where she lived for two years

[Maybo]

Why didn’t the writer use “had lived”?
(Hello! Magazine)

 

[Tarheel]

The way it is phrased is the natural way to say it. Why do you think it should be "had lived"?

 

[Maybo]

The way it is phrased is the natural way to say it. Why do you think it should be "had lived"?

It is because two years is a duration.

Are the following both acceptable?
1. I’ve learned English for five years.
2. I learned English for five years.

 

[Tarheel]

I wouldn't use either of your sentences. Instead, I might say:

I've been studying English for five years.

I'm afraid I'm not being very helpful today.

 

[emsr2d2]

If you live somewhere, let's say London, for two years, and then move away, when you talk about it later, you say "I lived in London for two years". (The duration is irrelevant.)

 

[Piscean]

Why didn’t the writer use “had lived”?

Native speakers use the past perfect far less frequently than some teaching materials suggest they should. If the sequence of past=time events is clear, we often stick with the past simple.

 

[Tarheel]

I first noticed several years ago that ESL learners tend to use perfect tenses (especially past perfect) much more often than I do. I have to assume that's what they're taught.

 

[Maybo]

Is this ok?:

I worked in company A for two years. I'm now working in company B.

 

[Tarheel]

Is this ok?:

I worked FOR company A for two years. I'm now working FOR company B.

 

[Tarheel]

I would say: "Now I'm working for company B.