Learn English – difference between: “I have been married with (was married with, married) her for three years.”
tense
What is the difference between the three sentences below?
I have been married with her for three years.
I was married with her for three years.
I married her for three years.
Best Answer
Note, first, that we say married to, not with. Married with in the sense "joined in marriage" is occasionally found in older English, but is no longer common
"I have been married to her for three years"
implies that you married her three years ago and are still married to her.
"I was married to her for three years" implies that you were married to her for a three-year timespan in the past but are no longer married to her.
"I married her for three years" is not idiomatic English. Transitive marry, with your partner as Direct Object, ordinarily designates the act of entering the married state, not the state of 'being married'; that's an "achievement" which cannot take a timespan temporal. It might mean "I married her with the intention that the marriage should last three years", but that meaning is very unlikely; such term-limited contracts are not to the best of my knowledge recognized in the law of any English-speaking country.
The question is broad and depending on the context, the meaning of those sentences drastically change. Since the question is broad, I'll answer that way.
Both the sentences broadly mean the same - you (at some point in time) were present at that place. However, a subtle difference is...
I was there - merely talks about the past event that you were present at that place. I have been there - talks about the past event of you being there but also emphasize that that event has something to do in the present talk/scenario. The current scenario/talk could be the result of you being there.
Keep in mind that a present perfect casts its predication in the present tense. It does not narrate past events, it mentions past events which give rise to a present state.
That is why formal English does not permit a present perfect to be used with a temporal adjunct which does not include the present moment, the Speech Time at which the sentence is uttered. (You will occasionally find this rule violated in improvised, conversational discourse; but even there it is comparatively rare.) Thus, this is acceptable:
okI have often visited London.
But this is not:
∗ I have often visited London in the 1990s.
Today, in the 20th century is a timeframe which excludes the present. Consequently:
Sentence 1) is acceptable if it appears in a text written in the present century, but would be of questionable acceptability if written fifteen years ago.
Sentence 2) is acceptable if it appeared in a text written during the 20th century, but it would not be acceptable if written today.
Best Answer
Note, first, that we say married to, not with. Married with in the sense "joined in marriage" is occasionally found in older English, but is no longer common
"I have been married to her for three years" implies that you married her three years ago and are still married to her.
"I was married to her for three years" implies that you were married to her for a three-year timespan in the past but are no longer married to her.
"I married her for three years" is not idiomatic English. Transitive marry, with your partner as Direct Object, ordinarily designates the act of entering the married state, not the state of 'being married'; that's an "achievement" which cannot take a timespan temporal. It might mean "I married her with the intention that the marriage should last three years", but that meaning is very unlikely; such term-limited contracts are not to the best of my knowledge recognized in the law of any English-speaking country.