# I have been a teacher.



## selfzhouxinrong

*Hello friends：

"I have been married." *can be used in situations where I am not married now.
Can *"I have been a teacher"* be used in situations where I am not a teacher now？( that means “I was a teacher during part of the past”, but not now )

Thanks in advance


----------



## Packard

You can in situations like this:

_I have been a teacher, a pilot, a salesman and a construction worker, but my favorite is..._


----------



## lingobingo

It would help if you gave us the context in which you would propose to say that.

*I have been married* sounds natural even out of context. *I have been a teacher* doesn’t (which is not to say it can’t be used!). Out of context, something like “I have worked as a teacher in the past” would be more natural.


----------



## Steven David

selfzhouxinrong said:


> *Hello friends：
> 
> "I have been married." *can be used in situations where I am not married now.
> Can *"I have been a teacher"* be used in situations where I am not a teacher now？( that means “I was a teacher during part of the past”, but not now )
> 
> Thanks in advance



Yes, both of these sentences are possible. They answer have you ever questions.

Have you ever been married?

Have you ever been a teacher?


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

*@ Packard, lingobingo, Steven David.  Very grateful for your help！*

If when I say _"For us, this has been the most perfect way to remember her, and this is how she would want to be remembered."_now.
Is it possible to understand the First half sentence_ "For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her," _as _"This way was the most perfect way during part of the past,  but probably not now, maybe we got a better one later"_?
Is this the same situation as above two？

（This Sentence was said by Prince William  at a concert in memory of his mother Princess Diana. I have no more context.）
Thanks again.


----------



## heypresto

He was talking about a concert, and saying that it has been perfect. There is no mention of the future, and no implication that they might enjoy a better way to remember her in the future.


Please don't write complete sentences in *bold*, it makes them very difficult to read, and it looks like you are *shouting*.


----------



## lagar19

Hi* selfzhouxinrong, *the way the present perfect is used by Prince William actually links past and present, as in the example I have lost my keys (I lost them in the past, and they are still lost in the present, I can't get into my house). The concert is over, but the emotion remains. At least this is the theory, as it was explained to me when I trained as an ELS teacher, since native speakers have a completely intuitive way of using tenses and aspects and tend not to think about why they are choosing one rather than the other. The simple past tends to be used when the end of an action is more definite. Hope this helps.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

I think may be the key is the meaning of the _"been"__._

1. Which is the correct meaning of the _"been" _of _"I have been married."_?
2. Which is the correct meaning of the _"been" _of _"I have been a teacher."_?
3. Which is the correct meaning of the _"been" _of _"I have been a teacher for 3 years."_?
4. Which is the correct meaning of the _"been" _of _"I have been to __London for 3 years"_?

It is so confusing...


----------



## lagar19

I think if you micro-analyse things too much you'll only get more confused. 

"Been" is the past participle of "be", but it forms a whole with "have" to form the present perfect. As I said, ESL teachers often say that this aspect (or tense to be less technical) is used when past and present are not cut off from one another.

Let me take your examples:
1. I have been married: honestly this is rare on its own. Usually you would say "I was married" to indicate that it's over. You would use "I have been married" in a context of series such as saying "I have been married three times already", or, again, to insist on an effect in the present of this past state: "I have been married before, and I've no intention of doing it again!" (for example, lol).
2. I have been a teacher: as someone said above, this is not something a native would say. Again, it would be included in a series: "I have been a teacher, a security agent, a rodeo clown... and now I'm studying to be a lawyer".
3. I have been a teacher for three years. Here, we see a good example of the continuance of past into present. I started teaching three years ago, and I am still a teacher now.
4. I have been to London for three years. An odd sentence, it works only if "been" is understood in the sense of going somewhere (as in, "I was in Paris last year")."I have been to London for three years, but for my next vacation I will go to Rome". Again, the use of present perfect is justified by this being a series of occurrences, rather than a permanent state. A permanent state would be either "I have been IN London for three years", or "I have been living in London for three years".

I hope this helps you!


----------



## lagar19

And regarding your drawing, I would say "was", rather than "been", describes a past state.


----------



## se16teddy

selfzhouxinrong said:


> It is so confusing...


The simple present perfect tense never makes much sense without context, because its purpose is to say something about the present time which is deduced from the context, and not from the verb.
_I have been a teacher._
Depending on the context, the things that this says about the present time can include:
- I am a teacher
- I was a teacher until the present period (but not at the present moment)
- I know what it is like to be a teacher
- teaching is on my list of jobs done in the past.


----------



## Myridon

The difference between someone being married and not married is clearer the than difference between someone who is trained and qualified in a profession having a job and not having a job.  A teacher who is not currently employed might still be considered a teacher.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

Thank you for the detailed answer！  
I can use the present perfect tense to express the most common situations.
But I think I haven't caught the essence of it yet, and some important pieces of information must be missing.
I want to find them. So I want to discuss some essential questions about it in depth.


lagar19 said:


> 3. I have been a teacher for three years. Here, we see a good example of the continuance of past into present. I started teaching three years ago, and I am still a teacher now.



_"__I have been a teacher for three years."_  This sentence does not only express "I started teaching three years ago, and I am still a teacher now."
It only expresses: "I was a teacher for three years in the past", but we can not tell whether he is a teacher now with this sentence alone. We don’t know which three years he has been a teacher in the past. Maybe a long time ago.

Can I understand it this way ？


----------



## Myridon

selfzhouxinrong said:


> _"__I have been a teacher for three years."_  This sentence can not only express "I started teaching three years ago, and I am still a teacher now."
> It only express: "I was a teacher for three years in the past", but we can not tell whether he is a teacher now with this sentence alone. We don’t know which three years he has been a teacher in the past. Maybe a long time ago.
> 
> Can I understand it this way ？


First, your sentence structure is not correct: This X does not only express Y, it also expresses Z.
It expresses what has happened up to the present.  The "present" can include recently, but not "a long time ago".  What it doesn't tell us is that "being a teacher" ended.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

I have fixed it，thank you.   
now：This X does not only express Y, it only expresses Z.  “it also” is not suitable here.
Please check this link, this is my previous question.
I have lived in London for three yeas.
I think they are contradictory.
I don't know where I'm wrong.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

Myridon said:


> It expresses what has happened up to the present.  The "present" can include recently, but not "a long time ago".  What it doesn't tell us is that "being a teacher" ended.


Yes, I think so.

I think Present perfect tense describes the experience up until now. The "present" can include recently. but It also can describe the experience a long time ago.  We don't care when it happened.
The "present" describe the past experience I have got *presently*,  It’s not for recent experience.

My other reply has a link about my previous questions, The answers are contradictory. and it's awaiting moderator approval.
Please wait for a moment.


----------



## lagar19

If someone says "I have been a teacher for three years." and says nothing more,  we understand that they are still a teacher now. 
If a person wants to say being a teacher is in the past, they would say "I *was* a teacher for three years". And then we understand that now, they are not a teacher anymore.


----------



## heypresto

selfzhouxinrong said:


> The "present" describe the past experience I have got *presently*, It’s not for recent experience.


Please don't get distracted by 'presently'. This can mean 'currently', or, as I tend to know it and use it, 'soon'. But this is going off-topic.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

lagar19 said:


> If someone says "I have been a teacher for three years." and says nothing more,  we understand that they are still a teacher now.
> If a person wants to say being a teacher is in the past, they would say "I *was* a teacher for three years". And then we understand that now, they are not a teacher anymore.


I know that.
I think this is just a normal understanding of this normal situation. but technically, this sentence doesn’t tell "I am a teacher now".
Perhaps there is too much interference information about "teacher".
If it is changed into " I have been *a visitor* to this company."  Will it become clearer？


----------



## lagar19

selfzhouxinrong said:


> I know that.
> I think this is just a normal understanding of this normal situation. but technically, this sentence doesn’t tell "I am a teacher now".
> Perhaps there is too much interference information about "teacher".
> If it is changed into " I have been *a visitor* to this company."  Will it become clearer？


No, it doesn't become clearer. 
That sentence is not something people would say. Now I'm not even sure what your question actually is.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

lagar19 said:


> Now I'm not even sure what your question actually is.


Choose "1" or "2" or "other" from the Diagram at #8  
the main question is at #5
But It's better to read all #1, #8, #5.


----------



## JulianStuart

lagar19 said:


> If someone says "I have been a teacher for three years." and says nothing more,  we understand that they are still a teacher now.
> If a person wants to say being a teacher is in the past, they would say "I *was* a teacher for three years". And then we understand that now, they are not a teacher anymore.


See #12 above.  Using "teacher" as an example in discussing the issue of present perfect versus simple is a bad idea: someone who was employed as a teacher does not suddenly become "not a teacher" when they leave one job and start looking for another.  Using a state might help illustrate the issues better:
I have been hungry for three days.  ("normally" means I am still hungry now).
I was hungry for three days.  That period of three days does not necessarily include today.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

JulianStuart said:


> Using "teacher" as an example in discussing the issue of present perfect versus simple is a bad idea


Yes,  I also realized， I have changed it into _" I have been *a visitor* to this company."  _at #19
#1, #8, #19, #5 should be seen to understand the whole question. the main question is at #5


----------



## JulianStuart

"Being a visitor" is a repeated action, not really something we do for three years.  Did you understand the distinction in the hungry example?


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

JulianStuart said:


> Did you understand the distinction in the hungry example?


Yes. I can understand.
_I have been hungry for three days._ "normally" means I am still hungry now.
I also know that the Present perfect tense describe the past experience I have got currently.
Technically, this sentence doesn’t tell "I am still hungry now or not.", though "normally" it means "I am still hungry now".
Am I right?
So my main question is at#5.


----------



## JulianStuart

selfzhouxinrong said:


> *@ Packard, lingobingo, Steven David.  Very grateful for your help！*
> 
> If when I say _"For us, this has been the most perfect way to remember her, and this is how she would want to be remembered."_now.
> Is it possible to understand the First half sentence_ "For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her," _as _"This way was the most perfect way during part of the past,  but *probably not now, maybe we got a better one later*"  _?
> Is this the same situation as above two？


The only way you could get that (bolded) meaning from that sentence would be to include more words, such as "so far" after "perfect way".  The sentence would not convey that meaning without such words and such a meaning would not be understood as from a context anyone would "assume".


----------



## lagar19

JulianStuart said:


> a teacher does not suddenly become "not a teacher" when they leave one job and start looking for another.



Actually I'm pretty sure they do. 
But let's not get distracted by side-issues, we could discuss whether a profession ceases when payment and vocation do, or whether it does not, until the proverbial cows come home. Let's switch to being hungry, by all means.


----------



## JulianStuart

lagar19 said:


> Actually I'm pretty sure they do.
> But let's not get distracted by side-issues, we could discuss whether a profession ceases when payment and vocation do, or whether it does not, until the proverbial cows come home. Let's switch to being hungry, by all means.


 Would a person become "not a teacher" during lunch break or when there are no students in the same room or during vacations? Does a doctor become "not a doctor" when on vacation (cue cows) - but I'm glad you see why this is a problematic context for discussing simple versus present perfect


----------



## Myridon

lagar19 said:


> Actually I'm pretty sure they do.


No, they don't.  People who are unemployed do not have to say "nothing" when asked what their profession is.


----------



## lagar19

selfzhouxinrong said:


> So my main question is at#5.



I tried to answer your question in the thread where you first posted it. Others have answered as well. The way it was said in the context you quoted is a very natural way for a native speaker to talk about a situation that has just happened. It has no implications about any future changes. I can say in the evening "What a wonderful day this has been", or "This has been the most perfect day", and it simply means I am happy because I had a wonderful, perfect day. There are no other implications. Does that help?


----------



## lagar19

Myridon said:


> No, they don't.  People who are unemployed do not have to say "nothing" when asked what their profession is.


You're assuming they are unemployed. In which case I agree, the person is a teacher who is unemployed, but still a teacher. The idea with the example is that they have switched professions, in which case they are no longer a teacher, they are a park ranger or a chef or whatever. Otherwise obviously the example doesn't work. It doesn't mean it's a bad example.



JulianStuart said:


> Would a person become "not a teacher" during lunch break or when there are no students in the same room or during vacations? Does a doctor become "not a doctor" when on vacation (cue cows) - but I'm glad you see why this is a problematic context for discussing simple versus present perfect


What?? No, of course not. They're no longer a teacher when they have switched professions. The example is "I have been a teacher", not "I am not teaching".


----------



## JulianStuart

lagar19 said:


> What?? No, of course not. They're no longer a teacher when they have switched professions. The example is "I have been a teacher", not "I am not teaching".


If the context is clear that the person has moved on to another  profession, then yeah, let's wait for the cows.  However, I was still participating in the discussion of


selfzhouxinrong said:


> _"__I have been a teacher for three years."_  This sentence does not only express "I started teaching three years ago, and I am still a teacher now."
> It only expresses: "I was a teacher for three years in the past", but we can not tell whether he is a teacher now with this sentence alone. We don’t know which three years he has been a teacher in the past. Maybe a long time ago.
> Can I understand it this way ？


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

lagar19 said:


> The way it was said in the context you quoted is a very natural way for a native speaker to talk about a situation that has just happened. It has no implications about any future changes. I can say in the evening "What a wonderful day this has been", or "This has been the most perfect day", and it simply means I am happy because I had a wonderful, perfect day. There are no other implications. Does that help?


I think that：

To use _"What a wonderful day this has been" or "This has been the most perfect day"_ to talk about a situation that has just happened，because usually when somebody says this sentence in this case, the Day hasn’t finished.

To use _"I have been hungry for three days."_ to mean that I am still hungry now, because usually when somebody says this sentence in this case, this guy still feels hungry currently.

If somebody says _"For us, this has been the most perfect way to remember her, and this is how she would want to be remembered." _it must be talking about a situation that has just happened, because the concert or the day hasn't finished yet.

Is my understanding above correct?

Maybe I didn’t make my question clear enough！That's my fault！   
My real question is :
_"For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her,"_  If we look at this sentence independently without context,  Is it possible to understand it as_ "This way was the most perfect way during part of the past, but probably not now, maybe we got a better one later"?_
I hope I have made it clear enough. 

Thank you for patiently and inclusive.


----------



## lagar19

JulianStuart said:


> If the context is clear that the person has moved on to another  profession, then yeah, let's wait for the cows.  However, I was still participating in the discussion of


I think I hear distant mooing...



selfzhouxinrong said:


> I think that：
> 
> To use _"What a wonderful day this has been" or "This has been the most perfect day"_ to talk about a situation that has just happened，because usually when somebody says this sentence in this case, the Day hasn’t finished.
> 
> To use _"I have been hungry for three days."_ to mean that I am still hungry now, because usually when somebody says this sentence in this case, this guy still feels hungry currently.
> 
> If somebody says _"For us, this has been the most perfect way to remember her, and this is how she would want to be remembered." _it must be talking about a situation that has just happened, because the concert or the day hasn't finished yet.
> 
> Is my understanding above correct?
> 
> Maybe I didn’t make my question clear enough！That's my fault！
> My real question is :
> _"For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her,"_  If we look at this sentence independently without context,  Is it possible to understand it as_ "This way was the most perfect way during part of the past, but probably not now, maybe we got a better one later"?_
> I hope I have made it clear enough.
> 
> Thank you for patiently and inclusive.


Yes, I agree with your understanding. I would add, in the case of the concert, that the use of present perfect can also be because the Prince is still under the emotion of the concert. He could say that sentence the following day, for example, if the emotion was still very strong, if he was still under that emotion. I add this so you don't think it is only a question of the day not being finished. 

As for your other other question, NO. Reading "_For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her," _without any other context, DOES NOT imply that this can change in the future. It implies nothing more than the speaker's approval of the event, and no one hearing or reading that sentence would think anything else.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

lagar19 said:


> Reading "_For us this has been the most perfect way to remember her," _without any other context, DOES NOT imply that this can change in the future. It implies nothing more than the speaker's approval of the event, and no one hearing or reading that sentence would think anything else.



My confusion does be here!
Why "_I have been hungry for three days._ "can express the experience in the part of the past, but "_This has been the most perfect way." _can't?
I must have not found the key point！


----------



## heypresto

What do you mean by "can express the experience in the part of the past"?

They both refer to the past and they both include the present.

I've been hungry for three days (obviously in the _past_) and I'm still hungry _now_.

This event, (which has finished, or nearly finished, and so obviously in the past) has been the most perfect way to remember her, and is still (_now_) the most perfect way to remember her.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

There is a link at #15, Please check it. 


heypresto said:


> I've been hungry for three days (obviously in the _past_) and I'm still hungry _now_.


I think it because usually when somebody says this sentence in this case, this guy still feels hungry currently.
But technically, this sentence didn't tell if this guy is still hungry or not. so “I’m still hungry now” just is the result of situational understanding.
In some specific situations, "I've been hungry for three days" can be understood as I have an experience of being hungry for three days a long time ago.
So now, I am confused by many contradictory answers... T-T
I can't get the essence from the appearance.


----------



## heypresto

selfzhouxinrong said:


> In some specific situations, "I've been hungry for three days" can be understood as I have an experience of being hungry for three days a long time ago.


Only in very rare or contrived situations. Without any context we would take it to mean that the speaker is still hungry now.
Common sense, logic and experience all tell us this is the case. 
If the speaker means that he or she was hungry for three days sometime in the past, he or she would say so. They would make it clear.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

heypresto said:


> Only in very rare or contrived situations.


I made this sentence based on my understanding，I don't know if it's correct or not.
_"I have only been hungry for three days, not for five days since 1998."_
Is it possible for this sentence to be understood？Maybe the speaker is a beggar？


----------



## heypresto

"I have only been hungry for three days, not for five days since 1998."  This sounds odd. I don't understand why you need to add 'not for five days'. Has someone said 'You've been hungry for five days at some between 1998 and now', and you are correcting this person?

Ignoring 'not for five days', "I have only been hungry for three days since 1998" means that you have been hungry for three days in total in the last 22 years. These three days could be three separate days or a period of three consecutive days, we don't know.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

heypresto said:


> "I have only been hungry for three days since 1998" means that you have been hungry for three days in total in the last 22 years. These three days could be three separate days or a period of three consecutive days, we don't know.


Yes Yes，I think so！
The biggest obstacle to learning a second language is the unconscious use of mother tongue logic.
The learner doesn't know where the problem is, so as the teacher.  T_T

Maybe I should change the question
1. From this sentence _"He has been the world championship since 1998",_ we can know____
2. From this sentence _"He has been a world championship since 1998",_ we can know____
A. He is the world championship now?
B. After 1998, he was the world championship, but we don't know if he is still.

Thank you very very much


----------



## heypresto

1. "He has been the world championship champion since 1998"  He is still the world champion now.
2. "He has been a world championship champion since 1998".  He is still a world champion now.

We usually talk about someone being *the* world champion, since there is usually just one world champion.

ABC has been XYZ since a time/date = ABC is still XYZ. He or she is currently XYZ.

If you want to say that at some point between 1998 and now he was the world champion, you need to make that clear with something like:

"He was the world champion in 2003/from 2004 to 2007", or "Since 1998 he has been the world champion once, and the runner up three times."

Without this added information we will take it to mean that he is still the world champion. You will just have to accept this.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

"I have been married" can imply I am single now.   
~This can talk about a past state.

"I have only been hungry for three days since 1998" means that I have been hungry for three days in total in the last 22 years. (These three days could be three separate days or a period of three consecutive days, we don't know.) 
~This can talk about a past state too.

but "He has been the world champion since 1998."
~This can only talk about the state that remains up to now.

I was driven crazy. T_T...

Thank you for your patience, anyway.


----------



## se16teddy

selfzhouxinrong said:


> "I have been married" can imply I am single now.


I don't want to make you even more crazy; but where "I have been married" is used in its "present consequence" sense, it can imply *absolutely anything *about the present time, depending on the context.
_- Do you like fish and chips? 
- I have been married! _
(May imply that the former wife was a dreadful cook, and the speaker had to go out for fish and chips every night, so the speaker really likes them *or* really hates them as a result.)


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

se16teddy said:


> The simple present perfect tense never makes much sense without context, because its purpose is to say something about the present time which is deduced from the context, and not from the verb.
> _I have been a teacher._
> Depending on the context, the things that this says about the present time can include:
> - I am a teacher
> - I was a teacher until the present period (but not at the present moment)
> - I know what it is like to be a teacher
> - teaching is on my list of jobs done in the past.


Your answer is the kind of logical and meticulous answer I want，Thank you very much！


----------

