I agree with Vic, and would like to add a little more information.
The main point of the question is the difference between the tenses of "have been playing" and "have played". In addition to the tenses, we have the verb "play (tennis)", which is a dynamic verb (dynamic verbs have duration; they occur over time), and we also have the time phrase "for five ...
Without response as to factually correct, the last sentence is grammatically correct, though I would recommend a comma after "Soon." It is implied that the change happened soon [after the introduction of the stove].
(Native AmE speaker)
"If you replace 'soon' with 'soon after that,' does your problem go away?"
"After that" is ...
Yeah, you're mistaken. it's fine as-is.
Yes, there had to be a period during which people began to use the stoves, but the author is referring to a time (not long after) when they were already being used, all over the (then very small) country.
He could have used phrasing to emphasize the transition period, but he wished to emphasize how quickly the ...
This is a question of aspect: specifically, the difference between “perfective” and “imperfective” aspect.
(Be careful: perfective has nothing to do with the perfect construction using HAVE + past participle.)
A perfective sentence speaks about a completed action, one which has reached its end, one which is ‘over and done with’. The simple past form of a ...
Both of your examples are correct and would be understood as meaning the same thing.
A slight nuance might be
I give up
has more of a finality to it, you are already done with dealing with something, whereas
I'm giving up
may mean you are about to give up but have not quite yet.
I think your questions are both OK. Your only mistake is that you mention the Present Perfect Progressive (also called the Present Perfect Continuous) but you don't use it.
When inquiring about periods of time regarding activities that still occur/are still true (and are not completed), the right approach in English is always a Present Perfect tense. ...
Sentence A states that you have been studying right up to the very moment of speaking. It says nothing in particular about your future plans; it will usually be taken to imply that you will continue to study, because a present state is presumed to continue, but this can be overridden:
I have been studying English for one year, and I'm sick of it. I quit.
CGEL claims that
the non-progressive I phone her tonight “suggests a schedule or plan” and therefore would not be employed (“it’s hardly possible”) if the speaker had only a casual intention of calling: an intention of the sort expressed by I’ll phone you tonight.
The progressive I’m phoning her tonight can, like ...
No, "at the moment" doesn't subsume the entire novel-reading experience, but that's not what the example sentence means.
Give me a moment to read Middlemarch.
Here, moment does subsume the entire novel-reading experience, but it is also nonsensical, unless you're Star Trek's Data or some other speed-reading superhuman.
I'm in the process of reading ...
The progressive construction signifies (among other things) what grammarians call an imperfective viewpoint on an action. That is, it does not look at an action from the 'outside', as something with a beginning, a middle and an end—that is perfective aspect. Rather, the imperfective looks at the 'inside' of the action, at an excerpt from the middle. ...
There's a very small, subtle difference between the two constructions here, though both are valid and acceptable.
Is the word cloths still being used?
This might be construed as asking if cloths is, right at this exact moment, undergoing linguistic utilization.
Is the word cloths still used?
This asks if people still currently make use of the word ...
Both sentences are correct and mean the same thing. The only difference is that we use:
the present perfect, "I have played tennis for five years.", to put emphasis on the action, and we use the
present perfect continuous, "I have been playing tennis for five years." to put an emphasis on the duration of the activity.
You asked: "My grammar suggests that the progressive (is blowing and are smiling) should be used, which is obviously not wrong. But I want to ask natives whether they'd use the second construction as well, in their natural day-to-day speech."
As a 66-year-old native Californian (and speaking only for myself), I suspect I use both forms in everyday ...
I'm going to ignore the salutation, because that wasn't what your question was about.
Both are correct, but have slightly different connotations that are related to time.
"The links don't work." - This implies that the links are never going to work until someone fixes whatever is wrong with them.
"The links are not working." - This implies that the links ...
Like words, grammatical constructions often have overlapping meaning -synonymy- in some contexts but entirely different meanings in others.
In this particular context there is no significant difference between the constructions. Both contrast with the "simple future" I will see Jim tomorrow. The simple construction announces an intention of meeting, the two ...
Verbs like be, know, have, love, believe, want and many others which express a state are not in their ordinary senses cast in the progressive. Some may be cast in the progressive with different meanings ...
John is being a jerk = John is behaving like a jerk, not John is a jerk.
Anne is having a baby = Anne is giving birth, not Anne possesses a baby.
Both sentences are valid, but the revised sentence is more appropriate, as explained by @Esoteric.
Here's an example to illustrate the difference:
Is the typewriter still being used?
Is the typewriter still used?
In (1), a likely interpretation would be: There is one typewriter, but someone was using it when I last checked. Has that person finished, and ...
"Have to" as expressing obligation or importance of having to do something has all the possibilities of a normal verb. You need an auxiliary when you use it in a question or in the negative :
Do I have to do that now ?
You don't have to go.
It can be used in the past:
I had to get up early this morning.
And you can use it the with -ing form. ...
Most of the examples sound fine, but these examples sound strange to me, and would make me believe the speaker is not native:
06. One night in the middle of the night, I'm hearing dripping
This example sounds strange to me because progressives are rarely one-time events. If this is an unusual event, you might say "I heard dripping." However, if the speaker ...
We might call this a descriptive use of the progressive. Telic verbs like joke or explain or lie ordinarily express something done-to-the-end which brings about a change of state: a joke excites laughter, an explanation brings about understanding, a lie brings about a misunderstanding or false belief. When such a verb is cast in the progressive it sometimes ...
Either one is grammatically correct, but they differ in the level of formality. I work in a relatively formal work environment, and I would use the second one when writing to my manager, since it sounds a little more formal to me. In fact, I might say:
I'm terribly sorry, but the links don't appear to be working.
This language may be too formal in less ...
There's no right or wrong answer here, you can use either one in this situation.
If you say I've been waiting for you for 5 hours, you're concerned with right now,
If you say I was waiting for you for 5 hours., you're concerned with the past.
Don't be that way means Don't behave that way.
When be is a finite verb, this sense of the word is expressed with the progressive construction.
George is a jerk means that 'jerkness' is a permanent property of George, but
George **is being a jerk means that George is temporarily behaving like a jerk.
In effect, we compel the verb be to act as an ...
We had hoped to be living in our new house by now, but the builders are still working on it.
(Why don't we use living or just to live there instead?)
The verb to hope uses the particle to when it connects to another verb in the infinitive form:
I hoped to play. (Not "I hoped play")
In other words, it takes an "infinitive complement". That's why you ...
Either one is perfectly valid. I don't know that one is more common than the other, I can imagine people using either variation frequently.
The minor difference is that "be looking" implies that you should be looking now, as well as in the future.
"...I should look into more deeply" gives the impression that you are only referring to the future, and ...
Usually be is just a copula ('linking') verb; but when it is cast in imperative or progressive constructions, or employed with do support, it is a dynamic verb with the approximate sense "behave".
John is a jerk means John is always a jerk: jerkness is his defining characteristic.
John is being a jerk means John is, for the moment, behaving like a jerk: ...
Either construction is fine. You can say, for example,
I've had this bad headache since I woke up.
(Or nasty, or painful, or whatever other adjective you like.)
"Have been having" emphasizes more the headache as you're currently experiencing it; "have had" emphasizes more how long it's been going on for. However, these implications are fairly subtle.