0

"They’ve worked there for three years but they still got sacked" or
"They'd worked there for three years but they still got sacked"

(I had read the first version in the article but I don't know why the second text was not used)

4
  • 1
    Present Perfect (your first version) implies great immediacy, relevance to time of utterance than Past Perfect (the second). So you'd be very unlikely to use the first version if they were sacked several years ago, but you might well use the second in that context. Note that they got sacked is a somewhat downmarket / colloquial alternative to standard they were sacked. Jan 2 '20 at 13:57
  • And if I use "are" intsted of "were" then what would it mean Jan 2 '20 at 16:11
  • 1
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. You didn't use "were" anywhere in your question text (and it's not easy to see where you could have). I suppose a few native speakers might say They’ve worked there for three years but they're still sacked / they still get sacked, but it would be a fairly unusual way of amplifying the "relevance to time of utterance" implications of Present Perfect. And it's extremely unlikely they'd use that form after the Past Perfect (that would be a really confusing mixture of tense-based time references), so I suppose you could say that's a "difference". Jan 2 '20 at 16:47
  • I don't understand any of your comments. Does my first comment answer your question or not? Jan 3 '20 at 18:28
2

Both are okay; however, the context is somewhat different.

The have worked there for three years but still got sacked

the event is quite recent. We may call it a recent past.

The had worked there for three years but still got sacked

the event is quite old. It is a distant past.

0

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.