We have walked/have been walking

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Which option sounds more natural? There is no context. This example is taken from the book A Practical English Grammar. I chose the second and third options.

1.We have walked for three hours.

2.We have been walking for three hours.

3.We walked for three hours.

 

[teechar]

All three are possible. What do you mean that there's no context? Were those sentences not part of some explanation or exercise?

 

[Rachel Adams]

It was given in an exercise as a single example and I had to choose between the present perfect and the present perfect progressive.
I added one more option in the simple past.

 

[teechar]

I had to choose between the present perfect and the present perfect progressive.

Both are possible.

 

[emsr2d2]

The context, then, is "a section of a textbook, dealing with the difference between/use of the present perfect and the present perfect progressive".

Unless a sentence magically appears in your head, (during a dream, for example), "There is no context" is never true.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The book I was using doesn't have the section you are talkng about. It has exercises only. They are given most of the time as single statements.

 

[teechar]

Is it a genuine copy?

 

[jutfrank]

A Practical English Grammar is by AJ Thomson and AV Martinet, not Michael Swan.

Rachel, what are the instructions exactly? We can't know which of those options is correct if we don't know what the task instructions are.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Let me find the tast. I will post it with its instructions.

 

[abaka]

All three are valid, each in its own way.

We've been walking for three hours. My feet are killing me!
We've walked for three hours. Why haven't we reached the pass yet?
We went hiking that day. We walked for three hours. Then we had the best picnic ever.

The lesson here is that you too should always try to write sentences for each of the alternate forms you are confused about, and then have them checked.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Thank you, abaka. The problem is that the book sometimes only gives single statements without additional information.
I am trying to find the original sentence.

 

[abaka]

Write alternative sentences in any case -- for your own practice -- on the best information you have, even if it seems unclear. And then have them checked.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Looks like none of them make sense without additional information. And as single statements they don't sound natural. I mean like this:

We've been walking for three hours.
We've walked for three hours.
We walked for three hours.
In Russian, for example, you can say that without adding more information like ''my feet are killing me'' or ''why haven't we reached the pass yet?'' why is it wrong in English?

 

[abaka]

The reason these English sentences don't sound natural to you without context is that you haven't yet gained enough fluency to imagine the contexts in which they make sense. Is Russian your native language? In any case you are fluent enough to imagine the context for the Russian equivalents at once.

The only way to gain English fluency is to think, speak, and write in English. Don't be afraid of making mistakes -- they can be checked and corrected. Do it, do it, do it! ;-)

 

[Rachel Adams]

I found them. I asked only about the second sentence.

Book instructionsThe present perfect and the present perfect continuous


PEG 191-2


Put the verbs in brackets into the present perfect or the present perfect continuous tense.
(In some cases either could be used.)
1 We (walk) ten kilometres. 'We have walked.'' I used the present perfect, because it's focused on the result. I don't think the present perfect progressive is possible.
2 We (walk) for three hours. We have been walking for three hours/we have walked for three hours. I thought that both are possible. They might continue walking. It shows the result but I am not sure it refers to a finished action.
3 You (walk) too fast. That's why you are tired. I think either can be used. He has been walking too fast recently. And ''you have waked too fast'' is focused on the result.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Oh, I love and respect them. Mistakes teach us a lot. Yes, Russian is my native language.

 

[emsr2d2]

I found them. I [STRIKE]asked[/STRIKE] want to ask only about the second sentence. (I have greyed out questions 1 and 3 to avoid confusion.)

Book instructions

The present perfect and the present perfect continuous

PEG 191-2

Put the verbs in brackets into the present perfect or the present perfect continuous tense.
(In some cases either could be used.)

1. We (walk) ten kilometres.
'We have walked.'' I used the present perfect, because it's focused on the result. I don't think the present perfect progressive is possible.

2. We (walk) for three hours.
We have been walking for three hours/We have walked for three hours.
I thought that both are possible. They might continue walking. It shows the result but I am not sure it refers to a finished action.

3. You (walk) too fast. That's why you are tired. I think either can be used. He has been walking too fast recently. And ''you have waked too fast'' is focused on the result.

I agree with you - both are possible. "We have been walking ..." indicates that they are still walking. "We have walked ..." indicates that they have (at the time of speaking) stopped walking. Of course, the past simple is perfectly possible too, but I realise that's not part of the exercise.

 

[teechar]

Let me find the task. [STRIKE]tast.[/STRIKE]

I take it you meant to write that.