He has lived/has been living since he was born here. - OK.
What about the past?
He had lived/had been living/lived/was living since he was/had been born there.
Which ones are correct?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi, Me_IV,
@Me_IV posted:He has lived/has been living since he was born here. - OK.
What about the past?
It is meaningless. You can say, 'He has lived / been living (alone/with his family/here) since he was born'. The meaning here is related to 'until now'.
@Me_IV posted:What about the past?
He had lived/had been living/lived/was living since he was/had been born there.
Which ones are correct?
To use this sentence in the past, you need to use 'the past perfect or the past perfect continuous' in the main clause and the past the simple in the subordinate clause.
He had lived/had been living (with his family / alone / there) since he was born. (until he died, for example).
The meaning here is related to 'until then', i.e. it is connected to a past moment in the past.
1 She lived in NY for two years since she divorced. (WRONG)
2 She lived in NY for two years after she divorced. (CORRECT)
3 She had lived in NY for two years since she divorced. (CORRECT)
I think that 1 is wrong because of "since". Do you agree?
2 and 3 are correct.
What's the difference between 2 and 3 (yet both are correct)?
Hi, Me_IV,
@Me_IV posted:1 She lived in NY for two years since she divorced. (WRONG)
I think that 1 is wrong because of "since". Do you agree?
With the meaning you have in mind, it doesn't work. However, if you mean 'since' to be used as 'because', it could work, but needs a very special context.
- I know Susan's husband hated NY. How did he allow her to live there for two years?
- But he didn't allow her. She lived in NY for two years since she divorced.
@Me_IV posted:2 She lived in NY for two years after she divorced. (CORRECT)
She lived in NY for two years after she divorced. = She lived in NY for two years after she had divorced.
This is the most natural one to use. The sequence of tenses is quite clear and it doesn't need more context.
@Me_IV posted:3 She had lived in NY for two years since she divorced. (CORRECT)
2 and 3 are correct.
What's the difference between 2 and 3 (yet both are correct)?
I don't feel comfortable with 3 because of the combination of 'for' and 'since', which I rarely hear or use. Anyway, I think the main point here is that the past perfect is not related to the since clause. Here, the main clause should be related to another past action.
- I attended Susan's funeral last week. She had lived in NY since she divorced.
Actually, I don't see any grounds for proclaiming 3 incorrect due to the combination of FOR and SINCE. Is there a rule or anything else that prohibits one to use them in the same sentence?
Speaking of "another past action". Does it have to be explicitly mentioned or just implied? Because in 2 there must be some other action as well which is not implied but definitely she did something after living there for 2 years.
@Me_IV posted:Actually, I don't see any grounds for proclaiming 3 incorrect due to the combination of FOR and SINCE. Is there a rule or anything else that prohibits one to use them in the same sentence?
I don't say it is grammatically incorrect, but it is rarely seen or used this way. I know you can say something like, "He has been studying for hours since this early morning." As you know, 'for' indicates a length of time, while 'since' indicates a point of time, so combining them in one sentence with this meaning makes it sound awkward.
@Me_IV posted:Speaking of "another past action". Does it have to be explicitly mentioned or just implied? Because in 2 there must be some other action as well which is not implied but definitely she did something after living there for 2 years.
I think you miss the point here. In 2, what happened first and what happened next? First, She divorced, then she moved to live in NY and did many other things (millions of things). The first past action (divorced) can be established by using the past perfect or the past simple, while only the past simple is used for the second action or actions (lived in NY, and she did …).
'Since' is normally preceded by the present perfect (progressive). So, if you relate your sentence to the present, it should be like this:
- She has lived/been living in NY (for two years) since she divorced.
The information with 'for' sounds redundant or unnecessary because it can be easily deduced . Then, you changed the present perfect to the past perfect. Does that mean 'she lived in NY' first, then she got her divorce? Of course not. The main clause has to be related to the past, otherwise, the present perfect (progressive) is the one to use.
@Me_IV posted:He has lived/has been living since he was born here. - OK.
Hi, Me_IV—What makes you fancy that that sentence is OK? Your placement of "here" is extremely awkward and hideously unnatural. It belongs after "living":
- He has live/has been living here since he was born.
@Me_IV posted:He had lived/had been living/lived/was living since he was/had been born there.
Which ones are correct?
Again, you have the locative adverbial "there" in the wrong place. If you placed it correctly, at the end of the main clause, you could use the past perfect:
- He had lived/had been living there since he was born.
David, thank you for spotting a typo but this minor issue is not worth mentioning. It's not the gist of the matter. Here is the gist.
FIRST
- How long did Jane work at CCL?
- She resigned in 2000 from LLP. She worked at CCL for 5 years after she RESIGNED from LLP.
OR
SECOND
- How long did Jane work at CCL?
- She resigned in 2000 from LLP. She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
@Me_IV posted:FIRST
- How long did Jane work at CCL?
- She resigned in 2000 from LLP. She worked at CCL for 5 years after she RESIGNED from LLP.
OR
SECOND
- How long did Jane work at CCL?
- She resigned in 2000 from LLP. She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
Only the first example is correct and makes sense; it means that she resigned from LLP in 2000 and worked at CCL for 5 years thereafter, until 2005.
The second example is logically contradictory. If she resigned in 2000 from LLP and, having already worked at CCL for 5 years, then her time at CCL preceded her time at LLP. But the "since"-clause indicates the reverse, that her time at LLP preceded her time at CCL.
You can't have it both ways, unless you want to say that she worked twice and resigned twice from LLP, in which case additions would be called for:
- She resigned in 2000 from LLP for the second time. She had worked at CCL for 5 years since she first resigned from LLP.
We could then infer that her time at CCL ended in 1995 or before!
Yes, I understand. I am still trying to figure out the right context for sentences like these:
Marry had been Helen's stepmother for 30 years, since she was 2 years old.
She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
Could you come up with a context to illustrate the usage of such sentences?
@Me_IV posted:Yes, I understand. I am still trying to figure out the right context for sentences like these:
Marry had been Helen's stepmother for 30 years, since she was 2 years old.
She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
Could you come up with a context to illustrate the usage of such sentences?
With a comma before the "since"-clause, both of those sentences are fine, the "since"-clause clarifying, nonrestrictively, the starting point of "for X years."
- I've been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 11 years, since 2011.
David, you have evaded the problem by using THE PRESENT PERFECT. But you can see that in my original sentence it is the past perfect.
She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
@Me_IV posted:David, you have evaded the problem by using THE PRESENT PERFECT. But you can see that in my original sentence it is the past perfect.
She HAD WORKED at CCL for 5 years SINCE she RESIGNED from LLP.
Me_IV, I haven't evaded anything. Mind your manners and pay attention. The past perfect works exactly the same way as the present perfect insofar as your last question and my explanation are concerned. Take any sentence with the past or present perfect and a "for"-phrase. You can place a comma after it and then add a "since"-phrase or "since"-clause specifying, nonrestrictively (i.e., parenthetically), the starting point of the durative period of the "for" phrase:
- Trump ceased to be president in 2021. He had been president for four years, since he beat Hillary Clinton.
- Trump ceased to be president in 2021. He had been president for four years, since 2016.
David thank you! I didn't think that "evading" can be insulting. Didn't mean to be rude, just commented on what I thought had happened.
I think I have understood the matter. I will make it more clear for you as to what was not clear and was confusing for a non-native speaker.
You said: The past perfect works exactly the same way as the present perfect insofar as your last question and my explanation are concerned.
This is what I disagree to a certain extent with. My arguments to back it up
1 I've been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 11 years, since 2011. (there is no need to include any additional point because it is implicitly implied)
1a I've been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 11 years, since 2011 (until now).
But it's not OK to say:
2 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
It should be
3 I was a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
In order to make this valid
2 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
there must be an explicit point
4 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011 until I started to study French.
I think the case is solved now.
@Me_IV posted:But it's not OK to say:
2 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
No, that sentence is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with it. It is a combination of "I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years" and "I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange since 2011," both of which sentences express the same thing in a different way, the one referring to the duration, and the other to the starting point of that durative period.
@Me_IV posted:It should be
3 I was a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
No, the perfect (present or past) is needed with "since"-phrases.
@Me_IV posted:In order to make this valid
2 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011.
there must be an explicit point
4 I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years, since 2011 until I started to study French.
I think the case is solved now.
No, it was "valid" (grammatically correct) to begin with. With its hideous juxtaposition of "for 9 years," "since 2011," and "until I started to study French," sentence (4) does not work. However, it would be marginably tolerable and marginally correct if you added a comma after "since 2011," if you really desire to specify the same time period in three different ways in the same sentence!
Then there is no difference between:
He lived there for two years after he quit his job.
He had lived there for two years since he quit his job.
------
Is it natural to say "I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years" in 2022? Why not "I was a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years". I think that the past perfect need an anchor.
- Are you a member of GE?
- Actually, I was a member for 9 years.
(I think correct)
- Are you a member of GE?
- Actually, I had been a member for 9 years.
(I think it's not correct without " I had been a member for 9 years until something else happened)
@Me_IV posted:Then there is no difference between:
He lived there for two years after he quit his job.
He had lived there for two years since he quit his job.
The first sentence is fine. The second sentence is incorrect without a comma, or a pause in speech, before "since"—except with one very strange meaning. If you use such a "since"-clause or "since"-phrase as a restrictive modifier in a sentence like "He had lived there for two years," the meaning will be that the two-year period of his living there came at some subinterval between his quitting his job and whatever past time is understood in the context. For example:
Let us suppose that the following facts are true:
(i) He quit his job in 2010.
(ii) He lived "there" from 2015 to 2017.
(iii) The past time in the context, anchoring the past perfect, is in 2021.
Then the speaker could say:
When I saw him, in 2021, he had lived there for two years since he had quit his job, in 2010. Specifically, he had lived there from 2015 to 2017.
The only context in which such a sentence would be likely to be spoken or written, that I know of, is one in which an institution has certain policy questions that need to be answered. For example, maybe there is a certain rule that applies only if someone had lived someplace for a two-year period at any subinterval of time between the date of one's quitting a job and a certain past time thereafter.
@Me_IV posted:Is it natural to say "I had been a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years" in 2022? Why not "I was a member of the Grammar Exchange for 9 years". I think that the past perfect need an anchor.
Both sentences are fine. The anchor for the past perfect would be supplied by the context; it does not need to be supplied by the words of the sentence.
Yes, that's fine.
@Me_IV posted:- Are you a member of GE?
- Actually, I had been a member for 9 years.
(I think it's not correct without " I had been a member for 9 years until something else happened)
The sentence is grammatically fine; you have just given it an absurd context. If you had provided a suitable context for it, the sentence would have been fine. The addition of the "until"-clause is not only unnecessary but wrong—again, unless you make the "until"-clause nonrestrictive by adding a comma or pause between "for 9 years" and "until." However, again, in that case the "until"-clause will simply be stating the meaning of "for 9 years" in a different way.