How Come Is The Perfect Progressive Tense Used?

Hi,

You could certainly say 'before they had followed it for ten minutes', and in fact I prefer that.

I assume the writer wanted to stress the duration, ie that ten minutes was a long time in those circumstances.

That's why my wife says to me,

'I've been waiting for you for an hour'

instead of

'I've waited for you for an hour'.

Clive

I have followed this car for ten minutes.
I have been following this car for ten minutes.

I agree, we're hard pressed to find a difference in these two meanings.

I guess it's just the nature of the progressive tenses.
They focus on the continuous nature of the action. (That's why we sometimes call them "continuous.")
There's also an implication that the action will continue into the future, while the perfect tenses might give the impression that the action is complete.

Thanks, Clive.
Thanks, Avangi.

You can NEVER use Past Perfect with "for", unless the systematicity of English grammar means something to you.

"For" is a preposition that works with durations and continuities (at least, in the context that you gave as an example). While the purpose of introducing the Perfect Progressive tenses into English language was to reflect exactly durations and continuities. Past Perfect (neither two other perfect tenses) NEVER work with durations since they are to reflect the COMPLETENESS of action, which is known as 'perfect aspect" in most world's languages. The fact that you may have encountered millions of cases when Past Perfect was used to reflect the duration, doesn't mean anything. It's mangled English.

rinoceronteIt's mangled English.

Indeed.

If, as you say, one has encountered millions of examples of X, then objecting to the use of X on the grounds of a lack of systematicity becomes moot.

Not all grammarians agree that the perfect tenses "are to reflect the COMPLETENESS of action."

rinoceronteYou can NEVER use Past Perfect with "for"

This is false. Note that the term "perfect" as used to characterize the "perfect" tenses of English is not the same as "perfect aspect" or "perfective aspect". In fact, the simple past tense of English is closer to what linguists call "perfective aspect", though even the simple past tense of English can also be used to express "imperfective aspect".

He had looked at it for hours before it finally made sense to him.

CJ

I, too, can't understand why you would say that.

He had worked there for years before he finally got a raise.
I had sung in that choir for three months before I realized that the choir director was my long-lost brother.

AvangiIf, as you say, one has encountered millions of examples of X, then objecting to the use of X on the grounds of a lack of systematicity becomes moot. Not all grammarians agree that the perfect tenses "are to reflect the COMPLETENESS of action."

Which grammarians are you talking about? English grammarians? Yes, they are not likely to agree on that, since they do not feel the "completeness" (as well as "incompleteness") of action they way the rest of the world does. For they don't have the category of aspect in their language, unlike the rest of the world. The extensive use of X goes against the systematicity of English grammar in principle. The extensiveness of X usage proves that English grammar does not exist as a system.

CalifJimThis is false. Note that the term "perfect" as used to characterize the "perfect" tenses of English is not the same as "perfect aspect" or "perfective aspect". In fact, the simple past tense of English is closer to what linguists call "perfective aspect", though even the simple past tense of English can also be used to express "imperfective aspect".

He had looked at it for hours before it finally made sense to him.

It is not. There is no difference between "perfect" and "perfective". It's strained and groundless. Perfect tenses are to express ONLY the perfect aspect. That's why they are called perfect. And this is, unfortunately, the only way in English language to express the perfect aspect action. The simple past tense can't be closer to a perfect/perfective aspect since it includes both aspects - perfect and imperfect. That's the reason why the tense is called indefinite - the aspect is what is not defined in simple tenses.

The correctly formed above sentence should look "He had been looking for hours before...".

Grammar GeekI, too, can't understand why you would say that.

He had worked there for years before he finally got a raise.
I had sung in that choir for three months before I realized that the choir director was my long-lost brother.

He had been working for years before he finally got a raise.
I had been singing in that choir for three months...

The problem lies in your readiness to substitute Perfect Continuous tenses (which work with durations and continuities) with Perfect tenses. That is the biggest problem of English grammar. An unovercomeable one. You can't equal a resultless process to a completed action with a result (i.e., can't equal imperfect aspect to perfect one). "He had worked there before he got a raise" means that he was fired BEFORE he got a raise. "He had been working before he got a raise" means he went on working after the raise.
Please, note I'm not arguing the overwhelmingness of the usage of Perfect tenses in the continuous contexts. Sorry to repeat it, it's mangled English. I can show you how so called "Present Perfect" tense had been getting contaminated and misinterpreted step by step (there are at least four such steps/stages), but understandably not on the forum. It's a 2-hour lecture.

If the English-language society at a certain stage conceded the erasure of the border between diametrical tenses (as diametrical as perfect and imperfect aspects are) it shouldn't get beguiled by the idea of boasting of systemic grammar ever since.