Taking the train

Question

Which of these is more valid:I haven't taken the train for a long timeI haven't been taking the train for a long timeCould you also explain why. I was told you should always use present perfect with "for" and "since", but I was also told you should always use present perfect continuous to express the length of something - and in this case we have "for a long time".Thanks.

Fandorin · Accepted Answer

Hi.

AnonymousCould you also explain why. I was told you should always use present perfect with "for" and "since", but I was also told you should always use present perfect continuous to express the length of something - and in this case we have "for a long time".

That's an answer itself. They are both fine but depend upon you want to express or make an accent on. For a long time is not obligatory.

He has painted the roof brown. (He has accomplished it and the only result is stressed here).
He has been painting the roof brown. (He may have accomplished it or he may be painting it right now or just stopped, we are not interested in the activity, but in its duration).

Avangi · Answer

AnonymousWhich of these is more valid:

I haven't taken the train for a long time
I haven't been taking the train for a long time

Could you also explain why. I was told you should always use present perfect with "for" and "since", but I was also told you should always use present perfect continuous to express the length of something - and in this case we have "for a long time". My ear accepts both. The negative makes it a little more interesting.
The first is very common, and states a simple fact.
The second is more special, and talks about habitual behavior. The assumption is that the speaker is a[n] habitual traveller, either to random locations or the same repeated trip, eg., to work. He continues to make the trip(s), but not by train. So it's a positive thing, in the sense that he repeatedly (habitually) doesn't take the train, and this has been going on for a long duration.

In my opinion, we are not obligated to use the continuous in the first example because of the negative. We're not "expressing the length of something," we're expressing the length of nothing. "We haven't had a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault for a long time."

But, "We have been enjoying freedom from major earthquakes for a long time."
Not, "We have enjoyed freedom from major earthquakes for a long time."

Still, I don't think you could really call the second version incorrect.

Anonymous · Answer

Still, wouldn't you rather say - I haven't taken the train IN a long time, and I haven't been taking it FOR a long time. The "For" makes it sound like it was a continuous action (or a lack of action), as if he had a habit of not taking the train, so I would use the continous tense. What do you think?

Avangi · Answer

AnonymousStill, wouldn't you rather say - I haven't taken the train IN a long time, and I haven't been taking it FOR a long time. The "For" makes it sound like it was a continuous action (or a lack of action), as if he had a habit of not taking the train, so I would use the continous tense. What do you think?

I agree.

Anonymous · Answer

So it's definitely the continuous tense? <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/2.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/2.gif' alt='Emotion: big smile'/>

Yankee · Answer

AnonymousI was told you should always use present perfect with "for" and "since", but I was also told you should always use present perfect continuous to express the length of something - and in this case we have "for a long time".

If that is exactly the way someone gave you that "rule", then I would say it is not correct. The word "for" in particular can be used with pretty much any tense.

Simple past tense:
- I worked at ABC Inc. for ten years.
(I don't work there now, but the length of time I worked there in the past was ten years.)

"Used to":
- I used to play Nintendo for hours at a time.
(Habitual past. In the past, whenever I played Nintendo, the length of my playing time was hours long.)

Future continuous:
- I'll be working in Paris for the next six months.

(This refers to the length of time of a future activity.)

The word "for" refers to the duration of a whole period of time. It can be used to refer to an activity or a series of the same activity that continues/continued throughout a stated period of time. It can also be used to state that a particular activity does/did not take place at any time in the stated time frame -- thus, using "for" in a negative sentence refers to the duration of a whole period of "non-activity". Or, as Avangi said, a whole period of nothing.

The word "in" can be used together with a period of time with a meaning similar to "at a/any point or points in time within this timeframe".

- In all the years I have known him, I have only seen him lose his temper once.

In this sentence, the speaker wants to make it clear that something happened only once (at a single, but unspecified point in time) during a stated time frame.

When used to talk about the future, however, the word "in" refers to a single point in time, usually very near or at the end of the stated time frame:

- I'll see you in six months. => This would normally be understood to mean that I will see you at a point in time that is six months in the future (i.e six months from now).

In your sentences, the word "for" is OK in either sentence. Avangi has already described the special nuance contained in the second one (the one with the present perfect continuous). In your second sentence, the use of the present perfect continuous suggests that there was a continuous series of train rides until six month ago.

- I haven't taken the train in six months. = There isn't any point in time during the past six months that I have taken the train. Not even one single train ride at any time in the past 6 months.

- I haven't taken the train for six months. = During the entire previous six-month time period, I did not take the train at all. Like the previous sentence, this sentence does not provide any hint as to whether I used to take the train regularly or not. It simply tells you that during all of the previous six months, there have been zero train rides. Both sentences also tell us that I have taken the train at least once -- but that was six months ago. It is possible that I used to take the train regularly. It's possible that I didn't.

- I haven't taken the train in a long time. = I haven't taken the train for a long time.
To me, both versions of that sentence are valid, and they mean the same thing.

AnonymousSo it's definitely the continuous tense?

No, in this case it simply depends on whether you want to make it a point to imply that taking the train used to be something you did regularly -- on a continuing basis. (See Avangi's comments.)

I hope some of this helps.

Avangi · Answer

Sorry that my reply was unclear, Anon.  I was simply agreeing with your point about IN and FOR helping to clarify the meaning.  Still, I don't think their use in that way is obligatory. <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Taking the train

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions