-1
Now let's have a closer look at what is considered "available grammar literature". For example, an English coursebook "Language Leader", Intermediate Level. The book itself is not bad, even quite good, but its grammar components, as always, are not worth much.

The second chapter has an exercise in which you are supposed to choose between Present Perfect and Past Simple. One of the tasks reads as follows:

I have known/knew him for last 10 years.

This is the brightest evidence of pulpness, because:

A) the correct option, which is Present Perfect Continuous, is not included.
B) of two included options the book considers correct the wrong one (Present Perfect).

The fact that "to know" is considered by some a "stative" verb, does not mean anything for a sound mind (4500 instances of stative verbs in continuous tenses in COHA, if you forgot). If you are still not ready to use the proper Present Perfect Continuous here, give me the reasons why you go for Present Perfect in this sentence. My students said "OK, if we HAVE to choose between those two stupid options, it should be Past Simple, because it's Past Simple, that doesn't tell the aspects, and may be either". So, what are your reasons?

And before you start throwing heavy stuff at me, go google those two options. The phrases "I knew him for many years" and "I have known him for many years" produce virtually equal number of results.
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 2) 
English grammar has changed a lot since Uncle Tom's Cabin. (or even in the last 50 years) While this usage of "have been knowing" could have been considered correct in the past, I'm sure that modern English would dismiss it as substandard and incorrect.
IvanhrEnglish grammar has changed a lot since Uncle Tom's Cabin. (or even in the last 50 years) While this usage of "have been knowing" could have been considered correct in the past, I'm sure that modern English would dismiss it as substandard and incorrect.
Thomas Harris, Cecil Brown, George Singleton, and George P. Pelecanos used "to know" in continuous tenses between 1980 and 2000 years.

What do you mean by "modern English"? Can you give any definition of its differences from "non-modern English"? What's the line? Who drew it? How and when?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Modern English refers to the English you find in the grammar books you're reading (recent ones), the English you hear from a native speaker (well, most of them anyway), the English you hear on the BBC etc.

I'm not familiar with any of those people you mention so I can't comment on that. If I were you, I'd refrain from ever using "have been knowing".
IvanhrModern English refers to the English you find in the grammar books you're reading (recent ones), the English you hear from a native speaker (well, most of them anyway), the English you hear on the BBC etc.
Again, where's the line that splits it into modern and not modern?
IvanhrI'm not familiar with any of those people you mention so I can't comment on that.
Thomas Harris (born April 11, 1940) is an American author and screenwriter , best known for a series of suspense novels about his most famous character, Hannibal Lecter .
Cecil Brown (September 14, 1907 in New Brighton, Pennsylvania – October 25, 1987) was the author of the book Suez to Singapore , which describes the sinking of HMS Repulse in December 1941. He also has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame
George Singleton is a Southern author who has written several collections of short stories and two novels .
George Pelecanos (born 1957 in Washington, D.C. ) is an American author. Many of his works are in the genre of detective fiction and set primarily in his hometown of Washington, D.C. He is also a film and television producer and a television writer. He worked extensively on the HBO series The Wire .
IvanhrIf I were you, I'd refrain from ever using "have been knowing".
Why?
Hello

I have read this thread with interest.
rinoceronteThe second chapter has an exercise in which you are supposed to choose between Present Perfect and Past Simple. One of the tasks reads as follows:
I have known/knew him for last 10 years.
I have known him for the last 10 years. - and I still know him.
I knew him for the last 10 years.- fine if standing by his grave at the furneral I think.

You say that you must have been knowing something to forget it but is that not what the past tense is for? I knew that fact and then I forgot it. Or would you say I was knowing that and now I am forgetting it I am not knowing it? Your logic seems a little skewed here?

I am not certain but I think that these strucutres are, if not correct, then frequently used, in Indian English. I will not be offended if a person who speaks Indian English tells me this is not the case. It might be interesting to look at Indian structures, after all this is one of the many forms of Engish that we hear.

I had a look at your webiste, the one you gave the link to LouiseT as evdence of other support for your ideas. Very opinionated.

I find your idea on to wait as a stative verb quite interesting- you are obviously not married. Anyone who has waited for their wife to get ready to go out knows that waiting is no where near a stative verb. I think you are confusing a state of being with the use of a verb.

By your argument we should say I being hungry etc as this is something that lasts a period of time.

Hummmm Interesting
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
AnonymousHello I have read this thread with interest.
Thanks indeed. You guessed right, I'm not married. And may I try to guess too? You are not teaching.
AnonymousI have known him for the last 10 years. - and I still know him.I knew him for the last 10 years.- fine if standing by his grave at the furneral I think.You say that you must have been knowing something to forget it but is that not what the past tense is for?
Yes, I say that, and yes, you may use Past Simple for that. But the problem is in that from Simple tenses you can't see if the action is a process (imperfect aspect) or an event (perfect aspect). While "I have been knowing him" is a pure process.
AnonymousI knew that fact and then I forgot it.
For that there is "I had been knowing".
AnonymousI am not certain but I think that these strucutres are, if not correct, then frequently used, in Indian English.
You are not the first to mention it, and you are perfectly right. The explanation is simple - Indians have the category of aspect (process vs. event) in their languages (at least, Algonquins do), while English natives do not have it.
AnonymousI had a look at your webiste, the one you gave the link to LouiseT as evdence of other support for your ideas. Very opinionated.
Must be because I have opinions.
AnonymousI find your idea on to wait as a stative verb quite interesting- you are obviously not married. Anyone who has waited for their wife to get ready to go out knows that waiting is no where near a stative verb.
Vice versa. Those who had been waiting for their wife to get ready, know that waiting can be a long process, i.e., a state. It's not me who says that. It's your dictionary that depicts waiting as a state.
AnonymousBy your argument we should say I being hungry etc as this is something that lasts a period of time. Humm Interesting
Actually, there is no grammatical use in splitting verbs into state and non-state. Only harm, in fact.
Thank you for your response,
rinoceronteAnd may I try to guess too? You are not teaching.
You are quite right, I was not teaching when I wrote that post and I am not teaching now, However I do teach, I taught last year as well and I will be teaching this afternoon,
rinoceronteFor that there is "I had been knowing".
Why? Why not use the simple past? In your opinion when should we use the past simple?
rinoceronte It's your dictionary that depicts waiting as a state.
My dictionary does not say that.

Wordreference - stay where one is or delay action until a particular time or occurrence. ,
Cambridge online - to allow time to go by, esp. without doing much, until something happens or can happen,
thefreedictionary - To remain or rest in expectation
macmillan dictionary -to stay in one place because you expect or hope thatsomething will happen

Maybe you need more references looking at your reference to google hits you are influenced by numbers.
AnonymousYou are quite right, I was not teaching when I wrote that post and I am not teaching now
I was referring to teaching as to a habit (for many, a bad one). Again, not my invention to describe habitual actions with Continuous tenses. Although, you are right, I won't be using it anymore.
AnonymousWhy? Why not use the simple past?
Because, if you deal with any duration (continuity) in past, you shoud use Past Perfect Continuous. That's the reason, why those three words ever started to be written and pronounced together. If you don't know how to use it, then indeed you should use Simple Past.
Anonymous In your opinion when should we use the past simple?
Simple, or, better, indefinite tenses should be used, when you have problems with definite tenses. Actually, that's the way they are used.
AnonymousMy dictionary does not say that
You need a new dictionary. For example, this one:



"wait

–verb (used without object) 1. to remain inactive or in a state of repose..."
AnonymousMaybe you need more references looking at your reference to google hits you are influenced by numbers.
I'm not influenced by numbers. Google is usage. Correct, incorrect, native, non-native, but usage of languages. Sure, you need to distinguish representative results from disregardable. When you have five zeros in your hits, you can't just ignore it.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
rinoceronteYou need a new dictionary. For example, this one:
Or maybe you do?
Show more