Retire for long

Question

If you agree we can't say:-I have received his gift for five days.Can we say?:-She has retired for long/for a long time. (=Her becoming retired happened a long time ago./The state of going into retirement started a long time ago.)

RandomGuy · Accepted Answer

OttoJ-She has retired for long/for a long time. (=Her becoming retired happened a long time ago./The state of going into retirement started a long time ago.)

No, but these are possible:

She retired a long time ago. (a one-time action occurring in the past)
She’s been retired for a long time. (a state that began in the past and continues up to now)

CalifJim · Answer

OttoJIf you agree we can't say:-I have received his gift for five days.Can we say?:-She has retired for long/for a long time. (=Her becoming retired happened a long time ago./The state of going into retirement started a long time ago.)

"for" phrases of time (for five days, for a long time, etc.) cannot be used with the present perfect when the predicate can only indicate a single event that occurs at a point in time, e.g., to receive (something), to retire, to explode, to start (to do something), etc.

CJ

OttoJ · Answer

um...do you agree that in modern English we can still say?:

-She has long retired. (a different structure from the one I gave.)

CalifJim · Answer

OttoJShe has long retired.

It seems a little weird, and I wouldn't use it, but I think I may have heard it. More commonly I think, She has long since retired, referring to an event in the past, thus:

— Wasn't she still working there at the time they were building the new hotel across the street?
— Yes, she was, but she has long since retired.

(She retired after the building of that new hotel, but even so, that was a long time ago.)

CJ

Retire for long

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions