I've had ... over the last week, and <I've told> <I've been telling> ... over the last week ...

[Michaelll]

I'd like to ask you, which of these two is better, the one with "I've told" or the one with "I've been telling"? Or are they both fine (with a slightly different meaning)?

• I have had this conversation with a lot of family members over the last week and I've told a lot of people, a lot of friends over the last week what's happened, where I am, what situation I'm in and it's been difficult every time.
• I have had this conversation with a lot of family members over the last week, and I've been telling a lot of people, a lot of friends over the last week what's happened, where I am, what situation I'm in and it's been difficult every time.

 

[5jj]

Both are possible.
Neither is 'better'.

 

[Michaelll]

Neither is 'better'.

I just thought maybe because of the present perfect (simple) in "I have had ...", "what has happened, ..." and "it has been difficult ...", the phrase of telling should also match the aspect. I'm glad I was wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

Your question should rather be: Does either one of these forms seem to suit this context better than the other?

My answer is: No, not really. If you want to distinguish between these two tenses, this context doesn't work as a great example.

 

[Michaelll]

Your question should rather be: Does either one of these forms seem to suit this context better than the other?

My answer is: No, not really. If you want to distinguish between these two tenses, this context doesn't work as a great example.

I just heard the first version of the sentence and wondered why the speaker used "I've told". Whether it was his intention or another English rule that made him "match the aspect".

 

[jutfrank]

I just thought maybe because of the present perfect (simple) in "I have had ...", "what has happened, ..." and "it has been difficult ...", the phrase of telling should also match the aspect. I'm glad I was wrong.

I say that the context you've mentioned there does suggest that the speaker is thinking purely with the aspect of the present perfect simple. So you're not entirely wrong, but you certainly can't say that anything 'should match' anything else. You're still thinking in terms of there being some kind of rule that you should follow. You've got to get out of this way of thinking.

 

[5jj]

Try to remember what I am sure I have said before. Native speakers often have rather more freedom of choice in tense and aspect than some teachers and student grammars appear to suggest.

 

[Michaelll]

So you're not entirely wrong, but you certainly can't say that anything 'should match' anything else. You're still thinking in terms of there being some kind of rule that you should follow. You've got to get out of this way of thinking.

I don't really think you're right about that I've got to get out of this way of thinking. One example: do you remember you wrote this sentence here "I went straight to bed and read my book until I fell asleep"? So, if I really did that (got out of this way of thinking), I would definitely use the past continuous here "and was reading my book until I fell asleep", but the rule of matching the aspect (What did you do last night when you got home?) now prevents me from doing that.

but you certainly can't say that anything 'should match' anything else.

You see?

 

[Michaelll]

+ the rule of using the past simple when you're enumerating actions.

• First this happened, then that happened, than this happened.
• First this happened, then that was happening, than this was happening.

So, I really should not get out of this way of thinking, so far it has helped me to study, understand and speak English.

By the way, have you learned any languages (besides your native one), Jutfrank?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm a teacher. I teach. And I understand well that you're a lawyer and you argue. But if you're going to be resistant to our teaching, I don't know what you're doing here. If you gave a client free legal advice and then he told you your advice was bad, what would you think about the client?

By the way, have you learned any languages (besides your native one), Jutfrank?

Yes, other than English I speak three other languages well and two more to a lesser degree. You should also know that you're by no means the first Russian-speaking learner who has asked me all of these questions about tense/aspect, and whom I've answered multiple times over the years. I'm pretty sure 5jj can say the same.

I don't really think you're right about that I've got to get out of this way of thinking. One example: do you remember you wrote this sentence here "I went straight to bed and read my book until I fell asleep"? So, if I really did that (got out of this way of thinking), I would definitely use the past continuous here "and was reading my book until I fell asleep", but the rule of matching the aspect (What did you do last night when you got home?) now prevents me from doing that.

You see?

I think so. Are you saying that you if you were to stop using rules to help you decide which tense to use, then a question like:

Q: What did you do last night?

would naturally elicit from you a response such as:

A1: I was reading my book until I fell asleep.

Is that what you mean? And that a response such as:

A2: I read my book until I fell asleep.

would only come to you if you were to follow some kind of rule, which in this case can be written along the lines of: If a question uses a certain tense, then the answer should/must be in the same tense. Have I got this right?

 

[Michaelll]

Are you saying that you if you were to stop using rules to help you decide which tense to use, then a question like:

Q: What did you do last night?

would naturally elicit from you a response such as:

A1: I was reading my book until I fell asleep.

Is that what you mean? And that a response such as:

A2: I read my book until I fell asleep.

would only come to you if you were to follow some kind of rule, which in this case can be written along the lines of: If a question uses a certain tense, then the answer should/must be in the same tense. Have I got this right?

Yes, you're absolutely right. But it's not only me, I would even say (without false modesty) that I'm about the only one in my group trying to understand how English really works. I love English, I enjoy its grammar, (I hate things related to expressing duration and processes in English, though), I love how it sounds. I just love this language. But unfortunately, reading a lot of books, and listening to a lot of audio materials doesn't necessarily help you understand certain things, because since it's not your native language the way you think is just different and that's OK, you should just know the rules of English grammar. Here, we have a saying that learning a language from native speakers is like learning how to swim from a fish (because native speakers don't learn their language the same way, they simply absorb it "with their mothers' milk). I don't believe it, I still get much help from you even though you don't sometimes understand what my questions are about. So, I'm very grateful, thank you over and over again.

 

[jutfrank]

One thing that strikes me about you is that behind your proclamations of despair, you do have an impressively high level of competence in English, which you demonstrate well in your posts. I'm sure that you didn't get to such a level merely by referring to a set of given rules, but that you got there primarily the same way almost every other good learner gets there: with a natural approach. In all of the posts that I've read of yours, I don't think I've seen an error related to tense/aspect of any kind whenever you're speaking naturally. The majority of the confusions that you seem to have come when you try to apply grossly basic rules that you've been taught to artificial sentences that you've made up. You're at a level now where you no longer need the kind of English teaching that you claim to be getting at university, and where you can start to let go of the things you learnt from your school teachers.

Also remember that you don't need to understand anything in order to perform at a high level of competence. Any explanations that I or other members give you don't really teach you anything as much as confirm what you already know.

I'll remind you once again that both myself and 5jj are highly experienced language teachers, not just native speakers. Let us suggest to you which model language we believe might work best for you, and assume we have a good reason for doing so. Know also that we're well experienced in training teachers how to teach things such as tense/aspect, which does require conscious and abstract understanding, so give us a chance to express our own deeper understanding of how things work in ways that make sense to, and have worked for, us. Finally, know that we're both (if I understand correctly) experienced and successful second language learners, so be reassured that we know precisely what it's like to be a learner.