Tenses

Ant_222 wrote:

«When I asked Amanda, she told me that she had been cheating on her boyfriend. Now, I'd say she was still cheating» (I see it differently)  It's not evident from "she had been cheating". Furthermore, she probably was no longer cheating. EDIT: "had been cheating" may have been derived (via tense-shifting) from either "have been cheating" or "was cheating". Will the meanings differ? I think, yes, they will... For you comment to be true it should be "she was cheating": «When I asked Amanda, she told me that she was cheating on her boyfriend» -- «When I asked Amanda, she told me that she cheated on her boyfriend.» I think it's almost equal to the "was cheating" version, no difference in how systematically she did it. EDIT: I'd explain it through the notion of (non-)stative-ness. Eating is a process. If you say he is eating you mean he's doing it right now. If you say he eats you mean "reqularly" or "from time to time" However, "He is cheating" doesn't mean the guy is having good time with some pretty girl just at the moment... So I's say the verb "to cheat" is a bit more stative than "to eat".

Hi Ant222,

  I think you have some valid points but I see it slightly differently. To my understanding, (unless I have learned it wrong) past perfect or PP continuous by nature implies a preceding event which was completed in the past, but the latter by nature accentuates the action.

 

“After he was stopped and questioned by a CHP unit on Saturday night last week, he admitted that he had been drinking (we can either stop the sentence here or add more details to the sentence)  an hour before /  before he got into his car/ all night at a party/ but sobered up two hours before he drove home.   

 

“He had been working IBM for many years before he got together with a few colleagues to form their own company”.  

 In the preceding scenario, P.P. continuous is the logical choice semantically and grammatically because the act of drinking and working for IBM went on for a duration of time prior to another event.

just my 2 cents...

Kooyeen wrote:

Thanks! Different sentences, same structures, same comments of yours, new comments of mine:   1. When I asked Amanda, she told me that she had been cheating on her boyfriend. This sounds closer in time to went (now asked) to me <-- Now, I'd say she was still cheating 2. When I asked Amanda, she told me that she had cheated on her boyfriend. This could have been at any time in the past -- It doesn't sound as "newly stopped" to me. <-- This comment still holds 3. When I asked Amanda, she told me that she cheated on her boyfriend. Ate (now cheated) sounds more like a habitual past here rather than a single past instance of eating. <-- Not habitual, just on a single occasion or more than one. She cheated at least once. So, what do you think now?

Hi Kooyeen

I'm going to address your post before I read through the rest here.  I've numbered the sentences for easier reference.
One thing that is a little different in your sentence is that yours falls more clearly into the "reported speech" category than mine did.

1. Past perfect continuous - We know that Amanda had a series of romantic encounters (cheating) with someone other than her boyfriend  before and up to the time when "I asked".  Amanda's cheating may or may not have continued after she told me about it -- we don't know.

2. Past perfect simple -  Amanda cheated before I asked.  We don't know how often Amanda cheated (it could have been a single encounter) and we don't know how long before "asked" the cheating happened.  The past perfect simple is often used simply to put two finished past events in the proper order in time.

3. Past simple - This often suggests habitual activity.  Consider Amanda's direct speech: "I cheat on my boyfriend."  That does not mean one time. That suggests some kind of regular "habitual" activity.  It's no different from saying something such as "I take the train to work."  That does not refer to only one time either.

Now turn Amanda's direct speech into reported speech:  Amanda told me that she cheated on her boyfriend.  Without any other context which might suggest something different, that sentence tells me that cheating on her boyfriend was something Amanda did on a regular basis. 

Consider an example with the train again:  When I lived in New York, I took the train to work.  That sentence suggests habitual activity in the past.  It does not suggest that you took the train only once.

tommyensr: That's right.

Hi Amy,
thanks for your comments. But... I don't agree
I hate perfect continuous tenses, LOL. Seriously, every time I ask, I get contrasting opinions. Anyway, I just read your last post, and I can see that after all the perfect continuous tenses work the way I think. I believe it's just a matter of interpretation: you are imagining a different context than the one I'm imagining... I hope it is so.

Well, here's what I was told a billion times about perfect countinuous tenses:
The action has not come to an end, unless is it clear from the context that it has just come to an end. In any case, the action is strongly connected with the the present moment (for example, there could be a result now).
That's why when I see...

When I asked Amanda, she told me that she had been cheating on her boyfriend.
...without context I assume she was still cheating at that time.

He had been working IBM for many years before he got together with a few colleagues to form their own company.
...I wouldn't say this one is good. I could say "worked" or "had worked". But "had been woking" implies that he was still working.

I've been searching for a good explanation.
...I'm still searching for a good explanation. You don't say that after you've given up, do you? I would say "I searched" in that case.

As for...
Amanda told me that she cheated on her boyfriend.
...you are right, that could have been a kind of habit. But that's one interpretation. The other one is that she cheated on at least one occasion.
- Did you cheat on your boyfriend?
- Hmm, yeah, I think so... I cheated on him twice.
-----> Reported: When I asked her, Amanda told me that she cheated on her boyfriend. And two times, to be precise.

Ok, I'm done preaching
Any comment will be appreciated¹.


1. Note: appreciation is likely to vary from comment to comment.

Kooyeen wrote:

Hi Amy, thanks for your comments. But... I don't agree I hate perfect continuous tenses, LOL. Seriously, every time I ask, I get contrasting opinions. Anyway, I just read your last post, and I can see that after all the perfect continuous tenses work the way I think. I believe it's just a matter of interpretation: you are imagining a different context than the one I'm imagining... I hope it is so. Well, here's what I was told a billion times about perfect countinuous tenses: The action has not come to an end, unless is it clear from the context that it has just come to an end. In any case, the action is strongly connected with the the present moment (for example, there could be a result now). The present perfect continuous is always strongly connected with the present moment (now).  The past perfect continuous is typically strongly connected with another past event mentioned in the same sentence or context.  What sort of example(s) have you been given for the past perfect continuous having a strong connection to now/the present??? That's why when I see... When I asked Amanda, she told me that she had been cheating on her boyfriend. ...without context I assume she was still cheating at that time. He had been working IBM for many years before he got together with a few colleagues to form their own company. ...I wouldn't say this one is good. Why not?  I could say "worked" or "had worked". But "had been woking" implies that he was still working. Indeed! He could have still been working at IBM when he and a few colleagues decided to get together to form a new company.  In fact, that seems quite likely to me. He and his colleagues might have continued to work at IBM for another 6 months or longer.  In fact, the past perfect continuous seems more appropriate to me than either the past simple or past perfect simple in this sentence.  The reason is that both of the simple tenses suggest that working at IBM was completely finished before the colleagues decided to get together in order to try to start their own company.  There are innumerable stories of entrepreneurs who were working on getting their own idea or company off the ground while still employed at another company. I've been searching for a good explanation. ...I'm still searching for a good explanation. You don't say that after you've given up, do you? Sure, why not? I would say "I searched" in that case. If someone has just now finally given me the good explanation that I had been trying for years to find, I would have no problem whatsoever saying "I've been searching for a good explanation (and thanks to you, now I finally have it)." The fact is, when we use the present perfect simple, the activity that is mentioned is usually finished/complete. However, that depends somewhat on the particular verb that is used.  In addition, when the present perfect simple is used, the activity could have happened and ended quite some time ago. But when we use the present perfect continuous, the activity may or may not be finished.  We simply don't know for sure unless the broader context tells us.  The only thing that is very clear is that the action has been on-going until now. It has been raining.  --> This sentence does not tell us whether or not the rainfall has now stopped. You need more context to know that for sure. However without any further context I would understand that sentence to mean "It rained while I was inside, but judging by the fact that everything is still dripping, it must have stopped raining only a few minutes ago." It has been raining for hours. --> Without any further context, I would understand that it is still raining now. As for... Amanda told me that she cheated on her boyfriend. ...you are right, that could have been a kind of habit. But that's one interpretation. The other one is that she cheated on at least one occasion. - Did you cheat on your boyfriend? - Hmm, yeah, I think so... I cheated on him twice. -----> Reported: When I asked her, Amanda told me that she had cheated on her boyfriend. And two times, to be precise. That's one of the little difficulties that sometimes arises when you cheat the grammar "rules".  A sentence could end up being misinterpreted.  But you do remember that I mentioned that context will help clarify things, right?  You've now added context and in essence that is the only way your intended meaning was clarified. Ok, I'm done preaching But I'm not. Please go back to your "billions" of sources and ask them for examples in which the past perfect continuous is always strongly connected to the present moment.  It seems to me that you must have misunderstood your sources on that account. Any comment will be appreciated1. 1. Note: appreciation is likely to vary from comment to comment.  Yes, I know -- you appreciate descriptive input more than you appreciate prescriptive input.   Believe it or not, though, I'm doing my best to give you the best of both worlds.  Just because an explanation happens to resemble a prescriptive rule, that doesn't mean that the explanation is not descriptive.