0

I know that we have some verbs which naturally convey the idea of continuity for instance "work" I could say

1 I will have worked for 2 years by May

2 I will have been working for 2 years by May

1 and 2 mean the same thing both correct. We have verbs which do not convey this idea of continuity for instance "throw"

3 I will have thrown for 3 years by June

4 I will have been throwing for 3 years by June

What about 3? Is it wrong because it dosen't show continuity?

Bob
  • 59
  • 5

2 Answers2

2

In short, yes, number 3 is incorrect. More specifically, number 3 does not make sense unless "throw" is being used as local slang or an industry-specific term that can be continuous.

For example, potters (or people who create items from clay) use the term "to throw" to mean "to create using a pottery wheel." Over time, it has become synonymous with saying "I make pottery" or "Pottery is my hobby," which are both continuous statements. So if someone said "I will have thrown for 3 years by June," a listener could assume that this means "I will have been doing pottery for 3 years by June," which is correct.

Friendly Racoon
  • 1,569
  • 5
  • 8
  • What if I say "I will have thrown stones for 3 years by June" intially it was without "stones"? – Bob Mar 01 '24 at 20:27
  • 1
    Throwing stones isn't any kind of ongoing occupation. However, it could work for some jobs that involve repeatedly doing the same task. A cobbler might say "In June, I will have been repairing shoes for five years." – Kate Bunting Mar 02 '24 at 13:13
0

Well, you're right that "work" is, by definition, usually a verb that takes place over some time. We don't talk about it as an event of a moment. "Look out, I'm about to work! Here I go! Work! There, I worked!" These kinds of verbs, since they often "continue," are comfortable with continuous tenses. Whereas many action-type verbs like throw, catch, hit, chop, staple, jump, etc. etc. are usually by definition events that happen in a moment.

Now, it gets tricky because you could repeat those momentary verbs repeatedly. A line cook doing food prep may well "have been chopping" all morning. It gets even worse because some of these actions may become synonymous with actual job descriptions, at which point they become continuous: "I pitched for the Cincinnati Reds for 3 years."

But aside from that one caveat, it's rare to keep an action up for three solid years. So really your examples 3 and 4 are both "wrong" only because they insert a word into a sentence in which it doesn't make sense: one doesn't spend 3 years "throwing," no matter which tense you use for it.

What if we take a different example, in which #4 makes sense? Let's go back to our line cook. He might say "I will have been chopping for two hours by the time I get off work." And yes, you're right, it would not be as idiomatic to say "I will have chopped for two hours [etc]." And I'm not totally sure, but I think you're right, it's because although he's describing an ongoing activity, he's pressed a "short event" verb into service to create an ongoing activity by repeating it.

Andy Bonner
  • 13,424
  • 1
  • 16
  • 40
  • I think that "kick" is a momentary verb too. Could I say "As a football player I kicked balls for 10 years" or because yet again it's a momentary very I can only satly "As a football player I have been kicking balls for 10 years"? – Bob Mar 02 '24 at 05:43
  • @Bob Hm... it's just such an odd thing to say anyway. But the difference between those examples is whether the activity is still ongoing. In a job interview, as someone discusses their work experience, they might use present perfect or present perfect continuous when discussing their current job (even for repetitive or duration-type things): "At XCorp I've led meetings well" or "I've been mostly working on contracts." But when discussing jobs that they held earlier than their present one, they'd be more likely to just use past simple. "But back at YCorp, I led a team for 2 years." – Andy Bonner Mar 02 '24 at 14:46