Hi,
to be very quick: I am familiar with the rules used for each grammatical aspect/tense. However, I've been taking a closer look at present perfect simple/progressive for a few hours now and I've noticed something that has sparked my curiousity.
I've found this sentence in one of Michael Swan's books: "I have been taking walks there for ten years".
Now, I am aware of the fact that Present II Progressive is to be used for continuous (temporary) actions starting at a point and still going on (that's its main use).
However, this example I find to be rather counter-intuitive - it implies that they have taken several walks in the past 10 years. However, why would you use Present II Progressive and make it sound like a continuous action? To me it sounds as though they have never stopped taking walks in the first place.
I know I must have some underlying misconception - I would instead have worded it like this: "I have taken talks there for ten years"
Does anyone want to tell my why it's better to use Present II Progressive in this case?
(You'll find this exact same question on reddit too - the reason im asking here is I've figured I'll get an answer faster this way)
"I have been taking walks there for ten years". Think of "take a walk" as an event with a start and finish. So in the sentence context, it is an episodic event that repeats continuously over a period of ten years.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
"I have been taking walks there for ten years".
Think of "take a walk" as an event with a start and finish. So in the sentence context, it is an episodic event that repeats continuously over a period of ten years. It is completely natural to make such assumptions about an activity like "playing the piano" and "taking a walk."