state verbs

[Miledgol]

Actually, the topic is not a new one. Can anyone help me Which is correct
He used to live in Geneva. or He would live in Geneva.
I feel that the first sentence is guite right. What about the scond? Is it about state & activity verbs? To live -- state or activity?
Will be grateful to hear from native-speakers especially. Milena -- ESL teacher

[LarryLatham]

Hello Milena,

Actually, both of your sentences are correct sentences, but they don't mean the same thing.

He used to live in Geneva.

The meaning of this sentence can be characterized approximately as follows: He lived in Geneva for a period of time before now, but prior to now, although after the period during which he lived there, there was a period of time during which he did not live in Geneva. He may, or may not live in Geneva now, depending on the context. I know that may sound somewhat confusing, but if you think it through slowly, it does make sense. I wish there were graphics available to us in this forum so I could draw a time line for you....but, alas.

He would live in Geneva.

This sentence, despite being quite correct in form, would, I think, be very rare. I would expect to hear or read it perhaps when someone is telling a story about a man's past history--a biography, using a somewhat literary style, and indicating that after some event just mentioned before this sentence, the subject (he) moved (most likely, but perhaps stayed, if he already was there) to Geneva to live.

I hope this gives you some help. I don't believe analysis of these sentences has anything to do with whether or not you classify the verb as a state (or stative) verb or an activity verb.

Larry Latham (a native speaker)

[Miledgol]

Thank you, Larry, for your reply. It was really helpful. I read thoroughly through your explanation & I guess I understood what you meant. Why I put the question into state/activity verbs category Just because in the English Oxford course-book Opportunities such kind of the example was given in the choice exercise dealing with state/activity verbs.
Thanks again
Milena

[LarryLatham]

I can understand why you put it the way you did then, Milena. Most of the time, the distinction between stative verbs and activity verbs is pretty straight forward and not hard to make. Verbs like (be)*, (appear), (see), (think), (know), (believe), (feel), (resemble), (wish), and others, seem to describe a stable situation that does not have a well-defined beginning or end (or at least, the beginning or end point is of no importance to the user). I guess that's why they are called "states."

*I put verbs in brackets () to show that I mean all forms of the verb, such as be, is, are, was, were, been, and so on.

But I always feel that grammatical characteristics like these do not inhere in the words themselves, but in the way they are used. For example, (think) is usually thought of as a stative verb, presumably because we all (well most of us, anyway ) think more or less continuously. It's an ongoing state. However, it is entirely possible (and correct) for someone to say, upon being asked whether she will join the group for a trip to the countryside this weekend:

"Well, I'm thinking maybe I'd better stay here and study for my English exam."

Now, you see, this use of (think) is much more like an activity verb. The use of continuous form (not usually considered proper with stative verbs) implies that the activity described has a duration which is temporary--meaning that it has a beginning and an end which surely makes it look like an activity. Such a sentence would be not the least bit unusual to hear on a college campus, for instance. So, in my view at least, whether or not a verb is stative or activity in nature depends on how it is used. The verb (live) is, I think, usually considered to be an activity verb, for what that's worth. In the use that you have presented, some variant of, "He lives in Geneva.", it can be presumed that he started to live there at some point in time, and continued to live there for some period of time which eventually, of course, must come to an end, either by his moving elsewhere or by his death.

The bottom line in the case of the two sentences you originally presented, however, Milena, is that both are correct sentences.

I wish you the best and hope this was helpful to you, at least a little.

Larry Latham

[Miledgol]

Thanks again a lot!
I've always kept thinking that these categories of the above mentioned verbs depend on how you look at their meanings. And generally, a lot of things in English grammar seem to depend on the situation you use them. You sound very convincingly, I guess I got you.
Many thanks

[metal56]

During the summer, he would live in Geneva.

That's fine.

[Duncan Powrie]

There's something about "used to" vs. "would" in the Second edition of "The Grammar Book": discourse studies have shown that when people are fondly reminiscing and want to go through a "list" of the enjoyable activities in which they regularly partook (rather than make a single, "practice-like" and perhaps less "dynamic"/more "stative" statement), then "used to" precedes/heads a chain of several "woulds". So, "used to" and "would" have quite different functions (=meanings/uses) when used separately (as Larry points out), but they can be used together with little difference in meaning, just as long as they are used in the above order; "used to" is therefore the initial and clearly past "point of departure" that sets up a context in which the quicker-to-say and simpler "would" can be easily used with no risk of misunderstanding the latter's function within that context. Note that "used to" CANNOT be used in the way that "would" is here: it is used only once, at the very beginning, to set up the context, because obviously no speaker would want to sound crazy by totally changing the context in such quick succession!