A continued hiring B's services, twice a week, ...

The sentences could continue in a few ways:

... until reaching two months.

... to the point of reaching two months.

I'm not sure, though if these two options imply that the services halted.

Is that the case? If so, what are other suggestion that don't imply that the services ceased?

  • 1
    Not hiring, using. A continued using B's services for two months. What's wrong with that?
    – Lambie
    Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 15:01
  • As Lambie says, for {time period}. I went to that restaurant once a week for three years.
    – TimR
    Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 15:24
  • But hiring is usually conceived of as a one-time thing when it involves a single-person, who is "brought on board" by being hired, or as a recurrent thing: We have been hiring interns from that university's program for more than ten years.
    – TimR
    Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 15:27
  • If the activity hasn't yet stopped at time of utterance, you could imply this using a perfect form: A has continued using B's services for two months (or just A has been using B's services for two months). Commented Apr 15, 2018 at 15:28

1 Answer 1


There are a few way of rephrasing this to avoid the implication that the services stopped. Which you use depends on the verb tense you want to use, although the first example is closest to what you had written.

For the next two months, A hired B's services twice a week.

For the past two months, A has been hiring B's services twice a week.

It's assumed that "the story" will continue after this, indicating if the two-month pattern changes or not.

To address some comments, the use of "A repeatedly hiring B's services" may sound strange, but it's actually quite acceptable in the right context. Although hire can be associated with an employer / employee situation, it certainly need not be.

"I'd like to hire your services this week—and then twice a week afterwards."

Dictionary definitions include both uses of the word. You typically "hire the services" of somebody who performs temporary, time-limited work, such as a babysitter, a gardener, a chiropractor, and so on. Such people are not given a salary but repeatedly "employed" as needed.

Stylistically, such phrasing used to be in much more common use—especially when people were speaking formally. (Before the mid-twentieth century, the upper class were quite often "hiring the services" of working class labourers.) These days, you don't hear it as much. But it's certainly not wrong.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .