Level: intermediate
We use continuous aspect:
- for something happening before and after a specific time:
He's getting on the train. (before and after the moment of speaking)
It was a quarter past ten. We were watching the news on television.
- for something happening before and after another action:
Mother will be cooking the dinner when we get home.
We were waiting for the bus when it started to rain.
- for something continuing for some time:
Everybody will be waiting for us.
They had been working hard all day.
- for something happening again and again:
They've been doing that every day this week.
The children were always shouting.
He will be practising the piano every night.
- for something temporary:
We are renting an apartment until our house is ready.
He was working in a garage during the vacation.
- for something new:
We have moved from Birmingham. We're living in Manchester now.
He had left university and was working in his father's business.
- to describe something changing or developing:
Everything has been getting more difficult.
He was growing more bad-tempered every day.
- Continuous aspect 1
- Continuous aspect 2
We can use continuous aspect:
- with perfect aspect:
How long have you been sitting there?
I don't know how long she had been learning Spanish.
- with modal verbs:
Your friends will be looking for you.
They might be playing tennis.
- with both modal verbs and perfect aspect:
You should have been driving more carefully.
Soon we will have been living here for 25 years.
- Continuous aspect 3
- Continuous aspect 4
We do not normally use the continuous aspect with stative verbs. We use the simple instead:
I don't understand you. (NOT
am not understanding)
When I got home, I really needed a shower. (NOTwas needing)
I've always liked John. (NOTbeen liking)
Hello everybody, just a question. Which of the following sentences are correct / incorrect? Or do they transmit different ideas? 1. It has been raining, 2. It is been raining. Thank you!!!
Hi felps,
Sentence 1 is correct but 2 is not. Sentence 2 is a mix of "It is raining" (present continuous) and "It has been raining" (present perfect continuous).
I hope that helps!
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Greetings!
Could you please help me?
Which of the two sentences is correct?
-'Scientists announced the launch of the new drug they had been developing for over 3 years.'
-'Scientists announced the launch of the new drug they have been developing for over 3 years.'
Hi Mohammad00089007,
I would choose the first one. In the second one, 'have been developing' would be OK if the first verb is in present perfect too (i.e., 'Scientists have announced ...'), or if a specific time is mentioned (e.g. 'This morning, scientists announced ...').
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Natasa Tanasa,
Both forms are possible here; it's really a question of the broader context and the speaker's intention.
The simple form (did) would be used if you wanted to suggest that the crosswords were finished, while the continuous form does not imply this (but does not preclude it either). Other than that difference it depends what you want to emphasise: the activity (it was long and boring, for example) or the result (we finished four crosswords!).
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
I think both forms are possible here and there is very little difference in meaning. The continuous form emphasises that the state or situation is temporary and I think it sounds a little better, but the reference to childhood already makes this point clear so I think either form is possible.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Hosseinpour,
You've put the adverb in the correct place -- well done!
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
Both are true! There are two types of participle clauses:
Your example is the first type. You can read more about participle clauses on this page. I hope it helps!
We're happy to read your kind comments :) Thank you for visiting our site.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
Yes, exactly :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
No worries :) Both are true, actually. A clause always has a verb in it, and a verb has a subject. But, the subject isn't always stated in the clause, e.g.:
The first example is a type of clause called a non-finite clause (i.e. a clause with a verb in the infinitive, participle or gerund form). With non-finite clauses, the subject is often not stated.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
Yes, exactly :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Gendeng,
'you have been' is the present perfect and 'are' is the present simple. In this case, the present perfect refers to a period of time beginning at some point in the past up until now. When this period began may be clear from the context, or it may be that the speaker asks it casually. Much of time, it's as if the question were 'How have you been lately?' or 'How have you been since I last saw you?'
The present simple form generally refers more to the present and less to the recent past.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Plokonyo,
There are many ways to respond, but in general, the second one is better.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Hatchaitchi88,
The forms you are asking about here are past continuous (was watching/were working) and past perfect continuous (had been watching/had been working). Duration is not an issue in choosing between these.
We use the past perfect when we have two past time references and want to emphasises that (1) one action preceded the other and (2) the earlier action had an influence on the later action in some way.
Your examples are isolated without any context, so there is no reason to use the past perfect. If there were a context including a second past action then the past perfect might be possible, but that would depend on the two actions and their relationship.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sokhom,
We sometimes talk about machines as if they were people and have a will of their own. This is the use of wouldn't start in the first sentence; it has a similar meaning to refused to start.
The third sentence describes two actions in the past which form a sequence.
The action of not starting is a single completed action, so there is no reason to use the continuous form (the second sentence) here. The action is not repeated or interrupted.
The fourth sentence is inconsistent as 'this morning' has a present time reference, while the past perfect would indicate a past time reference. You could use the past perfect if you were looking back from a later date and telling the story: My car hadn't started so I was late that morning and my boss was angry.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello IsabelTim_123,
The past continuous and past simple are often used together in this way. The past simple refers to a past finished event (it only takes a short time to hear an announcement) and the past continuous is used to speak about the situation in progress at the time -- English grammars often refer to this as the 'background'.
Without the context, it's not completely clear if the mayor had already resigned or not, but in general I'd understand that she had not resigned yet. If the mayor had already resigned, the speaker would probably have said 'had resigned' or 'resigned'.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello LubNko525,
Yes, those are both possible, though whether they'd be better or not depends on the context.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Lucas_xpp,
It's really a question of emphasis. Both forms are possible here.
The simple form (cycled) emphasises the action in its entirety. You might use this if you want to focus on your achievement - how far you cycled.
The continuous form (was cycling) emphasises the activity. You might use this if you want to focus on the duration of the activity, or how demanding it was.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
For something which was a normal activity like this we generally use a simple form:
He went to the club...
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello InmaLD
That is a reduced relative clause. The full form is 'for something that happens before and after another action'. Sometimes we reduce relative clauses such as this one using an '-ing' form.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Montri
In this pair of sentences, 'isn't going to make' is more about the future and 'doesn't' is speaking more in general, i.e. about something that is always true. The first form is explained on Talking about the future and the other one on the Present simple page.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Oliver25,
It is perfectly fine to use either the past progressive or the past simple after 'when', but there is a difference in meaning. The progressive suggests the other action took place during the first (after it started and before it finished), while the simple form suggests the action took place at the same time. For example:
In many contexts, such as some of yours, the distinction is minimal, but I think the principle holds nevertheless.
With regard to your second question, the progressive form implies an incomplete action:
Certain contexts make the distinction all but meaningless, such as your second example, where a time reference (...you were wearing at 7.00) would be needed for the distinction to be clear.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello andreus1999,
The second sentence is not wrong; both forms can be used here.
There is not a great change in meaning in this context but there is a difference in emphasis. The continuous form (won't be making) describes the situation that the person wil be in while doing the job. The simple form (won't make) focuses on the result of doing the job.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hell Abdel El,
The verb in your sentence is correctly formed and describes what Dany is doing right now. I assume that it is correctly used, but of course I can't say that for sure without knowing what the context is and what you want to say.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team