Hi, given this sentence he worked here since 1995 how is your reaction to it? Is it acceptable? If so, do you think it conveys that the person doesn't work at the same place anymore?
Thank you
José
He worked here since 1995
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
-
engteacher
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:24 pm
Re: He worked here since 1995
[quote="Metamorfose"]Hi, given this sentence [i] he worked here since 1995[/i] how is your reaction to it? Is it acceptable? If so, do you think it conveys that the person doesn't work at the same place anymore?[/quote]
I think it would be acceptable IF you mean for it to imply that he still works here. In other words NO, it doesn't convey the idea of the simple past here as it stands alone i.e. no context. Of couse, depending on the context, one might be able to infer the meaning as he used to work here.
I think it would be acceptable IF you mean for it to imply that he still works here. In other words NO, it doesn't convey the idea of the simple past here as it stands alone i.e. no context. Of couse, depending on the context, one might be able to infer the meaning as he used to work here.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Sure
It comes from another forum I take part (most of the messages are in Portuguese, so I'm not posting a link, but if you want to give it a go, let me know).
One of the participants answered a question about the Past Simple x Present Perfect, she said that a sentence like He has worked there since 1995 implies that the person does not work at the mentioned place anylonger, then came one American who corrected the previous answer and said that a setence like He worked here since 1995 would imply that the person does not work at the same place anymore.
Thanks people for your feedback so far.
José
It comes from another forum I take part (most of the messages are in Portuguese, so I'm not posting a link, but if you want to give it a go, let me know).
One of the participants answered a question about the Past Simple x Present Perfect, she said that a sentence like He has worked there since 1995 implies that the person does not work at the mentioned place anylonger, then came one American who corrected the previous answer and said that a setence like He worked here since 1995 would imply that the person does not work at the same place anymore.
Thanks people for your feedback so far.
José
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Ok, but even exchanging since with from, don't we need a phrase to complete the idea the sentence conveys like He worked here from 1995 to 2000? Doesn't using only from render it incomplete?The sentence seems a little awkward as it is. I would prefer: He's worked here since 1995 - suggesting he still does; or: He worked here from 1995 - suggesting he doesn't any longer.
JR
-
engteacher
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:24 pm
Both participants are incorrect.
He has worked there since 1995 tells us that he started here in 1995 and still works here.
He worked here since 1995 is incorrect. It would need to read: 'He worked here in 1995' = simple past and tells us the he no longer works here.
He has worked here since 1995 = present perfect and tells us the he still works here.
He has worked there since 1995 tells us that he started here in 1995 and still works here.
He worked here since 1995 is incorrect. It would need to read: 'He worked here in 1995' = simple past and tells us the he no longer works here.
He has worked here since 1995 = present perfect and tells us the he still works here.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
It's very dangerous to go ascribing exact meanings to out-of-context sentences. I always think of a page in a comic. Who knows what bizarre situation has led to what is said in the sixth picture?
Having said that, I don't see how "He has worked there since 1995" tells us anything about his present stuation:
"Well, I think it's most unfair that they fired him. After all, he's worked there since 1995."
"Well, I think it's most unfair that they are going to fire him. After all, he's worked there since 1995."
You'd have to be very picky about sequence of tenses to insist on "he had worked there" in the first example. And it would mess up the "since" a bit.
The other end of "since" is now. I can't see the problem with
"He worked there since 1995"
either and curiously I was thinking along lolwhites's lines, except that I envisaged a burnt down factory! Both are ways a way of reconciling a finished past "He worked there" with something that means "from 1995 to the present day".
Having said that, I don't see how "He has worked there since 1995" tells us anything about his present stuation:
"Well, I think it's most unfair that they fired him. After all, he's worked there since 1995."
"Well, I think it's most unfair that they are going to fire him. After all, he's worked there since 1995."
You'd have to be very picky about sequence of tenses to insist on "he had worked there" in the first example. And it would mess up the "since" a bit.
The other end of "since" is now. I can't see the problem with
"He worked there since 1995"
either and curiously I was thinking along lolwhites's lines, except that I envisaged a burnt down factory! Both are ways a way of reconciling a finished past "He worked there" with something that means "from 1995 to the present day".
-
MrPedantic
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:45 pm
1. He has worked there since 1995.
2. He worked there since 1995.
3. He worked there from 1995.
I would agree that in #1 we can't say for certain whether he still works there; but we can perhaps say that the situation (his working there) is still current.
If something is still "news", the present perfect may fit, as in the "firing" example; but every day it would become more difficult to say "he has worked there".
#2 sounds odd to me, as a BrE speaker; but it falls into the category of "structures I wouldn't be surprised to hear in another dialect". I would presumably say #3 instead.
MrP
2. He worked there since 1995.
3. He worked there from 1995.
I would agree that in #1 we can't say for certain whether he still works there; but we can perhaps say that the situation (his working there) is still current.
If something is still "news", the present perfect may fit, as in the "firing" example; but every day it would become more difficult to say "he has worked there".
#2 sounds odd to me, as a BrE speaker; but it falls into the category of "structures I wouldn't be surprised to hear in another dialect". I would presumably say #3 instead.
MrP
-
engteacher
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:24 pm
Yes, context is pretty much always the key.
"He worked there since 1995." is odd and is not "correct" grammar, but maybe it's used in a dialect as MrPedantic suggests. However, I can't see how 'since' can be used with this example to imply he is still working there.
Back to present perfect for this example - an action or situation which began in the past and is still current - it fits and it tells us that he began in 1995 and still is works there.
I suppose many could argue about what "correct" grammar means versus being understood (in context) i.e. effective communication. If it's clear and understood, then there's no problem. If it's not clear, then communication might be misunderstood and that can cause a problem.
"He worked there since 1995." is odd and is not "correct" grammar, but maybe it's used in a dialect as MrPedantic suggests. However, I can't see how 'since' can be used with this example to imply he is still working there.
Back to present perfect for this example - an action or situation which began in the past and is still current - it fits and it tells us that he began in 1995 and still is works there.
I suppose many could argue about what "correct" grammar means versus being understood (in context) i.e. effective communication. If it's clear and understood, then there's no problem. If it's not clear, then communication might be misunderstood and that can cause a problem.