1 3 4 5 6 7  9 10
the fact that you can't explain the reason for Present Perfect Continious if the Present Perfect can be used for situations that are still going on, doesn't mean there is no such reason.

Also the fact that there is a bit of an overlap in meaning between these two tenses is no tragedy.I've already given you one possible explanation

I've come here every week for the past thirty years - someone might say it if the view the situation as permanent

I've been coming here very day for the past two weeks - somone might say it if the view the arrangement as temporary.

perfect continuos is an aspect that merges perfect and contious, so it inevitably has the properties of both.

I would have no problem if you were to simply say, hey look, people I've done some research here on the histroy of perfect tenses in other European languages and here's what I think, the English totally screwed them over and so on and so forth, but always making it clear that what you're talking about is not how the English verb tenses are actually used by native speakers but how they would be used today if the English had followed your advice on how to treat perfect tenses.
No, you don't get it. My point is in making people understand what English tense system is, why it is so, how it was broken, why it was broken, how people are using the broken grammar, and why they are doing so. See?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Are you serious, Russian? How can you need to check the books if 'when' means what it means!!?!?!

How can this phrase be not enough 'when is simultaneousness, after is sequence'?!?!?!?! Somebody equals 'when' to 'after'? Tell him, he's an idiot.

If you want to talk as equal, stop saying stupid things.

Also the fact that there is a bit of an overlap in meaning between these two tenses is no tragedy.
There can not be any overlap between them. They are diametrical.

the fact that you can't explain the reason for Present Perfect Continious if the Present Perfect can be used for situations that are still going on, doesn't mean there is no such reason.
The fact that someone started to stupidly replace one tense with another, and the rest followed him as sheep, is neither reason, nor explanation, nor justification. It's a mere stupidity. And the texbooks must say: 'yes, people say 'I've lived here for 20 years', but there is no sound reason for that. It's a rooted error'.

perfect continuos is an aspect that merges perfect and contious, so it inevitably has the properties of both.
Not in the least. 'Perfect Continuous' is imperfect aspect. 'Perfect' is perfect aspect. It's the same as if you would suddenly start to say in Russian 'я хочу, чтоб ты покупал мне машину', and everyone would start doing the same. And in ten years they would start drawing logical conclusions from that phrase.

And the texbooks must say: 'yes, people say 'I've lived here for 20 years', but there is no sound reason for that. It's a rooted error'.
'...and moreover, if you start making extrapolations out of this usage, you'll end up in a dead-end with the broken skull'.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
rinoceronteNo, you don't get it. My point is in making people understand what English tense system is, why it is so, how it was broken, why it was broken, how people are using the broken grammar, and why they are doing so. See?
no actually you lost me here again, the English tense system is not really broken it's just evolved in a way that's different from how you would prefer for it to have evolved. When you say it's broken it's just your opinion, the reason native speakers of English have no trouble using their 'broken' grammar is because from their point of view, i.e. from within that grammar, it seems perfectly fine

the English tense system is not really broken
Oh yes! It is! Broken, smashed, corrupted, garbled, crooked, jigsawed, dissected, turned inside out, torn, and destroyed.

When you say it's broken it's just your opinion
No, it's just truth.

native speakers of English have no trouble using their 'broken' grammar
Disabled people adapt somehow to being too.
rinoceronteAre you serious, Russian? How can you need to check the books if 'when' means what it means!!?!?!
How can this phrase be not enough 'when is simultaneousness, after is sequence'?!?!?!?! Somebody equals 'when' to 'after'? Tell him, he's an idiot.

If you want to talk as equal, stop saying stupid things.
C'mon, I'm talking about how 'when' is actually used in English, there are lots of examples out there in which 'when' is clearly used to mean 'after' as in

call me when you've finished

when he finished eating he got up and left the room

the list can go on ad infinitum

It's something something I came up wtih to amuse myself, let alone to irritate you, it's just a fact of life - 'when' is used to mean 'immediately after/as soon as' all the time
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

There can not be any overlap between them. They are diametrical.
There is always overlap in meaning between various grammatical forms.

For instance, think about the example from Lewis' book we discussed ealier

He left when I came in

He was leaving when I was coming in

There is overlap between these two sentences in that they both have the same referential meaning, i.e. that they both refer to the same factual events - I came in, he left, the two things happened at approximately the same time. However, the way these events are viewed by the speaker are quite different.

The same applies to the distinction between perfect and perfect continues tenses

By the end of next week I'll have worked here for three months -> the focus is on how many months I'll have worked here, I'm simply stating the fact

By the end of next week I'll have been working here for three months -> the focus is on me still continuing to work here after three months, the situation is viewed as more specific and I probaly don't really enjoy working here.

Again in both cases the referential meaning is the same, however, the angle from which I'm looking at the situation is different.

The fact that someone started to stupidly replace one tense with another, and the rest followed him as sheep, is neither reason, nor explanation, nor justification. It's a mere stupidity. And the texbooks must say: 'yes, people say 'I've lived here for 20 years', but there is no sound reason for that. It's a rooted error'.
What you say may well be true, I'm obvious not as well versed in the histroy of English as you claim to be, however, you do seem to stubbornly refuse to appreciate the simple fact that in natural languages when a mistake is repeated often enough it eventually becomes a rule. That, by the way, is one of the reasons why quite a few grammar rules often seem so illogical and arbitrary, - because they are illogical and arbitrary, they're just conventions that people have gotten used to over time.

However, when there's two or more forms that can be used to talk about the same referntial meaning, there's usually a distinction in focus, which is the case with simple versus continious tenses.
Show more