What's the difference between the following sentences:

What's the difference between the following sentences:

>I lived in Wales.
>I have lived in Wales.

There is a difference by the way.

the second one has 'have' in it.

Past perfect vs. past imperfect?

I would do unspeakable things to Taylor Swift's butthole.

this

Past vs. present?

Not sure but there is a noticeable difference between
>I lived in Wales for forty years.
>I have lived in Wales for forty years.

That's gross, user.

> I lived in Wales
At one point you stopped living in Wales
> I have lived in Wales
You could still live in Wales, you could have left or you might not have.

So ?

I lived in wales for twenty years, moved to France and moved back.

I have lived in Wales but now I live in France.

What did he mean by this?

I lived in Wales, still do.

First one is a narrative.
Second one is an assessment.

when did you leave?
That doesn't actually make sense, the implication is still that you left.

I assume 'I have lived' describes your experience in the past, but ''i lived' describes just simple fact. am I wrong?

the first might be the past but the second doesn't necessarily have to be the present

And what's the difference between "having been read" and "being read"?

There's no implication if you think of it logically.

>having been read
Someone read it in the past.

>being read
Someone is reading it right now.

Being warnedabout the possible dangers we decided to take with us guns.
It's in the past too, isn't it?

I guess you could say when telling your story to someone who doesn't know you have lived and still live in Wales in an environment that does not imply that you live in Wales and you get to a part of your story that takes place in Wales and you mention that you lived in Wales and because you know that the implication of saying "I lived in Wales" is that you no longer live in Wales, you say "still do" to make clear to your listener that you still live in Wales.

This thread is terrible.

I don't think so, but I'm not a grammar expert. I think it's a statement about a present state of mind.

He means something in the vein of "being spent" and theoretically he's right, it just doesn't make a lot of sense with words like "read" and "warned".

Depends on context.

>It's in the past too, isn't it?

Indo-European languages have something called a past perfect or pluperfect (literally, plus perfectus, "more perfect"), meaning "more in the past than somethign else in the past," or "further back in the past, even relative to something else in the past."

"Being warned" is a present participle, which, confusingly, can be used in the past. "Present" in this case means "present with comparison to the action of the sentence," so if the sentence's verb is a past tense, the present participle is contemporaneous with that past. Examples:
>Showering, I sang.
>Singing, I showered.
>Still singing, I got out of the shower.
>Being made of steel, the bar did not break. (Awkward.)
In all these cases, the action of the participle is happening AT THE SAME TIME, often "just" at the same time, as the main verb, which is itself in the past.

More properly if you want to use the PLUPERFECT, you would use "having been warned," which is the PAST participle, meaning, it's something that already happened and is no longer happening. "Being warned" would mean, "while still being warned," as if the warning were still taking place when they made the decision. "Having been warned" means they WERE warned, the warning was "completed," and THEN, subsequently, they did the action of the main verb (i.e., they made the decision).

So the past participle can be used as a pluperfect to indicate that something happened in the past before something else happened, also in the past. Example:
>Having picked up the mug, I took a sip from it.
>Having exited the shower, I started singing again.
>Having made my decision, I pushed the button.

The pluperfect by itself, without a participle form, but with the same meaning, would be like (using "had"):
>After he had picked up the mug, he took a sip from it. (But this is awkward.)
More often you would see it in cases like:
>He had unplugged the phone, YET the phone still rang.
In this sentence, the meaning is very strongly: SOMETHING HAPPENED, and THEN something else happened, and the second thing refers back to or relies upon the first thing. We join the two clauses by "yet" or "but" to show that the pluperfect action implies that something should have followed, but the past action contradicts this.

So, the pluperfect is used not just to say "something happened in the past," but to provide background for something in the past, background that is (obviously) even further back in the past.
>Even though I had set rat traps, I had a rat infestation.

So to answer this simply: "being read" can be an alternate, rarer, and usually awkward/incorrect form of "having been read."

Or it can be an (also usually awkward) form of the present participle, which can also be in the past.

Past participle:
>The book, having been read by everyone at the table, was a great topic of conversation.
>Having been read by everyone at the table, the book was a great topic of conversation.
Pluperfect:
>The book had been read by everyone at the table, so it made for a great conversation topic.
>The book, which had already been read by everyone, made for a great conversation topic.

Present participle:
>The Bible, read daily by everyone in those days, was a common topic of conversation.
>The Bible, being read daily by everyone in those days, was a common topic of conversation. (Awkward)
Past/perfect:
>The Bible was read daily by everyone in those days. Therefore, it was a common topic of conversation.
>The Bible was read daily by everyone in those days, so it was a common topic of conversation.

I done lived in Wales, bruh

"have lived" is pretentious

it's emotionally dishonest tbqh pham

No, you're an idiot.
I have lived is imperfect so you could still be living there while I lived is perfective so you have definitely stopped living there.
Adding have adds more possibilities.

first: you lived in wales in the past, no longer do
second: you moved to wales at some point in time in the past but you still live there

You're a good man, user.

I used to do drugs. I still do but I used to, too!

>I lived in Whales
[at the time of ___]
>I have lived in Whales
[in a time gone by]

no, that's just imporper usage. 'i have been living in whales' is the appropriate verb form for your second example.

>i've lived in wales for ten years
that's a perfectly correct sentence you sperg

>what is completed aspect

The first is context dependent if you need to pin it down temporally. You use it when you want to be accurate about details "I lived in Wales at time such and such". The second is context independent denoting residence in Wales at an unspecified time in the past. You use it when you're fine with being ambiguous.

>people are trying to distinguish between the sentances by comparing their truth extensions

Yes.
>I have lived in Wales
Is not something you say in modern English, it's wrong
You should say.
>I've lived in Wales

The second one is dum

>I lived in Wales.
>I have lived in Wales.

Without a time adverb, these both seem like they're finished actions, however with the second sentence, I could see it being a part of a list in which you state successive places:
I've lived in England, Scotland, Wales and France.
Alternatively it could be affirmative:
"Have you ever lived in Wales?
"Yes, I have [lived in Wales]."

Saying "I lived in England, Scotland, Wales and France." sounds like you were living in all those places at the same time (going back and forth between those places perhaps).

>I lived in Wales for ten years.
those ten years are over and I no longer live there
>I have lived in Wales for 10 years
suggests that I am still living there

Further:
I lived in Wales ten years ago. Ten years before the present time, I was living in Wales.
I have lived in Wales ten years ago.

fucking past tense magnet, how do they work?

lol