Dear teachers,

Please advise me if the following sentences are correct.

(A) I never had a problem with my tummy my whole life unitl I got pregnant.
(B) I never had a problem with my tummy for my whole life unitl I got pregnant.

Conversationally, both sentences work in a very informal register, Yun. The only change I would make is in (B). It should say in my whole life, not for my whole life.

There are two ways that I know they're very informal:

tummy: This synonym for stomach is commonly used by parents talking to young children and by the children themselves. It's also sometimes used by one adult talking to another when the adult wants to sound "cute."

Using both have and get in the same time slot, the simple past, is okay in informal language because the chronological order is made clear with the use of since.

If we want to place this sentence in a higher (more formal) register, the sentence will be

I had never had a problem with my stomach until I got pregnant.

Notice that I deleted (in) my whole life because it's really redundant. In formal speech I'd want to eliminate redundancies, but in conversational language on such an informal level, it's not a big problem for emphasis.

Thank you for the answer.
How about the following sentence?

He had grown up on a farm for his whole life until now.

I think there are two errors.
1) "had" doesn't get along with "until now"
It should be "has".
2) for his whole life
"for" should be deleted or replaced with "in" as you explained. But, I don't know the reason exactly.
For example, in the below sentence, I guess "for" is fine.
I have been alone for my whole life.
So, could you tell me the reason why "for" should be replaced with "in" in my first example?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yun,

First of all, Yun, we have to eliminate the redundancies I see. You need to decide if you want to say his whole life or if you want to say until now. You should not be using both in one sentence.

It's okay to use in my whole life in the original sentence because the only tense used is the simple past. In a moment I'll explain why for is acceptable because of a change you've made.

The reason the past perfect (had grown up) is wrong is that it's the only verb in the sentence. We only use the past perfect when comparing that action to another that also took place in the past, but at a later point in time. The past perfect always represents the first of the two or more actions that happened in the past.

If you want to put the sentence in the present perfect, that's a different story. In this case, you can use for his whole life (even though for isn't necessary), or you can use until now.

for ... and until ... cannot be used together in the perfect form?
Is the following sentence incorrect?

He has worked for 3 hours until now.

Yes, it's incorrect. If you say He has worked for three hours, that means "up to now," so there's no need to add that part.

By the way, we normally say up to now, not until now.

Dear Richard,

I have one more question.
Can I use "my whole life" without "for" in the present perfect?
Please see if the following sentences is correct.

(A) He has grown up in the city his whole life.
(B) He has grown up in the city his whole life up to now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yun,

The answer to your question is yes, you can.

As for your two example sentences, (A) is fine, but we've been over this problem of using both his whole life and up to now several times, Yun. Don't use up to now.

Dear Richard,
I really appreciate your answers.
It seems that I am almost there.
In case of (B), the sentence is not appropriate even though there is no "for" before "his whole life" because its meaning is the same as "for this whole life".
Do I understand correctly?

Yun, my friend, I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'll give it one last try.

When you say (for) his whole life, that means "from the time he was born up to now," so it isn't necessary to say up to now because that is included in the idea of (for) his whole life. Whether or not you use the preposition for is irrelevant.

This is called a redundancy. It's like saying I'm sick, and I don't feel well. Do you see how ridiculous that sentence is? Of course if you're sick, you don't feel well. You don't need to tell us that, do you? It's the same thing with saying (for) his whole life up to now. It's redundant.

I hope this will end the discussion, Yun. There's really nothing else I can add.