4

I saw a sentence in an email and thought it was a bit awkward. Please see below

"I have served in the army for over 20 years until I retired."

The person is no longer in the army but wrote me such a sentence. If the person is no longer in the army, can the person use "have served"? Shouldn't it be "I served in the army for over 20 years until I retired"? Or is this person simply stating that he has the experience of serving in the army some time in the past?

8

This should be, as you say,:

"I served in the army for over 20 years until I retired."

Most native speakers don't know how to use the present perfect, and most non-native Anglophones make many errors in tense and aspect in English. Tense in English is sometimes quite difficult.

1
  • 1
    +1. You can say "I have served in the army for 20 years. I joined in 1983 and I'm still there now!", but "I have served until I retired" isn't quite right. – Matt May 13 '13 at 13:12
0

That sentence seems similar to "I have walked downtown every day for a year." In both the sentences, the present perfect tense doesn't imply I am still doing the action I described.

5
  • However, "... have <action> ..." implies discrete action or activity. – GalacticCowboy May 13 '13 at 15:08
  • It does not imply that you are currently in the act of walking downtown, but it says that walking downtown is a habit that you currently have (and that it is a habit you started a year ago). I would expect you to walk downtown every day for the next year as well. Therefore, the interpretation cannot apply to the OP's construct. – Hellion May 13 '13 at 16:39
  • No, they're not similar. Actually, I think your sentence does imply that the walking is still going on; at least, it reads that way to me. Moreover, even if your sentence didn't imply you're still waking downtown - it doesn't imply you're not still taking daily walks, either. In the O.P.'s sentence, there is no question that the army service is in the past, and is no longer ongoing. – J.R. May 14 '13 at 2:52
  • @J.R. Do you mean that the next sentence could not be "I am not taking walks anymore because my work leaves me less time for such activities."? – kiamlaluno May 14 '13 at 11:24
  • @k: By itself, I wouldn't think so; that verb tense seems to imply the activity will continue for the foreseeable future. Moreover, if I were to string those two thoughts together, I'd use the conjunction but: "I have walked downtown every day for a year, but now I won't be able to, because of my new job." – J.R. May 14 '13 at 13:01

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.