| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:41 am Post subject: present perfect meltdown |
 |
|
It has been a tough week, so I'll use that as an exuse to ask a question about the following sentences:
A) It has snowed for three days.
B) It has been snowing for three days.
One of my grammar references (NOT Practical English Usage this time ^^) says:
| Quote: |
| With stative and activity verbs, the present perfect expresses a situation that started in the past and continues to the present. |
and
| Quote: |
| The present perfect progressive and present perfect are sometimes essentially intechangeable. The main difference may be that the present progressive seems more ongoing. |
Question: Is it possible (and grammatically correct) to use sentence A if it is still snowing now? I guess that B would be preferred (to convey the ongoing), but if A is used, does it have to mean that it has stopped snowing?
Thanks for comments on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cazzy3
Joined: 07 May 2008
Location: kangwon-do
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My take is that the first sentence implies consecutive days.
It has snowed for three days.
The second conveys the meaning of continuous, non-stop action.
Personally, I don't think one should use the preposition 'for' when the verb can be used in the continuous form. For non-continuous verbs, i.e. 'to be' it is perfectly acceptable.
Ex. I have been here for five minutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your reply, and thanks for your additional comment about "for". I would like to hear other comments about that, as one of my grammar books gives the following example:
He has worked with our company for over 20 years.
"work" can be used in the continuous form, so it that example incorrect? Or is it an exception? Or is this an AE/BE difference?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: present perfect meltdown |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
It has been a tough week, so I'll use that as an exuse to ask a question about the following sentences:
A) It has snowed for three days.
B) It has been snowing for three days.
One of my grammar references (NOT Practical English Usage this time ^^) says:
| Quote: |
| With stative and activity verbs, the present perfect expresses a situation that started in the past and continues to the present. |
and
| Quote: |
| The present perfect progressive and present perfect are sometimes essentially intechangeable. The main difference may be that the present progressive seems more ongoing. |
Question: Is it possible (and grammatically correct) to use sentence A if it is still snowing now? I guess that B would be preferred (to convey the ongoing), but if A is used, does it have to mean that it has stopped snowing?
Thanks for comments on this one. |
I am not sure of your concern here.
Yes A is ok. (and still snowing optional...with preference on still snowing.)
Why would it have to mean that is has stopped snowing?
You lost me here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum wrote:
| Quote: |
| I am not sure of your concern here. |
Sorry, I guess I have two concerns.
1 - May seem trivial, but I was worried that if the situation is still ongoing (in my example - if it is still snowing at the present) that the present prefect continuous must be used.
2 - After reading cazzy3's reply, I started to question whether or not "for" can be used in the sentence "It has snowed for three days." The sentences in my grammar books that have "for" use verbs that aren't used in the continuous form (I have had this book for ~ / We've belonged to this group for ~) etc.
However, in one book, I did find "He has worked for our company for over 20 years."
Grammar paranoia? Perhaps! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
The Cosmic Hum wrote:
| Quote: |
| I am not sure of your concern here. |
Sorry, I guess I have two concerns.
1 - May seem trivial, but I was worried that if the situation is still ongoing (in my example - if it is still snowing at the present) that the present prefect continuous must be used.
2 - After reading cazzy3's reply, I started to question whether or not "for" can be used in the sentence "It has snowed for three days." The sentences in my grammar books that have "for" use verbs that aren't used in the continuous form (I have had this book for ~ / We've belonged to this group for ~) etc.
However, in one book, I did find "He has worked for our company for over 20 years."
Grammar paranoia? Perhaps! |
1- not must - but most likely preferable to many
2- Not exactly sure of your interpretation of cazzy3 but my take was that it was only a suggestion...certainly not a rule.
You are not paranoid - grammarians are always out to get you.
However, you seem to be looking for some lock on grammar that evades even the keenest grammarians.
I wish you the best on your search for the Holy Grail of grammar stability.
It seems that flexibility and the descriptive approach to grammar is all the rave these days...much to the annoyance of a great many prescriptive grammarians.
Personally, I like the flexibility...kind of inspiring in a way.
Always new ways to arrange a clever thought.
Cheers.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the paranoia might come from the perception of Koreans that they must speak with flawless grammar. If their concern is to be able to communicate with the world on a professional and business level, then they might be interested to know that many English speakers in these high level positions don't use perfect grammar themselves. They might be articulate, but they break grammatical rules all the time. They simply don't care as long as the message is loud and clear. In addition, the use of idioms is so excessive in these fields that I would suggest Koreans worry more about those than these anal grammatical problems. Also, pronunciation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LPKSA
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: Saudi Arabia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: present perfect meltdown |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
It has been a tough week, so I'll use that as an exuse to ask a question about the following sentences:
A) It has snowed for three days.
B) It has been snowing for three days.
One of my grammar references (NOT Practical English Usage this time ^^) says:
| Quote: |
| With stative and activity verbs, the present perfect expresses a situation that started in the past and continues to the present. |
and
| Quote: |
| The present perfect progressive and present perfect are sometimes essentially intechangeable. The main difference may be that the present progressive seems more ongoing. |
Question: Is it possible (and grammatically correct) to use sentence A if it is still snowing now? I guess that B would be preferred (to convey the ongoing), but if A is used, does it have to mean that it has stopped snowing?
Thanks for comments on this one. |
If it stopped snowing, I don't think sentence A makes sense, to tell you the truth. If it stopped snowing, then you would simply use the simple past tense (it snowed for three days.). Present perfect, yes, but in simple sentences like this, it's not necessary, but that is not to say that sentence A is grammatically incorrect. Sentence B makes more sense if it were still snowing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
