1

This book (made by a Korean) says you have to use 'since' or 'for' with present perfect, so you can't use 'for' with past simple. Seriously? ಠ‸ಠ (I'm confused)

He [worked / has worked] at the same company for 10 years.

The answer is 'has worked' and that means he worked 10 years ago and he is working now.

In this sentence, is the past simple [worked] wrong grammatically?

How about this situation:

He worked at the same company but does not work now. In this case, is

He worked at the same company for 10 years

still wrong? If so, how can I say that?

enter image description here

  • I'm thinking may be this book is wrong but I'm not sure. 'I slept for 2 hours last night' is this wrong? 'I slept 2 hours last night' is this right? – Dasik Dec 20 '19 at 10:04
  • Both are correct, but the first version might sound more natural to some speakers. See. – athlonusm Dec 20 '19 at 10:40
2

You can use for with the past simple if the situation you are describing is entirely in the past and is no longer true.

He worked at the same company for 10 years (from 1990 to 2000), but then he was fired.

If the situation is still true, then you should use the perfect simple or the perfect continuous.

He has worked at the same company for 10 years (from 2009 to 2019).
He has been working at the same company for 10 years (from 2009 to 2019).

Since your book says you should use the perfect, use the perfect, has worked.


For more information, take a look at these answers: [1], [2], [3], [4].

| improve this answer | |

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.