It is not a wrong structure.

[engtense]

If you search for "in the past three years", the resulting pages are mostly in Present Perfect. Please check the following link:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22in+t ... ars%22&lr=
So, I don't know why "I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years" is not possible. You have even closed the thread "The tense-changing process" (I could not post replies there.)

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22live ... ars%22&lr=
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22live ... ars%22&lr=
== The links are not working. But I want to search for:
"lived in * in the past three years"
where the asterisk stands for any word.

You may find a lot examples such as this:
Ex: Second, as a person who has lived in various wards in the past few years, I have seen first-hand that these hoods are indeed neighborhoods.
Ex: As anyone who has lived in London in the past few years knows, the winters here rarely get very cold anymore.
== So, why "I have lived in Hong Kong in the past three years" is not possible? Please reopen the thread.

[Cliff]

Hallo engtense,

as far as I know, you should only use 'in' instead of 'for' after negation.
I haven't heard this song in six years.

[engtense]

Past time is definitely not Present time; past time can never come up to the present time. However, the secret here is, past time is not exactly past action, and present time is not exactly present action. A present action can start in the past and not yet finished now. Therefore, don't be afraid to say we use a past time to modify a present action. The past time says when the present action is started, and this is completely logical. In , for example, the tense is not only used to say the time adverbial, it is used to work with the time adverbial. We use Present Perfect to indicate the whole action is not yet finished. Therefore, instead of "ending now", say clearly whether it is ended before now or not. To mention a past time wouldn't kill our logic in using Simple Present. See also: "3.1.10 Past time/action vs present time/action"
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/3_1.htm#3_1_10

If this year is 2005, "for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/over the past five years" is another way to say "since 2000", which indicates an up-to-the-present time notion:
Ex: She has visited Ocean Park three times since 2000.
If DURING THIS TIME FRAME an action is finished, it is just an intermission. The whole action, which contains the up-to-the-present Since, is regarded not a completion. If you see the tense-changing process, you will be aware that a DPTA (Definite Past Time Adverbial) is a very special element in explaining tense. "Since 2000" does not only modify the action, and is also part of the action. If this part of action is not finished, the whole action cannot be regarded a finished action. One should not pretend the whole action is finished, while only a part of it is finished.

In contrast, with Simple Past, the action which includes the time frame is, as a whole, finished before now:
Ex: She visited Ocean Park two times in 2000.
== Both the action and the time span are finished.

Simply put, Present Perfect, working with Since, denotes an unfinished action, so too with time adverbials like "for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/ over the past five years". Therefore, the following examples are correct structures:
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong since 2000.
Ex: I have lived in Hong Kong for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/ over the past five years.
== The time just mentions when the action has started. As for prepositions "for/ in/ during/ within/ on/ through/ over", they relate to the verb, rather than with the time behind them.

-----------------------
In the diagram below I hope you can see the right and left limits of "yesterday":

__the day before__|__yesterday__|__present__

"IN THE PAST DAY" is explained as a time frame starting somewhere in Yesterday, over the right limit, and into the present. The day is therefore not a completion, and links to the present. This is the description of Prospective Past. The same applies to "in the past week/ month/ two years/ few years/ etc."

On the other hand, Retrospective Past is to the opposite direction. "A DAY AGO" is regarded as also starting somewhere in Yesterday, yet over the left limit, and into the day before. It therefore must be a past, failing to link to the present. The same applies to "a week ago/two months ago/ three years ago/ few years ago/ etc."
== http://www.englishtense.com/newapproach/4_5_1.htm

[Peter Farago]

First, I apologize for confusing anyone in the last thread, however, I must defend myself - just because some constructions are awkward and would not normally be used in conversation does not mean they do not have valid and precise meanings of their own.

"Have you lived ... in the last twelve months" is a relatively normal construction to find on legal forms for college, housing, medicare, etc.

• "In the last twelve months have you had to seek medical help because of an injury or illness resulting from violence?"
• "Have you lived or traveled outside of the country longer than three months in the last twelve months?"
• "Have you lived abroad in the last ten years? Have you been abroad in the last twelve months?"

Just because it sounds legalistic and grating to the ears does not make it meaningless.

I apologize if you find the language inconsistant and idiosyncratic, but unfortunately, that's how it is. Engtense is attempting to impose order where none exists, and although his effort is admirable, the language he describes on his website is not actually anything a native speaker would produce.

[engtense]

Engtense is attempting to impose order where none exists, and although his effort is admirable, the language he describes on his website is not actually anything a native speaker would produce.

May you point out exactly where? Are you going to jump to conclusion without proving it at all? Would English native speakers produce a comment about the Past Family at all?

What I call the Past Family is a group of past time adverbials that contain the telltale adjective 'past', fulfilling the role as past time expressions, such as "in the past year, in the past two months, during the past three decades, over the past four weeks, for the past few years, etc". They are as past as you can define what is past. In simple words, they are definite past time. But to our surprise, these past time adverbials stay with Present Perfect:
Ex: Over the past two centuries, researchers have found bones and artifacts showing humans like us existed millions of years ago.
Ex: Stocks have fallen in the past few minutes.
Ex: Look at the crashes that he has had to deal within the past few years.
Ex: I've also suffered from insomnia off and on the past few nights.
Ex: This has been my favorite CD for the past few years.
However, because these examples violate the 'golden rule' that Present Perfect doesn't stay with past time adverbials, grammar writers have to hide them away from the books.

The consequence? Those foreign learners who don't have a chance to use English often have no choice but follow the 'golden rule' in the grammar books. They trust in grammar writers and choose only Simple Past for the Past Family. Unfortunately, there are no grammar books whatsoever reminding them of the error. In Asia, most students agree the Simple Past is the only correct tense for the Past Family. Are English grammar writers happy now?

English grammars have at first agreed that tense is used to express time. But what they have done proves to the contrary, breaking the agreement. They regard Simple Present as timeless. They argue Present Perfect is used when the time of the action is not mentioned. They cannot tell the time of Simple Past "He slept well". Furthermore, just because they cannot define the future time, they think there is not Future Tense. What then have English native speakers produced at all? They have long failed to link tense to Time. The bad thing is, they don't know about this at all. As I have tried to link tense to Time, they say they would not produce such thing. Indeed, they haven't.

I have kept to their basic agreement that tense is used to express time. And yet I am to blame. Is this fair?

[Peter Farago]

I may have spoken in haste. I think I agree with your conclusions, more or less.

[Peter Farago]

Well, in these contexts, "on" never works, and "throughout" is better than "through".