[Grammar] Present perfect/present continuous

[Will17]

Hello!

I have two questions about the following sentences:

1) Can we use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous interchangeably in this case?

2) Do we need to use "for" before the number of years?


-I've worked (for) 20 years for this company.

-I've been working (for) 20 years for this company.

Thank you
W

 

[engee30]

Hello!

I have two questions about the following sentences:

1) Can we use the present perfect and the present perfect continuous interchangeably in this case?

2) Do we need to use "for" before the number of years?


-I've worked (for) 20 years for this company.

-I've been working (for) 20 years for this company.

Thank you
W

♥♦♣♠ NOT A TEACHER ♥♦♣♠
The answer to your first questions is - yes; to the other - no.

 

[Kotfor]

Not a teacher.

As far as I know both answers to your questions are - yes. Plus you could use IN as well instead of FOR. The third option is also possible which is "blank space".

 

[bhaisahab]

Not a teacher.

As far as I know both answers to your questions are - yes. Plus you could use IN as well instead of FOR. The third option is also possible which is "blank space".

No, "in" is not possible.

 

[Kotfor]

No, "in" is not possible.

I'd like to get it clear. What about these sentences? Why is it ok to use IN here?

1) I will say quite frankly since I have been here in 5 years I have never heard of so many studies, so many reports, so many commissions, and so little hardware that really works.

2) I grew up visiting the area a couple of times a year but I haven't been here in 5 years.

3) Nothing has worked there in a long time.

4) John Smith hasn't worked here in four months.

5) “She hasn't worked here in a decade,” I said to Ives

It's interesting to know.

 

[engee30]

I'd like to get it clear. What about these sentences? Why is it ok to use IN here?

1) I will say quite frankly since I have been here, in 5 years I have never heard of so many studies, so many reports, so many commissions, and so little hardware that really works.

2) I grew up visiting the area a couple of times a year but I haven't been here in 5 years.

3) Nothing has worked there in a long time.

4) John Smith hasn't worked here in four months.

5) “She hasn't worked here in a decade,” I said to Ives

It's interesting to know.

It's fine to use in in negative sentences, Kotfor.

 

[Kotfor]

What about the first one? Oh, I see you have put a comma there.

 

[engee30]

What about the first one?

Just look at my post just above yours - I've inserted a comma after ...since I have been here,... - that in goes with the next clause, the one following the comma ...I have never heard... .

 

[Kotfor]

It's interesting. I think that it would still be ok to use IN with THE LAST

-I've worked for this company in the last 20 years.

What do you think?

 

[engee30]

It's interesting. I think that it would still be ok to use IN with THE LAST

-I've worked for this company in the last 20 years.

What do you think?

I think the same as bhaisahab does - it won't work.
There's only one possible situation in which such use would be correct in a positive sentence:
It's the second pay rise I've had in the last 20 years. (with words like first, last, etc.; only)

 

[Kotfor]

I think the same as bhaisahab does - it won't work.
There's only one possible situation in which such use would be correct in a positive sentence:
It's the second pay rise I've had in the last 20 years. (with words like first, last, etc.; only)

I made a bit different conclusion. I agree with your "first - last" idea. But I am pretty sure that it works without them as well. The trick comes down to the word "last".

-I've worked for this company in the last 20 years.

I am pretty much sure that this is a correct sentence. However, if we omit "last" then it won't work with "in". Argee

PS Why am I sure it's ok? I have found a lot of examples with "in the last".

 

[The Dude]

Sorry Kotfor - this is still wrong.

When we use 'in' followed by a defined period of time (the last 20 years, my entire life, all the time I've known you, etc) we are connecting this period with one or more specific events. These events could be expressed in several ways, such as 'only once' or 'very rarely' or even 'never'.

For example:
'In all the time I've known you, you've only been abroad three times';
'I've never eaten an oyster in my entire life';
'He only spoke to her once in the following week'.

As with so many rules, there is bound to be the occasional exception:
'In 20 years of operation, the factory turned out 3 million tractors'.

To express an action that continued from the beginning to the end of a period, you cannot use 'in' but will need 'for':
'I've worked here for the last 20 years'.

In the sentences you quoted:
1) I will say quite frankly since I have been here, in 5 years I have never heard of so many studies, so many reports, so many commissions, and so little hardware that really works.

2) I grew up visiting the area a couple of times a year but I haven't been here in 5 years.

3) Nothing has worked there in a long time.

4) John Smith hasn't worked here in four months.

5) “She hasn't worked here in a decade,” I said to Ives

No.1 is fine because of all the specific events listed, but the others are examples of ellipsis, ie: a word that would normally be used to complete the sentence has been left out, trusting the listener to understand it. In each of these cases, the missing word is 'once'. Even so, these sentences are of a colloquial nature, just passable for speech, but not acceptable in prose. For this you'd need to replace the 'in' with 'for', for the reason given above (ie: not at all, from beginning to end).

By the way, the first part of example 1 above is most awkward. There is either repetition or confusion, neither of which is good! If I'd been there for 5 years, I wouldn't have said 'since I've been here, in 5 years...' as that would be repetition. If I'd been there for 20 years, confusion results from saying 'in the last 5 years'. Why mention the previous 15? All too complicated. Just use one or the other.

Hope this helps, or have I muddied the water?:-?

 

[birdeen's call]

I believe a sentence like

I haven't eaten in two days.

is much more likely to be heard in the US than in the UK. (And not because there's more food in Great Britain!)

 

[5jj]

Kotfor: -I've worked for this company in the last 20 years.

Sorry Kotfor - this is still wrong.

It is wrong if 'in' is used as an alternative to 'for'. It is, however, acceptable in certain situations:

A: You haven't worked for this company for at least 25 years:
B: I know that I gave up my full-time job thirty years ago, but I have worked for this company in the last twenty years. I remember that I didsome consultancy work in 1995, ....

To express an action that continued from the beginning to the end of a period, you cannot use 'in' but will need 'for':
'I've worked here for the last 20 years'.{/QUOTE] Well, as engee pointed out, you can use 'in' in negative sentences.

In the sentences you quoted:

1) I will say quite frankly since I have been here, in 5 years I have never heard of so many studies, so many reports, so many commissions, and so little hardware that really works.

2) I grew up visiting the area a couple of times a year but I haven't been here in 5 years.

3) Nothing has worked there in a long time.

4) John Smith hasn't worked here in four months.

5) “She hasn't worked here in a decade,” I said to Ives

No.1 is fine because of all the specific events listed, but the others are examples of ellipsis, ie: a word that would normally be used to complete the sentence has been left out, trusting the listener to understand it. In each of these cases, the missing word is 'once'. Even so, these sentences are of a colloquial nature, just passable for speech, but not acceptable in prose. For this you'd need to replace the 'in' with 'for', for the reason given above (ie: not at all, from beginning to end).

I don't see that there is any ellipsis here - the sentences are acceptable as they are. I have heard such utterances often enough from Americans to feel that they are more than 'just acceptable' in speech. I think that BC is right when she says that these are more likely to be heard in AmE than in BrE, but they are becoming more common in BrE, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Kotfor]

Sorry Kotfor - this is still wrong.

I am sorry The Dude, but I am not going to accept any apologies from you because I don't deserve them. You are absolutely right. This nuance must have never been realized by me. I must say, though, as for the sentences with ellipsis, I also, as fivejedjon does not, don't find them there. May be I am looking for them not as good as I should. Still I think that they make sense in precise accordance with your explanation of the matter.

 

[Kotfor]

I believe a sentence like

I haven't eaten in two days.

is much more likely to be heard in the US than in the UK. (And not because there's more food in Great Britain!)

AS for this sentence I think it basically means the same as

I haven't eaten for two days.

The bottom line is that the speaker was deprived of food (by someone's will, may be even his own) during two days. They have the same semantics but different compositions.

 

[engee30]

AS for this sentence I think it basically means the same as

I haven't eaten for two days.

:up: Your correct in your thinking.

 

[engee30]

Kotfor: -I've worked for this company in the last 20 years.
It is wrong if 'in' is used as an alternative to 'for'. It is, however, acceptable in certain situations:

A: You haven't worked for this company for at least 25 years:
B: I know that I gave up my full-time job thirty years ago, but I have worked for this company in the last twenty years. I remember that I didsome consultancy work in 1995, ....

:up: That's true.

 

[Kotfor]

Could you tell me what is meant in this sentence?

- I have been working with this company for the last year.

What is implied under this "last year". My guess.

1) 365 days back from the moment of speaking
2) The current calendar year.

I think it should be the first one. What do you think?

 

[engee30]

Could you tell me what is meant in this sentence?

- I have been working with this company for the last year.

What is implied under this "last year". My guess.

1) 365 days back from the moment of speaking
2) The current calendar year.

I think it should be the first one. What do you think?

:up: I think as much, Kotfor.