[Grammar] He's tried to get in touch with you for months.

[beachboy]

Instead of saying "He's been trying to get in touch with you for months", can I say "He's tried to get in touch with you for months"?

 

[emsr2d2]

The present perfect really doesn't work there. You have two choices, in general, in this context:

1. He's been trying to get in touch with you for months. (He is still trying or, at least, tried very recently.)
2. He tried to get in touch with you for months. (He is no longer trying.)

 

[beachboy]

The present perfect really doesn't work there. You have two choices, in general, in this context:

1. He's been trying to get in touch with you for months. (He is still trying or, at least, tried very recently.)
2. He tried to get in touch with you for months. (He is no longer trying.)

Is it the combination of the verb "to try" and the expression "for months" that makes the sentence wrong?

 

[probus]

There is nothing wrong with your sentences. What emsr2d2 told you is that the two tenses convey two different meanings.

 

[emsr2d2]

I did, in fact, say that "He's tried to get in touch with you for months" doesn't work and I stick to that.

 

[jutfrank]

Is it the combination of the verb "to try" and the expression "for months" that makes the sentence wrong?

No. It's the use of the tense (present perfect simple), which makes it wrong, or at least far inferior to the use of the present perfect continuous, since the point of the sentence seems to be to emphasise the continued duration of the action.

There is nothing wrong with your sentences. What emsr2d2 told you is that the two tenses convery two different meanings.

I think probus may have misread something. To clear up any confusion, what emsr2d2 is saying is this: You can use either the present perfect continuous or the past simple (with a different focus) but not the present perfect simple.

 

[beachboy]

I'm trying to understand why I can say:

1) He's lived in this building since he moved to Seattle.
2) He's been living in this building since he moved to Seattle.
3) He's been trying to get in touch with her since he moved to Seattle.

but I can't say "He's tried to get in touch with her since he moved to Seatlle (I think it's the same case as in 'He's tried to get in touch with her for months').

 

[Raymott]

Besides, "He's tried to get in touch with her since he moved to Seattle" includes the case in which he has only tried once (as long as it's been since he moved to Seattle.

 

[beachboy]

Besides, "He's tried to get in touch with her since he moved to Seattle" includes the case in which he has only tried once (as long as it's been since he moved to Seattle.

Do you mean the sentence above works?

 

[beachboy]

Raymott would not have mentioned it if it didn't.

Of course I'm asking it because I think it was said before that it didn't.

 

[Raymott]

Do you mean the sentence above works?

It works for what it means, but it's not a substitute for your original question.
1. "He's tried to get in touch with you."
2. "He's been trying to get in touch with you."

1. could mean he's tried only once. 2. implies that he's tried continually.
So, if you ask a question like "Can I replace 2 with 1?", the only possible answers are, "Yes, if you want to say something different from your original intention" or "No, not if you want it to mean the same thing."

 

[beachboy]

It works for what it means, but it's not a substitute for your original question.
1. "He's tried to get in touch with you."
2. "He's been trying to get in touch with you."

1. could mean he's tried only once. 2. implies that he's tried continually.
So, if you ask a question like "Can I replace 2 with 1?", the only possible answers are, "Yes, if you want to say something different from your original intention" or "No, not if you want it to mean the same thing."

I understand perfectly well the difference between your sentences 1 and 2. My problem, as I pointed out, is when these sentences are followed by something like "for months" or "since he moved to Seattle".

 

[harusbisa]

hi,sorry to interrupt. I am confused about this too. Please correct my interpretation:
so,we cannot use : he has tried to get in touch with you for months.
because "try" doesn't include a meaning of continuing action. Am I right?

but, how about if we say it like this: He has tried several times to get in touch with you for months.
Is this sentence (using a present perfect) okay?

thank you

 

[Raymott]

I would say "He has tried" doesn't indicate repetitive action - rather than continuing action, as you put it. But understanding the concept is more important than the exact words you use to describe it. "He's been trying" does indicate that he's repeatedly tried.

No, you couldn't say, "He's has tried several times to get in touch with you for months." You could say, "He's tried several times over the last few months to get in touch with you."

"I've done that a few times for years." Wrong.
"I've done that a few times over the years/over the last couple of years." Right.
"I've been doing that for years." Right.

Beachboy, I don't think I can explain it any better, And this thread has had so many tangents from different people that it's difficult to follow. But I think all the answers are in it. I'd suggest thinking about it for a month or two, then asking again if you still don't get it.