+0
Please tell me whether or not I have the meanings correct for the following:

Having worked for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

Still providing me, but don't work there anymore.

Working for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

This means I am still working at the job that started providing me in the past and is still providing me in the present.

Having worked for X not only provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

No longer working there, and only provided me in the past.

Working for X not only provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

This one I'm unsure about. Verbals (such as working for X) take the tense of the main verb (in this case, provided), so I'm inclined to think this sentence means,

I worked in the past for X (with no clarification as to whether I still work there) and it provided for me in the past (with no clarification as to whether I still work there).

Thank you
+0
Having worked for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

Still providing me, but don't work there anymore.-- Not necessarily 'still providing'. 'Recently' is also a possible interpretation.

Working for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

This means I am still working at the job that started providing me in the past and is still providing me in the present.-- Not necessarily still working there; the verb form is nonfinite. 'Providing' as above.

Having worked for X not only provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

No longer working there, and only provided me in the past.-- OK

Working for X not only provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

This one I'm unsure about. Verbals (such as working for X) take the tense of the main verb (in this case, provided), so I'm inclined to think this sentence means I worked in the past for X (with no clarification as to whether I still work there) and it provided for me in the past (with no clarification as to whether I still work there).-- Your interpretation is good, but we must presume that since it was cast primarily in the past tense, the speaker is making it clear that s/he no longer works there. The mixed tenses (provided, has taught) suggests that the departure was recent.
Comments  
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Mister Micawber
Having worked for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

Still providing me, but don't work there anymore.-- Not necessarily 'still providing'. 'Recently' is also a possible interpretation.

Right. Thank you. I forgot that this use of the present perfect expresses that the action happened at an unspecified time in the past, not an action that continued up to the present.
Mister Micawber
Working for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills to interface with external customers but also has taught me the importance of such relationships.

This means I am still working at the job that started providing me in the past and is still providing me in the present.-- Not necessarily still working there; the verb form is nonfinite. 'Providing' as above.

The ing clause takes the tense from 'has provided' right? So the 'working' happened at the same time--that is, in the recent past...
The ing clause takes the tense from 'has provided' right? So the 'working' happened at the same time--that is, in the recent past... -- No and not necessarily; as I explained in your other thread, it is ambiguous.
Mister MicawberNo and not necessarily; as I explained in your other thread, it is ambiguous.

I don't understand.

I swear I thought I was right, that the ing clause takes its tense from the main verb. Can you put me straight please?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Working for X not only has provided me with the necessary skills... -- Using the present perfect, the provision is recent but not necessarily present. If it were 'has been providing' (which necessarily includes the present), then 'working' would have to be in the present.

All I am sayingm however (cf our other thread) is that there is a semantic element.