Search results for 'tag:Resume tag:Present perfect' matching tags 'Resume' and 'Present perfect'

Re: Two questions

CalifJim — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:50:58 GMT

Goofie
Why is "He bought something" a correct sentence? cause I have learned that if there is no time-indicator in the sentence that it as to be "He has bought something".

You have it backwards! If there is a time indicator you cannot use the present perfect!

*He has bought something last Monday would be incorrect.

Goofie
What is the difference between
- He has worked here for 10 years
- He has been working here for 10 years

For the verbs "work" and "live" there is no real difference. Use whichever you like.

The only difference that I notice is that if you're going to use has been working it has to be a case where he is still working there. If you use has worked, it can mean he is still working there (same as for has been working) or not, as long as he once worked there.

Generally, either one or the other is used somewhat indifferently if he is still working there, but if he isn't still working there, only has worked will do, and that situation is a bit special -- a little like something on a resume. For example, if he worked at ABC for 10 years, but the whole 10 years was 20 years ago, you can say that he has worked at ABC (and you probably wouldn't add for 10 years), but not that he has been working at ABC.

Re: "I'm qualified to be a cook SINCE passing the exam."

Mister Micawber — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:03:13 GMT

I suppose we could haggle that it should be present perfect, but this is a common enough utterance. For a resume, I would change it. More disconcerting is the two be-verbs. I have been a qualified cook since passing...

Re: What the difference?

Goodman — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:38:33 GMT

CalifJim wrote:

I know that we use Present Perfect simple when an action or situation started in the past and still continues in the present.
<>So he's still working for XYZ.
I think we've been around this block quite a few times, but apparently we still haven't seen all the sights, so here we go again!

You are thinking of tenses as if they have only to do with time, pure and simple. You need to expand your ideas of what tenses tell us, because often they tell us more than the relative time something happened or if something continues or doesn't continue.

Suppose two executives (Mr. Alan and Mr. Bing) are looking over the resume of a prospective employee, Mr. Charles.

<>A. -- Do you think we should hire Mr. Charles? Here. Take a look at his resume.
B. -- Hmm. This is impressive. I see that he has worked for XYZ for two years.
A. -- Yes. I noticed that. And he has worked for PQR for three years, which I think is even more impressive.
B. -- PQR, too? When was that?
A. -- Well, according to what Mr. Charles has written in his resume, that was back in 1994. From 1994 to 1998, in fact.
B. -- But he is not still working at PQR?
A. -- NO! Of course not. I said that, according to his resume, he has worked for PQR for three years. That was years ago. It's now 2007. On his resume it says he is now working for ABC. But, as I said, he has worked for PQR for three years, so he does have that experience.
B. -- Mr. Alan, your grammar astonishes me! If he has worked for PQR for three years, then how can he be working for ABC now? According to my grammar book, he must still be working for PQR.
A. -- Mr. Bing, you must throw away that grammar book. It is not helping you at all. It has given rules that are too simple -- rules that do not apply in many situations. Ask the people at English Forums instead!
B. -- Mr. Alan, I will take your advice. Now, back to Mr. Charles. Shall we invite him in for an interview?
...

CJ

Hi CJ,

I have always regarded you, among few others, as the "top dogs" of the pound and I still do. Additionally, I agree, the content in a single sentence can not define what something is actually meant to say without supporting context. Based on the dialog that your have scripted, I felt that past perfect should be used to described Mr. Charles' experience with PQR. From the context of XYZ, it's hard to determine with certainty if he is still working there. However, if one is to make an assumption, the logical one will be that he still is. If what I have learned over the years holds true, events happened in the past with long duration should always be described in past perfect so that a chronological order is established. That's just my opinion....

Re: What the difference?

CalifJim — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:41:51 GMT

I know that we use Present Perfect simple when an action or situation started in the past and still continues in the present.

<>So he's still working for XYZ.

I think we've been around this block quite a few times, but apparently we still haven't seen all the sights, so here we go again!

You are thinking of tenses as if they have only to do with time, pure and simple. You need to expand your ideas of what tenses tell us, because often they tell us more than the relative time something happened or if something continues or doesn't continue.

Suppose two executives (Mr. Alan and Mr. Bing) are looking over the resume of a prospective employee, Mr. Charles.

<>A. -- Do you think we should hire Mr. Charles? Here. Take a look at his resume.
B. -- Hmm. This is impressive. I see that he has worked for XYZ for two years.
A. -- Yes. I noticed that. And he has worked for PQR for three years, which I think is even more impressive.
B. -- PQR, too? When was that?
A. -- Well, according to what Mr. Charles has written in his resume, that was back in 1994. From 1994 to 1998, in fact.
B. -- But he is not still working at PQR?
A. -- NO! Of course not. I said that, according to his resume, he has worked for PQR for three years. That was years ago. It's now 2007. On his resume it says he is now working for ABC. But, as I said, he has worked for PQR for three years, so he does have that experience.
B. -- Mr. Alan, your grammar astonishes me! If he has worked for PQR for three years, then how can he be working for ABC now? According to my grammar book, he must still be working for PQR.
A. -- Mr. Bing, you must throw away that grammar book. It is not helping you at all. It has given rules that are too simple -- rules that do not apply in many situations. Ask the people at English Forums instead!
B. -- Mr. Alan, I will take your advice. Now, back to Mr. Charles. Shall we invite him in for an interview?
...

CJ

Re: Describing past events; past, present perfect or past perfect

Clive — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:06:07 GMT

Hi,

which sentence is more appropriate, given that the business has ceased to exist and I like to highlight that I still have the business acumen in me today. The context is resume.

1. My business acumen enabled me to found a successful business during my school days. This implies, but does tot clearly state, that you still have the acumen.

2. My business acumen had enabled me to found a successful business during my school days. No.

3. My business acumen has enabled me to found a successful business during my school days. The present perfect part refers to the present time, but the rest of the sentence refers to a past activity, and these two parts do not fit well together.

None of these really are structured in the way that you want. I suggest simply -

I have excellent business acumen. For example, I founded a successful business during my school days.

Best wishes, Clive

Describing past events; past, present perfect or past perfect

Cogar — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:47:18 GMT

Hello all,

which sentence is more appropriate, given that the business has ceased to exist and I like to highlight that I still have the business acumen in me today. The context is resume.

1. My business acumen enabled me to found a successful business during my school days.

2. My business acumen had enabled me to found a successful business during my school days.

3. My business acumen has enabled me to found a successful business during my school days.

Thank you.

Re: tense?

rishonly — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:28:07 GMT

Goodman wrote:

Rish,

What I tried to say was most of the English volunteers on this forum know their subject and can explain questions without having the needs of going to âGoogleâ or dictionary which are good sourcs of information for learning. But if someone constantly relies on Goggle and Dictionary to retrieve information so that he can pass onto others, then there is a question about his intent and integrity.

I presume most of us here know how past participle behaves which was what caused the heavy discussion to begin with. Past or present perfect tense work with auxiliary âhaveâ or âhadâ but with a âverb to BEâ, a past participle can behave like an adjective i.e. She was well dressed. Thatâs what I meant by âbehaveâ and sorry to say that was where the disagreeing was all about.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Re: tense?

Goodman — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:50:59 GMT

Rish,

What I tried to say was most of the English volunteers on this forum know their subject and can explain questions without having the needs of going to âGoogleâ or dictionary which are good sourcs of information for learning. But if someone constantly relies on Goggle and Dictionary to retrieve information so that he can pass onto others, then there is a question about his intent and integrity.

I presume most of us here know how past participle behaves which was what caused the heavy discussion to begin with. Past or present perfect tense work with auxiliary âhaveâ or âhadâ but with a âverb to BEâ, a past participle can behave like an adjective i.e. She was well dressed. Thatâs what I meant by âbehaveâ and sorry to say that was where the disagreeing was all about.

Re: verbs not used in the present perfect simple

Hela — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:00:12 GMT

Dear Mr Micawber,

Mister Micawber wrote:

I presume it is the same stative verbs that do not normally appear in any progressive form: see, prefer, hate, contain, cost, etc.

The verbs that you have stated above can be used in the present perfect but not in the present perfect progressive, right? Is it the same for "hope, remember and forget"?

But the verb "choose" can be used in the progressive form, can't it?

Thank you for all the help you provide me. I wish you all the best for the year ahead.

With all my due respect,

Hela

Re: verbs not used in the present perfect simple

Mister Micawber — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:33:15 GMT

That sounds more reasonable, Hela-- but I have never thought about a list of verbs that may apply. I presume it is the same stative verbs that do not normally appear in any progressive form: see, prefer, hate, contain, cost, etc.