# EN: I lived / have lived



## G54250

Hey guys !

I know that the difference between "I lived in England for 2 years" and "I've lived in England for two years" is that in the first case you no longer live there, while in the second, you're still in Perfidious Albion.

BUT, without the "for-clauses", could you use the present perfect to mean that you have lived in England but that you no longer do:

ex: "I've lived in England" meaning at some point in my life but not anymore ? or is the past tense compulsory ???

Cheers !


----------



## jaktown

I think so, for instance if someone commented on your accent, you could explain it by replying '_It's because I've lived in England_'. You can use the present perfect to refer to an event that has consequences in the present. It is actually a present tense. When you use the present perfect, you talk about now.
'_I spent my holiday in Corsica'_ --> you talk about your holiday
'_I've spent my holiday in Corsica_' --> someone told you that you have a nice tan, you look more relaxed, etc.


----------



## harrythelm

oui, tout à fait. 
Le "present perfect" est un temps du présent. Ainsi, on peut très bien dire "I've lived in England" par rapport à une période du passé –  tu te décris (je suis une personne qui a eu cette expérience). 
"I lived in England" se dit par rapport à un passé qui doit être identifié (for 2 years, in 1987, as a child, etc.)


----------



## misterk

Yes, you can say, "I've lived in England."
_Some examples:
_Q: How come your English is so good?  A: I've lived in England. _(in the past, completed action, the exact time frame is not important)
_Q: Would you like to live abroad? A: Well, I've lived in England, and I didn't enjoy the experience.


----------



## funnyhat

As misterk notes, you can indeed say something like "I've lived in England" - but if you say that, you should of course add that you no longer live there.


----------



## RowanF

G54250 said:


> BUT, without the "for-clauses", could you use the present perfect to mean that you have lived in England but that you no longer do:
> ex: "I've lived in England" meaning at some point in my life but not anymore ? or is the past tense compulsory ???



Short answer to your question: essentially, yes.

Long answer:

"I've lived in England." means that you have lived in England at some point in the past. It doesn't necessarily mean that you no longer live there, but it is heavily implied. With the "for clause" you could either mean that you have lived in England for two years and are still currently living there, or you could mean you have lived in England for two years at some point in the past, but are no longer living there.

Again, just saying "I've lived in England." means that you have at some point lived in England in the past, and since it is not followed by a "for clause" or anything else it strongly implies that you do not live there anymore, although technically you could still mean that you are living there since the only thing being directly communicated is that you have lived there at some point in the past.


----------



## misadro

Yes, Past Tense is compulsory if you wish to say that you *lived *in England but you no longer do.


----------



## jann

misadro said:


> Yes, Past Tense is compulsory if you wish to say that you *lived *in England but you no longer do.


If by "past tense" you mean the preterit, then I'm sorry, but this is not true.  As other native English speakers have explained above, it is entirely possible to use "I have lived in England" if you no longer live there.

But perhaps you mean to use "past tense" generically, and used it to include both the preterit and the present perfect tenses?  Obviously we cannot use the simple present ("I live in England") if we no longer live there... but I don't believe G54250 was asking about the simple present.


----------



## misadro

Again, and in more words than needed …

To express actions that took place or were completed in the past (_I *lived* in England <at some point> *but I no longer do*_) one should use past tense, also called simple past or past indicative, or past historic, or preterite, or “preterit” (American English).


----------



## misterk

Or, as jann has pointed out, you can in some instances use the past perfect:
_     Have you ever lived in England?
     Yes, I have lived in England.
_Action that took place in the past...


----------



## misadro

Humbly pointing out to "have lived" as present perfect, not past perfect ..


----------



## misterk

Confirmed. My mistake...!
But the point remains: there are more choices than the simple past tense.


----------



## jann

misadro said:


> To express actions that took place or were completed in the past (_I *lived* in England <at some point> *but I no longer do*_) one should use past tense, also called simple past or past indicative, or past historic, or preterite, or “preterit” (American English).


I'm sorry to disagree, but that statement -- wherever you may have found it -- simply cannot be applied as an absolute, general, blanket rule. 

Please allow me as a native speaker to assure you that the present perfect tense has several functions, one of which is to convey the current/present relevance of an action or event that was in fact completed in the past. We are not limited to using this tense for actions that started in the past and continue in the present. Such usage is not an "Americanism;" the various functions of the present perfect are essentially the same in all varieties of native English (British, Canadian, Australian, American, etc.)

The statement "I lived in England" is one of historical fact.  The statement "I have lived in England" is one of present condition.  It indicates that you are a person who has the characteristic of having lived in England.  It is not about your past action, but rather about your present state.  So if you wish to evoke your present state, you will chose to conjugate the verb in the present perfect and not in the preterit.  

The example sentence you provided (_I lived in England <at some point> but I no longer do_) is correct as written, not because you cannot use the present perfect to refer to a past action, but because it would difficult to find a situation/context where it would be logical to combine the present perfect with the words "I no longer do."

The distinction between present perfect and preterit is a difficult one for many students of English, particularly when their own native languages have no such comparable tenses.  One of the reasons this tense choice is so difficult to master is because usage is *context-dependent* and extremely sensitive to *the nuance the speaker wishes to convey*.  Although the rules of grammar dictate one tense or the other in certain constructions, sentences that do not contain those structures can often allow either tense, as a function of context and of the speaker's desired meaning.  This makes the tense choice difficult to master from a few short examples in a grammar book, and helps explain why the topic has been discussed at great length many times here on the French-English Grammar forum, and also on the English Only forum.  I would encourage you to peruse these existing discussions if you have remaining doubts.


----------



## Nati100

I Think so  Look Difference. 
1)  Alice* Lived* in France until 1990. 
2) Alice *Has Lived* in France since 1990.  )


----------

