past perfec continous vs. past simple

[CarloSsS]

Is this sentence correct?

Before you came here, how long had you been working in Spain?

I'd say this instead:

Before you came here, for how long did work in Spain?

Or maybe they're both all right but there's a difference in meaning?

 

[bhaisahab]

Is this sentence correct?

Before you came here, how long had you been working in Spain?

I'd say this instead:

Before you came here, for how long did work in Spain?

Or maybe they're both all right but there's a difference in meaning?

They are both correct. I would use the first. There is no difference in meaning.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Is this sentence correct?

Before you came here, how long had you been working in Spain?

I'd say this instead:

Before you came here, for how long did work in Spain?

Or maybe they're both all right but there's a difference in meaning?

There is a word missing in your version.

 

[CarloSsS]

There is a word missing in your version.

Do you mean "for" in the first sentence?

 

[CarloSsS]

How about the register, is there a difference as far as the register is concerned? And what about the variety of English? Is there no difference there either?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Do you mean "for" in the first sentence?

No. "You" in the second sentence. "For how long did you work in Spain?"

 

[engee30]

CarloSsS, as a rule of thumb - before and after don't usually require a perfect tense as they both already tell you about the sequence of events, unlike when, in which case you need to use a proper tense to get your message across properly.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Is this sentence correct?

Before you came here, how long had you been working in Spain?

I'd say this instead:

Before you came here, for how long did work in Spain?

Or maybe they're both all right but there's a difference in meaning?

There is nothing wrong with "how long had you been working in Spain". But because of the timing clue provided by "before you came here" the verb "were" would be acceptable.