In news paper specially for dead person they use lived.
E.g.
He lived in xyz city and employed with xyz company
If I use usedd to live or would live then does this change the meaning of the sentence!?
Also help me to understand exactly when to use lived. Used to live and would live
Best Answer
This sentence is incorrect as it stands, because one cannot "employ with" a company. "To be employed" should be in the passive here, and it would be more natural to use "at" than "with".
Now we can address the question: what would happen if we replaced "lived" with "used to live", and with "would live"?
This wouldn't be used in an obituary (that is, newspaper article about someone recently dead), because it's very stark. "He used to live…" is a strong reminder that the person is in fact dead. It's grammatically correct, and the choice of tense is naively the correct one, but we would consider it too insensitive. "He used to live in…" sets up an expectation of the clause "… but now he lives in…", to which the answer is "nowhere: he's dead, thank you for reminding me about this sad event". Therefore, we use "He lived in…" instead.
In this instance, "used to live" is correct, because the sentence goes on to say where he now lives.
This is a bit of an odd construction. It could conceivably be correct - in answer to the question "where did he live?", for instance - but as a standalone sentence, it's worse than "used to live". It's still completely unambiguous, but it sounds a bit clumsy.
This is wrong because the tenses are mixed up between the two clauses. I'll elide the tense of the second clause from now on:
This is correct grammatically, but it means either of the two following:
Note that the first (and most common) interpretation is in the context of a narrative: a story moving forwards with time. For example, one might recount the history of the man in chronological order, and use this sentence while describing his childhood. However, one could not use this sentence simply to convey the fact that "he lived in London and was employed with BT", because it is some kind of future tense relative to the current point in time being described. There needs to be a current point in time being described before this makes sense.