Why is this question considered ‘awful English’?

It's a little period slangy, I'm imagining a 1920s aristocrat saying it. A more standard phrasing could be something like: Does he come often?  When did he begin visiting? 

It sounds wrong to me. It's understandable, but a little clunky. I'd phrase it as "Did he always come here?", "Has he always come here?". "Does he come often?", "Does he come here often?", etc. "Has he always been coming here?" sounds a little "lower-class", which might be relevant to the story. You wouldn't hear the King say it.

I don’t see anything wrong with that sentence

It sounds kinda weird and not like something native speakers would usually say (at least I think so). Yeah, it’s technically correct, but I reckon these sound better: "Has he always come here?" or "Did he always come?" if you're talking about the past. Feel free to correct me if necessary. A phrase that popped into my mind was "Has he always shown up?"

Even though it's fine, they're probably getting at the use of **always** here with present perfect continuous. They probably imagine it's more natural to say: * Has he always come here? * Has he been coming here for a long time?

Depends on the context. It's not "proper" as in upper-class english but it's perfectly fine for daily use.

What? This is illogical because that’s correct. Maybe for the period it wasn’t but certainly not these days.

It's perfectly normal English. I suspect the second person is trying to be a pedantic smart-arse.

Perfectly correct Hiberno-English.

It's possible that this piece of the story is really meant to communicate that the character is - elderly  - class conscious  - very "proper", and cares a lot about how proper people should behave  - in a position of power over Cassie It's very normal for some older English speakers like this to insist on "proper" grammar, which means, grammar as it was taught when they were children,  already quite out of date when it was taught. Being very careful and detailed about the grammar rules of a prestige dialect can be a way that people try to show that they're an educated, high class person. So perhaps the author wants the reader to see that this "grammar rule" is nonsense, and be reminded of the kind of older people they know in real life who care a lot about pointless grammar rules.

No clue, sounds completely normal to me. When is the book from? Maybe it’s some old fashioned rule that we don’t follow anymore?

Normally, you use simple aspect with adverbs of frequency (always - never) to talk about repeated actions. [Elementary level grammar: I usually get up at 7am. I’ve always liked mornings] Many people use always with continuous aspect (present continuous) to talk about things people do which are annoying. “They are always telling me incorrect stuff about grammar because of their own grievances.” I suggest: “Has he been coming here long?”

Yes it's awful English as it is grammatically correct. As nowadays slang is short and sweet we can say, Has he always come here?

It definitely feels wrong to me. I'm not sure why but one of those instinctive this sentence structure is wrong things. Maybe something like has he always gone here would feel more natural.

I would say: "Has he always come here?" or "Has he been coming here for a long time?"

i feel it's considered awful because you're speaking of something that was defined in the past (timewise) while also inferring that's still happening right now, which contradicts the former. So it's kinda weird ,even if someone may say it in an everyday scenario. I'm not a native speaker but it just sounds weird to my ear,but i may be wrong and hope for corrections

It isn't awful English because the intent of the question is immediately understood. It's not what most Americans would say, but it might be British or Australian phrasing. An American would say "Does he always come here?" Perhaps "Has he always come here?" but that sounds more like an official interrogation than your pal Cassie.

It's grammatically fine. It's just a little overly wordy.

Strictly speaking the progressive tenses are used to talk about temporary situations. So using always is contradictory as you can’t always be temporary.

It feels pretty natural to my northeastern US English

>Shirley you can't be serious. >I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. I am interpreting this dialogue as the teacher referring to the student as 'always been coming here". Example >"Has he Susan?" Cassie asked. >"That's aweful English, my dear, Susan". Still not sure i get it, but I think this is the joke

We'd need more context to be sure, but it actually seems to be a conversation with one of the English language snobs that forces a specific form of grammar and usage to be considered "good English" language. These are the people that removed split infinitives and required prepositions to occur before the noun they modify. They also changed the names of meats to not match the animal from which the meat comes. No good reason, they just did.

I think it is related with etiquette. /pre-note: En is not my native language/ Directly asking things like this is not a proper 'noble' behaviour. It could be "He seems he is your regular guest" or something like this. It can be altered according to rest of content. I just made a assumption, I may be wrong on this.

I suppose you could read it as 'has he always been 'on his way' here'. So in sort of a perpetual state of coming. Because we can say, for example: he is coming and he's been coming here for 2 hours. Although, I think we are so used to hearing this question stated this way that our minds automatically know the meaning is 'how often does he come here'.

Sounds wrong to me. I'd always say "has he always come here" I can't imagine anyone saying it the first way (although my daughter's just told me she would!)

Because it's not up to the standard apparently expected of Cassie. In other words, it's not a "natural" way to speak, according to the time and place (and social class) of the characters. I can see that other commenters have said that Cassie's question seems natural to them. To me, it does not. To me, using the word *always* with that verb conjugation makes me wonder if "he" is stuck in some alternate, timeless dimension, always traveling toward "here" but never arriving. Why? Maybe it's because the word *always* with a perfect verb means "continuously" ("We have always lived in Washington."), while with a progressive verb it means "repeatedly" ("He is always making new friends."). When you try to combine the two and use *always* with a perfect progressive verb, it just doesn't compute. Alternatives to "Has he always been coming here?" (These each mean something different.): Has he always come here? Has he been coming here for a long time? Has he been coming here a lot? Has he already been coming here?

It is fine, maybe not ideal but certainly not wrong.  This is for you to learn that the second person speaking considers themselves and excellent English speaker, very educated, and with enough self esteem to correct a minor and not wrong grammatical issue. 

The second character is hyper-correcting. The objection might be to habitual *be*, which is used in some dialects. Especially a century or more ago, you see dialect used as a class marker. It was very common to call the lower-prestige dialects “bad English.” You shouldn’t worry about those arbitrary rules. They’re obsolete today anyway.

Formally the grammar looks okay. The problem is more with the semantics of ‘always’ used with a direct and simple action verb. Much better: “Has he always come here?” Why better? Because adding the auxiliary ‘has’ contributes nothing except confusion. “He has always come here” completely answers the question about how long the activity has gone on. “He has always been coming here” weakly suggests that the act of coming here has never been completed — that he’s always been coming here but has never actually *arrived* here, which is ridiculous. But if you don’t mean it that way, don’t say it that way. ‘Always’ doesn’t work quite like other expressions of time duration. It’s absolute, categorical, complete, finished in a way they are not. ‘Always’ has the sense of ‘without exception’. If I have always come here, in a literal sense there is no time at which I haven’t come here. You don’t think about this as an expert English speaker, but you do feel it in use. ✅ I’ve been coming here since February. ✅ I’ve been coming here for years. ✅ I’ve been coming here for ages. ✅ I’ve been coming here forever. ❌ I’ve been coming here always. ❌ I’ve always been coming here. ✅ I’ve always come here. I admit this can be a slippery point to get your head around. Cassie’s interlocutor could have worked as an editor at The New Yorker. If you’re just trying to learn how to write acceptable English, you have other things to worry about.

No one has picked up yet that "coming" sounds the same as "cumming"?

‘Has he always come here?’ sounds better to me. ‘Always been coming’ does sound a bit awkward.

Ummm he’s not always on his way to the place. You get it. Does he always come here. Does he have the state of always coming here. Coming means to like make his way over. No he is not always walking here, or driving here, or whatever.

It reads a little weird to me as a US based native English speaker. “Has he always come here?” Is also strange, it kind of depends where here is I supose. “has he always eaten at this restaurant?” or “has he always had gotten coffee at this cafe?” might be a little less stilted. “Does he always come here?” also sounds better to me. I would expect the answer to those questions to be roughly “yes” or “no.” Another way to put it in a more natural way would be is “Has he been coming here for a long time?” Or “has he been coming here for a while?” While the person answering might still give a yes or no answer to these versions of the question, they might also say something about how long her has been going there. These questions kind of imply that that the asker is interested in the length of time as well.

Am I correct that the difference between "Has he always come here" and "Has he always been coming here" might mean that the first implies a constant action for some time while the latter suggests a more recent occurrence for the speaker?