I I am having trouble explaining why d) is incorrect to my students :

a) He's lived here for 6 years (correct)
b) He's been living here for 6 years (correct )
 
You walk into a bar , the barman nods to your friend and says : 
c) He's been drinking for 6 hours (correct)
d) He's drunk for 6 hours (sounds wrong)

Why is d) incorrect ? What if any is the hidden rule ?
Unfortunately the difference is too subtle for must grammar books to pick up on and is a nuance I suspect only a native speaker would notice. 
 Any help much appreciated.
1 2
a) He's lived here for 6 years (correct)-- He may or may not still live here.
b) He's been living here for 6 years (correct )- He still lives here.
 
You walk into a bar , the barman nods to your friend and says : 
c) He's been drinking for 6 hours (correct)- He's still drinking
d) He's drunk for 6 hours (sounds wrong)- He may or may not still be drinking

Why is d) incorrect ? -- It is not incorrect; it is just odd without the alcoholic object. 'He's drunk whisky for 6 hours
and now he wants a tequila.'
Anonymousd) He's drunk for 6 hours (sounds wrong)
I'll just add to Mr M's explanation that for the above sentence to be correct, he's must be interpreted as he has, not he is.

CB
Try out our live chat room.
Thanks. Let me rephrase the question then . That's what I mean though - in this situation why does it sound strange without the alcaholic object whilst the others sound fine without the alcaholic object . The focus is on the time not the object in this context. The sentances as they are without any addictions or subtractions sound fine except for d)
Is there a rule for this situation apart from "it sounds wrong".  ? 

:

a) He has lived here for 6 years (correct)
b) He has been living here for 6 years (correct )
 
You walk into a bar , the barman nods to your friend and says : 
c) He has been drinking for 6 hours (correct)
d) He has drunk for 6 hours (sounds wrong)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please post by typing your text directly into the message box instead of copying and pasting from some wordprocessing software. Your typeset is simply too small to read.
Anonymous That's what I mean though - in this situation why does it sound strange without the alcaholic object
I cannot possibly know why something "sounds strange" to you. Also, I have never heard the term "alcaholic object" and I have no idea what it means.

CB
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Please Mister Micawber's original response to the question and all will become clear. Out of curiosity are you a native speaker?
P.S. Can I have native teachers only responding to this thread - I mean no insult to anyone but I have very specific reasons for requesting this.
Here's another example :

Your boss walks into the office and dumps a load of papers on your desk. You have already worked 5 hours overtime and want to go home. Your response is :

"Oh comon , I've been working for 15 hrs " (correct)

but not :

"Oh comon, I've worked for 15 hrs "

The sounds "a bit odd" to a native speaker , not completely wrong, but a biot odd, so I am wondering what if any is the hidden rule behind this.

According to this website :


We use the Present Perfect to say that an action happened at an unspecified time before now. The exact time is not important. You CANNOT use the Present Perfect with specific time expressions such as: yesterday, one year ago, last week, when I was a child, when I lived in Japan, at that moment, that day, one day, etc.
Yet we can clearly see from the expression "I have lived in London for ten years" that this is not always the case.

I am begining to reach the conclusion that it is to do with the length of time involved and if it is a recent activity with a clear objective or ending . Ie you may live in London indefinately but you will only be drinking for a fewhours more at most, or perhaps it has to do with the type of verb used.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more