1

For example: ...until/before I have been working here...

WRONG, why?

A complete sentence would be:

Before I have been working for McDonald's, I had been working for Chipotle.

The subordinate clause here logically means that I am presently working for McDonalds's. (The action is continuous, started from some point in the past.)

Were it not present perfect, the action would be non continuous and would sound vague.

  • 2
    Some subordinate clauses can contain the perfect progressive have been VERB-ing, as in "Although I have been working for McDonald's lately, I also have experience working for Chipotle." But since your subordinator before already signifies a time relationship, the tenses you have selected are too elaborate. Try something like "Before I started working for McDonald's, I worked for Chipotle." – Brian Donovan Jul 8 '15 at 15:36
  • I think you could get away with it in, say, Before I have been working long enough to collect a full pension, I'll probably have died of old age. – FumbleFingers Jul 8 '15 at 16:09
3

"Have been" doesn't work because you're using before as the conjunction. Try while, and "have been" works perfectly.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    But it means something different. It's wrong with before because the present perfect requires a duration with a starting point in the past and an ending point in the present. Before isn't necessarily a duration, but if it is, it has a starting and an ending point in the past; no present. – John Lawler Jul 8 '15 at 15:33
  • @JohnLawler, why not an ending point in the present? Something is before something in the present? – most venerable sir Jul 9 '15 at 14:29
  • 1
    Before I worked for McDonald's is fine, even though it refers to a duration; the point is that you started working for McDonald's at some time in the past, and any time before that is also in the past. But before I have been working for McDonald's is wrong because it uses present tense (cf before I work for McDonald's, equally wrong). Before and the present tense (including present perfect and present continuous and present perfect continuous constructions) are incompatible. You can say before now or just before with no object, and that means before the present; otherwise not. – John Lawler Jul 9 '15 at 14:43
  • 1
    @JohnLawler, If I get it correctly, the use of before denotes that the two actions are in the same tense. What you are saying is that an action in the present cannot precede another also in the present. Also does this apply to "after"? Like you can't say "after I returned home from the park, I have been doing my homework." To be correct you must say" after....I started doing my homework." But if you can't use anything in the present with a past tense clause, how do you tell the reader that the action continues till now? – most venerable sir Jul 10 '15 at 15:16
  • This is about before clauses, specifically, and it's not about tense, really; it's just that before has specific limitations as to what it can occur with, durationally speaking. There is no generalization to "you can't use anything in the present with a past tense clause". – John Lawler Jul 10 '15 at 15:47
2

The subordinate clause begins with "before." Therefore, it must be referring to a fixed event in time. Something cannot be said to "have been" before a continuous action -ing verb. "Before I started working" has the same effect of implying that you still work there. Obviously, you could use a past verb, "Before I worked" but if you want to really keep it simple, "Before working..." would be my favorite -- and satisfies the continuous aspect you're looking for,

| improve this answer | |
  • But don't before "have been" means an action is before the starting point of that "have been" action? – most venerable sir Jul 9 '15 at 14:33
  • If you say before working, do people know that is a present action? – most venerable sir Jul 10 '15 at 15:06
  • See John Lawler's comment above about the limitations of "before." "Before working" may not explicitly say you are still working there today, but it is certainly implicit. So readers generally have the idea that the person still works for McDonald's, yes. – oakfish56 Jul 10 '15 at 18:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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