I've been teaching it for years.

[Aikuzo]

- I have taught it for years.
- I've been teaching it for years.

Does each of these sentences conveys the same thing? I think people use the second sentence more often on emphasizing the "duration" of an action right? While the first sentece one is just simply stating the "duration" but not necessarily emphasizing it...

Eg:
"This is a very efficient technique. I've been teaching it for years." (emphasizing)

Did I got it correct?
_________________
I quit studying English years ago and have just come back to study the basics.

[SkiIucK]

The first one means that you once taught it, but not anymore. The second one suggests you are still practising.

[Aikuzo]

Another question:
EnglishClub: Present perfect tense for continuing situation
- I have worked here since June.

Just to make sure I really got this. So if I say "I have worked here." or "I have worked here for two years.", it is a present perfect tense for finished "experience". But if I add the word "since" like "I have worked here since two years ago.", it changes the meaning to 'still happening now'.

Did I got it correct?
_________________
I quit studying English years ago and have just come back to study the basics.

[Take_It_Easy]

I think, It means you still work there if you say: I have worked here. Note that, Present perfect means, something started to happen in the past and it is still happening.

I had worked here -- Past perfect which means something started to happen in the past and finished before the present.

When you say since you mark the starting point when you started to work. But all depend on the context, in my opinion.

But I'm not native speaker just try to word what I studied.

[Aikuzo]

Though "I have taught it." or "I have taught it for years." is a completed action right?

I'm just confuse on the distinction of the first rule to the other rule on EnglishClub.com that states:
Present perfect tense
1. Present perfect tense for experience. (completed action)
"He has lived in Bangkok"
"I have seen ET."
3. Present perfect tense for Continuing situation. (still hapenning)
"I have worked here since June."

Sentence like "I have seen ET." is easier to distinguish as completed action but I am having trouble to identify forms like "He has lived in Bangkok" if it's on #1 or #3 rule, because there are same forms like "I have worked here" which is continous. Though, I know "I have learned a lot today" is a complete action but still... their structure looks the same as the continous.

This is why I just told my English proffesor yesterday "So English is not as easy as 1+1 eh?" :lol:
_________________
I quit studying English years ago and have just come back to study the basics.

[Esl_Expert]

[Aikuzo]

[Cerberus™]

[Aikuzo]

Heyyyy, my thousand gratitude to you Cerberus! xD

Round 1: :lol:

Cara: First of all, Congratulations on your new position as contemporary curator at the Baltimore Museum of Art! There are a lot of excited people here in Baltimore who are thrilled you are coming on board. After your 8 year tenure at the Hirshhorn, what made you want to switch from DC to Baltimore?

Kristen: Thank you. I am excited about the new position and the new city. I have worked at the Hirshhorn for eight years, and it is an amazing institution with a great collection, fantastic staff, and lively and dedicated supporters. I am glad that I will still be able to pop down to Washington to see exhibitions and attend lectures there.

It wasn't still clear at this point whether she's still working(and about to quit) or have just quit.

Cara: At the Hirshhorn you worked with a number of big name artists on some very ambitious projects. What were and are some of your favorite exhibits and artists you have worked with?

It wasn't still clear at this point. Cara just mentioned "worked with a number of big name artists" but she could still said it even if Kristen was still working on the Nirshhorn.
_________________
I quit studying English years ago and have just come back to study the basics.

[Cerberus™]

My comments are in bold black; I also made a few corrections to your comments in bold red.

[Aikuzo]

I'll go offtopic for a sec:
- It still wasn't (or isn't?) clear at this point.
- It still isn't clear to me.

I think this is about "hystorical" storytelling or something. At first, when I was typing that first sentence I was reluctant to use "is" or "was". This always happens on situations like that when I'am in a "storytelling" mode, where I always stop to think if I am going to use "is" or "was". xD Somehow "was" sounds more natural to me but I couldn't explain why. My theory is: 'hystorical present' works on the subjects AND on the speaker. So yesterday when I was typing, even though the action "It still isn't clear to me" is happening when I was typing(which is "present"), I'm explains what I was saying on that sentence as if I was actually there listening at the time Cara and Kristen was talking.
=========

- Cara just mentioned "worked with a number of big name artists" but she could still have said it even if Kristen was still ["was" is colloquial; "had still been" is better: it must be either "she could still say it even if Kristen were still working..." or "she could still have said it even if Kristen had still been working..."] working on the Nirshhorn.

So "was" is not suggested to use to talk about someone you are not familiar with --- on formal situations. So it's better to use "were" or either perfect or perfect continous eh.

Talking with my friends: (about my boss I'm wasn't familiar with)
- Yeah, our boss was annoying man... but now she's starting to be really nice. Hmm, I might fall in love with her. :)
Talking with my new co-worker: (in a formal way)
- Oh yes.... she weren't very nice.... but she's wonderful now isn't she? (LOL)

So we can use "were" on 3rd person singular if we have to use it on "formal talk" to replace 'was' right?
_________________
I quit studying English years ago and have just come back to study the basics.

[Alan]

Hi Aikuzo,

I feel you are chasing your tail and making mountains out of molehills. Let's get one thing straight This is gibberish:

[Cerberus™]

I am sorry for not explaining myself; this misunderstanding is my fault.

There are two entirely separate "problems" here:

1. Whether the past or present tense is better for things that are true in both past and present: this is not very important, just choose the tense that you like; either tense is right.

2. The past subjunctive versus the simple past.

Example:
A - Deirdre had (past simple) a favourite slave; when he died, she was very sad.
B - She is still a bit sad. She has never bought another one; I think she would be happier now if she had (past subjunctive) a new slave.

In the first sentence, we are talking about a situation that was simply true in the past. She had a slave.

In the second one, we are talking about an unreal situation now: "if she had a new slave" - she doesn't have a new slave, but what if she did? This is the usual construction for a hypothetical (not real at the moment) situation:
if + past subjunctive (subordinate clause), would + infinitive (main clause).

As you see, "had" can be both past simple and past subjunctive: they have the same form. There is only one verb where they have different forms, and even then only for "I" and "he/she/it": the verb "to be".

Simple past:

I was
you were
he was

we were
you were
they were

Past subjunctive:

I were
you were
he were

we were
you were
they were

Because both tenses have the same form for most persons of "to be", and the same form for all persons of other verbs, past simple and past subjunctive are often confused. Using "was" for the subjunctive may pass in speech, but it is actually not right. Google is your friend: search "conditional subjunctive" or something like that to learn more.

Question: - Phoebe was very rich before the crash; do you think she is still rich?
Reply: - She used to pay for my dinner when we went to town, but not anymore; I am sure she would pay for me now if she were still rich.

[Aikuzo]

[Cerberus™]

I agree that there are no definite clues in this text. I'd assume by default that he is still living in London, though that is by no means certain. First, if someone tells you about daily life in London, the first expectation that naturally comes up is that he lives there himself; that would be the most common situation for someone telling us about living in London - though it is no requirement. Secondly, the action of living somewhere is not easily stopped, as you'd need to move, which takes quite some time and is quite an important event. That gives me these small clues:
a.) If he had just moved or were in the process of moving, wouldn't he mention this important and relevant fact somehow?
b.) If he had just moved, the moving itself would have taken so much time - at least a few days - that his living there would not have ended just now, but some time ago already; in that case, he might have switched to past simple. However, this is not necessarily so.

You shouldn't worry too much about the issue. I think it works like this: whether the action of the p.p. is still going on or has just stopped is often left unclear, because it is usually not very important for the situation; and when it is important, you will know it, because either its context will tell you or its author will make sure that it is clear. The two examples you have so far provided do not give us definite clues, because the distinction isn't important enough in either one.