0

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

Improve this question
2
  • 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
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 10:04
  • Both are correct, but the first version might sound more natural to some speakers. See.
    – athlonusm
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 10:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

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

You must log in to answer this question.

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