worked after/had worked since

[ROFTOK]

1
- How long did he work with HG company?
- He retired from his first job in 2000. So, he worked in HG for 5 years after he quit (his first job) in 2000.

2
- How long did he work with HG company?
- He retired from his first job in 2000. So, he had worked in HG for 5 years since he quit (his first job) in 2000.

I think the first dialogue is correct. What about the second one? The sentences in question are in bold.
Is 2 missing another action?

 

[5jj]

1
- How long did he work with HG company?
- He retired from his first job in 2000. So, he worked in with/for HHG for 5 years after he quit in 2000.

Do you mean that he was in his first job until 2000, when he went to HG, where he stayed for five years?

 

[ROFTOK]

Do you mean that he was in his first job until 2000, when he went to HG, where he stayed for five years?

No.
He quit his first job in 2000. Then he was employed by HG. He worked in HG from 2000 to 2005.

 

[5jj]

Do you mean that he was in his first job until 2000, when he went to HG, where he stayed for five years?

No.
He quit his first job in 2000. Then he was employed by HG. He worked in HG from 2000 to 2005.

I do not understand why you replied "no" to my question,

 

[ROFTOK]

I do not understand why you relied "no" to my question,

Maybe I didn't understand your question. It's this:

Do you mean that was in his first job until 2000, when he went to HG, where he stayed for five years?

What do you mean by that ?

 

[emsr2d2]

5jj omitted a word in post #2, which is what I think led to the confusion. I've added it (and added it to all the quotes of that response too). It should have said "Do you mean that he was in his first job until 2000?" Would you have understood that?
(Apologies - I hadn't seen post #5 when I made the amendments to posts 2, 3 and 4.)

 

[5jj]

5jj omitted a word in post #2,

Sorry.

 

[emsr2d2]

Sorry.

No problem! It's easily done, and it was easy to fix. I just hadn't realised there was a direct comment about it.

 

[ROFTOK]

Yes, he was in his first job until 2000.

 

[emsr2d2]

If he quit a job in 2000 but then went on to work somewhere else straight away, he didn't retire at all.

 

[5jj]

I see no reason at all for the 'So' at the beginning of the second sentence.

 

[ROFTOK]

If he quit a job in 2000 but then went on to work somewhere else straight away, he didn't retire at all.

OK. But it's not the point of the question.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't really understand the point of the question. Neither dialogue makes much sense.

- How long did he work for HG?
- Five years.

I don't see the need for any of the rest of it. You haven't explained why you gave all that extra information. What grammar point were you trying to practise with the bold parts?

 

[ROFTOK]

I don't really understand the point of the question. Neither dialogue makes much sense.

- How long did he work for HG?
- Five years.

I don't see the need for any of the rest of it.

Don't bother then if you don't see.

 

[ROFTOK]

I see no reason at all for the 'So' at the beginning of the second sentence.

A very important point, thank you.

 

[5jj]

A very important point, thank you.

Perhaps you might care to explain.

 

[ROFTOK]

Perhaps you might care to explain.

Do you mean you want me to answer my own question?

 

[5jj]

You seem intent on being awkward, Roftok, I am closing this thread.

In future threads, please remember forums are collaborative efforts, not confrontational.