# I have worked / I have been working



## marinesea

Hello, everybody,

Is there a difference between these two sentences: 

I *have worked* here since 1999, and
I *have been working * here since 1999.

I would also appreciate if somebody could explain me the differenece between using Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous on the whole. 

Thank you


----------



## shadow link

Hi marinesea

Basically no, there isn't a difference.


----------



## Saurabh

shadow link said:


> Hi marinesea
> 
> Basically no, there isn't a difference.


 

Hello, 

Well, there is a difference for sure.
Present Perfect Tense(PPT) shows that the activity is completed. It shows only the completion of activity irrespective of a particular time, ofcourse in present though.
On the contrary Present Perfect Continuous Tense(PPCT) is a sum of Perfect as well as Continuous tense. So, it shows that the activity is still in process and has begun from a particular point/period of time. So, it is simply a continuous tense but with an addition to TIME in it. 

If ,for example, we say that " She is reading this comic". It will simply mean she is still on reading that comic, time is not here known though. However, If I were to tell the time also here, it would be said as" She has been reading this comic since morning". or "She has been reading this comic for last two hours."

On the other hand application of perfect tense will simply imply that the activity she was on, is through/over as of now. Usage of PPT here, will be read as "She has read this comic".
I hope it helps.
Cheers,
Saurabh


----------



## Skin

marinesea said:


> Hello, everybody,
> 
> Is there a difference between these two sentences:
> 
> I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> I *have been working *here since 1999.


 

Saurabh, I'm afraid I have to disagree. 
Both sentences mean the same thing: the action of working started at some specified point in the past and _is still going on today_.
The only difference is that there is more emphasis on the duration of the action in the latter, where the present perfect continuous is used.
It might be helpful to underline that only the present perfect simple is generally used with some verbs (perception verbs or verbs of will, like, see, hear, understand, know, want, like, hate and so on).

Bye


----------



## suzi br

Saurabh, that might well be what the text book says, but as an English teacher still working in a college I would happily use either of these examples to describe my state of current work.

A couple of contexts where they would both work for me:
in a conversation with a new colleague 

in a staff meeting where I needed to validate my right to an opinion on something.


----------



## Saurabh

suzi br said:


> Saurabh, that might well be what the text book says, but as an English teacher still working in a college I would happily use either of these examples to describe my state of current work.
> 
> A couple of contexts where they would both work for me:
> in a conversation with a new colleague
> 
> in a staff meeting where I needed to validate my right to an opinion on something.


 
Hello Suzi Br,

I suppose you are incomplete in the above quote, please complete it so that I can comment further.

Cheers,
Saurabh


----------



## LV4-26

Basically, no difference in my view. Except, maybe, one of mood or emphasis.

I mean, if I were really tired of working there, I might be tempted to use
I've *been working *here (every night and day that God made) since 1999 (and see what I get for my loyalty).

As often with the continuous form of the PP, emphasis is on the, well, "continuous" *aspect* of the action. But, as I said, it's a matter of *emphasis* rather than meaning.

Only my personal feeling, though.


----------



## Saurabh

Skin said:


> Saurabh, I'm afraid I have to disagree.
> Both sentences mean the same thing: the action of working started at some specified point in the past and _is still going on today_.
> The only difference is that there is more emphasis on the duration of the action in the latter, where the present perfect continuous is used.
> It might be helpful to underline that only the present perfect simple is generally used with some verbs (perception verbs or verbs of will, like, see, hear, understand, know, want, like, hate and so on).
> 
> Bye


 
 Hello Skin, I would like to comment what I've got to tell here. Please look these sentences once again
1)  I *have worked* here since 1999, and
2)  I *have been working *here since 1999.

Sentence 1) would be used only when I was working there and now I no longer work there. On the other hand 2) would be used when I'm still working there.
Cheers,
Saurabh.


----------



## striped tiger

Saurabh said:


> Hello Skin, I would like to comment what I've got to tell here. Please look these sentences once again
> 1)  I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> 2)  I *have been working *here since 1999.
> 
> Sentence 1) would be used only when I was working there and now I no longer work there. On the other hand 2) would be used when I'm still working there.
> Cheers,
> Saurabh.



I disagree too, Saurabh.

Sentence 1 means that I am *still* working here. This is so because *have worked since* indicates that the action is on-going. If I no longer work at a place I would just say, "I worked here from 1999 to 2002" or "I have worked here for 3 years".

I hope it makes sense.


----------



## Saurabh

striped tiger said:


> I disagree too, Saurabh.
> 
> Sentence 1 means that I am *still* working here. This is so because *have worked since* indicates that the action is on-going. If I no longer work at a place I would just say, "I worked here from 1999 to 2002" or "I have worked here for 3 years".
> 
> I hope it makes sense.


 
Oopes, you appear to be correct here, I'm forced to believe how stupid I could have been ignoring the usage of SINCE here. Well, I was apparently not meant to say what have I said. I recall my writings in quote 8.
What about, "I've worked there all these years".


----------



## pellerina1

Hello every one,

Let me give you more details about the difference between I have worked for/since... and I have been working for/since...

Both sentences mean that they started in the past and still continue in the present. And there is a difference bewteen both sentences.

Here is a striking example that should help you to understand the difference between both sentences:

-I have visited the museum for 3 hours: means that you started visiting the museum 3hours ago and you are still visiting the museum.

-I have been visiting the museum for 3hours: It means you started visiting the museum 3hours ago and you are still visiting the museum. But using ING, you insist on the fact that 3hours for you in a museum is a long period!!! A kid would use ING because it's so long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Using ING with the present perfect depends on your feeling. Nothing is wrong. Both are correct. 

However if you say:

-I have visited the museum (no time). that means you visited the museum in the past and this has an impact in the present now.

-I have been the museum (no time). That means you visited the museum in the past and still continue.

I hope I was clear enough. If you need further information, feel free to ask and email me. as a French citizen, I am very interested in the English grammar (The brisith one, not the american one)

Sincerely.


----------



## Parla

I see absolutely no difference in meaning between the two sentences given.


----------



## kalamazoo

I also see no difference in meaning.


----------



## Dona_15

Of course, there is a difference between the two sentences.
I have worked here since 1999 simply means that the action has been completed in the past and is OVER ("since" in this sentence does not mean that the action is still going on but it's used for instance to explain talking to somebody that I worked "here" in 1999 (something punctual for example) and since then have not worked there again till now...

A the other hand, I have been working here since 1999 is to say that the action is still on I m still working here.

The difference is subtle but REAL.

Thanks.


----------



## kalamazoo

"I have worked here since 1999" means that I started working here in 1999 and I still work here.

" I have been working here since 1999" means that I started working here in 1999 and I still work here.

There is no difference in meaning.


----------



## suzi br

Dona_15 said:


> Of course, there is a difference between the two sentences.
> I have worked here since 1999 simply means that the action has been completed in the past and is OVER ("since" in this sentence does not mean that the action is still going on but it's used for instance to explain talking to somebody that I worked "here" in 1999 (something punctual for example) and since then have not worked there again till now...
> 
> A the other hand, I have been working here since 1999 is to say that the action is still on I m still working here.
> 
> The difference is subtle but REAL.
> 
> Thanks.


 
With respect, you are FRENCH and we are not. I don't know why you are set on arguing with native speakers! 

Various English speakers have said that we all know that if we say "I have worked here since 1960" it does NOT mean the action is over. The word SINCE it vital in that understanding! If a new member of staff joined my team there would be nothing at all unusual about me saying I have worked here since 1960.  I guess it means the act of *starting *work there is OVER .. though the working carries on.


----------



## aTo63

Very interesting thread... because for me 'I have worked here since 1960' meant that now it's over, but I was wrong.
So now, my question is: what is the difference between
- I have worked in that company since 1960
- I work in that company since 1960 ?
Regards.


----------



## My Name Is Nobody

pellerina1 said:


> Here is a striking example that should help you to understand the difference between both sentences:
> 
> -I have visited the museum for 3 hours: means that you started visiting the museum 3hours ago and you are still visiting the museum.
> 
> -I have been visiting the museum for 3hours: It means you started visiting the museum 3hours ago and you are still visiting the museum. But using ING, you insist on the fact that 3hours for you in a museum is a long period!!! A kid would use ING because it's so long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Using ING with the present perfect depends on your feeling. Nothing is wrong. Both are correct.
> 
> Sincerely.



Here is a good explanation I think. The first sentence is the raw information with no under meaning while the second implies a feeling, as Pellerina said. The context given by Pellerina is necessary too. 



> - I work in that company since 1960 ?



This sentence is agrammatical. You have to say "I have worked in that company since 1960".


PS: I know my English is not that good but I am studying linguistics and can actually explain more grammatic rules in English than in French.


----------



## Sequieros

As fas as I know, PPT is used in just ended situations or in a particular time. But PPCT is used for the situation which is still going on since a particular time.


----------



## Tazzler

aTo63 said:


> Very interesting thread... because for me 'I have worked here since 1960' meant that now it's over, but I was wrong.
> So now, my question is: what is the difference between
> - I have worked in that company since 1960
> - I work in that company since 1960 ?
> Regards.



As was said the second sentence is not correct. You can use either the present perfect or the present perfect continuous, but the simple present is not correct.


----------



## Rover_KE

Here's another native English speaker who finds *no difference* between the two original sentences.

The above attempts by non-native speakers to argue against this would be quite amusing except for the fact that the enormous number of students trying to follow the arguments (look at the massive total of views this thread has attracted) will be baffled by the opposing viewpoints.

I advise marinesea to be guided by _native speakers only_ in this discussion.

Rover


----------



## JulianStuart

1) I *have posted* here since 2008.
2) I *have been posting * here since 2008.


3) I *have posted* here for three years.
4) I *have been posting * here for three years.

1=2 and 3=4.

In 2011, 1=2=3=4.

Oh, and by the way , I am still posting here.

For our non-native speakers, for clarity "I  (---) work*ed* here for three years" is a complete act and is over and means I no longer work here.


----------



## JBG1

Rover_KE said:


> Here's another native English speaker who finds *no difference* between the two original sentences.
> 
> The above attempts by non-native speakers to argue against this would be quite amusing except for the fact that the enormous number of students trying to follow the arguments (look at the massive total of views this thread has attracted) will be baffled by the opposing viewpoints.
> 
> I advise marinesea to be guided by _native speakers only_ in this discussion.
> 
> Rover



Hi all, 
I'm a non native speaker, but I was taught by a native (american) speaker the same as pellerina1.
What you guys think? Is it a difference between BE and AE?


----------



## kalamazoo

I am a native AE speaker.  To me there is no difference in meaning between the two sentences, despite what the French speakers on here seem to think. I don't think it's AE vs BE.  It seems to be a difference between English and French!


----------



## JBG1

kalamazoo said:


> I am a native AE speaker.  To me there is no difference in meaning between the two sentences, despite what the French speakers on here seem to think. I don't think it's AE vs BE.  It seems to be a difference between English and French!



Hehe, indeed! Thanks for the answer.


----------



## KeepinOn

LV4-26...Well put! I think you hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between the two forms, but not necessarily in "meaning" but in "emphasis."


----------



## not that easy

Saurabh said:


> Oopes, you appear to be correct here, I'm forced to believe how stupid I could have been ignoring the usage of SINCE here. Well, I was apparently not meant to say what have I said. I recall my writings in quote 8.
> What about, "I've worked there all these years".





Hi Saurabh, 

Sorry, but there is no difference in meaning. 

If you want to say that the action is over you have to use the simple present as in this example : 

I Worked there since 1985, (and now I´m on the dole).



Best wishes


----------



## Saurabh

not that easy said:


> Hi Saurabh,
> 
> Sorry, but there is no difference in meaning.
> 
> If you want to say that the action is over you have to use the simple present as in this example :
> 
> I Worked there since 1985, (and now I´m on the dole).
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes



Thank you for your post, not that easy.

However, I'd tempt to say :

I used to work here since 1985 or
I worked here from 1985 to ......

Don't know why but "I worked here since 1985" seems bit weird to my ears.



Cheers,
Sau


----------



## wandle

The present perfect places past action in the context of the present. 
It refers to something past, but gives it a present connection.

Thus 'I have worked here since 1999' refers to activity which is, yes, in the past, but it is connecting that activity to the present:  consequently, we know that the speaker is still in that job.

'I have been working here since 1999' is no different, except that it places an emphasis on the continuous aspect of the activity.


----------



## eanglaise

Saurabh said:


> Hello Skin, I would like to comment what I've got to tell here. Please look these sentences once again
> 1)  I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> 2)  I *have been working *here since 1999.
> 
> Sentence 1) would be used only when I was working there and now I no longer work there. On the other hand 2) would be used when I'm still working there.
> Cheers,
> Saurabh.



Hi Everyone,

I disagree with you Saurabh.
I'm not a native english speaker but to me, as I learn, we use the present prefect to express an action which start in the past and still true now, in the present.
To express an action which is as you said, no longer true in the present, you have to use the past simple.

I'm not one hundred percent sure about that, so if you disagree, just tell me.

See ya


----------



## wandle

To say that we worked somewhere in the past but are not working there now, we would use past simple (or say 'used to'), but we would not use 'since'. 
'I worked there from 1999 to 2005.' 
'I worked there since 1999.' 
The reason is that 'since' in time expressions, in contexts of the kind discussed here, means 'from that time till now': consequently, it is asking for the present perfect (because it creates a present connection).

Another point, for the benefit of the French audience who seem interested in this thread: we do *not* use 'since' with the present tense. Thus it is incorrect to say:
'I work here since 2000'. 

Instead, we say:
'I have worked here since 2000'  or 'I have been working here since 2000'  (effective meaning: the same).


----------



## eanglaise

wandle said:


> To say that we worked somewhere in the past but are not working there now, we would use past simple (or say 'used to'), but we would not use 'since'.
> 'I worked there from 1999 to 2005.'
> 'I worked there since 1999.'
> The reason is that 'since' in time expressions, in contexts of the kind discussed here, means 'from that time till now': consequently, it is asking for the present perfect (because it creates a present connection).



Good to know, I should say : I worked there for 10 years.

So with since we can't use the past simple. It seems evident now, but I didn't think about that. 



wandle said:


> Another point, for the benefit of the French audience who seem interested in this thread: we do *not* use 'since' with the present tense. Thus it is incorrect to say:
> 'I work here since 2000'.
> 
> Instead, we say:
> 'I have worked here since 2000'  or 'I have been working here since 2000'  (effective meaning: the same).


You are right : in *F*rench we can say << non-English words deleted (English Only forum rules)>> so we tend to translate it by "I work here since 2000" in *E*nglish.

Thanks wandle for your good explanation


----------



## zll777

Hello everybody
It is very interesting thread.Could you clarify me something about PP & PPC.
As I understood there is nothing difference between two sentences
1) I have posted here since 2008.
 2) I have been posting  here since 2008. The both sentences means the action is not over. 

Then, what about another sentences with FOR
3) I have posted here for three years.
4) I have been posting  here for three years.
Are both sentences the same ? Am I posting till now?
Thanks


----------



## kalamazoo

In both cases, I would prefer the 'have been posting' version (#2 and #4).  "Have posted" to me suggests you were posting all the time, as though you spent all day posting.  So to me 'have worked' or 'have been working' are both okay, mean the same and are equivalent.  So it somehow depends slightly on the verb.

If here were something else in the sentence, 'have posted' would be okay.  E.g. "I have posted here since 2008 and have found it very worthwhile." to me would be more 'okay' than just "I have posted here since 2008."


----------



## zll777

That's clear,thanks


----------



## RM1(SS)

Actually, while "I have worked here since 1999" would normally mean "... and I still do," it could be used to mean that I used to work here but no longer do: "I have worked here since 1999, but only for a brief period," as opposed to "I worked here before 1999, but have not worked here since then."


----------



## JulianStuart

kalamazoo said:


> In both cases, I would prefer the 'have been posting' version (#2 and #4).  "Have posted" to me suggests you were posting all the time, as though you spent all day posting.  So to me 'have worked' or 'have been working' are both okay, mean the same and are equivalent.  So it somehow depends slightly on the verb.
> 
> If here were something else in the sentence, 'have posted' would be okay.  E.g. "I have posted here since 2008 and have found it very worthwhile." to me would be more 'okay' than just "I have posted here since 2008."


Just to clarify: I penned those quoted examples and it seems my point might have clearer if I had used, for example:: "I have eaten lunch here every day since 2008" or "I have been eating lunch here every day since 2008" - one action per day.


----------



## SgtBullmoose

Meaning-wise, the sentences are the same.  That doesn't mean that the tenses are the same.

*We use the Present Perfect because certain verbs don't take a progressive form: John's been sick all week (Not: John's been being sick all week)
*We tend to use Present Perfect Progressive for more temporary actions as opposed to permanent actions.  

Compare: He's been standing there all day
 to
 For centuries, the castle has stood upon the hill.

I have been living in Jason's room this month..
to
My parents have lived in Melbourne their entire lives.

*We use the present simple to answer the question 'how much?' or 'how often?'

I've been planting roses all day long
to
Look at all the roses I've planted!


----------



## zll777

hello evrebody, one question again, please help
If I want to show my emotions what is the best form of sentences represented below?
I have been writting the letter to you for 2 hours already  
or I am writting the letter to you for 2 hours already (I think this incorect form, because "for" doesn't use with this tense) Am i right?


----------



## suzi br

Hello
"I have been writing to you for 2 hours already" is absolutely fine.

I am less sure about using *THE. * I think *THIS* is better if you are writing this sentence in the actual letter, or say *A* if you are talking to the other person about what you have been doing.


----------



## zll777

suzi br said:


> I am less sure about using *THE. * I think *THIS* is better if you are writing this sentence in the actual letter, or say *A* if you are talking to the other person about what you have been doing.


Yes,I know,thanks)))


----------



## EStjarn

marinesea said:


> Is there a difference between these two sentences:
> 
> I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> I *have been working * here since 1999.



I agree with those above who say that there is no difference in meaning. The difference I seem to notice is in how they set up what you're going to say next. Here's an example:

It's your last day at work. At lunch with your office mates you're asked to say (for once) something deep and meaningful. You don't have a speech prepared, and you're not used to giving speeches. Now you have to improvise. You begin:

_I have worked here since 1999._

- This is a complete statement. You are not indicating that you will say something directly related to it. Perhaps your next statements will be: _I h__ave lived here in Footville since 1986. I came to Footville from Aimwell, Louisiana, where I grew up.
_
On the other hand, if you started by saying,

_I have been working here since 1999._

it is as though the statement was incomplete. You would be expected to continue the thought, to say something related to it. Perhaps: _And never before have I been asked to give a speech._


----------



## Dale Texas

EStjarn said:


> I agree with those above who say that there is no difference in meaning. The difference I seem to notice is in how they set up what you're going to say next. Here's an example:
> 
> It's your last day at work. At lunch with your office mates you're asked to say (for once) something deep and meaningful. You don't have a speech prepared, and you're not used to giving speeches. Now you have to improvise. You begin:
> 
> _I have worked here since 1999._
> 
> - This is a complete statement. You are not indicating that you will say something directly in relation to it. Perhaps your next statements will be: _I h__ave lived here in Footville since 1986. I came to Footville from Aimwell, Louisiana, where I grew up.
> _
> On the other hand, if you started by saying,
> 
> _I have been working here since 1999._
> 
> it is as though the statement was incomplete. You would be expected to continue the thought, to say something in relation to it. Perhaps: _And never before have I been asked to give a speech._


----------



## Calpeg

These are the results of a test I did in a web site called "English Page". The words in bold type are the gaps filled and they are all correct. Point 5 clearly shows that the present perfect continuous is the best choice for ongoing situations when you use the verb "work". Yes, the present perfect is indeed from a grammatical point of view a present and it is indeed used for events that leave behind a consequence that still goes on, but in most cases it does refer to something that has already happened and it's gone! If you say, you've lost your keys, your keys are gone! Now, although in some cases you can say "I have worked here" when you are still working there, "I have been working here" clearly shows, beyond any possible doubt, that you are still working there and is therefore better than "I have worked here", unless you like confusing people. In fact, under point 5, the correct answer is "John has been working for the government".

1. Judy: How long (be)*have you been* in Canada?
Claude: I (study)*have been studying* here for more than three years.

2. I (have)*have had* the same car for more than ten years. I'm thinking about buying a new one.

3. I (love)*have loved* chocolate since I was a child. You might even call me a "chocoholic."

4. Matt and Sarah (have)*have been having* some difficulties in their relationship lately, so they (go)*have been going* to a marriage counselor. I hope they work everything out.

5. John (work)*has been working* for the government since he graduated from Harvard University. Until recently, he (enjoy)*has enjoyed* his work, but now he is talking about retiring.

6. Lately, I (think)*have been thinking* about changing my career because I (become)*have become* dissatisfied with the conditions at my company.

7. I (see)*have been seeing* Judy for more than five years and during that time I (see)*haveseen* many changes in her personality.


----------



## Christine Purple

Hi guys
I 've been studying and revising the same rules about present perfect continuous and simple for ages (from different grammar books), but still I happen to come across some sentences where I hesitate whether to use the simple or the progressive tense .   I' ve come to the conclusion that either is correct in could you help with the following sentences please?


1. "I know the report took a long time to do."
    "Have you worked/* have you been working*  on it a lot?
2. This is  a big problem.* Have you thought*/ have you been thinking of  a solution?
3. I needed a break last year and I went to Australia . Since the trip  I've learnt/ *'ve been learning* how to scuba dive.

The tenses in bold type are the solutions suggested in the exercise key answers. But in my opinion, in each single case, both are correct.
What do you suggest?
Thank you very much in advance.
Cristina


----------



## Christine Purple

I've come to the conclusion that either is correct in some contexts..
I meant to say..


----------



## lingobingo

Even if either tense is grammatically correct, they don’t necessarily mean the same.

1. I know the report took a long time. Have you *been working* on it a lot? 
The question is about the ongoing situation up to now. The combination of perfect tense (state of completion at the time of speaking) and progressive aspect (expression of continuity) is entirely appropriate.

2. This is a big problem. Have you *thought* of a solution?
The question is not whether you’ve been considering something on a continuous basis, but whether you’ve finished considering it and come to a conclusion. It’s asking if a single specific event has yet happened.

3. I needed a break last year and I went to Australia. Since that trip I've *been learning* how to scuba dive.
This is what has been (and still is) happening since the trip. I started learning to scuba dive and that activity is still in progress. (If you used the simple past, it would mean your instruction had now finished.)


----------



## Christine Purple

thank you Lingobingo
.. then, in the given contexts are the bold type solutions the better options?
or simply, both can be accepted but each single one bearing a slightly different meaning.?
thanks again
Cristina


----------



## kalamazoo

To ne the bold type solutions are better in each case.   The other ones don't seem "wrong" exactly but they would all raise doubts in my mind.  This is probably because I am an AmE speaker and would prefer the simple past or the present perfect continuous over the present perfect.  Thus I would say "Since that trip I learned how to scuba drive" if I had already finished learning or "Since that trip I have been learning..." if I were taking a class.  Sentence 1, I would say "have you been working on it a lot" or "did you work on it a lot."  Sentence 2, "have you thought' is fine, but have you been thinking is a little odd somehow.


----------



## shanly83

marinesea said:


> Hello, everybody,
> 
> Is there a difference between these two sentences:
> 
> I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> I *have been working * here since 1999.
> 
> I would also appreciate if somebody could explain me the differenece between using Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous on the whole.
> 
> Thank you


As you are asking about the difference .
First one : I have worked : indicates   (It will probably continue into the future.)
whereas   I have been working :  indicates   ( it is going on but not sure if it will be continue to the future or not ). Example : I have been reading for 2 hours . ( the reading might be cut at any moment.


----------



## kalamazoo

I respectfully disagree.  The two sentences with 'work' are identical in meaning, at least without any other context.  "Work" here is more like a general activity.  Similarly you could say "I have lived here since 1999" or "I have been living here since 1999."  This is not necessarily true for other verbs.


----------



## shanly83

kalamazoo said:


> I respectfully disagree.  The two sentences with 'work' are identical in meaning, at least without any other context.  "Work" here is more like a general activity.  Similarly you could say "I have lived here since 1999" or "I have been living here since 1999."  This is not necessarily true for other verbs.


I agree with you. But the 2 sentence are grammatically correct.
As far as I know, we can use the present perfect in 4 situations 1- past true ( experience) example: I have seen an Alien.timeline ( started in the past and the result still in the mind)
2- past finished ( change). Example: I have bought a car. Timeline ( last week I don't have a car this week i have a car . 
3 - past unfinished (continuing). Example: I have worked here for 5 years. Timeline ( started in the past and still going on and probably will continue to future. 
4- past repetitive action. (I have shopped here for many years).
As for present perfect continuous we use it for 
1- started and finished ( recently). Example ( I'm tired I have been running.
2- started and continuing.Example ( I have worked here for 5 years. Timeline ( started in the past and still going on but not sure about the future. So I agree with you we should not use the word ( work) with present perfect continuous. 
I think the correct answer  is : I have worked here since1999. Because the time line of present perfect is stronger toward the future.


----------



## kalamazoo

I disagree with you, and I am a native English speaker.  Both sentences with work are perfectly correct and perfectly idiomatic.  It is not the case that one is correct and the other is not correct.  They are both correct.


----------



## velisarius

Wandle put it succinctly near the beginning of this very long thread (my bolding):



wandle said:


> The present perfect places past action in the context of the present.
> It refers to something past, but gives it a present connection.
> 
> Thus 'I have worked here since 1999' refers to activity which is, yes, in the past, but it is connecting that activity to the present:  consequently, we know that the speaker is still in that job.
> 
> *'I have been working here since 1999' is no different, except that it places an emphasis on the continuous aspect of the activity.*


----------



## Oldmikeho

A simple logic can prove the following 2 sentences are different.
1) He has worked in our company since 1978.
2) He has been working in our company since 1978.

If he is no longer working in our company now, the 1st sentence can still be used, but we can never use the 2nd one.


----------



## kalamazoo

Oldmikeho said:


> A simple logic can prove the following 2 sentences are different.
> 1) He has worked in our company since 1978.
> 2) He has been working in our company since 1978.
> 
> If he is no longer working in our company now, the 1st sentence can still be used, but we can never use the 2nd one.


If he is no longer working in our company, neither sentence works.


----------



## Oldmikeho

1) The old lady has lived in Australia since 1900.

2) The old lady has been living in Australia since 1900.

Are you sure the old lady in the 1st sentence is still alive？


----------



## kalamazoo

Apparently she is still alive, because she is still living in Australia.  If she were dead, one could say The old lady had lived in Australia since 1900.  I am a native English speaker by the way.


----------



## Oldmikeho

Thank you for your reply！

Suppose you are a Taiwanese, and you do not know anything about Hong Kong. One day you read the following from newspaper:
(The fact is that Mary is still working in the government today.) Which one will you choose if you are the editor? (has worked / has been working) :

Our Hong Kong Chief Executive Ms. Mary  (has worked / has been working) as a government official since 1985. She was born in Hong Kong in 1957, and she never stayed in any other countries for more than 1 month in the last 64 years. She is now on the way to England to visit her family, preparing to move to England in 2023.


----------



## lingobingo

If I was the editor, I’d rewrite the whole thing. But to answer your question, in the context of simply describing someone’s current situation in terms of their career to date (as in a brief biography), there’s no obvious reason to use the progressive aspect.


Oldmikeho said:


> A simple logic can prove the following 2 sentences are different.
> 1) He has worked in our company since 1978.
> 2) He has been working in our company since 1978.
> 
> If he is no longer working in our company now, the 1st sentence can still be used, but we can never use the 2nd one.


It’s true that sentence 1 can theoretically be used even if he’s since left the company – but only if its time reference is backshifted to the past (to when he left his former employment with the company). In other words, you have to read it as meaning that there was a period, between 1978 and now, during which he worked for the company. But that period both began and ended in the past.


----------



## JJXR

Is the use of the past perfect "had worked" correct in the following sentence:

_John has just been fired. He *had worked* in our company since 2010._


----------



## lingobingo

Of course it is. As soon as he’s fired, he no longer works for the company, so you need the past tense.

He had worked for the company for 10 years before being fired a few moments ago.​


----------



## Oldmikeho

_John has just been fired. He _*had worked*_ in our company since 2010._

So, if John is no longer working in our company now, no matter when he was fired, we can never write "He has worked in our company since 2010.

Therefore, the meanings of the following 2 sentences are 100% identical.
Is that right？

1) He has worked in our company since 2010.
2) He has been working in our company since 2010.

Is this applicable to all other verbs, or some other verbs？


----------



## FloMar

striped tiger said:


> Saurabh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Skin, I would like to comment what I've got to tell here. Please look these sentences once again
> 1)  I *have worked* here since 1999, and
> 2)  I *have been working *here since 1999.
> 
> Sentence 1) would be used only when I was working there and now I no longer work there. On the other hand 2) would be used when I'm still working there.
> Cheers,
> Saurabh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree too, Saurabh.
> 
> 
> shadow link said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi marinesea
> 
> Basically no, there isn't a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sentence 1 means that I am *still* working here. This is so because *have worked since* indicates that the action is on-going. If I no longer work at a place I would just say, "I worked here from 1999 to 2002" or "I have worked here for 3 years".
> 
> I hope it makes sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## FloMar

Both have the same time frame: they started in the past and are relevant now - I still work there (the present perfect simple or continuous bridges past and present time). I have worked focuses on the fact and I have been working focuses on the action (maybe it's arduous, repetitive or even complicated - but now I know everything because I've been here for that long). In British English it is incorrect to say that I have worked  + since + date means that I no longer work there, but if I say I have worked at MacDonald's without a time frame, this implies that I am talking about action that is complete but where the relevance to my life/ life's experience is present.


----------



## Marina78

striped tiger said:


> I disagree too, Saurabh.
> 
> Sentence 1 means that I am *still* working here. This is so because *have worked since* indicates that the action is on-going. If I no longer work at a place I would just say, "I worked here from 1999 to 2002" or "I have worked here for 3 years".
> 
> I hope it makes sense.


That’s the correct one !


----------



## AmericanAbroad

Well, let me see if I can throw a wrench of confusion into the whole discussion, which seems to me too narrowly focused on one particular sample phrase.  To my native American ear, there is a slight semantic difference between "I have worked here since 1960" and "I have been working here since 1960". That difference being that "have worked" seems to refer to fact that the person has been employed, and "have been working" seems to refer to the activity the person has been engaged in.  The difference might be clearer if you think of the phrase in another context.  It would be correct for someone to say, "I've been working since 10 o'clock this morning."  But you would not say, "I have worked since 10 o'clock this morning." By itself.  You COULD say both "I have been working on this project since 10 o'clock this morning" and "I have worked on this project since 10 o'clock this morning."  Similarly, if you insert the word "here" in thet sentence, both usages seem workable. Question: "How long have you worked here [or "been working here"]? Answer: "I have been working here since 10 o'clock this morning."  "I have worked here since 10 o'clock this morning."  BUT, you could also use the present form of the verb work in this context.  Someone asked, "hey , when did you get hired here?"  or "since when do you work here?"  Answer: "I work here since 10 o'clock this morning."  There are nuanced differences between what the word "work", "worked" or "working" means in these different contexts.  So, if you widen your perspective, a simple dismissal of any difference between the meanings is not correct...  Nor is it correct to say that the two phrases "have worked" and "habe been working" can always be used interchangeably without any difference in meaning.  Nor is it correct to say that you can never use the present form of the verb "work" in this context.  hahahaha.  There, that should leave non-native English speakers completely confused!


----------

