3

First off, take a look at these two examples please:

Example #1:

This problem has ailed me for a long time.

Example #2:

This problem has been ailing me for a long time.

Do you think you could confidently say that there really is a difference, however slight it might be though, in meaning between these two examples? Would you say that the first example gives the impression that the problem has troubled the speaker in the past for a long time, but does not trouble them anymore while in the second example the problem has been troubling the speaker for a long time in the past and most likely still continues to trouble them in the present?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    This reminds me of a question discussed not long a time ago. I would agree with but some one told me that they mean the same thing when it comes to stative verbs.
    – SovereignSun
    Dec 14, 2016 at 16:03
  • Please stop using the "grammar" tag, it is meaningless, and used ubiquitously. Thank you.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Dec 14, 2016 at 23:22

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Both of your sentences are correct and mean the ailment was in the past and continues

This problem has ailed me for a long time.
This problem has been ailing me for a long time.

if the ailment stopped, it would be said

This problem had been ailing me for a long time, (but no longer does).

A possible different is degrees, as an analogy

They have been bothering me for a long time.

sounds more annoyed, usually with emphasis on "been", than

They have bothered me for a long time.

though both mean one has been and continues to be annoyed.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .