Perfect continuous tenses in French ('I have been....'), confusion!

[zenmonkey]

The sentence was: I was speaking French today.

Yes, it was. You are right, for the sentence given it's not passé composé.

I was answering garyb request for example of a different construct in passé composé for "I have been learning...".
You'll also see those used for "I started today" (mise/commencé).

[Neilkenlang]

It's kind of amusing that the video that you linked says precisely what people have been telling you in this thread. That the imparfait is used to describe (1) habitual or reoccurring actions in the past and (2) what was happening immediately before some other, punctual event happened. And neither of those usages applies to what you were trying to say ("I have been practicing my French today").

No no, I wasn't saying that the imparfait was anything to do with the perfect progressive tense. I was simply disagreeing with the replies here regarding their definitions of the difference between the imparfait and the passé composé. Big difference.

As for the video, the fact that Alexa has over half a million subscribers on her Youtube channel should say something about her credibility. Her definition of the difference between the imparfait and the passé composé is exactly what I was saying, i.e. regarding the imparfait being used for continuous actions in the past etc.

Never mind. All I asked was a simple question about the perfect progressive, but you guys went off on a tangent and got quite hostile towards me. This is a language learning forum - let's keep things civilised and try to help each other instead of mindlessly arguing. I've only been here a few days and find this attitude ridiculous. Thanks.

[Ani]

I've only been here a few days

We know . Welcome. Hopefully you stick around to get a feel for things. This is really a wonderful, close knit community.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I'd speculate that Cavesa's mistake could have been due to a misunderstanding of English rather than French. Few non-native speakers, including advanced ones, fully understand and use the progressive tenses properly, while passé composé versus imparfait is quite elementary-level French. As I said, simpler than the English logic. I'll let her speak for herself though.

I read the thread twice and have yet to find "Cavesa's mistake". I'd bet money she didn't misunderstand the English. . The OP thinks he/she asked a "simple question" about progressive tenses, but wrapped up a number misconceptions in that first post.

As speakers of "different Englishes" it's possible we'd choose to use different tenses to describe the same day's events. Sometimes choosing a progressive tense matters in English but sometimes it's completely arbitrary. Fortunately, none of the has any impact on what French people typically say and what shades of meaning they might derive from other choices.

[Cavesa]

"I was speaking French today" is still passé composé. Imparfait has different uses.

It could maybe be either, depending on the context, but imparfait is far more likely since the "was doing" form is usually used in relation to another action, like smallwhite's example.

When would it be passé composé?

I'm struggling to think of an example actually! Even when answering a slightly contrived question like "when were you last speaking French?" (no second action), the closest translation would probably be imperfect... I'm happy to admit I was wrong unless someone can think of another example.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I'd speculate that Cavesa's mistake could have been due to a misunderstanding of English rather than French. Few non-native speakers, including advanced ones, fully understand and use the progressive tenses properly, while passé composé versus imparfait is quite elementary-level French. As I said, simpler than the English logic. I'll let her speak for herself though.

First of all, there seems to be more and more distinct examples flying around. For clarity, I am trying to stick to the original sentences and ideas and their development.

I still don't think I've made any mistake here. The whole thread is about trying to find explanations for the not too natural examples in the first post. As I said, more context for the English sentence would be helpful. The trouble here is not just the unfortunate attempt to equate the French tenses to the English ones. The other point is the simple fact that grammar and real life do not always have to align. There are lots of sentences that are grammatically correct and just wouldn't appear anywhere in the wilderness, or perhaps would appear just under specific circumstances. I used to fail tests full of such weird examples

"I was speaking French today." That sounds weird in English. But it wouldnn't sound that weird, if the whole context was "I usually speak Spanish every morning. Today, I was suddenly speaking French. What a surprise!" And it would be passé composé (the part in question). And it also looks weird to translate this sentence to French. No one in their right mind would be talking about a moment earlier today in the past sense while still doing the activity, would they? It is not a good example sentence. But if we put Swedish or anything else to the example, it looks better: J'ai parlé suédois aujour'hui. I can easily imagine this sentence in one of the language logs on this forum.

As I was explaining (with proper links I hoped would help the OP), the French tenses don't work the same way the English ones do. And truth be told, the only instance in which imparfait would be appropriate in this example would be the background or circumstance of a different event. Je parlais suédois, quand mon client a hurlé quelque chose en russe. Other than that, imparfait is simply not used in the manner suggested by Neilkenlang.

Really, I don't see why this thread turned this way. I offered links that should have satisfied the curiosity of anyone not content with a C2 speaker's opinion (as I wholeheartedly agree that any such advice should be just the first step to self study from some official sources, that's why I bothered with looking for something appropriate for a beginner). I am always glad to be corrected by a native or just someone knowing what they are talking about. But this was not the case.

I only hope that you, Neikenlang, have learnt some basic French grammar while trying to prove my 18 years of experience completely wrong If so, the purpose of this thread has been fulfilled.

P.S. thanks everyone, I was away for two difficult days. I always take your notes and corrections very seriously, I hope you know that. And I appreciate you all a lot!

[Bunnychu]

I'm not fluent in French but we have imparfait and passé composé tenses in Romanian. As far as I know they serve the same purpose, in which case Cavesa is completely right.

[tarvos]

Tense usage between Romanian and French is a nearly 100% correspondence rate, yes.

[smallwhite]

I read the thread twice and have yet to find "Cavesa's mistake".

So Zenmonkey is wrong?

[Ani]

I read the thread twice and have yet to find "Cavesa's mistake".

So Zenmonkey is wrong?

I didn't say that, and as I read them, his comments aren't contradictory to what Cavesa was trying to say on they second or third post where the discussion changed from the original sentence to the new sentence based on "was".

As I read it, she was saying that even if you wanted to say "I was.." in English, it does not affect the most common or proper translation in French.
"I have been practicing French today" and "I was practicing French today" mean the same thing to me. If I would use such sentences, I'd use them interchangeably. So despite the fact that you could grammatically argue their difference, they mean nothing different to me and would not need different translations in French to represent whatever was hoping to be said.

[smallwhite]

Addressing Ani's post:

I have only been interested in 1 sentence/1 tense out of the many brought up in this thread, and you can find that 1 sentence/tense quoted in my posts. Cavesa and Zenmonky said opposite things about it. Only one person can be correct.

I have been practising French
and
I was practising French
refer to the same activity but I don't think they are always interchangeable. I believe you can only use one or the other depending on the words and sentences before and/or after. If you were a real life friend I'd skip all that "I think" and "I believe".

Btw I flipped PMP Advanced French Grammar today and it says
English "was ~ing"
cannot be translated with
French passé composé
or something like that - someone who has the book can quote the actual paragraph. Page 27 or 29 I think, the first page of a chapter, near the middle, a short paragraph between two blocks of examples or diagrams or something.

(To stay more precisely on topic, my vote goes to:
I have been doing => passé composé
noting that "since/for/depuis" is a special case) (I think English is the weirdo here).
("été" is "been" but just some beens and not all beens).

[Bunnychu]

The way I see it, even though imparfait and passé composé are learned at an early stage, imparfait might be a bit tricky. If I try to translate that phrase in Romanian using the imparfait and not the passé composé, it sounds awkward without another action taking place at the same time or if it wasn't an habitual action.
You can also skip the other action sometimes but it's when both the speaker and the listener know the background information.
For example:
A: I called you but you didn't answer your phone.
B: I was practicing French. (when you called) (imparfait)

A:Je t'ai appelée, mais tu n'as pas répondu.
B:Je pratiquais le français. (quand ...)

One example that I can think of in which 'I was practicing French today' is correct using the imparfait (at least in Romanian) is the following:

Why were you practicing French today? (with the meaning - why this particular day)
I was practicing French today because tomorrow I have an exam. (imparfait)
Je pratiquais le français aujourd'hui car j'ai un examen demain.

I'm not very good at explaining things but hopefully it got through what I wanted to convey. This is my take on it while comparing the same case to Romanian. In all other instances, passé composé is the one that fits better.