+0
Martha has lived in Europe and Asia with her parents when she was little; therefore, she is fluent in five languages.

Is it right to use the present perfect form in the above? Must it be changed into simple past form--lived? Thanks.
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
Is it right to use the present perfect form in the above? Must it be changed into simple past form--lived?
It is wrong. It absolutely must be changed as you propose -- because of the when clause.

The same objection does not apply to the past-viewpoint version, however:

Martha had lived in Europe and Asia ... when she was little; therefore, she was fluent ...

CJ
<<Martha had lived in Europe and Asia ... when she was little; therefore, she was fluent ...>>

For a moment, I thought I was the only dog barking...Emotion: big smile
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
CJ's response says that the past perfect can be used because it's followed by a simple-past phrase, which in the orignal was in the present!

It has nothing to do with using past perfect to show duration.
True. The had only works when you change the end to was fluent.

CJ
Grammar GeekCJ's response says that the past perfect can be used because it's followed by a simple-past phrase, which in the orignal was in the present!

It has nothing to do with using past perfect to show duration.

Hi Barab,

I wasn't including the part "that's why she was fluent" in the past perfect consideration. Just the context "when she was little", to me, is enough reason for past perfect. I also said:

"When she was little.." is indicative of the total time past. I agree. However, does it occur to you that there was a time when she was "littler", perhaps she was living in Asia before Europe? I don't mean to beat the horse. I just try to explain my logic, wrong or right, and why I said what I said.

Don't you or do you agree? If you still think it's a "don't", you win !Emotion: wink

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I'm sorry, but I absolutely do not agree. It's not a matter of winning, it's a matter of not confusing other learners into thinking that past perfect indicated duration.
Barb,

Hey, no apology needed. You are entitled to your opinions. If we all see the same thing, life will be very boring. Emotion: big smile

Now, just bear with me for one more scenario. What if I throw in an adverbial phrase to the debated sentence "She had lived in Europe and Asia with her family for many years when she was little. That's why ......Do you still disagree?
Thanks, my gracious friends.

Got it.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
GoodmanBarb,

Hey, no apology needed. You are entitled to your opinions. If we all see the same thing, life will be very boring. Emotion: big smile

Now, just bear with me for one more scenario. What if I throw in an adverbial phrase to the debated sentence "She had lived in Europe and Asia with her family for many years when she was little. That's why ......Do you still disagree?

Yes, I still disagree. Without a subsequent simple past phrase, there is no need for the past perfect and it is completely unrelated to duration. You can say she lived there for centuries and it won't change.
Show more