- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- Czech Republic
- Current Location
- Czech Republic
There is not a clear difference.
I used to explain the difference by giving my own experience of living in Prague. I said that I realised that Prague was my permanent home when I noticed that I was saying to friends in England I live in Prague/I've lived in Prague for five years rather than I'm living in Prague/I've been living in Prague for three years.
There was a degree of truth in that, but I'm fairly sure that I sometimes used the non-progressive form back in the early days when I knew (or thought I knew) that Prague was not my permanent home (I left Czechia three times before I realised that I was going to settle here permanently.) I also wrote recently to an old school friend I haven't been in touch with for years I am living in Czechia now; I've been living here for twenty years now. That was after I had been granted Czech citizenship and had bought a flat here. There is not the slightest doubt that I am permanently resident here.
The progressive aspect always suggests in some way or other the limited duration of a situation. When the verb denotes an action that is in itself of very limited duration, the progressive aspect may indicate an repeated action: My allergy was bad today I was sneezing all morning.
When the verb denotes a situation than is itself of a longer duration, then the suggestion is sometimes more on the limitedness of the duration. This explains the difference I noted in the first paragraph.
The limited duration emphasis explains why it is often used for a situation in progress at a particular point/period in time: I am writing a response to englishhobby's question (at this very moment); half an hour ago I was discussing our holiday plans with my wife. It is this that explains the use of the aspect in I am living in Czechia now; I've been living here for twenty years now. My focus was on my situation at the moment of writing rather than simply on my residence.
I used to explain the difference by giving my own experience of living in Prague. I said that I realised that Prague was my permanent home when I noticed that I was saying to friends in England I live in Prague/I've lived in Prague for five years rather than I'm living in Prague/I've been living in Prague for three years.
There was a degree of truth in that, but I'm fairly sure that I sometimes used the non-progressive form back in the early days when I knew (or thought I knew) that Prague was not my permanent home (I left Czechia three times before I realised that I was going to settle here permanently.) I also wrote recently to an old school friend I haven't been in touch with for years I am living in Czechia now; I've been living here for twenty years now. That was after I had been granted Czech citizenship and had bought a flat here. There is not the slightest doubt that I am permanently resident here.
The progressive aspect always suggests in some way or other the limited duration of a situation. When the verb denotes an action that is in itself of very limited duration, the progressive aspect may indicate an repeated action: My allergy was bad today I was sneezing all morning.
When the verb denotes a situation than is itself of a longer duration, then the suggestion is sometimes more on the limitedness of the duration. This explains the difference I noted in the first paragraph.
The limited duration emphasis explains why it is often used for a situation in progress at a particular point/period in time: I am writing a response to englishhobby's question (at this very moment); half an hour ago I was discussing our holiday plans with my wife. It is this that explains the use of the aspect in I am living in Czechia now; I've been living here for twenty years now. My focus was on my situation at the moment of writing rather than simply on my residence.