progressive

Status
Not open for further replies.

navi tasan

Key Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
What is the difference in the meanings of:
1-I am paying four times as much rent as you are.
and
2-I pay four times as much rent as you do.
 

Red5

Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Hi there Navi!

Personally, I can't see any difference in the two. :)
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
navi tasan said:
What is the difference in the meanings of:
1-I am paying four times as much rent as you are.
and
2-I pay four times as much rent as you do.

I agree that there is really no difference in meaning. The present progressive indicates that the action is ongoing and the present tense states a current fact. In this case, they are the same.
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The first could suggest that it is a temporary state of affairs and is likely to change. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tdol said:
The first could suggest that it is a temporary state of affairs and is likely to change. :lol:

It could, but for practical purposes, do you think that it would? :? :p


I find myself inclined to simply go along with what Mike said here.
 

navi tasan

Key Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
Thanks everybody.
I think that grammar books tend to say that the progressive aspect implies that the action is taking place now. In cases like this, where the action is not going on at this very moment, the progressvie would imply an "enlarged" now and therefore temporariness.
But in the case of this sentence, even TDOL, who mentions the temporariness, says that the sentence COULD imply it. So I think, one can stick to that, unless TDOL disagrees and sees a necessary implication of temporariness.
Perhaps the English language has undergone some change regarding the implications of the progressive.
As for the temporariness, check:
1-I am living in Paris.
2-I live in Paris.
Here I think temporariness is obviously and unambiguously implied (in 1).
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"I am living in Paris"

<<<Here I think temporariness is obviously and unambiguously implied (in 1).>>>

I don't agree. Without other information, "I am living in Paris" does not imply that the situation is more temporary than "I live in Paris". If the speaker wants to imply that it is temporary, more words are needed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: "I am living in Paris"

MikeNewYork said:
<<<Here I think temporariness is obviously and unambiguously implied (in 1).>>>

I don't agree. Without other information, "I am living in Paris" does not imply that the situation is more temporary than "I live in Paris". If the speaker wants to imply that it is temporary, more words are needed.

I have to agree. Something more would have to be added on to the sentence.

Example: I am living in Paris right now. (This could imply something temporary.)

Or a something more explicit: I'm living in Paris for the summer.
 

navi tasan

Key Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
Thanks everybody.
Apparently everybody seems to agree on this. I wonder whether I have misunderstood what I have read in the grammar books I consulted or the grammar books were trying to invent hard and fast rules where there were none. But perhaps the way the progressive is used in English language has changed.
I also read somewhere that the progressive tense was used to emphasize what was being said or to express a subjective attitude towards it. In certain cases it is supposed to give "emotional color" to what would otherwise be a simple fact. It could express joy or dissatisfaction or simply imply that what is being said is important. What do you think about that?

ps. I just noticed that someone else had asked a question about the difference between the simple present and the prensent progressive. The question was answered by TDOL. TDOL's answer is exactly the same as what the grammar books say. Big grammar books mention that with "always" and "constantly" and other adverbs of that sort the progressive implies dissatisfaction; eg. "He is always doing that."
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I think the confusion results from entires that say what a certain tense is used for. Certainly, the present progressive is used for temporary situations. That is different from saying that its use always indicates a temporary situation. Grammar books cannot handle every situation.

The use of adverbs such as "always" and "constantly" can be used with the progressive to indicate irritation, but they don't always do so.

He is always rasing his voice during arguments. (irritation)
She is always helping new employees find their way around. (no irritation)
 

navi tasan

Key Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
Good explanation. Thanks.
Another example which I found in a grammar book:
Children are always learning.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
You're welcome. That is a good example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top