[Grammar] It has rained since morning.

[emsr2d2]

This is what I found in "Grammar in Use Raymond Murphy"
It’s rained every day since I arrived.
Do you still think that in this example it's not raining?

With that example, it's impossible to say if it's raining at the time of speaking or not. All we know is that, at some point every day since the speaker's arrival, it has rained.

 

[jutfrank]

This is what I found in "Grammar in Use Raymond Murphy"
It’s rained every day since I arrived.
Do you still think that in this example it's not raining?

I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking whether it is raining precisely at the moment that the speaker utters the sentence?

If that is your question, it isn't a good one, I'm afraid. It isn't possible to know, and even if we did know, it wouldn't say anything interesting about the grammar or meaning of the sentence.

 

[5jj]

This is what I found in "Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy:
It’s rained every day since I arrived.
Do you still think that in this example it's not raining?

We have no idea from that sentence whether or not it is raining at the time of speaking.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

We have no idea from that sentence whether or not it is raining at the time of speaking.

I wonder if I got you right.

I've been reading this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)
I've read this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)

I've been reading one book in 10 days for 2 years now. (a new book every 10 days)
I've read one book in 10 days for 2 years now. (a new book every 10 days)
or
I read one book in/for/every 10 days for 2 years (now).

 

[5jj]

I've been reading this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)
I've read this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)

The second sentence is not incorrect; it is simply less likely to be uttered by most native speakers than the first.

I've been reading one book in 10 days for 2 years now. (a new book every 10 days)
I've read one book in 10 days for 2 years now. (a new book every 10 days)
or
I read one book in/for/every 10 days for 2 years (now).

In this rather unusual situation, the person wishing to express that thought will perhaps say something like:

I've read a book every ten days for the last two years/for two years now.

I've been reading ... is also possible. This would draw more attention to the on-goingness and/or limited duration of the activity.

 

[jutfrank]

I've been reading this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)
I've read this book for 2 hours. (the same book) (still reading)

That's not right. First of all, both sentences are grammatical and correct in their proper contexts. The difference is the meaning. Neither sentence means in itself that the speaker is reading the book at the moment of utterance.

I've been reading one book in 10 days for 2 years now. (a new book every 10 days)

That isn't wrong. In what way do you think it is?

I suggest you forget this idea that you have of the speaker still doing the action. I don't think that's very helpful to understand meaning on a deeper level. Although there often is an implication that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking, it is not necessarily so, a fact which is confusing to certain learners.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

That's not right. First of all, both sentences are grammatical and correct in their proper contexts. The difference is the meaning. Neither sentence means in itself that the speaker is reading the book at the moment of utterance.



That isn't wrong. In what way do you think it is?

I suggest you forget this idea that you have of the speaker still doing the action. I don't think that's very helpful to understand meaning on a deeper level. Although there often is an implication that the action is ongoing at the time of speaking, it is not necessarily so, a fact which is confusing to certain learners.

I thought if I said "I've been reading a book every ten days for the last two years" it would emphasize duration, but not completion (the books were read). This is why "I've read a book every ten days for the last two years" looks far much better to me, since the books were read, and I have to emphasize completion, not duration.

 

[5jj]

I thought if I said "I've been reading a book every ten days for the last two years" it would emphasize duration, but not completion (the books were read). This is why "I've read a book every ten days for the last two years" looks far much better to me, since the books were read, and I have to emphasize completion, not duration.

Neither is 'better'. The progressive form, as I said draws more attention to the on-goingness and/or limited duration of the activity. The assumption is that you completed each book before you went on to the next one. If your practice were to read as much of a book as you could within two weeks, and then stop and pick up a new one, you would need to make this clear.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

The progressive form, as I said draws more attention to the on-goingness and/or limited duration of the activity.

What kind of 'on-goingness' are you talking about? Doesn't reading one book every ** days already mean just what it means.
Every book was read in ** days over the period of two years. What does 'ongoingness' even mean in this context?
Ok, the other way around: what does 'not-on-goingness' mean in this context?

 

[5jj]

I give up.

I have done my best in many posts over quite a few threads to respond helpfully to your questions. I have clearly failed to get my messages across, so I'll leave it to others to try.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'll add my twopenny's worth and argue that "I've been reading one book in ten days for 2 years" could be taken to mean that you've repeatedly read the same book over the course of two years, and each time it took you ten days.
In addition, "I've been reading one book every ten days for 2 years" could be taken to mean that, every ten days, you picked up the same book and read a little bit of it. Here we are, two years later and, for all we know, you still haven't finished it.

All learners here should concentrate on the following:
Find words/phrases/sentences that confuse you and ask for help with them.
Don't write phrases or sentences yourself and then ask us what they mean! That makes no sense.

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

Find words/phrases/sentences that confuse you and ask for help with them.
Don't write phrases or sentences yourself and then ask us what they mean! That makes no sense.

This is exactly what I did with my question.
I said: "This is what I found in "Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy:
It’s rained every day since I arrived."
I want to know what he wanted to mean using Perfect Simple instead of Perfect Continuous with such "signal words of Perfect Continuous" as 'since'.

 

[5jj]

You received these responses:

With that example, it's impossible to say if it's raining at the time of speaking or not. All we know is that, at some point every day since the speaker's arrival, it has rained.

I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking whether it is raining precisely at the moment that the speaker utters the sentence?

If that is your question, it isn't a good one, I'm afraid. It isn't possible to know, and even if we did know, it wouldn't say anything interesting about the grammar or meaning of the sentence.

We have no idea from that sentence whether or not it is raining at the time of speaking.

 

[emsr2d2]

It’s rained every day since I arrived."
I want to know what he wanted to mean using Perfect Simple instead of Perfect Continuous with such "signal words of Perfect Continuous" as 'since'.

Are you suggesting that you think that only the perfect continuous can be used with "since"?

 

[IlyaTretyakov]

Are you suggesting that you think that only the perfect continuous can be used with "since"?

If the action is still happening and if the verb is dynamic, non-stative, I think — yes.

If I'm mistaken, please tell me what is the difference between "It's been raining every day since I arrived" and "It's rained every day since I arrived".

 

[jutfrank]

This thread's gotten a bit messy so I'm not sure which point to address. I'll start here:

I've read one book a day for the last year.

This sentence could be used to express a personal accomplishment. The present perfect simple gives a sense of completion. It seems to me that you understand this quite well.

I've been reading one book a day for the last year.

The focus is a bit different here. The sense of completing the books is the same, but the extra meaning given by the continuous aspect makes it more of a statement of your personal daily habit rather than a statement of accomplishment.

Does that make sense?

I'll make a pedagogical point here too. I'm not convinced that using minimal pairs (two sentences that differ in only one respect, as is the case here) is an effective way to show differences in use and meaning between aspects. I think if the aim is to show a particular meaning in the brightest possible light, you ought to find a very good example, framed in very supportive context.

 

[englishhobby]

This is what I found in "Grammar in Use Raymond Murphy"
It’s rained every day since I arrived.
Do you still think that in this example it's not raining?

I just think (now that I've read this thread) that it's better not to use 'It has rained since this morning' at all

 

[englishhobby]

This thread's gotten a bit messy so I'm not sure which point to address. I'll start here:

I've read one book a day for the last year.

This sentence could be used to express a personal accomplishment. The present perfect simple gives a sense of completion. It seems to me that you understand this quite well.

I've been reading one book a day for the last year.

The focus is a bit different here. The sense of completing the books is the same, but the extra meaning given by the continuous aspect makes it more of a statement of your personal daily habit rather than a statement of accomplishment.

Does that make sense?

I'll make a pedagogical point here too. I'm not convinced that using minimal pairs (two sentences that differ in only one respect, as is the case here) is an effective way to show differences in use and meaning between aspects. I think if the aim is to show a particular meaning in the brightest possible light, you ought to find a very good example, framed in very supportive context.

Thanks a lot. I see your point. But, I'm afraid there is still some confusion for non-natives. The problem is that some verbs have their own "duration" in themselves (without even any grammar framework added to them, if you know what I mean). With the verb 'to read' it's quite easy for me to see the difference between 'I've read' and 'I have been reading' because you can read a few books during a year. However, with the verb 'to live' or 'to work (at one particular place)' it's different. You can't live a few times. So the present perfect with 'to live' is not the same as with 'to read'. Some more advanced students might want to know the difference in use between 'I've lived here for...' and 'I've been living here for...' and I used to tell such students that there is no difference. Now I have some doubts about that. That's why I need some contrasting contexts to show this difference to these imaginary 'advanced' students (who can already feel the difference between 'I've read a few books this year' and 'I've been reading a lot this year', but cannot understand the difference between 'I've lived here all my life' and 'I've been living here all my life').

 

[jutfrank]

With the verb 'to read' it's quite easy for me to see the difference between 'I've read' and 'I have been reading' because you can read a few books during a year.

I don't quite follow your reasoning. Why does it matter that you can read several books in a year?

However, with the verb 'to live' or 'to work (at one particular place)' it's different. You can't live a few times. So the present perfect with 'to live' is not the same as with 'to read'.

I don't really understand this part at all. What does "You can't live a few times" mean?

Some more advanced students might want to know the difference in use between 'I've lived here for...' and 'I've been living here for...' and I used to tell such students that there is no difference.

Of course there's a difference, given by the fact that one of the sentences has an added aspect. Whether you feel this difference is something that you want to spend valuable class time on is another matter. Remember also to distinguish use from meaning.

Now I have some doubts about that. That's why I need some contrasting contexts to show this difference to these imaginary 'advanced' students (who can already feel the difference between 'I've read a few books this year' and 'I've been reading a lot this year', but cannot understand the difference between 'I've lived here all my life' and 'I've been living here all my life').

Unfortunately, I can't quite tell for sure what you want to know. Are you merely saying you need some very clear example contexts that show how present perfect continuous differs from present perfect simple? If you can help us understand exactly what it is that you don't understand or exactly what it is that you want advice on, then perhaps we can better help you.

Remember that state verbs behave differently from non-state verbs. In cases where you might ordinarily want to use a continuous aspect to frame time, it just doesn't work with state verbs:

I've been knowing her for twenty years.
I've known her for twenty years.

I've only been having my phone for a week.
I've only had my phone for a week.

Is this what you're getting at? The fact that some verbs have 'built into' their meanings a certain duration?

 

[englishhobby]

Some more advanced students might want to know the difference in use between 'I've lived here for...' and 'I've been living here for...' and I used to tell such students that there is no difference.

Of course there's a difference, given by the fact that one of the sentences has an added aspect. Whether you feel this difference is something that you want to spend valuable class time on is another matter. Remember also to distinguish use from meaning.

What I meant was that I wish I could feel the difference (both in use and meaning) between those two particular sentences with the verb 'to live' ('I've lived here all my life' and 'I've been living here all my life') as they are different from the common examples with the verb 'to have' like "I've had this book' or with the verb 'to know' (you cannot say 'I have been having this book' or 'I have been knowing this person', they are just not grammatical, while 'I have been living here all my life' is quite grammatical). Even if no student will ever ask me about it, for me personally understanding of this particular difference is important.
So, I would be grateful if someone gave me some contexts in which the difference between those two particular sentences with the verb 'to live' ('I've lived here all my life...' and 'I've been living here all my life'), especially the extra meaning given by the continuous aspect, would be clearly seen.