Hi! here I come with a new question: I´ve been always told that stative verbs cannot appear in a progressive tense, but now I quote what I found yesterday in one of my books:

Stative verbs: they do not admit the progressive aspect.
- Verbs of inert perception and cognition, e.g. think, believe, like, love, see, feel, forgive, hear, remember, smell and wish...

- Relational verbs, e.g., belong, cost, depend, need, owe, own, posses, resemble...
They may occasionally indicate an activity and be used in the progressive form.

So, my question is: When can they be used in the progressive form, as the explanation quote above does not solve this for me? Also, could you please give any examples?

Big thanks to all those who reply in advance.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments  (Page 5) 
You have a nasty habit - to survive. Also, how much does it cost to press your off-button?

when native speakers speak languages they don't follow any rules because for the most part native speakers don't know them
That's harsh. If I had been a native, I would have felt offended.

I bet that if you mentioned the name of Zeno Vendler in the company of native speakers of English none of whom are linguistis that would be the first time all of them would be hearing that name.
That might be both true and sad for English grammar. Actually, Zeno Vendler is the main reason why most people (natives, first of all) think that Present Perfect may represent ongoing (i.e., present) actions. If you hear the name of Zeno Vendler for the first time, you have no right even to squeak when it comes to English grammar discussions.

The reason why 'stative' verbs tend not to be used in progressive tenses is because of their semantics - they already describe states and thus there is no need to add the extra aspect.
Not even close to be true. 'Stative' verbs do have both aspects in any language for they may represent both a process and an event: "

"I understood it for as long as you had your patience to explain me it" - a process (imperfect or continuous aspect).

"I understood your point pretty well, once and forever" - an event, a completed action with a result (perfect aspect).

Also the distinction between wait and know that you mention is the distintion in semantics, waiting is perceived as an active deliberate process while with knowledge you either know something or you don't
Man, 'wait' is a state, and 'wait' means being inactive:


"to remain inactive or in a state of repose"

Cool off. You are no good stalker.
What you seem to deliberately choose not to recognise is the simple fact that the present perfect in modern English does get used quite often to denote on-going actions and especially states (as in I've lived here for six years, I've known him for my whole life etc). We're talking here about observed, recorded and confirmed uses of the present perfect here and not of some abstract rules.

Did you come up with those examples with 'understand' yourself? Just a point of information, in English you normally don't say 'explain me it' you say 'explain it to me'.

Your first sentence doesn't make much sense, actually, or rather it does make some weird kind of sense, but I would say that in the sense that you intended, assuming I was able to deduce it correctly, you would in fact probably be better off using the progressive aspect as in 'I was understnading it as long as you kept explaining it to me'

Regarding wait: you got hung up on one definition, but obviously that is not how native speakers of English understand the concept of waiting. These things are more often than not a matter of viewpoint, some people, like yourself, may consider waiting to be a state of inactivity but it would appear that obviously traditionally in English waiting has been understood as an activity of not doing anything until something else happens.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

We're talking here about
You got it all wrong, amigo. I'm not talking to you about ANYTHING. I'd rather talk to my fridge. The only thing I would do with your bullshit would be looking it through for 'that's what she said' stuff. But you don't have even this, good-for-nothing.
bro, you're losing it, this here isn't your personal forum, you don't want to talk to me, fine, don't but I'm going to post here all I want and if I want to comment on your bizarre ideas about English grammar I'm going to keep right on doing just that whether you like it or not, so deal with it.
You have no right to call my ideas bizarre. You have no right to call anyone's ideas bizarre.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
you have no right to call my ideas bizarre...
why not, I believe I have every right to call anyone's ideas bizarre, bizarre means strange, weird, it's not really a deragotory word, and believe you me, for someone who's had as much exposure to authentic English spoken by native speakers as I have, your ideas about the English verb tenses and some of your ideas about the English articles do seem rather strange, I simply can't help that.
I would appreciate it if everyone would kindly take a step back, breathe deeply, and speak to each other in a civil way.

Thank you very much, guys.


for someone who's had as much exposure to authentic English
When it comes to English grammar, exposure to authentic English spoken by native speakers is a useless thing. In your case it turns to be even harmful. I wish you got it.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar
Funny to say, but what had been done to tango looks pretty similar to what had been done to English grammar. Dictate of a tasteless/brainless crowd.
Show more