[quote=“Chris”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Worse than that is the ubiquitous “me either” that Americans commonly say…
Related to that is “Joe and me are going to school.”[/quote]
I would consider both of these to be examples of childish speech.[/quote]
They are, but it’s remarkable how many people say such things.
tom: I understand. I’ve noticed that also and it also grates on me. It’s like “I’ve been playing tennis for six years.” I remember a while ago I brought this up and many posters at this site thought I was ridiculous for suggesting that’s technically incorrect. To me it suggests continuity (hence why it’s the present perfect continuous), not isolated instances over a long period of time, as they suggested. Clearly, no one can play tennis continuously for six years without a break.
What frustrates me about it is that it’s a case of little bits of meaning getting rubbed away all the time. Being able to use such things actually makes it easier for people to communicate because doing so conveys much more precision. I don’t need to clarify this with you, because you speak English well. You could use the past perfect continuous with me and I would know exactly what you meant. However, I’ve often found myself involved in lengthy and confusing explanations and debates with so-called native speakers precisely because they cannot use the language to make very specific points and so stumble around in the dark, so to speak.
I recall your discussion about this, guy. Out of interest, how long ago did it have to be a genuinely continuous action to be considered correct? I’ve been teaching for a long time. I happen to be on my break right now, but I’ll be back in the classroom in a couple of minutes. In modern usage there’s no problem with describing my situation that way because it’s a continuous verb. We accept that there might have been pauses in the action.
I’ll fish out my 1932 edition of The King’s English and see what that has to say on the subject .
tom: I understand. I’ve noticed that also and it also grates on me. It’s like “I’ve been playing tennis for six years.” I remember a while ago I brought this up and many posters at this site thought I was ridiculous for suggesting that’s technically incorrect. To me it suggests continuity (hence why it’s the present perfect continuous), not isolated instances over a long period of time, as they suggested. Clearly, no one can play tennis continuously for six years without a break.
[/quote]
It also suggests that you are continuing to play tennis (although not continuously) vs you no longer play tennis anymore.[/quote]
Not with the addition of ‘for six years’. If that’s added then it doesn’t matter whether the present perfect simple or continous is used; he still plays tennis.
The general interpretation of the present perfect continuous is usually that it either places the emphasis on the period of time or that the result of the action is noticable now, isn’t it?* I tend not to bother teaching this stuff explicitly anymore (unless asked), so I may be a bit rusty.
Quick edit as the memory hamster whirred into action
Interesting. How does ‘in front of’ strike you?[/quote]
“In front of” is fine. Which makes it odder that “in back of” should sound so wrong. Maybe it’s because it’s grammatically different to “behind”.
I was thinking about this. “We” also say “in the back of” to describe the position of someone or something in a room, car etc. Is that the same elsewhere?
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Worse than that is the ubiquitous “me either” that Americans commonly say…
Related to that is “Joe and me are going to school.”[/quote]
I would consider both of these to be examples of childish speech.[/quote]
The former would slide pretty easily off off my NYC lips. Joe and me, no.
[quote=“tomthorne”][quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
tom: I understand. I’ve noticed that also and it also grates on me. It’s like “I’ve been playing tennis for six years.” I remember a while ago I brought this up and many posters at this site thought I was ridiculous for suggesting that’s technically incorrect. To me it suggests continuity (hence why it’s the present perfect continuous), not isolated instances over a long period of time, as they suggested. Clearly, no one can play tennis continuously for six years without a break.
[/quote]
I recall your discussion about this, guy. Out of interest, how long ago did it have to be a genuinely continuous action to be considered correct? I’ve been teaching for a long time. I happen to be on my break right now, but I’ll be back in the classroom in a couple of minutes. In modern usage there’s no problem with describing my situation that way because it’s a continuous verb. We accept that there might have been pauses in the action.
[/quote]
It seems to me that both present perfect and present perfect continuous are fine for long-term actions like hobbies, education, housing, work etc. There’s no chance of misinterpreting Guy’s example sentence above, is there?
I was going to ask the same question as Chris. Usage of past tense with already, just, and yet and similar situations is pretty well established all over the US I think.
[quote=“Taffy”]
“In front of” is fine. Which makes it odder that “in back of” should sound so wrong. Maybe it’s because it’s grammatically different to “behind”.[/quote]
Abacus: That’s what I’m saying though. There’s a distinction between the two. “Have played” and “have been playing” are different.
If you wanted to say you no longer played tennis, you would use the simple past, surely.
tom: I don’t know how long ago. Do we put an exact time difference on the simple, continuous, perfect or perfect continuous? In some cases, yes. How do you define continuous verbs though? Clearly there’s a difference between doing it right now (having started in the past) and not doing it right now (though having started in the past and likely/going to do it again in the future), yet several people here seem to be arguing that the first can also mean the second. No wonder foreigners find English grammar confusing. We can’t even agree on it ourselves, though we can understand what is meant.
You say that you notice that the perfect is disappearing, yet isn’t this more of the same? It’s all about usage. So is “Joe and me are going down the street.” If we’re talking about usage, then at some point (perhaps even now), a tipping point is reached and what is incorrect becomes correct simply by virtue of numbers, even though it doesn’t make sense. There are probably some things, such as the difference between “your” and “you’re” that passed that tipping point a long time ago, yet we continue to claim they are incorrect. Why?
Tempo Gain: There’s no way of misinterpreting “Joe and me…” Do we consider it correct simply because the meaning is understood? Is that the way being correct works? Surely not. Otherwise, the comments section of a Youtube video could be pasted straight into a grammar book for non-native speakers.
I was going to ask the same question as Chris. Usage of past tense with already, just, and yet and similar situations is pretty well established all over the US I think.[/quote]
Is it accepted in academic writing in North America? I was always under the impression that it was a relatively recent change, from the 1980s, and was still generally used by younger people. I’m more than happy to be corrected, though. I checked it already!
Tempo Gain: There’s no way of misinterpreting “Joe and me…” Do we consider it correct simply because the meaning is understood? Is that the way being correct works? Surely not. Otherwise, the comments section of a Youtube video could be pasted straight into a grammar book for non-native speakers.[/quote]
Point taken. There’s a pretty clear proscription there though, of using an objective pronoun in the subject. I don’t think the same is true of your example. It’s widely used by educated speakers I’m sure.
Is it accepted in academic writing in North America? I was always under the impression that it was a relatively recent change, from the 1980s, and was still generally used by younger people. I’m more than happy to be corrected, though. I checked it already![/quote]
I’m sure it’s not that recent. I think in academic writing the perfect would be preferred; though I don’t think it’s the kind of language that would often be used in such a context in general. That is, you wouldn’t often need to talk about already/just etc. type situations in such writing.
[quote=“Incubus”]Also American teenagers’ use of “so” in place of “really”
I so don’t believe you. I so wanted them to win. That was so not the right thing to say! That is so not fair.[/quote]
Not to defend it, nor to attack, as it’s just a colloquialism, but it does provide a different, stronger intensification than “really.” I can’t think of a way to quite duplicate it without saying something like “It’s amazing how much I…” My younger daughter says it jokingly sometimes FWIW.
Is it accepted in academic writing in North America? I was always under the impression that it was a relatively recent change, from the 1980s, and was still generally used by younger people. I’m more than happy to be corrected, though. I checked it already![/quote]
I’m sure it’s not that recent. I think in academic writing the perfect would be preferred; though I don’t think it’s the kind of language that would often be used in such a context in general. That is, you wouldn’t often need to talk about already/just etc. type situations in such writing.[/quote]
That makes sense.
I suppose the point I’m trying to make in my usual ponderous manner is that perfect tenses are tending to get used less frequently. ‘Have you eaten?’ replaced by ‘Did you eat yet?’. ‘Have you finished?’ by ‘Are you done?’ That sort of thing. I just get the feeling that eventually they’ll drop out of common usage and the only people who use them will be geriatric old duffers like me.
“In back of” sounds like something Li’l Abner would say.
Doesn’t Betty Azar (surely still a reputable source??) tell us that simple past is to be used for past events when a specific time marker accompanies, and that present perfect is to be used for past events when no specific time marker is known or deployed?
“I have seen Sandman’s bare butt.”
“I saw Sandman’s bare butt last week.”
Just to make things interesting,
“I have been vomiting copiously ever since I saw Sandman’s bare butt.”
[quote=“tomthorne”]
I suppose the point I’m trying to make in my usual ponderous manner is that perfect tenses are tending to get used less frequently. ‘Have you eaten?’ replaced by ‘Did you eat yet?’. ‘Have you finished?’ by ‘Are you done?’ That sort of thing. I just get the feeling that eventually they’ll drop out of common usage and the only people who use them will be geriatric old duffers like me.[/quote]
That is true in the US for sure! As far as yet etc. But in the majority of situations, the perfect is alive and well.
Tempo Gain: There’s no way of misinterpreting “Joe and me…” Do we consider it correct simply because the meaning is understood? Is that the way being correct works? Surely not. Otherwise, the comments section of a Youtube video could be pasted straight into a grammar book for non-native speakers.[/quote]
Point taken. There’s a pretty clear proscription there though, of using an objective pronoun in the subject. I don’t think the same is true of your example. It’s widely used by educated speakers I’m sure.[/quote]
Of course, though to a lot of people objective pronouns are irrelevant if everyone around them speaks the same way and understands each other. I catch myself saying certain things incorrectly all the time, and I also use the perfect continuous incorrectly (by my above argument). I just find it interesting how we can simultaneously argue for correctness and usage.
.
