1

Is this rule correct?

when 'for' and 'since' are used in a sentence(in present perfect tense) to show duration of an action they imply that the action is still in progress. Without the 'for', the last sentence suggests that the person doesn't live in Paris anymore and that the action is complete.

I have lived in Paris for two weeks.

I have lived in Paris.

6
  • Which part is the rule? Apr 14, 2013 at 17:48
  • "When 'for' and 'since' are used in a sentence(in present perfect tense) to show duration of an action they imply that the action is still in progress. Without 'for' and 'since' the sentence would imply that the action is complete." Eg., I have lived in Paris for two weeks. I have lived in Paris.
    – Monica
    Apr 14, 2013 at 17:50
  • The last sentence suggests that the person doesn't live in Paris anymore and that the action is complete
    – Monica
    Apr 14, 2013 at 17:51
  • There are a number of sentences there, but which part is the grammatical rule you want to know about? Only the first part? Real grammatical rules don't deal with specific sentences; they're general. Like the four senses of the Perfect. Apr 14, 2013 at 18:07
  • "When 'for' and 'since' are used in a sentence(in present perfect tense) they imply that the action is still in progress. Without 'for' and 'since' the sentence would imply that the action is complete." _this is a part of a rule or a statement if you like. I wonder if you native speakers agree with it.
    – Monica
    Apr 14, 2013 at 18:13

1 Answer 1

7

Context is king. I have lived in Paris for two weeks could mean that the speaker is no longer living there, but will not normally do so. I have lived in Paris, without further elaboration, will almost certainly mean that the speaker is now living elsewhere.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.