The city changed <for> <over> two years.

[Tarheel]

"The city has been changing for two years" is unclear. What do I mean by that? It's impossible to tell what you mean. A small town might undergo very little change for decades, but a city undergoes more or less constant change. That doesn't mean that your neighborhood has changed much, but there is always something going on somewhere. Also, if you say it has been changing for two years I might feel compelled to ask what happened before that.

 

[jutfrank]

The city changed for two years.

As Barque has pointed out, this sentence doesn't make good sense due to the aspectual meaning of the word change. Changing is not something that is normally understood as a continuous action taking place over a specific time duration, so it can't really be followed by a for-phrase. If you want to better understand the differences in meaning of the prepositions for and over, then you should start by scrapping this particular example, and any other example that uses the verb change in conjunction with a for-phrase.

 

[jutfrank]

He didn't say that. He said, "We talked for two years -- two and a half years ...."

He says We talked over two years ...

 

[Tarheel]

@jutfrank That one's already been addressed. You're late to the party.

 

[jutfrank]

@jutfrank That one's already been addressed. You're late to the party.

Oh, sorry, Tarheel. Yes, the thread is already too long, with too many questions, for me to respond easily.

 

[tedmc]

The city changed for two years

1. For a period of two years, the city became different.

... and has reverted to its earlier state.

Does it have to revert to its earlier/original state? Couldn't it be that the process of change stopped at the end of two years without reverting to its earlier state?

 

[Michaelll]

The city changed for two years.

As Barque has pointed out, this sentence doesn't make good sense due to the aspectual meaning of the word change. Changing is not something that is normally understood as a continuous action taking place over a specific time duration, so it can't really be followed by a for-phrase. If you want to better understand the differences in meaning of the prepositions for and over, then you should start by scrapping this particular example, and any other example that uses the verb change in conjunction with a for-phrase.

Thank you, you've helped me a bit. And no, you're not late to the party.

Then, I guess I would dare to assume that if the past (objective — regardless of other past points "by March 1872" and actions "when XYZ happened") version of "It's been raining for five hours" is "It rained for five hours", then the past version of 'The city has been changing for five years' is 'The city changed for over five years'.

I find it really interesting.

 

[Barque]

You can't compare the "raining" sentence with the "city" sentence. They mean different things and are to be treated differently. It doesn't matter that "raining" and "changing" are both verbs. They mean very different things, and work in very different ways.

then the past version of 'The city has been changing for five years'

"The city has been changing for five years" doesn't sound a natural sentence. "The city changed over five years" sounds a little more natural.

You still don't seem to want to tell us what you mean by "change" in this context. If you do, we might be able to help you better.

 

[5jj]

What you have to accept, Michaelll, in that onset and cessation of situations is not indicated by tense or aspect in English. It is indicated by any or all of the inherent meaning of the verb, combinations with other verbs and other parts of speech, general context and common sense.

 

[Michaelll]

You still don't seem to want to tell us what you mean by "change" in this context. If you do, we might be able to help you better.

By 'change' in that sentence, I mean a process of changing that happened for(over?) a certain period of time in the past.
What else can I say? I don't understand what's unclear about it to you.

 

[Barque]

I'm asking-- what was the change? Why do you say it changed? What happened to make you feel it had changed? In what way did it change?

If you just say "By 'change', I mean the process of changing", that doesn't help. We know that 'change' means that.

 

[Michaelll]

I'm asking-- what was the change? Why do you say it changed? What happened to make you feel it had changed? In what way did it change?

As I've already said above: I just want to know how to translate this from my native language into English. Every language should provide a way of expressing things, right?

In my understanding "This city has been changing 'for a certain period of time" means that there have been several (or many) changes, and the city is not what it was before. But, how to say about this process in the past? I mean, not just put that in the past perfect continuous that magnetizes to a point in the past, this is not what I want - I want to say objectively about the action, regardless of other past points (by March 1872) and actions (when XYZ happened).

 

[5jj]

Your question was answered in post #2.

 

[Michaelll]

Your question was answered in post #2.

Yes, I know, that's why I wrote what I wrote in #27.

Then, I guess I would dare to assume that if the past (objective — regardless of other past points "by March 1872" and actions "when XYZ happened") version of "It's been raining for five hours" is "It rained for five hours", then the past version of 'The city has been changing for five years' is 'The city changed for over five years'.

I find it really interesting.