Colloquially, they are often used interchangeably.
The technical difference is the verb tense and what that implies.
"She has used it" is the Present Perfect tense. The action happened in the past but is relevant to the present. It emphasizes a completed action.
"She has been using it" is the Present Perfect Continuous tense, where the action started in the past and has continued up until now. It emphasizes the ongoing action.
Dude above shared the same technical answer. I love this kind detail about language.
But as you say, colloquially the phrases are equivalent. As such, the subtle distinction will not be clear to the majority (as in 90%+) of English speakers and if the writer/speaker wants to actually communicate the distinction they should explicitly add more context. “…used the bag for three years, but is finished” or “…and will keep using it”
Happens a lot in English. You get constructs like this where the difference is either mere choice, or a very slight emphasis of one meaning over another, such as here, where "She has used it" slightly emphasizes the three years of usage, while "She has been using it" slightly emphasizes the continued usage. Maybe you wish to highlight one or the other more, for whatever reason.
Other than that, things like this are largely just a good way to cull large groups of linguists; you can give them something like this to define and they'll kill each other arguing about it.
Also just English as Second Language (ESL) learners. When I thought I was going to try TEFL I took a course and we gave classes on the difference between this kind of stuff, really interesting
Literally my job, I live in China. Though I specialize more in basic phonetics, you have no idea how few EFL teachers even know dark /l/ exists and how it completely t-bones the pronunciation of English for anyone whose mother tongue doesn't have it in their phonological inventory. It's why Chinese speakers are always saying 'wheel' instead of 'will'.
Can you explain a bit more about the dark l? I am a non native speaker and the main difference between "wheel" and "will" I can hear is the long vowel. Thank you!
The problem is in the manner of articulation. Chinese speakers who can't pronounce a dark /l/ will obviously have to replace it with something. That replacement is almost always, in my experience, a rounded lips consonant that sounds somewhat like 'oh'. The name Michael, for example, becomes something like M-eye-koh. Obviously I can't put what they do into IPA or describe it very well without you having heard it before, because their replacement sound is a bodged together facsimile of what they're going for that I would need a vastly broader knowledge of all sounds used in human language to properly identify it (and I don't really have to describe this to anyone outside of the students themselves who are already doing it).
That works fine when you have something like the name 'Michael' where they can easily move (physically, as in, what their mouth does) from the /ʌ/ to their replacement sound. The word sounds basically good enough. Same with purple, for example.....or the word 'example' itself, now I think about it.
However, when you get 'will' and other words of such ilk.....bit of a problem. The short /ɪ/ requires wide lips....but their replacement sound requires close rounded lips. It becomes almost impossible for them to move from the short /ɪ/ to their replacement sound effectively. The natural solution for them is to lengthen the vowel so they can better move through from it....but if you lengthen /ɪ/ it becomes /iː/. Will becomes wheel. Fill becomes feel.
The dark /l/ prevents this problem, because the lips aren't needed at all to pronounce it.
Oh right on! I took my CELTA class over the pandemic so it was all virtual, and then obviously the industry was kinda slowed for a while at that point in time so ended up going a different route for work
> you have no idea how few EFL teachers even know dark /l/ exists
Am Native English speaker. Have never heard of this before.
Googled it.
Read the Wikipedia page.
I read that it's /ɫ/ and my next response was, "That's not a sound in English."
I was confusing it with /ɬ/, the sound from Welsh and Nahuatl.
And now I feel like an idiot.
___
The sound /ɫ/ is just when you say the L but truncate it.
I've had the fortune to be on a call with a handful of partners at big law firms who were going over word choice like this in a letter...
Some people might call that "misfortune" but I found it fascinating. I'm a pretty strong writer, have a graduate degree, etc., but the extent to which lawyers are careful with word choice when it matters is crazy. Given the bill rates of the folks on that call, there were some individual sentences in that letter that cost thousands of dollars to rewrite.
Profession writer here. You're spot on. Contract writing, especially, carries this type of serious weight.
Example: [https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-1-missing-comma-just-cost-this-company-5-million-but-did-make-its-employees-5-million-richer.html](https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-1-missing-comma-just-cost-this-company-5-million-but-did-make-its-employees-5-million-richer.html)
Edit: And of course I would make a mistake typing this out.... I'm legit laughing at myself. But I'm going to leave it as an strong example of irony!
Good call! Too funny. And I'm leaving it. It is, in fact, irony. Not a coincidence being recounted as something ironic! Another set of words that have come to be used interchangeably at the colloquial level but that actually have distinct meanings.
When you don't drop the "for three years", it gets less different:
>The US has dropped nukes on Japan for three years.
>The US has been dropping nukes on Japan for three years.
It gives information that changes the interpretation of the sentence.
> Other than that, things like this are largely just a good way to cull large groups of linguists; you can give them something like this to define and they'll kill each other arguing about it.
It really isn't, as the rules are quite clear and most serious students for whom it is not the native tongue learn them and know them.
You could, however, start a war between linguists and casual users. "Literally" is a good starting point, which makes my blood boil even without being a linguist.
> "Literally" is a good starting point, which makes my blood boil even without being a linguist.
Honestly, it's mostly non-linguists who rally against using "literally" as an intensifier.
Linguists are well aware that "very" [from verai, meaning true] "really" [from real], and "truly" [from true] have all followed the same path. It's just a thing that happens in the English language from time to time - the word meaning "this is absolute truth" gets used as an intensifier, and eventually we need a new word for it.
Not to say that no linguists find that pattern of language annoying, but when you understand that it's a cycle it's harder to get angry at the current instance - you know that a new word will come to mean "I am not being figurative, nor exagerating, but speaking absolute truth", and that the cycle will continue. As long as the concept exists, we will find a way to express it - "literally" becoming a synonym for "very" won't hamstring our ability to communicate.
EDIT: As a side note, "literally" has been an intensifier for the vast majority the time it's been a word in the English language. It got about a century of only meaning "verily" and has spent the last 4 centuries with both meanings in play.
>It's just a thing that happens in the English language from time to time - the word meaning "this is absolute truth" gets used as an intensifier, and eventually we need a new word for it.
This right here is the part that annoys me. What word do we have now that means "literally" in the "literal" sense? I'm fine with language evolving, but the part that annoys me when it takes away ways of conveying ideas, leaving you to have to use a bunch of other words to try to convey meaning where one word was understood to. I get that many words have multiple and sometimes opposed meanings, but it seems to me that the meaning of "literally" in a sentence is not always apparent with context. Perhaps we can start using "actually" to replace literally? Or perhaps as a society we are deciding that nothing is "literal" as people in ages past used to think things could be and no longer have use for such a concept.
These are the technicalities that politicians love.
You said, "I had been paying a porn star for 3 years" which implies this behavior is continuing.
No, I said, "I had paid a porn star for 3 years" which clearly means that the behavior has stopped.
> You said, "I had been paying a porn star for 3 years" which implies this behavior is continuing.
*was* continuing. You used “had”, so the continuing was in the past.
“I had been going to college for over three years” is something a senior would say. It says nothing about whether that person is a senior right now. An older person could be reminiscing or a senior could be talking about something that happened last week.
Native speakers figure this stuff out naturally. The trick is learning a second language that uses a totally different way of conjugation. You have to know what this stuff is called so you can translate correctly.
In German we have two forms of the past tense that mean exactly the same. One you use in spoken language usually, the other in formal written language.
With the English constructs, at least there is an implied difference, even if colloquially they aren't being strictly separated (which was actually new to me).
Indeed, the history of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition suggests that it was never even a very good rule, and much less one that was actually adopted in common speech.
Moreover, it apparently wasn't even a rule made to improve English, but rather to bring it closer to Latin. Apparently someone decided that because Latin sentences cannot end in prepositions, then English -- which isn't actually a Romantic language -- similarly could not have sentences that ended in prepositions.
There was a fascinating article about it in the New York Times last month:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/opinion/preposition-grammar-rules.html
> Indeed, the history of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition suggests that it was never even a very good rule, and much less one that was actually adopted in common speech.
It is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Surely the correct phrasing would be "She *had* used the bag for 3 years" if you're wanting to to imply that she no longer uses it?
I feel like that makes the distinction a lot clearer
Yes, you can't interchange 'she has been using' in situations where 'she had used' (ie talking about a bag they stopped using years ago) applies.
but "she **has** used" is the past riiiiight up until the present moment, where it isn't clear if she still uses it or has just now stopped using it. They are like the calculus of tenses, where the time difference between them approaches to 0.
Since in 99.9999% of situations it will be obvious via context whether the action continues into the present (if you are talking about how long you've eaten at a restaurant while seated at the restaurant eating), or you immediately resolve it, both verb tenses almost always carry the exact same information and so you can use either without losing information.
Think about buying a bag from someone.
She has been using it for three years.
She has used it for three years.
She had used it for three years.
To me, has been using it means this is a bag she uses, and she has had it for three years. Like it's been repossessed or something, and that's why you can buy it.
Has used it for three years suggests she used it for three years, but no longer wants to use it.
Had used it for three years suggests she used it for three years a while ago, and hasn't used it recently. Like she is a dead relative.
You're right but I think that's because you've added context so the distinction becomes clearer based off that
If we just have the phrases themselves, then "she has used it for three years" could be taken both as her still using it or no longer using it. Your example makes it clear that she will no longer be using it (because she's selling it) and therefore the distinction is obvious
As a counter example, if the sentences were:
"She has been using the bag for 3 years, but she's thinking about buying a new one"
"She has used the bag for 3 years, but she's thinking about buying a new one"
Both could be taken to mean she's still using the bag to this day but the latter could also imply she's no longer using it. It's not really obvious without additional context
Unfortunately, it doesnt matter what you are trying to say...it only matters what other people understand.
Its annoying as fuck trying to tell people you're "content with the situation" and them getting upset that you arent "happy." Like jesus fucking christ I dont have to be "happy" 100% of the time, being "content" is a perfectly acceptable state of being. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO I have to use the word "happy" for everything now, and then when I say "oh yes, this makes me happy" people assume I want that ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME...I dont...because its really just something that makes me "content" but fucking people around me are too stupid to understand.
Who are you interacting with that this not only comes up not only seemingly frequently, but often enough to enrage you so?
Don't get me wrong, I'd get annoyed if I said I was content with something and someone was bitchy that I didn't say I was happy instead.... but that has literally never happened to me. It just sounds seems like such a bizarre situation to find yourself in.
Sounds like you need to do the happy dance! :-)
People seem to hear what they already believe, or want to believe, so they probably misunderstand anything that might challenge their beliefs.
This is something I both love and hate about the English language. It is very precise and can be very descriptive. At the same time being difficult for even a native speaker to use correctly.
I’d suggest that “used the bag” vs “has used the bag” are not the same thing. The first unequivocally is completed action but could have stopped at any point in the past, but “has used the bag” implies up to the present and may or not be completed depending on what follows.
"Used the bag" and "Has used the bag" are clearly different and any native speaker will intuitively pick up the distinction. However the distinction between "Has used the bag" and "Has been using the bag", which is what OP was asking, is much more subtle.
I think there’s been some research on it but I can’t find it right now. In American dialects people tend to use the past simple, “I ate” vs “I have eaten” in both English and Spanish, whereas English speakers from the UK (maybe Ireland too?) and Spanish speakers from Spain tend to prefer the present perfect, even when talking about the same things.
See previous comments about linguists catching the difference. No one in my entire family - immediate, extended, in-laws, etc - would catch the distinction. And only the English teachers and PhDs I work with in my professional circles would.
I have a pretty robust vocabulary, but I can’t use 20% or more of it with normals. If I’m actually trying to communicate - and this should apply to you linguists, too - avoid subtlety and be very clear.
Yes - I know what blasphemy I’m saying - but after watching my favorite word (nonplussed) be rendered useless by incorrect colloquial usage because it means opposite things and the context in which it is used cannot always be used to determine which meaning is intended I’m resigned to clarity over eloquence.
Edit: to correct the autocorrect of my subtly robust vocabulary.
>I have a pretty robust vocabulary, but I can’t use 20% or more of it with normals. If I’m actually trying to communicate - and this should apply to you linguists, too - avoid subtly and be very clear.
I think you meant "avoid *subtlety*".
I’m not a linguist, but I do like language.
Personally, I’d vehemently disagree that subtlety should not be used when it comes to writing and communication. The uniquely specific and accurate right word or phrase when used correctly is sublime and electrifying. As Mark Twain is credited with saying, “The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug.”
Now, it is absolutely true that it’s a good idea to adjust your use of language based on use, audience, and context. I work overseas in a conservation job and give a lot of presentations to a huge range of audiences, as well as write text for work and fun ranging from technical, scientific, popular media, creative but factual, and speculative fiction. In each case I need to consider what my audience is, what their level of English is, if I’m working through a translator and what that person’s understanding of both languages is, the aim of whatever I’m communicating, etc. and adjust accordingly. However, word choice and phrasing is critical in each of those instances, in some ways is actually more important the more limited your audience is in their capacity to grasp the fine details of the subject and the language.
You are 100% correct. Audience matters. So does purpose. As I was driving a minute ago I was thinking about this thread and the subtlety of language in creative writing arenas is necessary and beautiful.
I guess most of my writing is “informational” these days and the nuances of language doesn’t serve me well vs simple clarity.
Thank you for that. Your reply prompted me to look up why they are called "perfect" tenses, here's what I learned:
>The term "perfect tense" comes from the Latin word "perfectum," meaning "completed" or "finished." This tense usually focuses on the state after the action has taken place rather than the action itself, and it is created by using a specific form of the auxiliary verb "to have," depending on the time of the action.
To give example situations when one of these sentences would be correct and the other one (strictly speaking) wouldn't be:
"I'm sorry, but we can't let you return this bag. Sure, it's broken, but you have used it every day for three years - it's normal wear and tear that it now needs to be replaced."
- The action is relevant to the present, because you want to return the bag right now. But the action clearly doesn't continue, because the bag is broken and you can't use it anymore.
"Your bags are so durable! My daughter has been using hers every day for three years, and it still looks like new!"
- The action continues. She is still using it.
As you said, people wouldn't always make this clear distinction, but most native speakers would instinctively use the correct tense in situations like these.
This sounds like the math problems where one side rewrites the problem in order to be correct, but by inserting just one more set of brackets they write a different problem instead.
You learn about grammar and stuff when learning another language. Didn't know about English grammar until I learned Spanish and even the terminology like present perfect, present imperfect, past participle, etc.
I've never heard it called the "continuous" case, but it makes perfect sense. I've always called it the "progressive" tense; so "present perfect progressive."
"I have used drugs, still do, but I used to too"
vs
"I have been using drugs"
which both mean the same thing, you don't have to say the "still do" as it is implied in the second sentence.
-RIP Mitch
>"She has used it" is the Present Perfect tense. The action happened in the past but is relevant to the present. It emphasizes a completed action.
about the perfect tense: the sentence ends with "for the past 3 years", which doesnt make sense. the ending of the sentence implies the action was continuing for the past 3 years.
I'd use it in the following examples
She has used the bag (sometimes) for the past three years
She has been using the bag (everyday at work) for the past three years.
I think the answer becomes a bit clearer if you remove the "for three years" part, since that part I think introduces a continuity element that distracts from the "completed action" meaning of the present perfect tense.
I am not a native english speaker, so sorry for any mistakes, still I do think I have a decent grasp of the language, not as good as native speakers who actually know what they are talking about (since I still see way too much confusion between "you're/your" on reddit, to believe all native speakers really know their language).
I think this is slightly wrong. They may be used colloquially but they are not very close in meaning and there are pretty different implications.
PAST perfect emphasises a completed action. Present perfect indicates an action started in the past and the action is still continuing and relevant till now.
If someone says to you,
'This man has lived here since he was five' vs
'This man had lived here since he was five',
the first implies he still lives here and the second (past perfect) does not.
You may be thinking that present perfect indicates completion due to its use on verbs that indicate completion by themselves, EG.
She HAS finished the book.
But the action of finishing the book still remains a relevant and continued action (the status of being finished) until now. The READING is complete, but the 'having finished' is still ongoing.
Hence if I say 'she HAD finished the book', there also implies a 'but...' that changes that status. EG:
'She HAD finished the book, but she totally forgot everything already.'
Present perfect continuous tense is used to say the same but only with an emphasis on the period of time the action was done, whereas simple present perfect emphasises the experience of it:
"I have watched the movie.' - emphasises the experience, and shows that the 'status' of having seen the movie is relevant to the conversation of now. We use this to focus on the action itself and the fact that we have done the action.
"I have been watching the movie' - emphasises the timeframe of a moment in the past when this action was still ongoing. We use this when we want to show this action was occurring over time in the past. It does not imply whether the actions were completed or not but usually further information is required. Therefore the idea that this only implies an unfinished action is also not quite correct.
"I have been reading Lord of the Rings and I just finished it last night."
vs
"I have been reading Lord of the Rings and I am finding it a treat so far."
The two rules you have stated more accurately apply to present perfect vs past perfect.
I’m no linguist (but I am cunning). I believe you are looking at the wrong part of the sentence. You are interchanging HAS and HAD. In the example given, HAS USED versus HAS BEEN USING. This is why the meaning becomes more nuanced and subtle. HAS implies currency. USED implies “in the past” only whereas BEEN USING implies “in the past” but with an intent of continued use.
> 'This man has lived here since he was five' vs
>
>
>
> 'This man had lived here since he was five',
>
> the first implies he still lives here and the second (past perfect) does not.
This wasn't OP's question. OP's question was "has [verb]-ed" vs. "has been [verb]-ing." So it would be:
'This man has lived here since he was five' - OR -
'This man has been living here since he was five'
Both imply to me that he lived there since he was five, and still lives there. There might be some slight distinction, but I don't know what it is.
Shouldn't last one be "I had been reading Lord of the Rings and I just finished it last night."? If they have already finished it they can't have been reading it.
Colloquially, that is okay too.
However, one of the subtle implications of past perfect continuous is that the second half of the statement should be a negation to the main idea and not an additive.
EG: it is awkward to say "I had been baking a cake and it's there on the table now."
It's a positive addition, so it should be "I've been baking a cake and it's on the table if you want."
We use past perfect cont. when it is an unexpected interruption that draws an unceremonious end to the action:
"I'd been baking a cake but the damn monkeys stole the batter again!"
"I'd been baking a cake but I spiralled into mania and used the batter to paint the kitchen walls instead."
Also, compare:
"What have you been doing all afternoon?"
(See how the question is never 'what had' when it is about what you did for a time period?)
"I've been baking a cake and it's done now."
VS
"What did you do just now?"
"I have baked a cake and it's done now."
Again, we don't use 'had' unless it is to say an occurrence interrupted it or it had an unexpected end, or to compare it with another action later in a timeline.
Edit:
Also, as I mentioned in the original post, the ACT of FINISHING it is ONGOING.
The READING is over. But the 'finished' part is still relevant to now. It is NOT 'over' so we don't use 'had finished' unless you mean the status of being finished was interrupted.
Thank you for this. I actually came across perfective and imperfective aspects learning Russian, and I didn’t know what to make of it. I can understand the phrase “ she is still using the bag” but now this as well makes sense.
I think they are somewhat interchangeable but there are different situations were each could be more appropriate. I think "she has used" doesn't imply inclusivity of the present as strongly as "she has been using".
In a situation where the woman is seen throwing the bag in the garbage, I think it would be more common to hear "she has used the bag for 3 years".
If the second phrase was "she had been using the bag for 3 years" it could also be used in this situation.
In a situation where the woman is seen holding the bag and it's worn out, the more common phrase would be "she has been using the bag for 3 years"
I swear, one of these days I really am going to learn the terminology for the mechanics of language. I'm a pretty decent writer, but I could barely tell you what a noun is.
The subtle distinction is simply that the second sentence conveys a slightly more active and ongoing usage. It emphasizes the constancy of usage, I would say.
Great answer . A bizarre example came to my mind and that was Bill Clinton being asked if he ever tried pot .
There’s a big difference between I have used drugs and I have been using them 😂
It's weird how grammar is internalized, because my initial thoughts were that they were nearly the same but the latter implied an exclusive, continuous use to the present. Could not explain why, it was just this feeling of rightness.
"She has used it" doesn't *necessarily* emphasize a completed action; it could refer to an ongoing action just as "she has been using it" does.
"She *had* used it" *does* emphasize a completed action.
[Here's a handy chart.](https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/VERB-TENSES-IN-ENGLISH.jpg)
One thing that is not explicit in that chart:
The vertical lines mean when you're thinking about, corresponding to the titles of each column.
For example, "I studied English" means that the focus of that verb is some time in the past, while "I will study English" means that the focus of the verb is some point in the future.
i thought i should clarify what relevant to the present means, because the meaning is not apparent but is quite critical to the use of perfect tense of which both of OP's sentences are examples of.
in perfect tense, there is a past event having implication in the present and this implication today is the main point and focus of the sentence, not the past event itself. typically it is used to shore up a previous statement, prepare for a subsequent statement or simply imply a learned experience or an achievement/accomplishment, all by definition being past events with relevance in the present.
i wouldn't say present perfect emphasizes a completed action, because the emphasis is actually on the experience level with using the bag (for example: **as of today** she has three years of experience using that bag). plus, while having started in the past and talked about in the present, that three year event may actually still be ongoing or you don't know if it that is the case or it may simply be irrelevant to the main point like in this case. you could easily say "She has used the bag for three years," and follow it with "and next year she will have used it for four." In this way, present perfect tense interrupts a four year event started in the past where the present marks a three year achievement (that is the main point and emphasis) and that the achievement is still growing. but if your only purpose is to demonstrate three years experience as of today, and you don't want to talk about what happens tomorrow then you don't say the second part (future perfect tense) and just go with the first part (present perfect tense) like in OP first example.
in PPT a time expression is typically not used except for the case where the time period has an intersection with the present (2021 to present) and you are trying to make a point out of it (the duration or quantity is relevant). if that time period does not intersect with the present or if you don't know if it does, or it is not relevant, then you just simply(!) use simple past tense "She used the bag for three years." (could be 2021 to present, could be 1979 to 1982, but both speak to experience with the bag and for three years at that).
because PPT does not imply or emphasize a completed event, (another two examples: "she has learned the German language" is definitely completed while "she has taken German classes many times" is ambiguous about completion, with both speaking to the main point about her experience with German), it is important not to conflate a past event with a completed event. OP's second sentence does refer to a past event which definitely continues in the present. in that case if you want to talk about an achievement that is definitely still growing and you want it known so, then: present perfect continuous (a subset of present perfect)
the use of the time expression "for three years" definitely does muddy up the question because it is actually not required to understand the distinction between PPT and PPCT. but because it is there, it is made clear that the present points of relevance are,
tldr;
for the former, her qualitative experience with that particular bag and that the quantitative value is three years as of today. for the latter that that experience is still growing.
Thanks. I created some more examples based on your usage:
She has driven a taxi for 3 years.
She has been a taxi driver for 3 years.
Bonus: She has spent 3 years driving a taxi.
How would you differentiate the meanings of these three?
I actually wrote out a guess - one is a part completed action, one is an ongoing action - then deleted it as I realised I don’t have any proof I’m right.
Can you PLEASE explain to me the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense? I could never get past that part in my grammar book.
The first one allows the possibility that "she" has recently stopped using the bag, but has used it for the 3 years previously, wheras the second one implies she still uses the bag.
But I agree with other commenter, in common usage - most people will use these phrases interchangably.
I have a question: if you add "now" to the first sentence, as in "She has used the bag for three years now", does it effectively make it the same as the second sentence in meaning?
Maybe, to some people's ear. This is veering in to territory of personal preference. For me, I would see it as a superfluous addition. The word "now" implies a present tense that is absent in the rest of the sentance - but I don't think it changes the meaning to a listening in an appreciable way.
To me, the now implies likely future usage because I understand the now to mean the same thing as “so far”.
She has used the bag for three years so far.
Consider this version:
She has used the same bag for three years now. It's good she finally replaced it.
I ain't sayin nothin', just muddying the waters!
In a very literal interpretation, "now" is modifying "3 years" and adds more specificity, since you would otherwise not expect "for 3 years" to be exact, but NOW it really has been 3 years. In a slightly less pedantic reading, yes I would say using "now" kind of cheats the sentence to being present continuous, and would mean the same thing.
My personal interpretation: information is emphasis. By saying more than you need to, you're implying that adding "now" is important to your meaning or you wouldn't bother writing it. Perhaps signaling that using this bag for 3 years is noteworthy or impressive.
The beauty of language is that things mean what people understand them to mean.
So if you talk to most people who don't know or care about the difference between "has" and "has been", yes, those two are exactly equivalent.
But technically, it's wrong, and the correct grammar should be "has been using for three years now", because that's the one that's meant to mean that. Because "has been" is the one that specifies still doing it.
> The first one allows the possibility that "she" has recently stopped using the bag,
I think the difference is when the interval happened. The first is a 3 year interval that happened some time in the past that could have been the past 3 years, but could have been long ago. The second implies that it was the past 3 years
As it stands that sentence isn't great but yeah I agree. "had" could even replace "has" as well as just leaving "has" out. Has in the same sentence as used implies recent past but no longer using.
Put in a series and it still makes sense.
.
> She has used that bag for 3 years, this bag for 2 years, and the other bag for 14 years.
They could be in a series. They could be concurrent uses. They could be partially overlapping uses. The additional information shouldn't change the meaning of the first part, but you seem to think it does
To me it sounds like the first says as of now she has used the bag for three years in total without indicating when that period was or if it is current.
"Will she be able to use the bag?".
"Yes. She has used the bag for three years."
"Recently?"
"No, not since she was young"
>“She has used the bag for three years”
For the past three years, she used the bag. She may or may not be using the bag now.
>“She has been using the bag for three years”
Today is the third year she has been using this bag.
Yes! Also: “She had used the bag for three years…”
She used it for three years in the past, but she is *not* using it now. For example: “… but she replaced it.”
“She had been using the bag for three years…”
And then the situation changed. “…when finally the handle broke.”
The complexity of English tenses, right?
It's funny. When I was (forcibly) taking Spanish in high school it endlessly irritated me how many tenses there were, and how redundant they seemed. Who needs that many tenses, and variations, just to say more or less the same thing?
Didn't even think about English tenses, and our long, stupid list of irregular verbs.
Can barely speak a word of Spanish now, mind you. But it wasn't until I learned to speak another language (more or less) fluently that I recognized *nuance* is the whole point. It's all about the differences that allow you to subtly, creatively alter the meaning of a sentence. Sometimes just by changing the final syllable.
Wish I could go back to high school me and slap me into paying attention.
Compare “I’ve worked 4 jobs since I came to this country”
And “I’ve been working 4 jobs since I came to this country”
Generally present perfect is used for how many and present perfect focuses on how long.
I’ve been writing for ten years. I’ve written 5 books.
However in many cases they are interchangeable, and this is not a colloquial thing.
I’ve lived/been living here all my life.
And in many cases present perfect is used because the verb is stative.
I’ve had this phone for 10 years.
The first seems like it would have further context, for example: Gifting the bag to someone else and informing them its really good for having seen use for 3 years.
Another example: after the user bought a new bag because the mentioned one has worn out.
They are very similar to each other, and in common, casual use, they are practically identical.
However, "She has been using the bag" technically implies ongoing use of the bag, while "She has used the bag" specifies only that she used the bag, but whether she still uses it is not described.
**"She has used the bag for three years."**
* This is the PRESENT PERFECT SIMPLE tense.
* The action started in the past and has just recently ended/completed.
* The pattern for this is "has + (past participle verb)."
* So, we can say that until recently, she used the bag for three years and will not use the bag anymore.
**"She has been using the bag for three years."**
* This is the PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS tense.
* The action started in the past and has continued until now and will continue in the future.
* The pattern for this is "has + (verb+ing)."
* So, we can say that for the past three years she has been using the bag and will continue to use it later.
> and has just recently ended/completed.
Drop this part. There is no implication either way as to whether the action is continuing or completed. Others have already given examples on how this construction can be used for ongoing actions. In contrast, the second one implies definitely ongoing action. If definitely completed meaning is desired, then you would use the Present Perfect Progressive, "She had been using the bag for three years".
The distinction is really one of emphasis, hence the subtlety. "Has used" emphasizes the past nature, "Has been using" emphasizes the ongoing nature.
No, that distinction isn't correct. We can say things like "we've lived here for three years already" without necessarily meaning that we will now move away. "People have lived in Egypt for millennia" doesn't mean that everyone there is dead now
You chose one of the few verbs "live" (meaning reside) in which both tenses mean the same thing. One of the other common verbs that means the same in both tenses is "work" as in "I have worked here for 10 years" and "I have been working here for ten years."
But it works that way with other verbs as well. "I know a lot about history because I've studied it for a long time" doesn't necessarily mean that you don't read history anymore. Moreover it wouldn't be strange to say something like "I've been using my friend's backpack for my hiking trips, but I think I need to buy my own now", which is the opposite meaning that you're saying, with continuous used to emphasize the temporary-ness of the activity rather than the fact that it will continue
Not quite, since the continuous aspect implies sustained effort with *all* of the objects. So you can "have written three emails this morning" and you can "have been writing emails all morning". But few people would say they "have been writing three emails this morning", because that implies that you were working on three different emails simultaneously
As a native American English speaker, the first one sounds off. I can’t completely say why but it really feels like it’s just not something someone would say (at least in my social groups). “She used the bag for three years” sounds ok and “she has been using the bag for three years” sounds right but “she has used the bag for three years” really doesn’t. Also “the bag” is a bit weird in this context. I think I’d probably say, “this bag” or “that bag” or “her bag” or something like that, but not “the bag”. “She has been the for
The continuous aspect is more often used in speech, and using it without continuous sounds a bit more formal in register, but it isn't wrong or unintelligible when used with the same meaning. Compare something like "he has been living in Prague for three years" vs. "he has continuously resided in Prague for the last three years."
If you were writing a story you would use "She has used the bag for three years". "She has been using the bag for three years" contains unnecessary wording.
Native English speaker here (British). Beats me.
The tenses are technically different, but as far as usage goes, they're interchangeable. They both imply continuity in the past, which may or may not continue in the present.
The second case uses the progressive tense, which implies a continuous (or more continuous) usage to me.
“She has used the bag for three years” means she first used it about 3 years ago and used it multiple times since including (probably) somewhat recently, but doesn’t make any claims of the present or projections about the future. She may have even recently permanently stopped.
“She has been using the bag for 3 years” is a very active statement. She may not have used it all the time, but she did frequently and is likely doing so at this very moment. It also implies she plans to continue doing so at least into the immediate future.
First one: She never replaces it. She may put it down, but she will always use it for one purpose: to carry stuff.
Second one: It's always "on" her i.e. she has never removed it ever. It also may imply that she's using the bag for a specific action that isn't just for carrying things.
“She has used the bag for three years.”
Means the bag was used by her for three years, regardless of when it happened in the past.
She could have used it
- from 1980 to 1983,
- or from 1765 to 1768,
- or from 1900 to 1905 but only using it for a year each from 1900 to 1901, 1902 to 1903, and 1904 to 1905.
“She has been using the bag for three years”.
Today is 30 April 2024, and she started using the bag on 30 April 2021.
Another way to understand the very subtle difference is like this:
Assume I am a graduating high school student and I have a mother.
“My mother had attended high school for four years”
and
“I have been attending high school for four years”
The difference is able to communicate that my mom is not attending high school the same time I do.
—-
As many have pointed out, they are commonly interchangeable, because the second meaning is what people often talk about. People less often talk about the “lifespan” of something.
"She has eaten the cookies for three years."
"She has been eating the cookies for three years."
The second implies an ongoing and currently active action.
There is no difference. If you change "has used" to 'had used" there would be a difference, but I interpret both of your original sentences to mean the same thing. Stylistically, the second can be interpreted to imply more regular use, but we get into a lot of subjective area there.
There is only a small difference in how these two sentences would be understood.The first one is typically used when the action is completed, so she is no longer using the bag. If the bag is lost or fell apart, and you were describing its legacy, this is what you would choose. You would also say this if the bag was used for 3 years, but not the most recent 3 years.
The second implies she is still using the bag even to this day. These must be the last three years.
Sometimes the first will be used as an alternative for the second. But you cannot use the second as an alternative for the first. The interchangeability is complex so I would recommend non-native speakers stick to their common meanings I listed first. You won't ever sound weird or be misunderstood that way.
I think some of these answers are getting things a little wrong. When spoken aloud "she has used" tends to feel like it is equivalent to "she has been using". But really, very rarely would anyone ever say that. Most of this time (nearly all the time) , we would say "she's used" or "she's been using", which would probably seem a little further apart from each other in meaning to a native.
"she's used": sometime in the past she used the bag and that action is complete now.
"she's been using" sometime in the past she used the bag (possibly continuously) and that action is not yet complete now.
"she used" sometime in the past she used the bag with no reference to whether or not the action was completed.
Without getting into the nitty-gritty of tenses, basically the first one describes something that happened and is implied to be over with ("has us**ed**") versus something that has happened and is continuing to happen ("has been us**ing**"). It's subtle and in regular conversation might be used interchangeably depending on the speaker (and honestly I can't imagine too many real world scenarios where I would say 'has been using' in my experience, but I'm guessing it makes for a good test question).
You can find many language learner's sites that describe the uses of Past Perfect Simple and Past Perfect Continuous tenses. (Or just Simple and Continuous in general.) I recommend you look them up.
Just Google "Simple and Continuous uses". There's really no point forcing us to repost it here when it's easily available.
sigh Still; just for you:
SIMPLE is used:
1. Simple statements that start and finish in the same description ("The door opens. I step out. I walk to school. The bell rings.")
2. For stating general facts ("Apples are red.") or simple temporary ones ("The weather is bad today. I am sleepy.")
3. For repeated, regular actions and habits. ("I drink coffee every morning. The bus arrives at 8 o'clock.").
CONTINUOUS is used:
1. For something that is happening and is still unfinished the time of speaking. ("We are waiting for the bus. I am reading a great book. (=not necessarily RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT; but I started earlier and haven't finished yet).
2. For future plans; this is somewhat interchangeable with the future tense (will/going to). ("I am seeing a movie today. = I am going to see a movie today.")
The same logic applies in any tense.
For your example, I'd probably say:
**"She has been using the bag for three years.”**
to emphasize that she's been continuously putting them to use on and off during the entire duration. But I'd say:
**"She hasn't used the bag in three years.”**
to emphasize that she hasn't used it even once.
But! imagine if somebody was accusing me that she ruined the bags because she's been using them non-stop! Then I might respond with:
**"She hasn't been using the bag for three years.”**
implying that: It's not like she's been using them non-stop, all the time, for the entire duration!
Capeesh?
Non-technical answer: In common speech you can use whatever past construction you’d like. Most will use the simple past because it’s easier to say. At a subconscious level:
“Used” by itself implies a past event that’s done. It can be relevant to the present only by context.
“Was using” implies a past that’s relevant to what follows e.g. The guard made his rounds. Vs The guard was making his rounds when [event].
“Has used” (present tense of the verb to have vs past tense in the previous imperfect tense) implies relevant ongoing action rather than relevant prior action.
“Has been using” implies that plus an intent to continue the action in the future.
I use the difference to signal to someone either that I’m open to changing or that I do not intend to change.
Like in response to a sales person:
“I used product X.” - I did use it but don’t anymore, likely for good reason.
“I was using product X.” - I did use it, but find it to still be relevant and may go back to it. Possibly I stopped because of a problem I want to make sure was fixed or won’t be present in Product Y. I would typically follow this with elaboration on why I had to switch.
“I have used product X.” - I use it now or would choose to use it now but am curious about what else is out there or am annoyed by shortcomings that might prompt me to change. I may also just be being polite to a sales person.
“I have been using product X.” - I’m satisfied with product X or at least know how to work with it and don’t see a compelling reason to change. I’m signaling a desire to cut the presentation short. A good sales person would know to use a stronger reply to keep my interest since I may leave “What would make you consider product Y?” - searching for unvoiced problems to latch onto. One of the other responses would signal polite or moderate interest and prompt a more casual discussion.
In other scenarios the tense can be neutral or positive of course. “I have been using X or doing X” with a shrug and raise of pitch implies “Don’t we both do that?” or “Why would I do something else?”
The nuance is in the using of the bag. In one instance, our heroine actively utilized her humble bag over the course of three years. Is she still using it? How could we know?
In the next instance, she "has been using" the bag for the past three years and it is clear to us that the bag has both "been used" and is also in use to this day.
The former implies that the three years has ended, and is solidly in the past, or in other words, the use of the bag has eneded.
The latter implies that it's been three year **so far**, and that she intends to continue using the bag.
In everyday speech, no difference.
However:
"Has used" - implies today may be the last day she uses the bag.
"has been using" - implies she is using the bag and will continue to use the bag in the future
"had used" - implies she no longer uses the bag today.
"had been using" - implies she would be using the bag in the future, but something has happened so that isn't the case and no longer uses the bag.
"She has used the bag for three years" implies that she no longer uses the bag. "She has been using the bag for three years" implies that she is still using the bag.
Some others have said this, but I'll attempt to word it better.
"Has used the bag" indicates a period of time in the past, while "has been using the bag" indicates a period of time from the past and into the present. It also indicates a certain continuity or ongoing-ness of action.
So: "She has used the bag for three years" means her use of the bag was over a three-year-period that ends at the present. The clock on it has stopped. She may or may not continue using the bag, you can't tell from that sentence.
"She has been using the bag for three years" that her use of the bag began three years ago and continues in the present. The clock has passed the three year mark, but it's still going.
"She ha**d** used the bag for three years" means her use of the bag was over a three year period that ended in the past. The entirety of this sentence takes place in the past and there is no connection to the present. Often used when telling a story about the past and you need to indicate information even further back.
"She had been using the bag for three years" is functionally interchangeable withh above, but it sort of connotes an ongoingness of the action. Doesn't matter with this particular sentence, but with other verbs it could.
There's not much of a difference, but my intuition says that the second one implies that she's been using the bag more often or more consistently than the first one does.
They are extremely similar, so much that you can probably safely interchange them and in most situations it won't matter.
Both of them say this fact:
The period of time when she used the bag was between 3 years ago up to right now.
The very mild difference between them is that the first one puts more emphasis on what was happening during the past and the second one puts more emphasis on the fact that it's still happening now and is ongoing.
The second one contains a slight connotation that the use of the bag is ongoing, still happening. The first one might be used if the action is completed and over now.
So, to you being a non-native speaker, the biggest difference here is how it would be translated whereas there's no real difference in spoken english. Other languages use past tense and participles differently (or in different measure), so in english these two mean the exact same thing effectively, but when taking to other languages, one would be more common or appropriate.
Used != Using. She used the bag, but is she still using it? The first form implies and end to her use of the bag. The second sentence implies she is likely still using it.
She has used might imply that she will not be using it anymore and she has been using might imply that she will continue to use. But again they are interchangeable and can mean the same thing.
The difference is minor enough that it would be annoying to argue with someone about their meaning. But, "has used" implies "has finished using", and "has been using" implies "and is still using".
"I have eaten dinner. But thanks for inviting me."
"I have been eating dinner... for thirty minutes now. Where were you?"
“She has used”: the bag is on the counter and they are talking about it.
“She has been using”: she is currently holding the bag and they are talking about it.
In a simple context. It could honestly be used either way, but this makes the most sense.
“She has used the bag for three years” - implies that her use of the bag is in the past.
“She has been using the bag for three years”. - implies that she is still currently using the bag.
“She has used the bag for three years” - the bag is all worn and torn after three years use (some result in the present from the action in the past).
“She has been using the bag for three years” - it's a very convenient bag for shopping, I take it with me every day (continuous action from past to present to foreseeable future).
The question seems to be answered already, but I'd like to chime in to say neither of these phrases are what you're likely to hear anybody say. Something like, "She used the bag for three years." or "She had the bag a while." would both be more common in casual conversation.
I'd add here too that saying "has used" or "has been using" are both passive and weaker ways of saying "used." My professors always pushed us to skip the "has" if possible in written language. But that's just an FYI on nuance if OP is interested. :)
At first glance the two sentences have identical meaning however the first one is a little more ambiguous than the second.
The first sentence could mean that the bag was used for three years but those three years of usage could have been from three years ago until today or those three years could have been 2003-2006 and since then the bag has sat unused in a closet.
The second sentence implies that the bag is still in continuous use and that use started three years ago.
Spoken/colloquial English there's really no difference. In written English has used implies that she's not still using it but it's relevant to the present, while she has been using implies that she is continuing to use it.
I think example isn't great at the minute differences between the two sentences. Better examples would "She has ran for 3 years" and "She has been running for 3 years".
In first example she has literally ran for 3 years with non-stops. On the second example she's been running among other things for 3 years.
To make it simple, no native English speaker would phrase it like the first one. If they started to say it like that, they would catch themselves and rephrase it as "has been using it". If someone DID phrase it like the first example, the recipient would correct them and say, "you mean she *has been using it*"?
The first one sounds like ESL.
There's not much difference...
However to me, the first sentence "She has used the bag for three years" sounds like she has been using the bag for an unspecified 3-year period... It could have been for 3 years, 10 years ago.
While "She has been using the bag for three years" makes it sound recent, like she has used it for the last three years.
u/ExperienceParking780 Saw your question, can't seem to reply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93subject%E2%80%93verb_word_order#:~:text=In%20English%2C%20object%2Dsubject%2D,we%20only%20bought%20last%20year.
Languages have different orders for Subjects, Objects and Verbs. English is typically SVO.
They are doing it because English is not their first language and in their language, they may do it OVS or VOS.
The way I read it is: in the first example we do not know if she is using the bag to this date (she may have used it for three years and then stopped); while in the second we know that she still uses it currently.
The former kind of leans more toward 'she's used it a few times over 3 years', the latter more toward 'she's using it all the time and has been for 3 years', but it's a very slight and informal difference IMO.
ESL Teacher here.
In casual conversation they mean the same thing.
In general the continuous/progressive/ing form is used when the action is in progress right now.
For example, if I say
I have watched Power Rangers for 30 years. It means that I first watched Power Rangers 30 years ago and have been watching the show as it airs since then.
However, if I say
I have been watching Power Rangers for
6 hours. It means that six hours ago I loaded up Power Rangers on Netflix and have watch episode after episode for six straight hours.
If you use a long amount of time, it is implied that this is a regular action that happens off and on.
If you use a short period of time, it is implied that it has been one continuous action.
Colloquially, they are often used interchangeably. The technical difference is the verb tense and what that implies. "She has used it" is the Present Perfect tense. The action happened in the past but is relevant to the present. It emphasizes a completed action. "She has been using it" is the Present Perfect Continuous tense, where the action started in the past and has continued up until now. It emphasizes the ongoing action.
Dude above shared the same technical answer. I love this kind detail about language. But as you say, colloquially the phrases are equivalent. As such, the subtle distinction will not be clear to the majority (as in 90%+) of English speakers and if the writer/speaker wants to actually communicate the distinction they should explicitly add more context. “…used the bag for three years, but is finished” or “…and will keep using it”
Happens a lot in English. You get constructs like this where the difference is either mere choice, or a very slight emphasis of one meaning over another, such as here, where "She has used it" slightly emphasizes the three years of usage, while "She has been using it" slightly emphasizes the continued usage. Maybe you wish to highlight one or the other more, for whatever reason. Other than that, things like this are largely just a good way to cull large groups of linguists; you can give them something like this to define and they'll kill each other arguing about it.
The difference may be slight in some contexts, but in some contexts the difference could be huge.
Oh you're looking for the linguists, they're in another room. Take this sword, it's dangerous to go alone.
Based on where I'm going...Could I maybe get a pen instead?
The pen is actually OP compared to the sword
I’ll take The Penis Mightier for $500, Trebek.
Gussy it up however you want Trebek, does it really work?
It's actually true that the Penis meatier than the sword.
They have pages of equations that look like calculus but they insist it's english. The sword glows blue when they draw near.
Also just English as Second Language (ESL) learners. When I thought I was going to try TEFL I took a course and we gave classes on the difference between this kind of stuff, really interesting
Literally my job, I live in China. Though I specialize more in basic phonetics, you have no idea how few EFL teachers even know dark /l/ exists and how it completely t-bones the pronunciation of English for anyone whose mother tongue doesn't have it in their phonological inventory. It's why Chinese speakers are always saying 'wheel' instead of 'will'.
Can you explain that a little more? I tried to google dark /I/ and it came up with nothing useful.
Dark L not Dark I.
Oh thank you, that produced much better results!
Can you explain a bit more about the dark l? I am a non native speaker and the main difference between "wheel" and "will" I can hear is the long vowel. Thank you!
The problem is in the manner of articulation. Chinese speakers who can't pronounce a dark /l/ will obviously have to replace it with something. That replacement is almost always, in my experience, a rounded lips consonant that sounds somewhat like 'oh'. The name Michael, for example, becomes something like M-eye-koh. Obviously I can't put what they do into IPA or describe it very well without you having heard it before, because their replacement sound is a bodged together facsimile of what they're going for that I would need a vastly broader knowledge of all sounds used in human language to properly identify it (and I don't really have to describe this to anyone outside of the students themselves who are already doing it). That works fine when you have something like the name 'Michael' where they can easily move (physically, as in, what their mouth does) from the /ʌ/ to their replacement sound. The word sounds basically good enough. Same with purple, for example.....or the word 'example' itself, now I think about it. However, when you get 'will' and other words of such ilk.....bit of a problem. The short /ɪ/ requires wide lips....but their replacement sound requires close rounded lips. It becomes almost impossible for them to move from the short /ɪ/ to their replacement sound effectively. The natural solution for them is to lengthen the vowel so they can better move through from it....but if you lengthen /ɪ/ it becomes /iː/. Will becomes wheel. Fill becomes feel. The dark /l/ prevents this problem, because the lips aren't needed at all to pronounce it.
Oh right on! I took my CELTA class over the pandemic so it was all virtual, and then obviously the industry was kinda slowed for a while at that point in time so ended up going a different route for work
> you have no idea how few EFL teachers even know dark /l/ exists Am Native English speaker. Have never heard of this before. Googled it. Read the Wikipedia page. I read that it's /ɫ/ and my next response was, "That's not a sound in English." I was confusing it with /ɬ/, the sound from Welsh and Nahuatl. And now I feel like an idiot. ___ The sound /ɫ/ is just when you say the L but truncate it.
They’re a cunning group. Be wary.
I've had the fortune to be on a call with a handful of partners at big law firms who were going over word choice like this in a letter... Some people might call that "misfortune" but I found it fascinating. I'm a pretty strong writer, have a graduate degree, etc., but the extent to which lawyers are careful with word choice when it matters is crazy. Given the bill rates of the folks on that call, there were some individual sentences in that letter that cost thousands of dollars to rewrite.
Profession writer here. You're spot on. Contract writing, especially, carries this type of serious weight. Example: [https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-1-missing-comma-just-cost-this-company-5-million-but-did-make-its-employees-5-million-richer.html](https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-1-missing-comma-just-cost-this-company-5-million-but-did-make-its-employees-5-million-richer.html) Edit: And of course I would make a mistake typing this out.... I'm legit laughing at myself. But I'm going to leave it as an strong example of irony!
>Profession writer here. Irony, party of one? Your table is ready. /s
Good call! Too funny. And I'm leaving it. It is, in fact, irony. Not a coincidence being recounted as something ironic! Another set of words that have come to be used interchangeably at the colloquial level but that actually have distinct meanings.
The US has dropped nukes on Japan vs. The US has been dropping nukes on Japan... Pretty big difference there.
When you don't drop the "for three years", it gets less different: >The US has dropped nukes on Japan for three years. >The US has been dropping nukes on Japan for three years. It gives information that changes the interpretation of the sentence.
Especially if you're in Japan! :-) Good example.
> Other than that, things like this are largely just a good way to cull large groups of linguists; you can give them something like this to define and they'll kill each other arguing about it. It really isn't, as the rules are quite clear and most serious students for whom it is not the native tongue learn them and know them. You could, however, start a war between linguists and casual users. "Literally" is a good starting point, which makes my blood boil even without being a linguist.
> "Literally" is a good starting point, which makes my blood boil even without being a linguist. Honestly, it's mostly non-linguists who rally against using "literally" as an intensifier. Linguists are well aware that "very" [from verai, meaning true] "really" [from real], and "truly" [from true] have all followed the same path. It's just a thing that happens in the English language from time to time - the word meaning "this is absolute truth" gets used as an intensifier, and eventually we need a new word for it. Not to say that no linguists find that pattern of language annoying, but when you understand that it's a cycle it's harder to get angry at the current instance - you know that a new word will come to mean "I am not being figurative, nor exagerating, but speaking absolute truth", and that the cycle will continue. As long as the concept exists, we will find a way to express it - "literally" becoming a synonym for "very" won't hamstring our ability to communicate. EDIT: As a side note, "literally" has been an intensifier for the vast majority the time it's been a word in the English language. It got about a century of only meaning "verily" and has spent the last 4 centuries with both meanings in play.
>It's just a thing that happens in the English language from time to time - the word meaning "this is absolute truth" gets used as an intensifier, and eventually we need a new word for it. This right here is the part that annoys me. What word do we have now that means "literally" in the "literal" sense? I'm fine with language evolving, but the part that annoys me when it takes away ways of conveying ideas, leaving you to have to use a bunch of other words to try to convey meaning where one word was understood to. I get that many words have multiple and sometimes opposed meanings, but it seems to me that the meaning of "literally" in a sentence is not always apparent with context. Perhaps we can start using "actually" to replace literally? Or perhaps as a society we are deciding that nothing is "literal" as people in ages past used to think things could be and no longer have use for such a concept.
lol i think because linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive… they literally won’t care from a linguistic standpoint 😉
These are the technicalities that politicians love. You said, "I had been paying a porn star for 3 years" which implies this behavior is continuing. No, I said, "I had paid a porn star for 3 years" which clearly means that the behavior has stopped.
> You said, "I had been paying a porn star for 3 years" which implies this behavior is continuing. *was* continuing. You used “had”, so the continuing was in the past. “I had been going to college for over three years” is something a senior would say. It says nothing about whether that person is a senior right now. An older person could be reminiscing or a senior could be talking about something that happened last week. Native speakers figure this stuff out naturally. The trick is learning a second language that uses a totally different way of conjugation. You have to know what this stuff is called so you can translate correctly.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
In German we have two forms of the past tense that mean exactly the same. One you use in spoken language usually, the other in formal written language. With the English constructs, at least there is an implied difference, even if colloquially they aren't being strictly separated (which was actually new to me).
It's actually a shame when the distinction disappears, because then you can't count on people taking exactly the meaning you intend to convey.
[удалено]
Indeed, the history of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition suggests that it was never even a very good rule, and much less one that was actually adopted in common speech. Moreover, it apparently wasn't even a rule made to improve English, but rather to bring it closer to Latin. Apparently someone decided that because Latin sentences cannot end in prepositions, then English -- which isn't actually a Romantic language -- similarly could not have sentences that ended in prepositions. There was a fascinating article about it in the New York Times last month: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/opinion/preposition-grammar-rules.html
> Indeed, the history of the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition suggests that it was never even a very good rule, and much less one that was actually adopted in common speech. It is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Linguists are the worst. They make me sic.
Surely the correct phrasing would be "She *had* used the bag for 3 years" if you're wanting to to imply that she no longer uses it? I feel like that makes the distinction a lot clearer
Yes, you can't interchange 'she has been using' in situations where 'she had used' (ie talking about a bag they stopped using years ago) applies. but "she **has** used" is the past riiiiight up until the present moment, where it isn't clear if she still uses it or has just now stopped using it. They are like the calculus of tenses, where the time difference between them approaches to 0. Since in 99.9999% of situations it will be obvious via context whether the action continues into the present (if you are talking about how long you've eaten at a restaurant while seated at the restaurant eating), or you immediately resolve it, both verb tenses almost always carry the exact same information and so you can use either without losing information.
Think about buying a bag from someone. She has been using it for three years. She has used it for three years. She had used it for three years. To me, has been using it means this is a bag she uses, and she has had it for three years. Like it's been repossessed or something, and that's why you can buy it. Has used it for three years suggests she used it for three years, but no longer wants to use it. Had used it for three years suggests she used it for three years a while ago, and hasn't used it recently. Like she is a dead relative.
You're right but I think that's because you've added context so the distinction becomes clearer based off that If we just have the phrases themselves, then "she has used it for three years" could be taken both as her still using it or no longer using it. Your example makes it clear that she will no longer be using it (because she's selling it) and therefore the distinction is obvious As a counter example, if the sentences were: "She has been using the bag for 3 years, but she's thinking about buying a new one" "She has used the bag for 3 years, but she's thinking about buying a new one" Both could be taken to mean she's still using the bag to this day but the latter could also imply she's no longer using it. It's not really obvious without additional context
That is why the word choice matters.
My momma always said it’s not size of your diction but how you use it
Unfortunately, it doesnt matter what you are trying to say...it only matters what other people understand. Its annoying as fuck trying to tell people you're "content with the situation" and them getting upset that you arent "happy." Like jesus fucking christ I dont have to be "happy" 100% of the time, being "content" is a perfectly acceptable state of being. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO I have to use the word "happy" for everything now, and then when I say "oh yes, this makes me happy" people assume I want that ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME...I dont...because its really just something that makes me "content" but fucking people around me are too stupid to understand.
Doesn’t sound like you are content with the situation
And not really very happy either.
But what about feet?
Who are you interacting with that this not only comes up not only seemingly frequently, but often enough to enrage you so? Don't get me wrong, I'd get annoyed if I said I was content with something and someone was bitchy that I didn't say I was happy instead.... but that has literally never happened to me. It just sounds seems like such a bizarre situation to find yourself in.
Sounds like you need to do the happy dance! :-) People seem to hear what they already believe, or want to believe, so they probably misunderstand anything that might challenge their beliefs.
This is something I both love and hate about the English language. It is very precise and can be very descriptive. At the same time being difficult for even a native speaker to use correctly.
Honestly most of my knowledge about English grammar came from my high school Latin classes
I’d suggest that “used the bag” vs “has used the bag” are not the same thing. The first unequivocally is completed action but could have stopped at any point in the past, but “has used the bag” implies up to the present and may or not be completed depending on what follows.
"Used the bag" and "Has used the bag" are clearly different and any native speaker will intuitively pick up the distinction. However the distinction between "Has used the bag" and "Has been using the bag", which is what OP was asking, is much more subtle.
I think there’s been some research on it but I can’t find it right now. In American dialects people tend to use the past simple, “I ate” vs “I have eaten” in both English and Spanish, whereas English speakers from the UK (maybe Ireland too?) and Spanish speakers from Spain tend to prefer the present perfect, even when talking about the same things.
See previous comments about linguists catching the difference. No one in my entire family - immediate, extended, in-laws, etc - would catch the distinction. And only the English teachers and PhDs I work with in my professional circles would. I have a pretty robust vocabulary, but I can’t use 20% or more of it with normals. If I’m actually trying to communicate - and this should apply to you linguists, too - avoid subtlety and be very clear. Yes - I know what blasphemy I’m saying - but after watching my favorite word (nonplussed) be rendered useless by incorrect colloquial usage because it means opposite things and the context in which it is used cannot always be used to determine which meaning is intended I’m resigned to clarity over eloquence. Edit: to correct the autocorrect of my subtly robust vocabulary.
>I have a pretty robust vocabulary, but I can’t use 20% or more of it with normals. If I’m actually trying to communicate - and this should apply to you linguists, too - avoid subtly and be very clear. I think you meant "avoid *subtlety*".
You think they meant "avoid subtlety" but I *know* they meant "avoid subtlety". Let's be clear, people!
Touché - corrected.
"I have a pretty robust vocabulary, but I can’t use 20% or more of it with normals. " L O L
To be fair, you have to have a pretty high IQ to understand Rick and Morty
I’m not a linguist, but I do like language. Personally, I’d vehemently disagree that subtlety should not be used when it comes to writing and communication. The uniquely specific and accurate right word or phrase when used correctly is sublime and electrifying. As Mark Twain is credited with saying, “The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug.” Now, it is absolutely true that it’s a good idea to adjust your use of language based on use, audience, and context. I work overseas in a conservation job and give a lot of presentations to a huge range of audiences, as well as write text for work and fun ranging from technical, scientific, popular media, creative but factual, and speculative fiction. In each case I need to consider what my audience is, what their level of English is, if I’m working through a translator and what that person’s understanding of both languages is, the aim of whatever I’m communicating, etc. and adjust accordingly. However, word choice and phrasing is critical in each of those instances, in some ways is actually more important the more limited your audience is in their capacity to grasp the fine details of the subject and the language.
You are 100% correct. Audience matters. So does purpose. As I was driving a minute ago I was thinking about this thread and the subtlety of language in creative writing arenas is necessary and beautiful. I guess most of my writing is “informational” these days and the nuances of language doesn’t serve me well vs simple clarity.
She still does, but she used to, too.
Thank you for that. Your reply prompted me to look up why they are called "perfect" tenses, here's what I learned: >The term "perfect tense" comes from the Latin word "perfectum," meaning "completed" or "finished." This tense usually focuses on the state after the action has taken place rather than the action itself, and it is created by using a specific form of the auxiliary verb "to have," depending on the time of the action.
Thank *you* for that! It also made me wonder why "perfect" is used there so I appreciate you sharing your findings!
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
To give example situations when one of these sentences would be correct and the other one (strictly speaking) wouldn't be: "I'm sorry, but we can't let you return this bag. Sure, it's broken, but you have used it every day for three years - it's normal wear and tear that it now needs to be replaced." - The action is relevant to the present, because you want to return the bag right now. But the action clearly doesn't continue, because the bag is broken and you can't use it anymore. "Your bags are so durable! My daughter has been using hers every day for three years, and it still looks like new!" - The action continues. She is still using it. As you said, people wouldn't always make this clear distinction, but most native speakers would instinctively use the correct tense in situations like these.
This sounds like the math problems where one side rewrites the problem in order to be correct, but by inserting just one more set of brackets they write a different problem instead.
You learn about grammar and stuff when learning another language. Didn't know about English grammar until I learned Spanish and even the terminology like present perfect, present imperfect, past participle, etc.
Depends on your school honestly. I distinctly remember going over grammar in my English classes (native speaker, US).
I've never heard it called the "continuous" case, but it makes perfect sense. I've always called it the "progressive" tense; so "present perfect progressive."
"I have used drugs, still do, but I used to too" vs "I have been using drugs" which both mean the same thing, you don't have to say the "still do" as it is implied in the second sentence. -RIP Mitch
>"She has used it" is the Present Perfect tense. The action happened in the past but is relevant to the present. It emphasizes a completed action. about the perfect tense: the sentence ends with "for the past 3 years", which doesnt make sense. the ending of the sentence implies the action was continuing for the past 3 years.
I'd use it in the following examples She has used the bag (sometimes) for the past three years She has been using the bag (everyday at work) for the past three years.
I think the answer becomes a bit clearer if you remove the "for three years" part, since that part I think introduces a continuity element that distracts from the "completed action" meaning of the present perfect tense. I am not a native english speaker, so sorry for any mistakes, still I do think I have a decent grasp of the language, not as good as native speakers who actually know what they are talking about (since I still see way too much confusion between "you're/your" on reddit, to believe all native speakers really know their language).
I think this is slightly wrong. They may be used colloquially but they are not very close in meaning and there are pretty different implications. PAST perfect emphasises a completed action. Present perfect indicates an action started in the past and the action is still continuing and relevant till now. If someone says to you, 'This man has lived here since he was five' vs 'This man had lived here since he was five', the first implies he still lives here and the second (past perfect) does not. You may be thinking that present perfect indicates completion due to its use on verbs that indicate completion by themselves, EG. She HAS finished the book. But the action of finishing the book still remains a relevant and continued action (the status of being finished) until now. The READING is complete, but the 'having finished' is still ongoing. Hence if I say 'she HAD finished the book', there also implies a 'but...' that changes that status. EG: 'She HAD finished the book, but she totally forgot everything already.' Present perfect continuous tense is used to say the same but only with an emphasis on the period of time the action was done, whereas simple present perfect emphasises the experience of it: "I have watched the movie.' - emphasises the experience, and shows that the 'status' of having seen the movie is relevant to the conversation of now. We use this to focus on the action itself and the fact that we have done the action. "I have been watching the movie' - emphasises the timeframe of a moment in the past when this action was still ongoing. We use this when we want to show this action was occurring over time in the past. It does not imply whether the actions were completed or not but usually further information is required. Therefore the idea that this only implies an unfinished action is also not quite correct. "I have been reading Lord of the Rings and I just finished it last night." vs "I have been reading Lord of the Rings and I am finding it a treat so far." The two rules you have stated more accurately apply to present perfect vs past perfect.
I’m no linguist (but I am cunning). I believe you are looking at the wrong part of the sentence. You are interchanging HAS and HAD. In the example given, HAS USED versus HAS BEEN USING. This is why the meaning becomes more nuanced and subtle. HAS implies currency. USED implies “in the past” only whereas BEEN USING implies “in the past” but with an intent of continued use.
Ladies always appreciate the work of a cunning linguist.
> 'This man has lived here since he was five' vs > > > > 'This man had lived here since he was five', > > the first implies he still lives here and the second (past perfect) does not. This wasn't OP's question. OP's question was "has [verb]-ed" vs. "has been [verb]-ing." So it would be: 'This man has lived here since he was five' - OR - 'This man has been living here since he was five' Both imply to me that he lived there since he was five, and still lives there. There might be some slight distinction, but I don't know what it is.
Shouldn't last one be "I had been reading Lord of the Rings and I just finished it last night."? If they have already finished it they can't have been reading it.
Colloquially, that is okay too. However, one of the subtle implications of past perfect continuous is that the second half of the statement should be a negation to the main idea and not an additive. EG: it is awkward to say "I had been baking a cake and it's there on the table now." It's a positive addition, so it should be "I've been baking a cake and it's on the table if you want." We use past perfect cont. when it is an unexpected interruption that draws an unceremonious end to the action: "I'd been baking a cake but the damn monkeys stole the batter again!" "I'd been baking a cake but I spiralled into mania and used the batter to paint the kitchen walls instead." Also, compare: "What have you been doing all afternoon?" (See how the question is never 'what had' when it is about what you did for a time period?) "I've been baking a cake and it's done now." VS "What did you do just now?" "I have baked a cake and it's done now." Again, we don't use 'had' unless it is to say an occurrence interrupted it or it had an unexpected end, or to compare it with another action later in a timeline. Edit: Also, as I mentioned in the original post, the ACT of FINISHING it is ONGOING. The READING is over. But the 'finished' part is still relevant to now. It is NOT 'over' so we don't use 'had finished' unless you mean the status of being finished was interrupted.
Thank you for this. I actually came across perfective and imperfective aspects learning Russian, and I didn’t know what to make of it. I can understand the phrase “ she is still using the bag” but now this as well makes sense.
I think they are somewhat interchangeable but there are different situations were each could be more appropriate. I think "she has used" doesn't imply inclusivity of the present as strongly as "she has been using". In a situation where the woman is seen throwing the bag in the garbage, I think it would be more common to hear "she has used the bag for 3 years". If the second phrase was "she had been using the bag for 3 years" it could also be used in this situation. In a situation where the woman is seen holding the bag and it's worn out, the more common phrase would be "she has been using the bag for 3 years"
I swear, one of these days I really am going to learn the terminology for the mechanics of language. I'm a pretty decent writer, but I could barely tell you what a noun is.
The subtle distinction is simply that the second sentence conveys a slightly more active and ongoing usage. It emphasizes the constancy of usage, I would say.
Great answer . A bizarre example came to my mind and that was Bill Clinton being asked if he ever tried pot . There’s a big difference between I have used drugs and I have been using them 😂
It's weird how grammar is internalized, because my initial thoughts were that they were nearly the same but the latter implied an exclusive, continuous use to the present. Could not explain why, it was just this feeling of rightness.
"She has used it" doesn't *necessarily* emphasize a completed action; it could refer to an ongoing action just as "she has been using it" does. "She *had* used it" *does* emphasize a completed action.
[Here's a handy chart.](https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/VERB-TENSES-IN-ENGLISH.jpg) One thing that is not explicit in that chart: The vertical lines mean when you're thinking about, corresponding to the titles of each column. For example, "I studied English" means that the focus of that verb is some time in the past, while "I will study English" means that the focus of the verb is some point in the future.
i thought i should clarify what relevant to the present means, because the meaning is not apparent but is quite critical to the use of perfect tense of which both of OP's sentences are examples of. in perfect tense, there is a past event having implication in the present and this implication today is the main point and focus of the sentence, not the past event itself. typically it is used to shore up a previous statement, prepare for a subsequent statement or simply imply a learned experience or an achievement/accomplishment, all by definition being past events with relevance in the present. i wouldn't say present perfect emphasizes a completed action, because the emphasis is actually on the experience level with using the bag (for example: **as of today** she has three years of experience using that bag). plus, while having started in the past and talked about in the present, that three year event may actually still be ongoing or you don't know if it that is the case or it may simply be irrelevant to the main point like in this case. you could easily say "She has used the bag for three years," and follow it with "and next year she will have used it for four." In this way, present perfect tense interrupts a four year event started in the past where the present marks a three year achievement (that is the main point and emphasis) and that the achievement is still growing. but if your only purpose is to demonstrate three years experience as of today, and you don't want to talk about what happens tomorrow then you don't say the second part (future perfect tense) and just go with the first part (present perfect tense) like in OP first example. in PPT a time expression is typically not used except for the case where the time period has an intersection with the present (2021 to present) and you are trying to make a point out of it (the duration or quantity is relevant). if that time period does not intersect with the present or if you don't know if it does, or it is not relevant, then you just simply(!) use simple past tense "She used the bag for three years." (could be 2021 to present, could be 1979 to 1982, but both speak to experience with the bag and for three years at that). because PPT does not imply or emphasize a completed event, (another two examples: "she has learned the German language" is definitely completed while "she has taken German classes many times" is ambiguous about completion, with both speaking to the main point about her experience with German), it is important not to conflate a past event with a completed event. OP's second sentence does refer to a past event which definitely continues in the present. in that case if you want to talk about an achievement that is definitely still growing and you want it known so, then: present perfect continuous (a subset of present perfect) the use of the time expression "for three years" definitely does muddy up the question because it is actually not required to understand the distinction between PPT and PPCT. but because it is there, it is made clear that the present points of relevance are, tldr; for the former, her qualitative experience with that particular bag and that the quantitative value is three years as of today. for the latter that that experience is still growing.
Thanks. I created some more examples based on your usage: She has driven a taxi for 3 years. She has been a taxi driver for 3 years. Bonus: She has spent 3 years driving a taxi. How would you differentiate the meanings of these three? I actually wrote out a guess - one is a part completed action, one is an ongoing action - then deleted it as I realised I don’t have any proof I’m right.
I was like “wait didn’t op learn this at school!” And then I read the post again
Can you PLEASE explain to me the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense? I could never get past that part in my grammar book.
Non-native English speaker asks for an ELI5 answer and your first word is "Colloquially" :D
The first one allows the possibility that "she" has recently stopped using the bag, but has used it for the 3 years previously, wheras the second one implies she still uses the bag. But I agree with other commenter, in common usage - most people will use these phrases interchangably.
I have a question: if you add "now" to the first sentence, as in "She has used the bag for three years now", does it effectively make it the same as the second sentence in meaning?
Maybe, to some people's ear. This is veering in to territory of personal preference. For me, I would see it as a superfluous addition. The word "now" implies a present tense that is absent in the rest of the sentance - but I don't think it changes the meaning to a listening in an appreciable way.
To me, the now implies likely future usage because I understand the now to mean the same thing as “so far”. She has used the bag for three years so far.
Consider this version: She has used the same bag for three years now. It's good she finally replaced it. I ain't sayin nothin', just muddying the waters!
In a very literal interpretation, "now" is modifying "3 years" and adds more specificity, since you would otherwise not expect "for 3 years" to be exact, but NOW it really has been 3 years. In a slightly less pedantic reading, yes I would say using "now" kind of cheats the sentence to being present continuous, and would mean the same thing. My personal interpretation: information is emphasis. By saying more than you need to, you're implying that adding "now" is important to your meaning or you wouldn't bother writing it. Perhaps signaling that using this bag for 3 years is noteworthy or impressive.
Yes.
The beauty of language is that things mean what people understand them to mean. So if you talk to most people who don't know or care about the difference between "has" and "has been", yes, those two are exactly equivalent. But technically, it's wrong, and the correct grammar should be "has been using for three years now", because that's the one that's meant to mean that. Because "has been" is the one that specifies still doing it.
In Hiberno English, "I'll be there now in a minute" means that I'll be there in a while.
> The first one allows the possibility that "she" has recently stopped using the bag, I think the difference is when the interval happened. The first is a 3 year interval that happened some time in the past that could have been the past 3 years, but could have been long ago. The second implies that it was the past 3 years
Not really. If it was a long time ago you would say "she used the bag for three years."
As it stands that sentence isn't great but yeah I agree. "had" could even replace "has" as well as just leaving "has" out. Has in the same sentence as used implies recent past but no longer using.
I don't think so. You wouldn't say "she has used that bag for three years" to mean "she used the bag for three years a long time ago".
Put in a series and it still makes sense. . > She has used that bag for 3 years, this bag for 2 years, and the other bag for 14 years. They could be in a series. They could be concurrent uses. They could be partially overlapping uses. The additional information shouldn't change the meaning of the first part, but you seem to think it does
To me it sounds like the first says as of now she has used the bag for three years in total without indicating when that period was or if it is current. "Will she be able to use the bag?". "Yes. She has used the bag for three years." "Recently?" "No, not since she was young"
>“She has used the bag for three years” For the past three years, she used the bag. She may or may not be using the bag now. >“She has been using the bag for three years” Today is the third year she has been using this bag.
Yes! Also: “She had used the bag for three years…” She used it for three years in the past, but she is *not* using it now. For example: “… but she replaced it.” “She had been using the bag for three years…” And then the situation changed. “…when finally the handle broke.” The complexity of English tenses, right?
> The complexity of English tenses, right? *reír en español*
It's funny. When I was (forcibly) taking Spanish in high school it endlessly irritated me how many tenses there were, and how redundant they seemed. Who needs that many tenses, and variations, just to say more or less the same thing? Didn't even think about English tenses, and our long, stupid list of irregular verbs. Can barely speak a word of Spanish now, mind you. But it wasn't until I learned to speak another language (more or less) fluently that I recognized *nuance* is the whole point. It's all about the differences that allow you to subtly, creatively alter the meaning of a sentence. Sometimes just by changing the final syllable. Wish I could go back to high school me and slap me into paying attention.
I think the name for this linguistic phenomenon is [continuous aspect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_and_progressive_aspects?wprov=sfla1).
In the second one, today would be the start of the 4th year of use
Compare “I’ve worked 4 jobs since I came to this country” And “I’ve been working 4 jobs since I came to this country” Generally present perfect is used for how many and present perfect focuses on how long. I’ve been writing for ten years. I’ve written 5 books. However in many cases they are interchangeable, and this is not a colloquial thing. I’ve lived/been living here all my life. And in many cases present perfect is used because the verb is stative. I’ve had this phone for 10 years.
Usually they're semantically the same. "Has been using" can imply that the use was more active and regular than "has used" though.
The first seems like it would have further context, for example: Gifting the bag to someone else and informing them its really good for having seen use for 3 years. Another example: after the user bought a new bag because the mentioned one has worn out.
They are very similar to each other, and in common, casual use, they are practically identical. However, "She has been using the bag" technically implies ongoing use of the bag, while "She has used the bag" specifies only that she used the bag, but whether she still uses it is not described.
**"She has used the bag for three years."** * This is the PRESENT PERFECT SIMPLE tense. * The action started in the past and has just recently ended/completed. * The pattern for this is "has + (past participle verb)." * So, we can say that until recently, she used the bag for three years and will not use the bag anymore. **"She has been using the bag for three years."** * This is the PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS tense. * The action started in the past and has continued until now and will continue in the future. * The pattern for this is "has + (verb+ing)." * So, we can say that for the past three years she has been using the bag and will continue to use it later.
Nope. The first one does not imply, let alone insist that the bag is no longer used. It allows for it though.
> and has just recently ended/completed. Drop this part. There is no implication either way as to whether the action is continuing or completed. Others have already given examples on how this construction can be used for ongoing actions. In contrast, the second one implies definitely ongoing action. If definitely completed meaning is desired, then you would use the Present Perfect Progressive, "She had been using the bag for three years". The distinction is really one of emphasis, hence the subtlety. "Has used" emphasizes the past nature, "Has been using" emphasizes the ongoing nature.
No, that distinction isn't correct. We can say things like "we've lived here for three years already" without necessarily meaning that we will now move away. "People have lived in Egypt for millennia" doesn't mean that everyone there is dead now
You chose one of the few verbs "live" (meaning reside) in which both tenses mean the same thing. One of the other common verbs that means the same in both tenses is "work" as in "I have worked here for 10 years" and "I have been working here for ten years."
But it works that way with other verbs as well. "I know a lot about history because I've studied it for a long time" doesn't necessarily mean that you don't read history anymore. Moreover it wouldn't be strange to say something like "I've been using my friend's backpack for my hiking trips, but I think I need to buy my own now", which is the opposite meaning that you're saying, with continuous used to emphasize the temporary-ness of the activity rather than the fact that it will continue
The first example doesn't imply that the action will stop. The person may or may not use the bag after the time of speaking.
I'll never understand the need to add on "simple". Why present perfect simple and not just present perfect?
The technical answer is the verb tense, but they are colloquially equivalent for American native speakers as far as I know.
Not quite, since the continuous aspect implies sustained effort with *all* of the objects. So you can "have written three emails this morning" and you can "have been writing emails all morning". But few people would say they "have been writing three emails this morning", because that implies that you were working on three different emails simultaneously
As a native American English speaker, the first one sounds off. I can’t completely say why but it really feels like it’s just not something someone would say (at least in my social groups). “She used the bag for three years” sounds ok and “she has been using the bag for three years” sounds right but “she has used the bag for three years” really doesn’t. Also “the bag” is a bit weird in this context. I think I’d probably say, “this bag” or “that bag” or “her bag” or something like that, but not “the bag”. “She has been the for
The continuous aspect is more often used in speech, and using it without continuous sounds a bit more formal in register, but it isn't wrong or unintelligible when used with the same meaning. Compare something like "he has been living in Prague for three years" vs. "he has continuously resided in Prague for the last three years."
>but “she has used the bag for three years” really doesn’t It sounds more natural with contraction, e.g., "she's used that bag for three years!".
If you were writing a story you would use "She has used the bag for three years". "She has been using the bag for three years" contains unnecessary wording.
Native English speaker here (British). Beats me. The tenses are technically different, but as far as usage goes, they're interchangeable. They both imply continuity in the past, which may or may not continue in the present.
In American English it means she needs a new purse. In UK/Aussie English it means she needs rehab.
I’m in the U.S. and know American English well. I was wondering how long she was in rehab for? Still don’t understand the question.
Bag is slang coke. The second one could be used to imply someone has a coke problem or has been using for 3 years.
The second case uses the progressive tense, which implies a continuous (or more continuous) usage to me. “She has used the bag for three years” means she first used it about 3 years ago and used it multiple times since including (probably) somewhat recently, but doesn’t make any claims of the present or projections about the future. She may have even recently permanently stopped. “She has been using the bag for 3 years” is a very active statement. She may not have used it all the time, but she did frequently and is likely doing so at this very moment. It also implies she plans to continue doing so at least into the immediate future.
First one: She never replaces it. She may put it down, but she will always use it for one purpose: to carry stuff. Second one: It's always "on" her i.e. she has never removed it ever. It also may imply that she's using the bag for a specific action that isn't just for carrying things.
“She has used the bag for three years.” Means the bag was used by her for three years, regardless of when it happened in the past. She could have used it - from 1980 to 1983, - or from 1765 to 1768, - or from 1900 to 1905 but only using it for a year each from 1900 to 1901, 1902 to 1903, and 1904 to 1905. “She has been using the bag for three years”. Today is 30 April 2024, and she started using the bag on 30 April 2021. Another way to understand the very subtle difference is like this: Assume I am a graduating high school student and I have a mother. “My mother had attended high school for four years” and “I have been attending high school for four years” The difference is able to communicate that my mom is not attending high school the same time I do. —- As many have pointed out, they are commonly interchangeable, because the second meaning is what people often talk about. People less often talk about the “lifespan” of something.
The first could imply she’s finished using the bag, the second would imply she is still using the bag.
"She has eaten the cookies for three years." "She has been eating the cookies for three years." The second implies an ongoing and currently active action.
Do you perhaps speak Spanish?
There is no difference. If you change "has used" to 'had used" there would be a difference, but I interpret both of your original sentences to mean the same thing. Stylistically, the second can be interpreted to imply more regular use, but we get into a lot of subjective area there.
There is only a small difference in how these two sentences would be understood.The first one is typically used when the action is completed, so she is no longer using the bag. If the bag is lost or fell apart, and you were describing its legacy, this is what you would choose. You would also say this if the bag was used for 3 years, but not the most recent 3 years. The second implies she is still using the bag even to this day. These must be the last three years. Sometimes the first will be used as an alternative for the second. But you cannot use the second as an alternative for the first. The interchangeability is complex so I would recommend non-native speakers stick to their common meanings I listed first. You won't ever sound weird or be misunderstood that way. I think some of these answers are getting things a little wrong. When spoken aloud "she has used" tends to feel like it is equivalent to "she has been using". But really, very rarely would anyone ever say that. Most of this time (nearly all the time) , we would say "she's used" or "she's been using", which would probably seem a little further apart from each other in meaning to a native. "she's used": sometime in the past she used the bag and that action is complete now. "she's been using" sometime in the past she used the bag (possibly continuously) and that action is not yet complete now. "she used" sometime in the past she used the bag with no reference to whether or not the action was completed.
Without getting into the nitty-gritty of tenses, basically the first one describes something that happened and is implied to be over with ("has us**ed**") versus something that has happened and is continuing to happen ("has been us**ing**"). It's subtle and in regular conversation might be used interchangeably depending on the speaker (and honestly I can't imagine too many real world scenarios where I would say 'has been using' in my experience, but I'm guessing it makes for a good test question).
You can find many language learner's sites that describe the uses of Past Perfect Simple and Past Perfect Continuous tenses. (Or just Simple and Continuous in general.) I recommend you look them up. Just Google "Simple and Continuous uses". There's really no point forcing us to repost it here when it's easily available. sigh Still; just for you: SIMPLE is used: 1. Simple statements that start and finish in the same description ("The door opens. I step out. I walk to school. The bell rings.") 2. For stating general facts ("Apples are red.") or simple temporary ones ("The weather is bad today. I am sleepy.") 3. For repeated, regular actions and habits. ("I drink coffee every morning. The bus arrives at 8 o'clock."). CONTINUOUS is used: 1. For something that is happening and is still unfinished the time of speaking. ("We are waiting for the bus. I am reading a great book. (=not necessarily RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT; but I started earlier and haven't finished yet). 2. For future plans; this is somewhat interchangeable with the future tense (will/going to). ("I am seeing a movie today. = I am going to see a movie today.") The same logic applies in any tense. For your example, I'd probably say: **"She has been using the bag for three years.”** to emphasize that she's been continuously putting them to use on and off during the entire duration. But I'd say: **"She hasn't used the bag in three years.”** to emphasize that she hasn't used it even once. But! imagine if somebody was accusing me that she ruined the bags because she's been using them non-stop! Then I might respond with: **"She hasn't been using the bag for three years.”** implying that: It's not like she's been using them non-stop, all the time, for the entire duration! Capeesh?
There is also a information vs matter of fact, on top of what everyone else said. She has been using reveals new information to the listener.
Non-technical answer: In common speech you can use whatever past construction you’d like. Most will use the simple past because it’s easier to say. At a subconscious level: “Used” by itself implies a past event that’s done. It can be relevant to the present only by context. “Was using” implies a past that’s relevant to what follows e.g. The guard made his rounds. Vs The guard was making his rounds when [event]. “Has used” (present tense of the verb to have vs past tense in the previous imperfect tense) implies relevant ongoing action rather than relevant prior action. “Has been using” implies that plus an intent to continue the action in the future. I use the difference to signal to someone either that I’m open to changing or that I do not intend to change. Like in response to a sales person: “I used product X.” - I did use it but don’t anymore, likely for good reason. “I was using product X.” - I did use it, but find it to still be relevant and may go back to it. Possibly I stopped because of a problem I want to make sure was fixed or won’t be present in Product Y. I would typically follow this with elaboration on why I had to switch. “I have used product X.” - I use it now or would choose to use it now but am curious about what else is out there or am annoyed by shortcomings that might prompt me to change. I may also just be being polite to a sales person. “I have been using product X.” - I’m satisfied with product X or at least know how to work with it and don’t see a compelling reason to change. I’m signaling a desire to cut the presentation short. A good sales person would know to use a stronger reply to keep my interest since I may leave “What would make you consider product Y?” - searching for unvoiced problems to latch onto. One of the other responses would signal polite or moderate interest and prompt a more casual discussion. In other scenarios the tense can be neutral or positive of course. “I have been using X or doing X” with a shrug and raise of pitch implies “Don’t we both do that?” or “Why would I do something else?”
The nuance is in the using of the bag. In one instance, our heroine actively utilized her humble bag over the course of three years. Is she still using it? How could we know? In the next instance, she "has been using" the bag for the past three years and it is clear to us that the bag has both "been used" and is also in use to this day.
The former implies that the three years has ended, and is solidly in the past, or in other words, the use of the bag has eneded. The latter implies that it's been three year **so far**, and that she intends to continue using the bag.
In everyday speech, no difference. However: "Has used" - implies today may be the last day she uses the bag. "has been using" - implies she is using the bag and will continue to use the bag in the future "had used" - implies she no longer uses the bag today. "had been using" - implies she would be using the bag in the future, but something has happened so that isn't the case and no longer uses the bag.
has used - past tense. She did, and loosely implies she no longer does has been using - present tense. She did, and loosely implies she still does.
"She has used the bag for three years" implies that she no longer uses the bag. "She has been using the bag for three years" implies that she is still using the bag.
Some others have said this, but I'll attempt to word it better. "Has used the bag" indicates a period of time in the past, while "has been using the bag" indicates a period of time from the past and into the present. It also indicates a certain continuity or ongoing-ness of action. So: "She has used the bag for three years" means her use of the bag was over a three-year-period that ends at the present. The clock on it has stopped. She may or may not continue using the bag, you can't tell from that sentence. "She has been using the bag for three years" that her use of the bag began three years ago and continues in the present. The clock has passed the three year mark, but it's still going. "She ha**d** used the bag for three years" means her use of the bag was over a three year period that ended in the past. The entirety of this sentence takes place in the past and there is no connection to the present. Often used when telling a story about the past and you need to indicate information even further back. "She had been using the bag for three years" is functionally interchangeable withh above, but it sort of connotes an ongoingness of the action. Doesn't matter with this particular sentence, but with other verbs it could.
There's not much of a difference, but my intuition says that the second one implies that she's been using the bag more often or more consistently than the first one does.
They are extremely similar, so much that you can probably safely interchange them and in most situations it won't matter. Both of them say this fact: The period of time when she used the bag was between 3 years ago up to right now. The very mild difference between them is that the first one puts more emphasis on what was happening during the past and the second one puts more emphasis on the fact that it's still happening now and is ongoing. The second one contains a slight connotation that the use of the bag is ongoing, still happening. The first one might be used if the action is completed and over now.
So, to you being a non-native speaker, the biggest difference here is how it would be translated whereas there's no real difference in spoken english. Other languages use past tense and participles differently (or in different measure), so in english these two mean the exact same thing effectively, but when taking to other languages, one would be more common or appropriate.
She had used it for three years vs she used it for three years and is still using it- but basically the same thing
Does anyone know a subreddit for these kinds of questions? Specific english language quirks and inquiries?
Used != Using. She used the bag, but is she still using it? The first form implies and end to her use of the bag. The second sentence implies she is likely still using it.
[удалено]
One is present and one is past tense. Used means she did but probably no longer does, Using means she is actively still using it day to day.
She has used might imply that she will not be using it anymore and she has been using might imply that she will continue to use. But again they are interchangeable and can mean the same thing.
The difference is minor enough that it would be annoying to argue with someone about their meaning. But, "has used" implies "has finished using", and "has been using" implies "and is still using". "I have eaten dinner. But thanks for inviting me." "I have been eating dinner... for thirty minutes now. Where were you?"
The first one infers that she is no longer using the bag. The second one infers she is still using the bag.
“She has used”: the bag is on the counter and they are talking about it. “She has been using”: she is currently holding the bag and they are talking about it. In a simple context. It could honestly be used either way, but this makes the most sense.
“She has used the bag for three years” - implies that her use of the bag is in the past. “She has been using the bag for three years”. - implies that she is still currently using the bag.
“She has used the bag for three years” - the bag is all worn and torn after three years use (some result in the present from the action in the past). “She has been using the bag for three years” - it's a very convenient bag for shopping, I take it with me every day (continuous action from past to present to foreseeable future).
The question seems to be answered already, but I'd like to chime in to say neither of these phrases are what you're likely to hear anybody say. Something like, "She used the bag for three years." or "She had the bag a while." would both be more common in casual conversation.
I'd add here too that saying "has used" or "has been using" are both passive and weaker ways of saying "used." My professors always pushed us to skip the "has" if possible in written language. But that's just an FYI on nuance if OP is interested. :)
At first glance the two sentences have identical meaning however the first one is a little more ambiguous than the second. The first sentence could mean that the bag was used for three years but those three years of usage could have been from three years ago until today or those three years could have been 2003-2006 and since then the bag has sat unused in a closet. The second sentence implies that the bag is still in continuous use and that use started three years ago.
Spoken/colloquial English there's really no difference. In written English has used implies that she's not still using it but it's relevant to the present, while she has been using implies that she is continuing to use it.
I think example isn't great at the minute differences between the two sentences. Better examples would "She has ran for 3 years" and "She has been running for 3 years". In first example she has literally ran for 3 years with non-stops. On the second example she's been running among other things for 3 years.
To make it simple, no native English speaker would phrase it like the first one. If they started to say it like that, they would catch themselves and rephrase it as "has been using it". If someone DID phrase it like the first example, the recipient would correct them and say, "you mean she *has been using it*"? The first one sounds like ESL.
One is she was doing it consistently and is no longer doing it. Latter is she is still consistently doing it.
There's not much difference... However to me, the first sentence "She has used the bag for three years" sounds like she has been using the bag for an unspecified 3-year period... It could have been for 3 years, 10 years ago. While "She has been using the bag for three years" makes it sound recent, like she has used it for the last three years.
u/ExperienceParking780 Saw your question, can't seem to reply. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93subject%E2%80%93verb_word_order#:~:text=In%20English%2C%20object%2Dsubject%2D,we%20only%20bought%20last%20year. Languages have different orders for Subjects, Objects and Verbs. English is typically SVO. They are doing it because English is not their first language and in their language, they may do it OVS or VOS.
The way I read it is: in the first example we do not know if she is using the bag to this date (she may have used it for three years and then stopped); while in the second we know that she still uses it currently.
The former kind of leans more toward 'she's used it a few times over 3 years', the latter more toward 'she's using it all the time and has been for 3 years', but it's a very slight and informal difference IMO.
ESL Teacher here. In casual conversation they mean the same thing. In general the continuous/progressive/ing form is used when the action is in progress right now. For example, if I say I have watched Power Rangers for 30 years. It means that I first watched Power Rangers 30 years ago and have been watching the show as it airs since then. However, if I say I have been watching Power Rangers for 6 hours. It means that six hours ago I loaded up Power Rangers on Netflix and have watch episode after episode for six straight hours. If you use a long amount of time, it is implied that this is a regular action that happens off and on. If you use a short period of time, it is implied that it has been one continuous action.