If the first sentence is acceptable, why not the second?
Jane has lived in Paris until now.
Sally has lost her keys until now.
Jane has lived in Paris until now.
Sally has lost her keys until now.
|
Using "until now" is tye present perfect
If the first sentence is acceptable, why not the second?
Jane has lived in Paris until now. Sally has lost her keys until now.
Because living is something you do over a duration of time whilst loosing something is something you do at one point in time.
Since it shows a duration of time, shouldn't it be "has been living in Paris" (if she still lives there) or "lived in Paris" (if she lives there no more - because we specify when she left - now)..? I thought continuity is demostrated by contiuous tenses (eg present perfect continuous - has been living). Simple perfect tenses are supposed to show a non-defined time frame... so in my mind it should be
a) Jane has lived in Paris. (sometime in the past - we don't care about the time but about the fact) b) Jane has been living in Paris (she is still living there) c) Jane lived in Paris (until a specific point in time - but doesn't live there anymore) I know native speakers (of any language) don't open a grammar book in order to speak, so rules are not set in stone, but grammatically speaking, "has lived in Paris until now" sounds incorrect to me... and I could very well be wrong, so I'm interested in comments.
<Since it shows a duration of time, shouldn't it be "has been living in Paris" (if she still lives there) or "lived in Paris" (if she lives there no more - because we specify when she left - now)..?>
We can also say: "How long has Jane lived in Paris? (knowing that she still lives there and has no plans to move). It's the present perfect of "up to now". |