Martha has lived in Europe and Asia when she was little

Yes, it should be changed to the simple past, i.e. "lived", since you're talking about 'closed past time' - "... when she WAS little...".

Hi Angliholic

I would use the simple past tense. The present perfect sounds odd in combination with the specific reference to a past time ("when she was little").

My thoughts:

Between the two continents, she must have spent a long time there. So I think “she had lived…” is a more logical choice.

Hi Goodman

The past perfect does not create any special sense of duration in this sentence. Nor is any added sense of duration necessary. Sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case.

YankeeHi Goodman

The past perfect does not create any special sense of duration in this sentence. Nor is any added sense of duration necessary. Sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case.

Dear Amy,

Hope you don't mind me calling you "dear"

Hi Goodman

Why don't you see "when she was little" as a time reference?

I have to agree to disagree with Goodman on this. There is no aspect of past perfect that indicates a lengthy duration.

It's used only to reinforce the "past-ness" of an action or situation that occured prior to something else. I guess you'll find me in Amy's tree.

I guess my perspective is different.” When she was little, she lived with her family in and (for many years) ” is fine with simple past. I am not disputing that. But what I said was, it’s a more logical choice since living in two continents was a very long time which should be emphasized by past perfect.

Is it right to use the present perfect form in the above? Must it be changed into simple past form--lived?

It is wrong. It absolutely must be changed as you propose -- because of the when clause.

The same objection does not apply to the past-viewpoint version, however:

Martha had lived in Europe and Asia ... when she was little; the