Talk:Continuous and progressive aspects

message: This article is redirected to from Continuative aspect, which in fact is an entirely different aspect, one indicating that event is still taking place. This redirect should be eliminated and an article on continuative aspect should be written in its place. 12.11.209.34 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuative aspect

message: Just throwing this out there, but while the distinction between continuous versus progressive might exist in Cantonese, it might not hold in other Chinese dialects. For example, contrary to the article, I think most Mandarin speakers fail to make a distinction. Building on the example by Umofomia, let's say a friend asks for help and I respond that I'm watching TV. In Mandarin, that could be in one of three basic ways: V + 著, 在 + V (or 正在 + V or 正 + V), or the final particle 呢. So:
# 我看著電視。
# 我在看電視。
# 我看電視呢。
But each of these can be used in combination the others to add emphasis:
# 我在看著電視。
# 我在看電視呢。
# 我看著電視呢。
# 我在看著電視呢。
That I cannot help is implied not by my particular phrasing but by the fact that I choose to respond with what I am doing rather than a simple yes or no. In my experience, context and vocal emphasis or intonation is more important than syntax in determining continuous versus progressive, which puts Mandarin more in line with other languages that don't make the syntactical distinction.
Mingjai (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous versus progressive distinction in Chinese dialects

message: I removed "The continuous is not used very often in Dutch" at the start of the section about the Dutch progressive. It is, in colloquial speech, extremely common, common enough for my 2 year old daughter to have mastered it perfectly. I've also expanded it a bit, as there are more methods than were listed. I also removed the Rick Harrison link, as it is dead, and added a link to a PDF describing the progressives in various Germanic languages Jalwikip 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the later addition of "Using a strange position is found comedic: Hij loopt te koken (litt. He walks to cook).". It does not add any information on the formation of the progressive, it just comments on some unusual use, which I think is inappropriate here (not to mention that it is not used for 'comedic' effect, and only with the verb 'lopen' (not just any 'position'). Jalwikip (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch progressive 

message: What is the difference between "progressive" and "continuous", anyway? The article is not very clear. FilipeS (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, apparently nothing of consequence.  It would be better if just one term was standardized for English.  The Cantonese example on this talk page shows differing constructions to say "doing" something generally (continuous) versus doing something in a virtually uninterruptable way (progressive) though I don't understand how the word "progressive" must mean "uninterruptably ongoing".  I suppose I am complaining that it is a badly named term. 207.189.230.42 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the difference

message: "Unless otherwise indicated, the following languages treat continuous and progressive aspects the same, in which case the term continuous is used to refer to both." Does it mean "... continuous is used to refer to both in this article."? It's not the case in general. JIMp talk·cont 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Continuous'' is used to refer to both 

message: As far as I can tell from the Chinese examples, there are different forms to signal Cont. and Prog. This is not the case in English. 
There is clearly a difference between 'I am studying Chemistry at Lancaster' and 'Please go away, I'm studying', but what they both have in common is that they are not complete, and essentially that's all that matters. Pamour (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuous and progressive aspects 

message: Long tense just seems to be another name for the English continuous form. On the other hand, the verb in the example "He goes to Germany twice a year" is not marked for a continuous aspect. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Long tense 

message: Rémi Lannes (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the be + ing form instead of "continuous and progressive aspect". 

message: I will take the word of the article that some languages posit a stark difference between a state (continuous) and an action (progressive) that does not exist in English. Nor in Greek, if Socrates is to be believed.
However, I think it needs more explanation in the introduction than this. I had to read the following sentence several times to grasp the point.
'In Chinese, for example, progressive aspect denotes a current action, as in "he is getting dressed", while continuous aspect denotes a current state, as in "he is wearing fine clothes".'
I am also sure that people who are not native speakers of English and an obvious readership for such an article, would struggle with it even more than I did.
Grant | Talk 04:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates: "To be is to do; to do is to be." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Continuous and progressive aspects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316180458/http://www.flet.keio.ac.jp/~colloq/articles/backnumb/Col_26_imai.pdf to http://www.flet.keio.ac.jp/~colloq/articles/backnumb/Col_26_imai.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814191523/http://www.russian-resources.info/links.aspx/grammar/verbs/aspects to http://www.russian-resources.info/links.aspx/grammar/verbs/aspects
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've cut this text from the article, as (at least if I understand it correctly) it's not true.  Cut text:
"Unlike English, the continuous cannot be used to describe an action that has not yet begun at the time of interest; however, in the present tense, the simple present suffices for this, and in any tense, a similar effect can be achieved with the auxiliary ir a ("to go to") in its non-continuous aspect."
The first part of that sentence, before the semicolon, seems to be saying that the continuous form can't be used in the future tense, but this is false.  One can say, for example, "estaré comiendo" for "I will be eating."
And with the second part, while there aren't any particular inaccuracies, none of it fits without the first part.
It's also possible that I may have misunderstood what the first part was trying to say.  If that's the case though, then it should be better explained, preferably with a specific example of what exactly can be done in English but not in Spanish.  For now though, it's best to have that part completely removed. -2003:CA:872D:2F26:805B:4814:F990:1233 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the problem is the expression "time of interest", which you interpret as meaning the time of speaking, but is actually (presumably) intended to mean the time being spoken about. I agree it could probably all be better phrased. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish future