SIMPLE PRESENT PERFECT VS. CONTINUOUS PRESENT PERFECT

[Gingerbrea]

My name is Florina and I'm a kindergarden teacher in my country. I have tried to learn English alone for 2 years. I must confess it's difficult to learn alone. Now I have a dilemma: What is the difference between " I have been living in this town for many years/ since I was a child" and " I've lived in Bucharest since I was born/ for ten years" . Is it true we can use simple present perfect when we have verbs that show a situation like: live, stay ,kinow, be. What other verbs show a situation?
Thank you for your help !

[Twinkie]

Hello, Florina,
We can use Present Perfect instead of Present Perfect Continuous with any stative verbs, such as know, believe, forget and so on. Nevertheless, we may use both Present Perfect Continuous and Present Perfect with the verb live, feel and work without any difference in meaning.

[Tdol]

With state verbs, the present perfect progressive can sometimes be used to suggest that the state is going to end or change:
I've live in Bucharest since I was born. (and will stay)
I've been living in Bucharest since I was born. (and may be moving to Paris next year)

[5jj]

With state verbs, the present perfect progressive can sometimes be used to suggest that the state is going to end or change:
I've lived in Bucharest since I was born. (and will stay)
I've been living in Bucharest since I was born. (and may be moving to Paris next year)

I realised one day that, when I was talking about myself (a rare occurrence ), I was now saying "I have lived n Prague since ..."instead of the "I have been living in Prague since ..." that I had previously said. Prague had become my permanent home.

So, I agree - to a degree. I am fairly sure that I still use the progressive form at times, and I also believe that I used the non-progressive forms in the days when I knew that I would leave Prague (as I did) with no plans to return. My point is that I think that when the idea of permanence is uppermost in my mind I use the non-progressive form; when the idea of limited duration is uppermost, I use the progressive form; when neither idea is particularly strong, I may use either.

I discussed this with colleagues in the past, and some, at least, felt the same. We seem to have a tendency here rather than a rule .I'd say that, when there is no clear context, then the progressive and non-progressive forms appear to be interchangeable, with no real difference in meaning. This is especially true of verbs that frequently carry within themselves a suggestion of a longer action, state or process, e.g., live. stay, work.

I am talking about situations that began in the past and extend up to, and probably beyond, the present moment, often with since and for. In other contexts there is a fairly clear difference:

I have been writing a letter. - There is no indication that I have finished it - indeed, I quite probably haven't. Context will make this clear, if it is important.
I have written a letter, - I have definitely finished.

[shroob]

I realised one day that, when I was talking about myself (a rare occurrence ), I was now saying "I have lived In Prague since ..."instead of the "I have lived in Prague since ..." that I had previously said. Prague had become my permanent home.

So, I agree - to a degree. I am fairly sure that I still use the progressive form at times, and I also believe that I used the non-progressive forms in the days when I knew that I would leave Prague (as I did) with no plans to return. My point is that I think that when the idea of permanence is uppermost in my mind I use the non-progressive form; when the idea of limited duration is uppermost, I use the progressive form; when neither idea is particularly strong, I may use either.

I discussed this with colleagues in the past, and some, at least, felt the same. We seem to have a tendency here rather than a rule .I'd say that, when there is no clear context, then the progressive and non-progressive forms appear to be interchangeable, with no real difference in meaning. This is especially true of verbs that frequently carry within themselves a suggestion of a longer action, state or process, e.g., live. stay, work.

I am talking about situations that began in the past and extend up to, and probably beyond, the present moment, often with since and for. In other contexts there is a fairly clear difference:

I have been writing a letter. - There is no indication that I have finished it - indeed, I quite probably haven't. Context will make this clear, if it is important.
I have written a letter, - I have definitely finished.

Sorry, but could you explain the difference to me? I can't see any (apart from the capital 'I' in the first 'in'.

On another note, I thought that we use the progressive form to emphasise the duration, and the simple form to emphasise that something has finished or to emphasise the result.

[5jj]

Sorry, but could you explain the difference to me? I can't see any (apart from the capital 'I' in the first 'in'.

Sorry . I have now corrected my careless, and confusing slip.

On another note, I thought that we use the progressive form to emphasise the duration, and the simple form to emphasise that something has finished or to emphasise the result.

This is often the case, but in the situations we are discussing, there does not seem to be a real difference, as I suggested in my last post.

[Tdol]

So, I agree - to a degree. I am fairly sure that I still use the progressive form at times, and I also believe that I used the non-progressive forms in the days when I knew that I would leave Prague (as I did) with no plans to return. My point is that I think that when the idea of permanence is uppermost in my mind I use the non-progressive form; when the idea of limited duration is uppermost, I use the progressive form; when neither idea is particularly strong, I may use either.

I meant that this was a possible meaning, so I only agree to a degree too.