We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!

Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com


Share this topic:
This question is Not Answered
Latest post Mon, Dec 5 2005 4:06 AM by Anonymous. 4 replies.
Suggest an answer | | |
Anonymous  +  166080 Sun, 04 Dec 05 05:29 PM

Someone has been watching TV for three hours and he is still watching it.

I understand that I should say,

 

He has been watching TV for three hours

 

But is it correct to describe this situation by saying,

 

He has watched TV for three hours

 

Thanks in advance.

Peťulinka  +  166111 Sun, 04 Dec 05 07:17 PM

Hi!

(A Practical English Grammar - Thomson, Marinet): An action which began in the past and is still continuing or has only just finished can, with certain verbs, be expressed by either the present perfect simple or the present perfect continuous. Verbs which can be used in this way include: expect, hope, learn, lie, live, look, rain, sleep, sit, snow, stand, stay, study, teach, wait, want, work.

But I think that when we use watch as a voluntary action (not as a verb of the sense) we can use both tenses for a still continuing action but I'm not sure because I'm not a native speaker.

To use the Present Perfect Continuous is better...Smile [:)]

Joined on Thu, Nov 10 2005
Czech Republic
New Member 10
CalifJim  +  166278 Mon, 05 Dec 05 03:15 AM

But is it correct to describe this situation by saying,
<>He has watched TV for three hours

It is acceptable, but not as precise as the alternative "has been watching".

"has watched for three hours" can mean "on another occasion" or "on other occasions", because "has watched TV" can mean "has had a TV-watching experience" (which "has been watching" cannot):

He has watched TV for three hours three times this week -- on Monday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday.

"has watched" treats the situation as an event; "has been watching" treats it as an activity.

By using "has been watching" you make it clear that the activity of watching continued up to the time you uttered the statement.

CJ


Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member 22,395
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
rishonly  +  166287 Mon, 05 Dec 05 03:44 AM
Nice explanation, CaliJim, as usual.
Joined on Sat, Mar 5 2005
KUMBAKONAM,INDIA
Contributing Member 1,782
Regards, Krishna
Anonymous, 3 yr 353 days ago
Thank you dear Peťulinka  and thank you dear CalifJim for this wonderful explanation.
© MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3607.32596. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.*
For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com.
*Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.