there to allow the educated elite to feel smug.


----------



## irishstu

Thanks, timpeac.

I think the reason I feel strongly about this is that after having learnt Spanish, I appreciate how useful it is to have a rule that you can refer to and stick to.

I certainly prefer when someone tells me a rule than answers with "You just get a feel for it", or "It just is". If English is your native language, then fine, because you spend a lifetime getting a feel for what is right or wrong, often without questioning why. However, if you come along in later life and try to learn/improve you English, that's not a great option.

Anyway, I kind of feel like I've started something here, which was never my intention. My apologies to anyone who may have a different opinion.


----------



## Artrella

I want to thank you all, especially to EricB and Irishtu... still I need rules, because I have to explain my students, and I cannot say "look natives say this is better..." but when they ask "why is it better?"...what can I say?...for me it's better the alternative "I've lived"...but I don't know why either, that's why I ask so many questions here...


----------



## germinal

¡¡Viva las preguntas!!


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> I want to thank you all, especially to EricB and Irishtu... still I need rules, because I have to explain my students, and I cannot say "look natives say this is better..." but when they ask "why is it better?"...what can I say?...for me it's better the alternative "I've lived"...but I don't know why either, that's why I ask so many questions here...


Art GF;

As a 'native' English speaker (_ja ja ja ja ja ja_)..I feel that I need to clarify a few points..

I'm not saying not to use the rules of English Grammar...I think what I was trying to convey in my tripping over my tounge way, was that the grammer for the english language is so extensive and even to me very confusing..and at times it is very hard to explain 'how' to say something 'by the rules'..(_sure if I was next-door to you and we had a few hours/days/years to kill_)..

I do not think that we 'natives' are purposely trying to be vague, or a bunch of jerks,   when we say 'go by feel'..or 'because it sounds right'...I sometimes say it..because, I know how the 'rule' works..but do not know how to explain it in an easy precise and concise manner that would be understandable, without writing a bazillion page book...

So please do not misunderstand me when I say that the 'rules' stink...it is not meaning do not learn the rules...

tg


----------



## Artrella

germinal said:
			
		

> ¡¡Viva las preguntas!!



Germinal...although this is English Only... may I correct your sentence?...

¡Viva*n*  las preguntas! (this comes from the subjunctive mood "que vivan ellas"
i.e. "las diferencias" (3rd person plural)... wow...maybe it was just a typo!


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> Since I supported Gaer's original comment about grammar rules, I will now support this now that you've nuanced it. You do make a good point.


I wonder if anyone noticed that I had disappeared for two days? 

I don't have any strong disagreement with anything that anyone has said in this discussion. In fact, most of the people who have posted are people I have enjoyed talking with in many other discussions. I was embarrassed because apparently some people have thought that I was attacking them, or that I was arguing in favor of throwing out all rules.

My irritation was at Art's book, because I truly felt that she would not have needed to ask for help here about WHY a particular answer (A) was right IF the book itself explained the point it was apparently trying to make in a way that made sense. Stu finally summed up the rule, very well too. 

Now we all know what the rule is, and we can decide whether or not any individual sentence considered needs to have that rule applied to it, without considering other factors. When rules are explained intelligently and we are allowed to apply them without having to follow them blindly, I'm in favor of such rules.

My frustration comes from the fact that I've seen totally idiotic rules repeated in music instruction books for several centuries, damaging rules, rules passed on from one generation to the next. Some of the teachers who pass on rules that are ridiculous do so because it is what their teachers taught them. And some of these teachers are incredibly gifted performers who have no idea that they stopped obeying those rules decades ago. They are teaching one thing and doing another.

I believe the same thing happens in language. I've read examples that have shown grammarians THEMSELVES breaking one rule that they insist must be followed while explaining why another rule must be followed.

So the only point I meant to make is that we need to think very carefully when following rules. Who made the rules? Were they really stated as rules in the beginning? (Many times they were stated as preferences.) Who were the rules made for? What was the purpose of the rules?

And should I whip myself 20 times for not having written: "For whom were the rules made?" In that one sentence I broke two rules commonly taught in grammar school:

(1) Don't split an infinitive and its object.
(2) Always use "whom" when it is the object of a preposition.

In the end, perhaps this is the most important thing for me: who follows the rules, and who breaks them?



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Grammar rules are useful if they teach us how to mimic general usage. Personally I expect a grammar rule to "prove itself" eg "why should I adhere to that rule that you, another human being, suggest?". Too often people follow rules "just because that was what they told me in school".


That's the point I wanted to make. Whenever someone, even an expert, makes a rule that says that usage A is correct and usage B is not, I want time to see if the rule reflects how our language is used practically, not just theoretically.

Gaer


----------



## Artrella

> My irritation was at Art's book, because I truly felt that she would not have needed to ask for help here about WHY a particular answer (A) was right IF the book itself explained the point it was apparently trying to make in a way that made sense




Hi Gaer, the book didn't explained anything, first.  Second, I want to know the "natives" ideas... that's why I ask here.  I don't understand your irritation.  Maybe I am misreading your post?


----------



## lsp

gaer said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone noticed that I had disappeared for two days? ...Gaer


 No, when?! Because by my watch it's only been a smidge over 24 hours since your previous post! Don't think we aren't noticing!


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi Gaer, the book didn't explain anything, first. Second, I want to know the "natives" ideas... that's why I ask here. I don't understand your irritation. Maybe I am misreading your post?


Yup. You have totally misread my thoughts.  

My irritation was at the book. You just said it didn't explain anything.

I don't know what else to say. 

Gaer


----------



## germinal

Artrella said:
			
		

> Germinal...althought this is English Only... may I correct your sentence?...
> 
> ¡Viva*n* las preguntas! (this comes from the subjunctive mood "que vivan ellas"
> i.e. "las diferencias" (3rd person plural)... wow...maybe it was just a typo!


 

Thanks Artrella - No it wasn't a typo - I just whacked it down without thinking about it and I'm glad you pointed it out.

Un Saludo - Germinal.


----------



## irishstu

gaer said:
			
		

> "For whom were the rules made?"
> 
> Gaer



Gaer brings up an excellent point here, which is that the rules of English change through time.

When I was at school I would have been crucified (well.... almost) for writing 
"Who were the rules made for?". These days, that phrase is perfectly acceptable.

I personally would NEVER encourage any students to use "For whom were the rules made", even though it follows all the rules, etc. Why? Because people don't talk like that anymore, and if you were to use that expression you would seem out of place.


----------



## gaer

irishstu said:
			
		

> Gaer brings up an excellent point here, which is that the rules of English change through time.
> 
> When I was at school I would have been crucified (well.... almost) for writing
> "Who were the rules made for?". These days, that phrase is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> I personally would NEVER encourage any students to use "For whom were the rules made", even though it follows all the rules, etc. Why? Because people don't talk like that anymore, and if you were to use that expression you would seem out of place.


I agree, except that I would argue that people have not necessarily been talking that way for several centuries.

This may surprise you. It surprised me. These are all Shakespeare's, written around 1600:

1) Who woudst thou strike?

2) Consider who the King your father sends,
To whom he sends, and what's his embassy

3) To who, my lord?

4) Between who?

I can give you the characters from the plays who said those lines. This information is again from "Dictionary of English Usage" by Merriam-Webster", which I've mentioned several times in this forum. There are also a number of similar lines, also by Shakespeare, using "whom". In other words, he used whatever sounded best to him at any given moment.

I'm quoting just a tiny part of very long article that states that the controversy over who and whom has been going on pretty much the same way for about 400 years. 

Gaer


----------



## timpeac

gaer said:
			
		

> I agree, except that I would argue that people have not necessarily been talking that way for several centuries.
> 
> This may surprise you. It surprised me. These are all Shakespeare's, written around 1600:
> 
> 1) Who woudst thou strike?
> 
> 2) Consider who the King your father sends,
> To whom he sends, and what's his embassy
> 
> 3) To who, my lord?
> 
> 4) Between who?
> 
> I can give you the characters from the plays who said those lines. This information is again from "Dictionary of English Usage" by Merriam-Webster", which I've mentioned several times in this forum. There are also a number of similar lines, also by Shakespeare, using "whom". In other words, he used whatever sounded best to him at any given moment.
> 
> I'm quoting just a tiny part of very long article that states that the controversy over who and whom has been going on pretty much the same way for about 400 years.
> 
> Gaer


 
How depressing, so pedantic grammarians have been getting their jollies laughing at the great unwashed on this issue for over 400 years! For shame my lord!


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> [...]
> So the only point I meant to make is that we need to think very carefully when following rules. Who made the rules? Were they really stated as rules in the beginning? (Many times they were stated as preferences.) Who were the rules made for? What was the purpose of the rules?
> 
> And should I whip myself 20 times for not having written: "For whom were the rules made?" In that one sentence I broke two rules commonly taught in grammar school:
> 
> (1) Don't split an infinitive and its object.
> (2) Always use "whom" when it is the object of a preposition. [...]


 Hi Gaer,

Welcome back after 24+ hours  

I'm confused . Where are the infinitive and its 'split' object? -- "to make"?, "point"? : If it's that, then the rule you quote is news to me  

W


----------



## mjscott

These are some of the definitions for *be* from the WordReference dictionary pertaining to the original question:

*3 *exist, *be*
_have an existence, be extant; "Is there a God?" _


*5 **be*, live
_have life, be alive; "Our great leader is no more"; "My grandfather lived until the end of war" _


These are some of the definitions for *live* from the WordReference dictionary pertaining to the original question:

*2 *be, *live*
_have life, be alive; "Our great leader is no more"; "My grandfather lived until the end of war" _
*5 *exist, survive, *live*, subsist
_support oneself; "he could barely exist on such a low wage"; "Can you live on $2000 a month in New York City?"; "Many people in the world have to subsist on $1 a day" _


To me, it makes sense to say,
_I have been using this brand of toothpaste all my life._
because it means "I have existed using this brand of toothpaste all my life."

To me, it makes less sense to say,
_I have been living here all my life. _(*the emphasis is on the final verb, living--not on the use of "I have been")*
because it means, "I have existed existing here all my life."


----------



## germinal

*<3 *exist, *be*

To me, it makes less sense to say,
_I have been living here all my life. _(*the emphasis is on the final verb, living--not on the use of "I have been")*
because it means, "I have existed existing here all my life."[/QUOTE]>





At last, some support! I refer you to my previous answer - which, despite its great depth and perception, received scant attention!   

And here it is: 
Perhaps it does not sound quite right because we know instinctively that one of the words is redundant.

You could say 'I have been here all my life' so 'living' is not really needed - in fact, with it, it almost has the meaning - 'I have been being here all my life' 

Germinal.


----------



## Wordsmyth

irishstu said:
			
		

> Gaer brings up an excellent point here, which is that the rules of English change through time.
> 
> When I was at school I would have been crucified (well.... almost) for writing
> "Who were the rules made for?". These days, that phrase is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> I personally would NEVER encourage any students to use  "For whom were the rules made", even though it follows all the rules, etc. Why? Because people don't talk like that anymore, and if you were to use that expression you would seem out of place.


Hi Stu,

Totally agree that teachers (dictionaries, grammar books, ...) should move with the times when language evolves -- as long as that evolution is not a degradation! 

No problem with the example above : "Who were the rules made for?" is just as clear as "For whom were the rules made?", and it's not more clumsy, nor ambiguous ...

But I guess you wouldn't condone teachers' abandoning 'good English' for degraded language just because "people talk like that" : I've always felt teachers have an important role in 'nipping in the bud' certain 'bad' language trends (e.g. where clarity, utility, etc suffer) before they become so established that it's too late. Tough call, I know, but I'd hate to see 'English like what it's spoke' become standard  

I know we're in the 'English only' forum here, but one good example of a 'bad' (for me!) language evolution is certain numbers in French: for example, ninety-nine was _nonante-neuf _ (and still is in Swiss & Belgian French), but from the 16th century in France it became _quatre-vingt-dix-neuf_: "Four twenties ten nine"  Why??? : Don't know, but maybe just because some people talked like that and no-one nipped it in the bud!  

W


----------



## germinal

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi Stu,
> 
> Totally agree that teachers (dictionaries, grammar books, ...) should move with the times when language evolves -- as long as that evolution is not a degradation!
> 
> No problem with the example above : "Who were the rules made for?" is just as clear as "For whom were the rules made?", and it's not more clumsy, nor ambiguous ...
> 
> But I guess you wouldn't condone teachers' abandoning 'good English' for degraded language just because "people talk like that" : I've always felt teachers have an important role in 'nipping in the bud' certain 'bad' language trends (e.g. where clarity, utility, etc suffer) before they become so established that it's too late. Tough call, I know, but I'd hate to see 'English like what it's spoke' become standard
> 
> I know we're in the 'English only' forum here, but one good example of a 'bad' (for me!) language evolution is certain numbers in French: for example, ninety-nine was _nonante-neuf _(and still is in Swiss & Belgian French), but from the 16th century in France it became _quatre-vingt-dix-neuf_: "Four twenties ten nine"  Why??? : Don't know, but maybe just because some people talked like that and no-one nipped it in the bud!
> 
> W


 

Still, it would be a shame to change over four hundred years of tradition......

Germinal.


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> But I guess you wouldn't condone teachers' abandoning 'good English' for degraded language just because "people talk like that" : I've always felt teachers have an important role in 'nipping in the bud' certain 'bad' language trends (e.g. where clarity, utility, etc suffer) before they become so established that it's too late. Tough call, I know, but I'd hate to see 'English like what it's spoke' become standard


 
No offence, but I think this is a misconception. As language evolves it changes but it does not become less clear. It may appear to in comparison with the rules of the previous rules and perhaps does in certain areas but it can evolve new nuances that were missing as well. 

If you think about it, it is only in the last millennium or two that language has been seriously codified and the opinion of grammarians taken seriously etc. Until recent times most people were illiterate and yet our respective languages did not degenerate into a series of grunts.

All in all language is the means of communication and will "find its level" necessary to fulfil that communication. This is why it is more important to be clear in writing, say, than in speech since we cannot question the author of a book as we read it if we don't understand something. It is also the reason the emoticon - our cherished smilies - evolved in forums like this.


----------



## te gato

germinal said:
			
		

> *<3 *exist, *be*
> 
> To me, it makes less sense to say,
> _I have been living here all my life. _(*the emphasis is on the final verb, living--not on the use of "I have been")*
> because it means, "I have existed existing here all my life."


>

At last, some support! I refer you to my previous answer - which, despite its great depth and perception, received scant attention! 

And here it is: 
Perhaps it does not sound quite right because we know instinctively that one of the words is redundant.

You could say 'I have been here all my life' so 'living' is not really needed - in fact, with it, it almost has the meaning - 'I have been being here all my life' 

Germinal. [/QUOTE]
---------------------
Germinal;

Ok..I do agree..BUT...
Is the emphasis not on 'all my life'...when you use...live...lived..living..in a sentence like this?...
'where have you been....'all your life'..(_I almost put all my life..ha ha_)
Oh I've *lived* here, in this little house where I grew up..and it still has the same wall-paper in the kitchen that it had when I was 4...you know the kind..with the Roosters and the coffee cans on it...

tg


----------



## germinal

te gato said:
			
		

> >[/color]
> 
> At last, some support! I refer you to my previous answer - which, despite its great depth and perception, received scant attention!
> 
> And here it is:
> Perhaps it does not sound quite right because we know instinctively that one of the words is redundant.
> 
> You could say 'I have been here all my life' so 'living' is not really needed - in fact, with it, it almost has the meaning - 'I have been being here all my life'
> 
> Germinal.


---------------------
Germinal;

Ok..I do agree..BUT...
Is the emphasis not on 'all my life'...when you use...live...lived..living..in a sentence like this?...
'where have you been....'all your life'..(_I almost put all my life..ha ha_)
Oh I've *lived* here, in this little house where I grew up..and it still has the same wall-paper in the kitchen that it had when I was 4...you know the kind..with the Roosters and the coffee cans on it...

tg[/QUOTE]


I see your point te gato and I had thought about including something to that effect in my original posting but I thought I would concentrate on the two verbs so as not to complicate things too much.    This whole sentence is absolutely bursting at the seams with life!  

Coffee cans & roosters - have I left my web-cam on?    

Germinal.


----------



## charmingman

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi Stu,
> 
> Totally agree that teachers (dictionaries, grammar books, ...) should move with the times when language evolves -- as long as that evolution is not a degradation!
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> But I guess you wouldn't condone teachers' abandoning 'good English' for degraded language just because "people talk like that" : I've always felt teachers have an important role in 'nipping in the bud' certain 'bad' language trends (e.g. where clarity, utility, etc suffer) before they become so established that it's too late. Tough call, I know, but I'd hate to see 'English like what it's spoke' become standard
> 
> -- snip --


I feel, it depends on what kind of English teacher you are. I think that if you're teaching EFL then you need to prepare students for the real world. If it's important you could spend time with an advanced class teaching them "the rulz". But how many EFL students are going to find that useful these days? On the other hand, English speakers with an aim to study literature should be well aware of how English grammar works.



			
				Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> No problem with the example above : "Who were the rules made for?" is just as clear as "For whom were the rules made?", and it's not more clumsy, nor ambiguous ...


I lament that it sounds ridiculous these days to say "For whom" when speaking English, but it's perfectly sounds perfectly natural when speaking German. Oh, how screwed up our language has become!

CM


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi Gaer,
> 
> Welcome back after 24+ hours
> 
> I'm confused . Where are the infinitive  and its 'split' object? -- "to make"?, "point"? : If it's that, then the rule you quote is news to me
> 
> W


Oops! A PREOPOSITION  and its object. I hope you guessed what a basic error I made.  

Sorry about that!

Gaer


----------



## irishstu

I'd just like to say that this has become a very interesting thread.


----------



## gaer

charmingman said:
			
		

> I lament that it sounds ridiculous these days to say "For whom" when speaking English, but it's perfectly sounds perfectly natural when speaking German.
> CM


When you say "these days", what do you mean?

Consider this sentence:

"For whom is this?"

Do you really think that "Who is this for?" is a recent change in the English language?

And why are comparing English to German when German has three forms:

wer, who nominative
wen, (who(m)—accusative
wem, (who(m)—dative

Gaer


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> Oops! A PREOPOSITION  and its object. I hope you guessed what a basic error I made.
> 
> Sorry about that!
> 
> Gaer


Thanks Gaer,

I didn't take the time for lateral thinking before  

But I see it now: you were joining forces with Winston Churchill : "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with"  

W


----------



## Wordsmyth

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> [...] from the 16th century in France it became quatre-vingt-dix-neuf: "Four twenties ten nine" [...]





			
				germinal said:
			
		

> Still, it would be a shame to change over four hundred years of tradition......
> 
> Germinal.


 Touché, Germinal   

W


----------



## Wordsmyth

irishstu said:
			
		

> I'd just like to say that this has become a very interesting thread.


It has, but before a watchful Mod shouts "OT" (cf Art's original title), I'm starting a new thread for the "evolving language" theme. Come and join me in "Language evolves - for better or worse!" (starting with replies to timpeac's post #68, & charmingman's post #71).

W


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Thanks Gaer,
> 
> I didn't take the time for lateral thinking before
> 
> But I see it now: you were joining forces with Winston Churchill : "Never use a preposition to end a sentence with"
> 
> W


Or: "This is something up with which I will not put…"  

Gaer


----------

