# depuis le temps



## Juju333

Vanessa: Ce médecin est nul, il n'a pas su soigné mes problèmes de peau!
Jack: Ah oui, mais pourtant ta peau est belle, tu n'as plus de boutons! Je ne comprends pas!
Vanessa: Ha oui mais *depuis le temps* je suis allé en voir un autre qui lui m'a donné des supers produits!

Comment dire "depuis le temps" en anglais?


----------



## wildan1

_since then :

Yeah, but *since then* I went to another one..._


----------



## elroy

I would say "but since then* I've gone* to another one..." or "I've *since gone*...".


----------



## Juju333

elroy said:


> I would say "but since then* I've gone* to another one..." or "I've *since gone*...".


Even if the girl only had to use these products for a while to have her pimples go away and is now not using them anymore ?


----------



## Juju333

As a side note, I realize that my french sentence could mean both, that she is still using these products but also that she could not be using these products anymore (french is a weird ass language haha). But I meant it in a way that she had stopped using these products and now has a clear skin. So should I use "went" then?


----------



## elroy

Whether she is still using the products is irrelevant.

For me: 

_Since then I've gone to another one who gave me some excellent products!  
I've since gone to another one who... 
Since then I went to another one... _


----------



## wildan1

elroy said:


> I've since gone to another one who...
> Since then I went to another one...


Formally you can make this difference and insist on a grammar rule, but in American spoken English, either tense is used in this context.


----------



## elroy

I disagree.  I didn't "formally make a difference" or "insist on a grammar rule"; I don't know where you got on any of that from. 
"Since then I went" sounds totally wrong to me, and I've never heard this used by any native speaker.


----------



## wildan1

It's common usage around where I live (and where I grew up in the US Midwest, too).


----------



## Juju333

It's actually convenient for me, the odds of me making a mistake are lower


----------



## elroy

I’m okay with

_Sometime_ since then, I went... 

This is because “sometime since then” refers to the point in time when I went (even though it’s not specified), whereas “since then” refers to the whole period of time that has passed since then.


----------



## le chat noir

elroy said:


> “since then” refers to the whole period of time that has passed since then.



I don't want to raise a storm in a teacup, but this sounds odd to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "since then" could be rephrased as "since the time I saw this incompetent doctor", i.e. "after I gave up on him and his worthless creams".

The only difference I see is on what happened with the new doctor. "I've gone to see a new doctor" would mean she's done with him too. "I'm seeing a new doctor" would mean she's still seeing him now. "I went to see a new doctor" doesn't specify the duration.

I was taught to always use the simplest possible tense in English, whereas French has more rigid requirements: you have to choose between "passé composé" and "imparfait", which would make no sense in that case, not to mention the ill-named "passé simple" .
That leads to specify whether she's still seeing him or not. There is no simple option in French to remain as vague as "I went...", or rather "je suis allé", though more precise, will also cover the meaning of "went".

So "I went" seems like a logical choice to me, assuming the details of her relationship with the new doctor are irrelevant.
"I've gone to see" seems quite OK too, and closer to the French, but I fail to see what's wrong with "went".

So my question is: what did I miss?


----------



## elroy

le chat noir said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but "since then" could be rephrased as "since the time I saw this incompetent doctor", i.e. "after I gave up on him and his worthless creams".


 Let's make this simpler and use the same wording in both cases:

1.) _since (the time) I saw the incompetent doctor_
2.) _after I saw the incompetent doctor _

Let's say I saw the incompetent doctor in January of last year, and the good doctor in June of last year.

1.) refers to the entire period between the time I saw the incompetent doctor and the present moment.
2.) refers to all the time after the time I saw the incompetent doctor.

In practice, these amount to the same reality, but there's a difference in perspective that translates to a grammatical difference, in English.

In 1.), we are saying that since Point X, A has happened. We are not concerned with the point in time at which it happened; the perspective is a global one.  So we use the present perfect.

This is similar to saying, "I have eaten at that restaurant once." There was a single event of my eating at that restaurant, and it happened at a fixed point in the past, but the perspective here is a global one; it's as though one were "taking stock" and checking a box ("Yup, that has indeed occurred."). Whereas when we say "I ate at that restaurant once," we are thinking of the specific point in time when it happened, even though we're not specifying when it happened (although we _could_ do that with the past simple ["I ate at that restaurant right after I arrived in Paris"  ], but not with the present perfect ["I have eaten at that restaurant right after I arrived in Paris" ]).

In 2., we are saying that after Point X, A happened.  Here we are not taking stock; we are reporting an event at a certain point on a timeline, so we use the past simple.


le chat noir said:


> "I've gone to see a new doctor" would mean she's done with him too.


 Not at all!  It simply says that during the time span between the time she saw the first doctor and now, there was an event of her seeing the second doctor.  It says absolutely nothing about whether she saw him more than the one time, whether she is currently still seeing him, or whether she plans to see him again in the future.

Another example:

_Last time I saw you, I had never tried deep-dish pizza, but I've tried it since then._
Again, in that time span there was an event of my trying deep-dish pizza, and the sentence doesn't say more than that about my experience with deep-dish pizza or my future plans in relation to it.

_After I saw you last, I tried deep-dish pizza._
This is conveying the same reality, but again, it's expressed from a different perspective and thus uses a different tense.


le chat noir said:


> "I'm seeing a new doctor" would mean she's still seeing him now.


 Yes, but you can't say "Since then I'm seeing a new doctor."  You could say "Since then I've been seeing a new doctor," which would mean that you’ve been seeing the new doctor for the whole time (January of last year until the present).  Otherwise, you could say "Since then I've started seeing a new doctor, and I'm still seeing him."


le chat noir said:


> "I went to see a new doctor" doesn't specify the duration.


 For me, "Since then, I went to see a new doctor" is ungrammatical, but none of this has anything to do with the duration of anything.  If I were to accept "Since then, I went to see a new doctor" as grammatical, I would accept it with the same exact meaning as "Since then, I have gone to see a new doctor": between January of last year and now, there was a single event of my seeing the new doctor.


le chat noir said:


> I was taught to always use the simplest possible tense in English


 I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  Although in certain cases English is flexible and allows more than one tense, it also has very many strict rules regarding tense usage, where only one option is possible.

_I have known him for five years. _

You can't say

_I know him for five years. _

even though "know" is arguably "simpler" than "have known," and in French, you _do_ say "Je le connais depuis cinq ans."


le chat noir said:


> you have to choose between "passé composé" and "imparfait"


 Same in English!

_J'ai obtenu mon diplôme en mai de l'année passée. 
J'obtenais mon diplôme en mai de l'année passée. 

I earned my degree in May of last year. 
I used to earn / was earning / would earn my degree in May of last year. _
("was earning" and "would earn" would each work with a different meaning.)


le chat noir said:


> "imparfait", which would make no sense in that case


 Again, same in English:

_Since then, I used to see / was seeing / would see a new doctor. _


le chat noir said:


> That leads to specify whether she's still seeing him or not.


 I'm sorry, I don't follow you here.  Are you saying that in French "depuis le temps je suis allée en voir un autre" indicates whether she is still seeing the new doctor or not?


le chat noir said:


> There is no simple option in French to remain as vague as "I went...", or rather "je suis allé", though more precise, will also cover the meaning of "went".


 I'm not following you here either, sorry.  Could you elaborate?


le chat noir said:


> So "I went" seems like a logical choice to me, assuming the details of her relationship with the new doctor are irrelevant.


 "I went" doesn't work for me based on the logic _of my internalized grammar_, which doesn't necessarily align with what may seem intuitively logical otherwise.  Regardless, as I said above, none of this has anything to do with what, if anything, has happened between her and her new doctor since the one time she saw him.  I was puzzled when @Juju333 brought up what may have happened since the initial visit with the new doctor, and I am equally puzzled by your references to it.  It seems that there's something about these tenses that (some) French native speakers misunderstand, so if you can elaborate on this point I can try to clarify.


----------



## le chat noir

Well I never could wrap my head around the way English expresses past and future. French and English have many things in common that can be worked out with analogies, but on that topic they go their widely separate ways.

Please forget about this "done thing" nonsense, it was just a clumsy attempt at explaining things I fundamentally don't understand and I made a mess of it.

Let's go back to the basics if you please:

(aujourd'hui) j'ai mangé une pizza -> (today) I ate a pizza / I've eaten a pizza.
(quand j'étais petit) je mangeais des pizzas sans arrêt -> (as a kid) I ate pizzas all day. / I used to eat pizzas all day

I was told "ate" was the best choice in both cases, unless some precision was needed (i.e. the chronology of various actions had to be established). That's what I meant by "use the simplest possible tense". That's not easy for my French mind, since in my native language the choice is obvious, you just can't use the same French tense in both sentences without breaking one or the other.

Now for the choice of tenses in this accursed skin cream story, I simply can't see the difference between "aujourd'hui" et "depuis le temps".
This difference between "after something occurred" and "since something occurred" is a mystery to me. Be it after a specific event or after a period of time, we're still talking about something that starts in the past and goes on until now.

In both cases I understand it as a given period of time running from some event in the past (the sunrise in one case, the day the lady gave up on her first doctor in the other) until now.
As far as my understanding of English goes, to describe an event that occurred during that period of time, past simple is enough but past perfect can also be used.

Apparently I missed some crucial point, so I ask:

What is the difference between "today" and "since the sun rose"?
Why should the past simple be forbidden after "since then" and allowed after "today"?

Or could you point me to some grammar primer that deals with this conundrum?


----------



## elroy

The difference is whether you are referring to a specific _point_ in time or a whole _period _of time.  Even if the reality is the same, the perspective is different.

I've tried to represent this visually; I hope this helps!


----------



## le chat noir

So if I got the idea, "between 9AM and 5PM" would be a period of time, and I should say "(between 9AM and 5PM) I've eaten a pizza" rather than "I ate a pizza" ?

Frankly I never heard of that distiction before. I'd really be grateful for some formal grammar here.


----------



## elroy

le chat noir said:


> So if I got the idea, "between 9AM and 5PM" would be a period of time, and I should say "(between 9AM and 5PM) I've eaten a pizza" rather than "I ate a pizza" ?


 No.

I tried to explain why “since” works differently.  I wasn’t trying to establish a general rule.  The logic that applies in one case doesn’t always apply in every other (similar) case.

If my attempt to explain the underlying logic is more confusing than it is helpful, you can just take this as a rule about “since.”  I’m sure you’ll find lots of resources if you google “since” and “tense.”


----------



## le chat noir

Ah ok, I was barking up the wrong tree 
I'll look into that then. Thanks for your patience.

edit: I think I found a comprehensive explanation there.

Apparently the problem lies with the "then" in "since then", which refers to a particular point in time.

"depuis le temps" could also have a different meaning ("there's been water under the bridge", more or less), but let's focus on the "since that time" equivalent.
If I got it right, "since then" refers to a specific event (a point in time, as you said), so it's not the best match for an expression implying a period of time (in that case, the time during which she saw the old doctor).

I guess "since" or "since that time" would sound better, regardless of the tense used?


----------



## Laurent2018

le chat noir said:


> I guess "since" or "since that time"



Où se situe le point de départ? Perso, je n'en vois pas !
A mon avis, "depuis le temps" doit être entendu comme "depuis longtemps", ce qui explique qu' enfin, elle n'a plus de problème de peau.

Peut-être "I've seen...a long time ago" ou "I've been seeing...for a long time"



le chat noir said:


> (as a kid) I ate pizzas all day. / I used to eat pizzas all day



Dans ce cas précis, ce serait plutôt "I would eat...", je crois.


----------



## rrose17

In the bad skin sentence, I don't think I'd say "since then". What comes most naturally to me is to use "in the meantime" as in 
_In the meantime I went/I've been to see another doctor._


----------



## le chat noir

@Laurent2018
Je dirais que la référence c'est la période où elle voyait un mauvais médecin. Apparemment la différence entre une date précise et une période de temps se traduit par le choix entre "since then" et "since [that time]".

Je suis d'accord que "depuis le temps" peut avoir un autre sens, mais admettons que ça soit "depuis ce temps-là", je continue à ne pas être trop sûr de comment il faudrait le traduire.

D'accord pour "I would eat" ou "I used to eat", c'est plus élégant, mais je voulais juste dire que le "past simple" était un choix possible et courant, au moins dans la langue parlée.

@rrose17
Well thanks, that's pretty convincing. Maybe in this particular sentence "since" is not a good match for "depuis" to begin with.


----------



## rrose17

To me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd say
In the meantime I went to see another doctor and _since then_ everything's been great.
Entre temps j'au vu un autre médecin et depuis ce temp là tout va bien.


----------



## le chat noir

Sounds good to me.

Apparently "depuis" and "since" have slight differences in meaning.

It seems that in English "since the war" clearly means "since the beginning of the war" and you need something like "since after the war"  to mean "since the end of the war", while in French "depuis la guerre" could be understood as either of these depending on the context, or even remain non-specific, if the war is just a global landmark whose precise limits are irrelevant.

In short, when referring to a period of time, French is happy with "depuis" while English requires to choose between "since" and "since after".

So "since" would be understood as "since I started seeing this pathetic doctor" (which makes the whole sentence sound silly) while "depuis ce temps-là" would be understood as "since after that time" (though it could be understood as "since that time" in another context). But surely there must be more idiomatic ways of saying the same.

As it happens, "depuis le temps" has an idiomatic meaning (an emphatic way of saying "'that was such a long time ago"), so I guess the lady is rather saying "that pathetic doctor is a thing of the past. I went to see another one ages ago and he fixed the problem".
Maybe the expression "[there's been] water under the bridge" could render that idea?

What do you guys think?


----------



## rrose17

Sorry but since the war, depending on the context, is more likely to mean "since the end of the war". I think you'd have to say "since the war started" to mean since the beginning of the war.


----------



## le chat noir

[banging his head on the wall and howling at the moon]
If that is so, what is wrong with "since that time I went to see another doctor?"


----------



## rrose17

I think because since refers to a specific point in time and you’d have to say “since I last saw that doctor...” Since that time makes me ask “What time in particular?”


----------



## le chat noir

According to this, "since" can also refer to a period of time. Besides, words like "the war" also represent a period of time.

But maybe the problem is rather with "time"? What about "since these days" instead?
Surely there must be a nice way of saying "since that period of time"?


----------



## rrose17

Since those days, sure. Not these days. For the doctor you could say “Since I stopped going to see that doctor...” That refers to a specific point in time. I think your link is a little misleading as far as referring to a period of time, but I’m afraid this is turning into an EnglishOnly thread, wouldn’t you say?


----------



## le chat noir

Yeah, sorry, I'm getting carried away.
For some reason I find it really hard to express temporality in English. I've been pestering native speakers for years and yet I'm still puzzled by such apparently simple problems.
Do you think some moderator could do a magic trick and move the thread to a more appropriate place?


----------

