[Grammar] Present Perfect vs Present Perfect Countinous

[astepforward]

Hi folks!

Please consider the dialogue below:

- Could you tell me why there is such a bad smell in the kitchen?

- 1) I've been cooking some fish.
- 2) I've cooked some fish.

Are both answers 1) and 2) OK as an explanation for a bad smell?

I personally tend to use the first variant, but I don't know why.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Raymott]

1 is natural; 2 not so much. You could also say, "I was cooking some fish".

 

[CSHY]

- Could you tell me why there is such a bad smell in the kitchen?

- 1) I've been cooking some fish.
- 2) I've cooked some fish.

Both will work. Which will fit better depends on the actual situation.

By saying 'I've been cooking some fish' you mean the fish is still cooking this moment or have just been cooked, so that the smell will remain strong, and this maybe is why you prefer this one.

By 'I've cooked some fish', you mean the fish may be cooked half an hour/hours/ one or two days/ a few days ago; and that is the cause of the smell. But a smell will dissipate over time and this is why you think this sentence is not going to fit well. But if your home has no good ventilation, then it's possible that the smell still remains strong.

 

[astepforward]

Is there any grammatical reason to pick up present continuous variant rather than present perfect one? Or it is just a tendency?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think "cooking" suggests you are still cooking it, as "learning" suggests I am still learning it in "I have been learning English for decades".

 

[jutfrank]

Is there any grammatical reason to pick up present continuous variant rather than present perfect one? Or it is just a tendency?

It's not present continuous, it's present perfect continuous.

Present perfect continuous is a useful tense when you want to explain present evidence by saying what happened in the past. That's why it's a great tense to use in the 'fish' example in the original post.

The smell of fish is present evidence, and I've been cooking fish is the explanation. Here are two more similar examples:

Why are your fingers yellow? Have you been smoking again?

A: You look awful! Are you okay?
B: I haven't been sleeping much recently.

 

[astepforward]

It's not present continuous, it's present perfect continuous.

Present perfect continuous is a useful tense when you want to explain present evidence by saying what happened in the past. That's why it's a great tense to use in the 'fish' example in the original post.

The smell of fish is present evidence, and I've been cooking fish is the explanation. Here are two more similar examples:

Yes, I meant Present Perfect Continuous.

Please look at this example:

- Why is your car so shiny?

- 1) I've cleaned it carefully.
- 2) I've been cleaning it carefully.

"The shiny car" is present evidence and the explanation for this state is needed.

In this particular example, I feel like the 1) answer is more suitable, even though it's Present Perfect, not Present Perfect Continuous.

Do you agree with me or not? Could Present Perfect tense be used for explaining presence as well as Present Perfect Continuous?

Thanks!

 

[CSHY]

I think "cooking" suggests you are still cooking it, as "learning" suggests I am still learning it in "I have been learning English for decades".

The continuous/progressive does not always indicate ‘ongoing’.

As a matter of fact, it may express:

ongoing(events, actions,states)/(and thereby >)
unfinished/>
trend/>
future /(or)
plan(arrangement)/
particularity(individuality).

I was sleeping 10 p.m. yesterday. [ a time point ]

I'm studying English. [ a time period ]

----[ Another example: HAVE BEEN DOING something ]

She's recovovering.

Are you going to the movie tonight?

I'll be speaking to the country tomorrow.

'If the sentence does not make sense when you do that, it's likely that "quite some" is not being used properly. ' ---- [ here the present progressive indicates the particular use (when 'does not meake sense') of the phrase 'quite some'. One does not always use it that way. ]

 

[CSHY]

Yes, I meant Present Perfect Continuous.

Please look at this example:

- Why is your car so shiny?

- 1) I've cleaned it carefully.
- 2) I've been cleaning it carefully.

"The shiny car" is present evidence and the explanation for this state is needed.

In this particular example, I feel like the 1) answer is more suitable, even though it's Present Perfect, not Present Perfect Continuous.

Do you agree with me or not? Could Present Perfect tense be used for explaining presence as well as Present Perfect Continuous?

Thanks!

Again, both will work.

For this conversation, with using 'I have been cleaning it carefully' you're implying quite a period time. More often than not, a question can be answered with sentences in varied tenses, with slight or significant differences in meaning. You choose the most suitable one basing on grammar, the situation and your attitude.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I was sleeping 10 p.m. yesterday. [ a time point ]

I would add "at" before "10".

I'm studying English. [ a time period ]

I think it can refer to limited duration or the present moment.

Your examples have nothing to do with the present perfect continuous, which the OP is asking about.

 

[Matthew Wai]

- 2) I've been cleaning it carefully.

3. I have been cleaning it carefully for an hour.
4. I have been cleaning it carefully for years.

3 and 4 refer to a continuous action and a regular action respectively.

 

[Rover_KE]

... I feel like the 1) answer is more suitable, even though it's present perfect, not present perfect continuous.

Please note that it's incorrect to capitalise the names of tenses.

 

[jutfrank]

- Why is your car so shiny?

- 1) I've cleaned it carefully.
- 2) I've been cleaning it carefully.

"The shiny car" is present evidence.

Yes.

Let me change the examples a little to attempt to show an important difference in use:

Your car looks shiny.

1) Yes, I've been polishing it for the past hour.
2) I know—I've finally washed it!

In the first, the emphasis is on a progressive action whereas in the second it is on a completed action.

 

[CSHY]

Your examples have nothing to do with the present perfect continuous, which the OP is asking about.

No, but they have a lot to do with your remarks in your previous post, and therefore are related to the OP. Maybe you'd like to look back at your remarks there.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The non-progressive form usually has the idea of a completed situation, but that does not mean that the non-progressive form cannot be used of a completed situation.

I don't get it. Is "non" missing before the second "completed"?

I was sleeping 10 p.m. yesterday. [ a time point ]

I'm studying English. [ a time period ]

----[ Another example: HAVE BEEN DOING something ]

I would not leave spaces around the text inside brackets.

 

[YAMATO2201]

I think "cooking" suggests you are still cooking it, as "learning" suggests I am still learning it in "I have been learning English for decades".

I think that the present perfect continuous is sometimes used to talk about something that has recently finished.

Obviously, somebody has been smoking here. (My original sentence.)

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the action has not yet finished in "I have been reading a book".

 

[astepforward]

I have been reading 'War and Peace'. I started it in January and finally finished it last night.

So, in this example, we mention a completed action in the past, but we put an emphasis on the fact that it was progressive ( lasted for some time), yes?

 

[Matthew Wai]

It emphasizes the duration.

 

[jutfrank]

I think the action has not yet finished in "I have been reading a book".

Yes, the action is finished at the time of speaking. That's what counts. If it wasn't, we would say I'm reading a book.

It really doesn't matter what page you're on. To say that the action has finished is not to say that you won't start reading again.