We lived in Glasgow for six years

[Maybo]

I'm doing a grammar exercise about the present perfect and simple past.

Example from Ch.20:

We lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore.

(Essential Grammar in Use 3rd edition by Raymond Murphy)

I always thought that when we used "for", we needed to use the present perfect or past perfect. For example, "We had lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore. In what situation should we use the simple past with "for"?

 

[5jj]

In what situation should we use the simple past with "for"?

When you are talking about the duration of a situation that began and ended in the past.

 

[Maybo]

When you are talking about the duration of a situation that began and ended in the past.

What's the difference between the sample sentence and my sentence below? Does the following only emphasize the end of the period while the sample sentence emphasize the period of six years?

"We had lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore.“ (Actually, I'm not sure if it's a correct sentence.)

 

[Tdol]

It doesn't work well for me. I'd drop your rule as an absolute standard.

 

[Maybo]

Example from Ch.20:

We lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore.

(Essential Grammar in Use 3rd edition by Raymond Murphy)

Where can I get the hint that the simple past should be used for "live" based on context?

 

[tedmc]

Where can I get the hint that the simple past should be used for "live" based on context?

You do not use the past perfect tense when the simple past suffices.

The past perfect tense is used to distinguish the order (which happened first) of two events which happened in the past. There is no such necessity in your sentence.

 

[5jj]

Compare:

We lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore.
We had lived in Glasgow for six years when we moved to Singapore.

 

[jutfrank]

I always thought that when we used "for", we needed to use the present perfect or past perfect. For example, "We had lived in Glasgow for six years, but now we live in Singapore. In what situation should we use the simple past with "for"?

What you've learnt here is wrong and you need to unlearn it right away. We use for + period to make preposition phrases to talk about durations. It doesn't matter whether those durations are in the past or present or future, and it doesn't matter which tense you use.

I can't quite work out what exactly you're asking in this thread but it appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the meaning/use of the past simple. Tell us what you know, and then we can guide you more usefully.

 

[Maybo]

What you've learnt here is wrong and you need to unlearn it right away. We use for + period to make preposition phrases to talk about durations. It doesn't matter whether those durations are in the past or present or future, and it doesn't matter which tense you use.

I can't quite work out what exactly you're asking in this thread but it appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the meaning/use of the past simple. Tell us what you know, and then we can guide you more usefully.

I was taught that when we use "for", it refers to a period, and when we talk about a period, we need to use the present perfect or the past perfect.
For example, "We have lived in Glasgow for six years."

But since we are not living in Glasgow, "We have lived in Glasgow for six years" should be happened in the past. So I said "we had lived in Glasgow for six years."

 

[probus]

"If I make any mistake in English please let me know. "

Okay. You just used "we has" twice. You know better than that, Maybo.

 

[5jj]

I was taught that when we use "for", it refers to a period, and when we talk about a period, we need to use the present perfect or the past perfect.

You were taught incorrectly. We can use for with any appropriate tense.

 

[GoesStation]

But since we are not living in Glasgow, "We [STRIKE]has[/STRIKE] have lived in Glasgow for six years" should be [STRIKE]happened[/STRIKE] set in the past. So I said "we had lived in Glasgow for six years."

I had to guess what you meant by "should be happened in the past."

As noted above, the rule you were taught is incorrect. The past perfect sets an event in a past time frame that's earlier than another time frame established by the context.

 

[Maybo]

I wrote a conversation to see if I get it right:

May: What happened? I heard some noise.
Bob: John was angry so he kicked his chair for an hour!

 

[5jj]

It's a very unlikely situation, but the sentences are grammatically correct.