Present Simple vs Present Continuous
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was doing some exercises and I stumbled upon something that isn't very clear to me. I have to fill in the gaps and explain why I use Simple Present or Present Continuous.
I (to be) furious with John! He (normally - to be) a very reasonable
guy but he (to have) some problems with the loss of his wife and (to
take out) his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
My conclusion was next: I AM (stative verb) furious with John! He normally IS (stative verb) a very reasonable guy but he IS HAVING (temporary action going on at the time of speaking, with clear beginning and end... or is this also STATIVE?) and he IS TAKING OUT (temporary, clear beginning and end) his anger on the group.
I am struggling with the last two verb tenses.
verbs tenses present-tense present-progressive
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was doing some exercises and I stumbled upon something that isn't very clear to me. I have to fill in the gaps and explain why I use Simple Present or Present Continuous.
I (to be) furious with John! He (normally - to be) a very reasonable
guy but he (to have) some problems with the loss of his wife and (to
take out) his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
My conclusion was next: I AM (stative verb) furious with John! He normally IS (stative verb) a very reasonable guy but he IS HAVING (temporary action going on at the time of speaking, with clear beginning and end... or is this also STATIVE?) and he IS TAKING OUT (temporary, clear beginning and end) his anger on the group.
I am struggling with the last two verb tenses.
verbs tenses present-tense present-progressive
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
3
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
1
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was doing some exercises and I stumbled upon something that isn't very clear to me. I have to fill in the gaps and explain why I use Simple Present or Present Continuous.
I (to be) furious with John! He (normally - to be) a very reasonable
guy but he (to have) some problems with the loss of his wife and (to
take out) his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
My conclusion was next: I AM (stative verb) furious with John! He normally IS (stative verb) a very reasonable guy but he IS HAVING (temporary action going on at the time of speaking, with clear beginning and end... or is this also STATIVE?) and he IS TAKING OUT (temporary, clear beginning and end) his anger on the group.
I am struggling with the last two verb tenses.
verbs tenses present-tense present-progressive
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
I was doing some exercises and I stumbled upon something that isn't very clear to me. I have to fill in the gaps and explain why I use Simple Present or Present Continuous.
I (to be) furious with John! He (normally - to be) a very reasonable
guy but he (to have) some problems with the loss of his wife and (to
take out) his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
My conclusion was next: I AM (stative verb) furious with John! He normally IS (stative verb) a very reasonable guy but he IS HAVING (temporary action going on at the time of speaking, with clear beginning and end... or is this also STATIVE?) and he IS TAKING OUT (temporary, clear beginning and end) his anger on the group.
I am struggling with the last two verb tenses.
verbs tenses present-tense present-progressive
verbs tenses present-tense present-progressive
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
edited Jan 3 '16 at 13:37
user140086
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
asked Nov 9 '15 at 20:05
Zeya Van Noten
987
987
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ yesterday
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
3
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
1
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17
|
show 1 more comment
3
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
1
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17
3
3
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
1
1
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I AM furious with John! He normally IS a very reasonable guy [,] but he IS HAVING some problems with the loss of his wife and IS TAKING OUT his anger on the group.
This is a fine sentence. Just add a comma after guy and omit the he before is taking out.
As was pointed out in a comment already, the use of the present tense is fine, too:
I am furious with John! He normally is a very reasonable guy, but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes out his anger on the group.
In comparing the time element in your two sentences, you can see the sentences have a slight difference in meaning. I'd be hard-pressed to explain what that slight difference is, however! By providing a larger context you would likely bring the difference, if any, into better relief.
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
First, let's assume that the first two verbs are conjugated in the present tense, since that is a reasonable base assumption. So we have:
I am furious with John! He is a very reasonable guy...
Easy enough. The difference between the semantic implications of the second part of the sentence become more evident now:
... but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
The (simple) present tense implies that it is a habitual action; that is a part of who "John" is. In the sentence above, John is a man who has problems with having lost his wife - for example, he never got over it and has been miserable ever since. Being in such a disposition, he takes it out on his friends -- that's just who he is.
... but he is having some problems with the loss of his wife and is taking his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
This scenario is much more sympathetic to John. The present continuous implies that the act is ongoing -- and, key here, that it may end or change. Thus, in the above sentence, we can assume that he has lost his wife (relatively) recently, and he is currently having problems dealing with it. As a part of coping with the grief, he is taking it out on his friends -- but this isn't normally the case (perhaps he is usually more agreeable).
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I AM furious with John! He normally IS a very reasonable guy [,] but he IS HAVING some problems with the loss of his wife and IS TAKING OUT his anger on the group.
This is a fine sentence. Just add a comma after guy and omit the he before is taking out.
As was pointed out in a comment already, the use of the present tense is fine, too:
I am furious with John! He normally is a very reasonable guy, but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes out his anger on the group.
In comparing the time element in your two sentences, you can see the sentences have a slight difference in meaning. I'd be hard-pressed to explain what that slight difference is, however! By providing a larger context you would likely bring the difference, if any, into better relief.
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
I AM furious with John! He normally IS a very reasonable guy [,] but he IS HAVING some problems with the loss of his wife and IS TAKING OUT his anger on the group.
This is a fine sentence. Just add a comma after guy and omit the he before is taking out.
As was pointed out in a comment already, the use of the present tense is fine, too:
I am furious with John! He normally is a very reasonable guy, but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes out his anger on the group.
In comparing the time element in your two sentences, you can see the sentences have a slight difference in meaning. I'd be hard-pressed to explain what that slight difference is, however! By providing a larger context you would likely bring the difference, if any, into better relief.
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I AM furious with John! He normally IS a very reasonable guy [,] but he IS HAVING some problems with the loss of his wife and IS TAKING OUT his anger on the group.
This is a fine sentence. Just add a comma after guy and omit the he before is taking out.
As was pointed out in a comment already, the use of the present tense is fine, too:
I am furious with John! He normally is a very reasonable guy, but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes out his anger on the group.
In comparing the time element in your two sentences, you can see the sentences have a slight difference in meaning. I'd be hard-pressed to explain what that slight difference is, however! By providing a larger context you would likely bring the difference, if any, into better relief.
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
I AM furious with John! He normally IS a very reasonable guy [,] but he IS HAVING some problems with the loss of his wife and IS TAKING OUT his anger on the group.
This is a fine sentence. Just add a comma after guy and omit the he before is taking out.
As was pointed out in a comment already, the use of the present tense is fine, too:
I am furious with John! He normally is a very reasonable guy, but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes out his anger on the group.
In comparing the time element in your two sentences, you can see the sentences have a slight difference in meaning. I'd be hard-pressed to explain what that slight difference is, however! By providing a larger context you would likely bring the difference, if any, into better relief.
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
edited Nov 9 '15 at 21:56
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
answered Nov 9 '15 at 21:36
rhetorician
16.1k11952
16.1k11952
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
|
show 2 more comments
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
Sadly, his problems are due to the loss of his wife.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 21:37
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
@EdwinAshworth: Where should I send the condolence card? Thanks. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:57
1
1
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
'[H]aving problems due to the loss of his wife' sounds far more idiomatic than '[H]aving problems with the loss of his wife'.
– Edwin Ashworth
Nov 9 '15 at 22:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
@EdwinAshworth: No argument there, but I have a feeling the OP is not a native English speaker. Consequently, let's not make things harder for him than necessary. Learning the less idiomatic expression will not, I predict, do irreparable harm by stunting his growth in the English language. I could be wrong, however! Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 23:45
1
1
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
@EdwinAshworth this is something I face all the time...students show me materials they are using in school that were published locally and have many contrived sentences to "help" students know the "right" way to use tenses. The "correct" answers in the books always make me frown, or they have multiple interpretations. The reasons for not using Cambridge or Oxford sources is cost. Local book costs 100, Cambridge book 600.
– michael_timofeev
Nov 10 '15 at 1:10
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
First, let's assume that the first two verbs are conjugated in the present tense, since that is a reasonable base assumption. So we have:
I am furious with John! He is a very reasonable guy...
Easy enough. The difference between the semantic implications of the second part of the sentence become more evident now:
... but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
The (simple) present tense implies that it is a habitual action; that is a part of who "John" is. In the sentence above, John is a man who has problems with having lost his wife - for example, he never got over it and has been miserable ever since. Being in such a disposition, he takes it out on his friends -- that's just who he is.
... but he is having some problems with the loss of his wife and is taking his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
This scenario is much more sympathetic to John. The present continuous implies that the act is ongoing -- and, key here, that it may end or change. Thus, in the above sentence, we can assume that he has lost his wife (relatively) recently, and he is currently having problems dealing with it. As a part of coping with the grief, he is taking it out on his friends -- but this isn't normally the case (perhaps he is usually more agreeable).
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
First, let's assume that the first two verbs are conjugated in the present tense, since that is a reasonable base assumption. So we have:
I am furious with John! He is a very reasonable guy...
Easy enough. The difference between the semantic implications of the second part of the sentence become more evident now:
... but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
The (simple) present tense implies that it is a habitual action; that is a part of who "John" is. In the sentence above, John is a man who has problems with having lost his wife - for example, he never got over it and has been miserable ever since. Being in such a disposition, he takes it out on his friends -- that's just who he is.
... but he is having some problems with the loss of his wife and is taking his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
This scenario is much more sympathetic to John. The present continuous implies that the act is ongoing -- and, key here, that it may end or change. Thus, in the above sentence, we can assume that he has lost his wife (relatively) recently, and he is currently having problems dealing with it. As a part of coping with the grief, he is taking it out on his friends -- but this isn't normally the case (perhaps he is usually more agreeable).
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
First, let's assume that the first two verbs are conjugated in the present tense, since that is a reasonable base assumption. So we have:
I am furious with John! He is a very reasonable guy...
Easy enough. The difference between the semantic implications of the second part of the sentence become more evident now:
... but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
The (simple) present tense implies that it is a habitual action; that is a part of who "John" is. In the sentence above, John is a man who has problems with having lost his wife - for example, he never got over it and has been miserable ever since. Being in such a disposition, he takes it out on his friends -- that's just who he is.
... but he is having some problems with the loss of his wife and is taking his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
This scenario is much more sympathetic to John. The present continuous implies that the act is ongoing -- and, key here, that it may end or change. Thus, in the above sentence, we can assume that he has lost his wife (relatively) recently, and he is currently having problems dealing with it. As a part of coping with the grief, he is taking it out on his friends -- but this isn't normally the case (perhaps he is usually more agreeable).
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
First, let's assume that the first two verbs are conjugated in the present tense, since that is a reasonable base assumption. So we have:
I am furious with John! He is a very reasonable guy...
Easy enough. The difference between the semantic implications of the second part of the sentence become more evident now:
... but he has some problems with the loss of his wife and takes his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
The (simple) present tense implies that it is a habitual action; that is a part of who "John" is. In the sentence above, John is a man who has problems with having lost his wife - for example, he never got over it and has been miserable ever since. Being in such a disposition, he takes it out on his friends -- that's just who he is.
... but he is having some problems with the loss of his wife and is taking his anger and bitterness on the entire group.
This scenario is much more sympathetic to John. The present continuous implies that the act is ongoing -- and, key here, that it may end or change. Thus, in the above sentence, we can assume that he has lost his wife (relatively) recently, and he is currently having problems dealing with it. As a part of coping with the grief, he is taking it out on his friends -- but this isn't normally the case (perhaps he is usually more agreeable).
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
answered Oct 22 at 15:12
Carly
1,101212
1,101212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f286089%2fpresent-simple-vs-present-continuous%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
In the last two examples the speaker could employ either simple or continuous, depending on what he wants to communicate. However, the way you have it (both continuous) sounds best to me given the amount of context we have.
– Nathaniel
Nov 9 '15 at 20:31
1
For instance, in a report about John by somebody (doctor, case worker), the simple present could be used, because it can mean present, ongoing state. Whereas, the use of the continuous (in the last two) introduces the concept of 'a limited duration'.
– NES
Nov 9 '15 at 20:34
so (to have) problems could be a stative verb of possession (= present simple), as wel as a dynamic verb?
– Zeya Van Noten
Nov 9 '15 at 20:43
@ZeyaVanNoten: Yes, that's right. Don
– rhetorician
Nov 9 '15 at 21:05
Although we normally put the word "normally" before the relevant verb, in this specific context we normally use the sequence He is normally a very reasonable guy, but... Without looking into it, I suspect this would normally apply when the verb is a copula or auxiliary.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 9 '15 at 21:17