has been living /has lived

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

I have learnt that with the verbs to work and to live either present perfect or progressive can be used. For example, (from Murphy) ''John has been living/has lived in London for a long time''. It says for a long time not always. Another book A Practical English Grammar says ''progressive forms are used for temporary actions and the simple present perfect for permanent situations. Eg: ''my parents have lived in Bristol all their lives.'' Does the example from Murphy suggest the same rule? It says either can be used bu it doesn't say anything about the difference in meaning.

 

[Tarheel]

Are there any practical examples you have in mind?

 

[Rachel Adams]

''John has been living/has lived in London for a long time''. For a long time isn't always. With always we can't use present progressive but in the second example(my parents have lived in Bristol all their lives'', or in a similar example is it possible to use present progressive?
What does the book exactly mean when it says with work or live either can be used? it doesn't say anything about the change in meaning.

 

[Tarheel]

John has been living in London for a long time.

John has been in London for an indefinitely long time.

 

[emsr2d2]

''John has been living/has lived in London for a long time."

For a long time isn't always. With always we can't use the present progressive but in the second example, "My parents have lived in Bristol all their lives'', or in a similar example, is it possible to use the present progressive? You might hear people say "I've been living here all my life" but most native speakers prefer the present perfect.

What does the book [STRIKE]exactly[/STRIKE] mean when it says that with work or live either can be used? it doesn't say anything about the change in meaning. That's because both are possible and there is no difference in meaning.

I've been living here all my life = I have lived here all my life
I've been working here for ten years = I have worked here for ten years.

The exception is:
I've always worked here. :tick:
I've always been working here. :cross:

Note that "all my life" wouldn't go with "work" because people don't start work on the day they are born. We can use "always" because the listener knows it means "since I started working".

 

[Rachel Adams]

That's an over-generalisation.

I have lived/been living in the Czech Republic for fourteen years now. I have no intention of moving elsewhere, so we can hardly say the progressive form suggests temporary residence.

Is it the same with the present simple and progressive? ''I live in Paris'' and ''I am living in Paris''. Does ''living in Paris'' suggest a temporary action?

 

[GoesStation]

I regard Prague as my permanent home now, but I have been known to say 'I'm living in Prague now'.

That's a natural way to tell someone who thinks of you as a Londoner (for example) that you've moved. In that context, it doesn't convey a sense of impermanence.

 

[Tdol]

That's an over-generalisation.

I have lived/been living in the Czech Republic for fourteen years now. I have no intention of moving elsewhere, so we can hardly say the progressive form suggests temporary residence.

But you had moved around a lot before settling on Prague. A person who had moved once from their hometown to a second place of residence would be less likely to use the same form.

 

[Rachel Adams]

But you had moved around a lot before settling on Prague. A person who had moved once from their hometown to a second place of residence would be less likely to use the same form.

I don't want to interfere but why did you use the past perfect in your statements?