# I haven't had/didn't have for (the last) 2 days.



## Ivan_I

If I want to say that I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.

1) Would "for two days" be understood as "for the last two days"?
2) Which tense is better?

a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for two days.
c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for the last two days.
d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.


----------



## lingobingo

As a Brit I’d be most likely to use c, but without the word “an”.

Alternatively, I’d say: I couldn't get back to you earlier because I’ve had no internet [access] for two days.


----------



## london calling

a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an* internet access for two days.
c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an*  internet access for the last two days.
d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.

That said, I find 'to have any access to the internet/no access to the internet' far more natural.


----------



## Ivan_I

lingobingo said:


> As a Brit I’d be most likely to use c, but without the word “an”.
> 
> Alternatively, I’d say: I couldn't get back to you earlier because I’ve had no internet [access] for two days.


In your alternative sentence, "for two days" would it also imply "for the last two days"?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes.


----------



## Ivan_I

Just one more minor elaboration. 

Wouldn't *c)* sound as if I still don't have internet access? Because today is part of "for the last two days". 

I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had internet access for the last two days.


----------



## lingobingo

Er… surely if the person were now emailing you back (and making that particular remark), you would be in no doubt that they did now have their Internet access back?


----------



## london calling

Ivan_I said:


> Just one more minor elaboration.
> 
> Wouldn't *c)* sound as if I still don't have internet access? Because today is part of "for the last two days".
> 
> I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had internet access for the last two days.


No, because if you didn't have internet access you wouldn't be able to write to your friend anyway.


----------



## Ivan_I

So, what to do then? 


london calling said:


> No, because if you didn't have internet access you wouldn't be able to write to your friend anyway.


I think internet access doesn't pay attention to my grammar. Maybe I shouldn't say "for the last to days" then?


----------



## london calling

I don't understand what you mean by_ I think internet access doesn't pay attention to my grammar,_ sorry.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s fine as it is. “I haven’t had Internet access for the past/last two days” doesn’t in itself tell us whether or not that’s still the case (although the context does). But the statement would still be true even if the lack of Internet access continued.


----------



## anahiseri

I think the ambiguity lies in the fact that "for the last two days" lasts until today, but it's not clear if it's the whole of today, or just a part. So in my opinion it's not wrong to say
*I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had internet access for the last two days.*
even if you have access now, and you've had it for some minutes or even hours.


----------



## Ivan_I

lingobingo said:


> It’s fine as it is. “I haven’t had Internet access for the past/last two days” doesn’t in itself tell us whether or not that’s still the case (although the context does). But the statement would still be true even if the lack of Internet access continued.



Exactly, if Internet access continued then it wouldn't be any reason for worries on my part. 

But I am concerned about the case when I say that "Internet access hasn't been available for the last two days" and at the same time writing an email which means that internet connection has been resumed. 

I am sure anahiseri (post 12) has got the gist of my concern.


----------



## lingobingo

The concern is in your head. It would not enter the head of any native English-speaker reading that sentence.

They would read it as:

I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had internet access for the last two days *— although obviously I’ve got it back now!*​


----------



## london calling

_I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had internet access for the last two days._

It's obvious (to any native speaker) that you now have access, otherwise how could you write to your friend?


----------



## Ivan_I

I will start a new thread. Maybe this nuance is too subtle.


----------



## anahiseri

I thought we were discussing whether the use of the present perfect in
_I haven't had internet access for the last two days_
is correct if you have internet access now.
But I'm not sure anymore. Are we discussing whether the person receiving the message will start wondering how the speaker could have sent it, as he does not have access at the moment, according to an interpretation of the grammar
rule ?
And Ivan_I , did _you_ get the gist of my post?


----------



## Ivan_I

anahiseri said:


> I thought we were discussing whether the use of the present perfect in
> _I haven't had internet access for the last two days_
> is correct if you have internet access now.
> But I'm not sure anymore. Are we discussing whether the person receiving the message will start wondering how the speaker could have sent it, as he does not have access at the moment, according to an interpretation of the grammar
> rule ?
> And Ivan_I , did _you_ get the gist of my post?


Yes, you got me right. I also see what you mean. That's my concern. I just wanted to get more opinions.


----------



## london calling

We are discussing whether or not it's ambiguous. It isn't. It's obvious that the person has an internet connection at the time of writing.


----------



## anahiseri

Well, london calling, maybe we have a different concept of  ambiguous speech. Of course the context removes the ambiguity. But the words (without considering context) could still be ambiguous.


----------



## lingobingo

Only to you, it seems. Two native English-speakers have independently been in agreement throughout this thread. A very common mistake with English learners is trying to read too much into a simple statement.


----------



## anahiseri

Lingobingo, please notice:


anahiseri said:


> the words (without considering context) could still be ambiguous.


I said "could". I mean, that might be some people's opinion, I didn't mean to say I have an opinion about it. In this case there is no ambiguity because of the context. I don't know if it could be different in another situation.


----------



## Ivan_I

london calling said:


> We are discussing whether or not it's ambiguous. It isn't. It's obvious that the person has an internet connection at the time of writing.


I was trying to get across to you that definitely it's obvious that the person has an internet connection at the time of writing. It's out of doubt. The issue was whether it was OK to say "for the last two days" in that situation. If you have ab internet connection now, why say "for the last two day" as now (today) is part of those two last days, hence, how come you have it now?


----------



## Ivan_I

lingobingo said:


> Only to you, it seems. Two native English-speakers have independently been in agreement throughout this thread. A very common mistake with English learners is trying to read too much into a simple statement.


If you were learning a foreign language properly you would do the same. Thanks for the contribution.


----------



## london calling

I don't really understand your problem, to be honest. I think you simply have to accept the fact that 'for the last two days' can mean even 'up to 5 minutes ago' in some contexts, as could be the case here. It doesn't necessarily mean precisely forty-eight hours .


----------



## lingobingo

And I’m just trying to advise you (and others) to concentrate on what the words actually say, rather than reading into them a meaning they don’t express.


----------



## anahiseri

london calling, that's what I meant when I said


anahiseri said:


> I think the ambiguity lies in the fact that "for the last two days" lasts until today, but it's not clear if it's the whole of today, or just a part.


----------



## anahiseri

lingobingo said:


> concentrate on what the words actually say,



well, maybe that's not so easy for everybody. . .
And perhaps some people think that the same words can express different things. . . .


----------



## london calling

But there's no ambiguity.... how could the person have written what they wrote if they didn't have an internet connection?


----------



## Okkervil

london calling said:


> a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.


 Aside from the word "an" in that sentence, is it otherwise correct? In other words, is it acceptable to use the past simple here and "for the last two days"?


----------



## london calling

Okkervil said:


> Aside from the word "an" in that sentence, is it otherwise correct? In other words, is it acceptable to use the past simple here and "for the last two days"?


See my post 2.:


london calling said:


> a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
> b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an* internet access for two days.
> c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an*  internet access for the last two days.
> d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.
> 
> That said, I find 'to have any access to the internet/no access to the internet' far more natural.


----------



## Okkervil

london calling said:


> See my post 2.:


 I saw that , thanks. So we can use the past simple with "for two days" as well as with "for the last two days" in that sentence, right?


----------



## anahiseri

NOT "for the last two days"!​


----------



## london calling

Okkervil said:


> I saw that , thanks. So we can use the past simple with "for two days" as well as with "for the last two days" in that sentence, right?


Wrong. 

a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an *internet access for the last two days.
c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an* internet access for the last two days.


----------



## lingobingo

Don’t quote me, but I think a) may be okay in American English?


----------



## london calling

Quite possibly, given the difference in usage of the past simple and the present perfect between our two brands of English.


----------



## Ivan_I

lingobingo said:


> And I’m just trying to advise you (and others) to concentrate on what the words actually say, rather than reading into them a meaning they don’t express.


I think you pretty much take for granted your native's ability to understand English correctly. A foreigner doesn't know so many times what the words actually say. It's a commonplace situation. But this thread is not meant for going into details on that issue.


----------



## jasio

london calling said:


> But there's no ambiguity.... how could the person have written what they wrote if they didn't have an internet connection?


Over a phone perhaps... fax, text message, face to face, pidgeon, CB radio, snail mail - you name it. Are we really stuck to the one and only communication tool. ;-)

Anyway, if we use another way of communication, I understand that using present perfect tense expresses that the problem with internet access is still there, right? I had no internet access yesterday, I've had no internet access earlier today, and I may still have no access as we speak. Is that correct? Or - focusing only on grammar - the present moment is not that important?

The issue is, in Russian (and in Polish for that matter, and in quite a bunch of other languages) there is no such thing like 'perfect tenses' at all. We're taught that present perfect is used in English to express a sort of connection between the past and the presence - like in a case when the past state (no internet access) is still continued in the presence, or when the present effect of the past state is discussed (not responding to the message - ? ), but differenciating it from simple past - however natural for the hative spekaers of English or Spanish - is a challenge for us. I guess this is the reason Ivan tries to get beyond the specific situational context to dig to the specific meaning of the phrase itself.


----------



## AliahBP

Ivan_I said:


> If I want to say that I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
> 
> 1) Would "for two days" be understood as "for the last two days"?
> 2) Which tense is better?
> 
> a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
> b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for two days.
> c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for the last two days.
> d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.



Adding 'last' in the 'two days' will not really change the meaning of the whole context. The only difference is that if you say 'last two days', you mean this recent past two days, wherein if you say just 'two days' is like you are still on that day of the second day. I don't know if you get what i mean.

Secondly, on the use of 'didn't had' and 'haven't had', completely have a differrent connotation. Like when you say 'didn't have an internet', you are saying you totally had no connection of the internet, whereas when you say 'haven't dad an internet', you are saying you haven't opened the internet portals eventhough you have internet connection. 

I don't know if those were correct nor if those were helpful but i hope i did say something worthy enough.


----------



## lingobingo

Ivan_I said:


> I think you pretty much take for granted your native's ability to understand English correctly.


If that were true, do you really think I’d spend most of my waking hours on this site, trying to help explain the intricacies of English to people from around the world?


----------



## london calling

But the context is clear, I think, jasio. The person replied via the internet, not by phone or fax. 



AliahBP said:


> Secondly, on the use of 'didn't had' and 'haven't had', completely have a differrent connotation. Like when you say 'didn't have an internet', you are saying you totally had no connection of the internet, whereas when you say* 'haven't dad an internet', ????? *you are saying you haven't opened the internet portals even though you have internet connection.


I realise this is a typo but in any case you can't say " 'Haven't had an internet" in English. That said, I see you say your native language is English: where are you from?


----------



## Ivan_I

jasio said:


> Over a phone perhaps... fax, text message, face to face, pidgeon, CB radio, snail mail - you name it. Are we really stuck to the one and only communication tool. ;-)
> 
> I guess this is the reason Ivan tries to get beyond the specific situational context to dig to the specific meaning of the phrase itself.


Absolutely correct.



london calling said:


> But the context is clear, I think, jasio. The person replied via the internet, not by phone or fax.


I never said the reply was delivered over the internet. And it's not the point how it was delivered. I don't think it's the right approach to justify wrong grammar by physical facts.


----------



## Ivan_I

lingobingo said:


> If that were true, do you really think I’d spend most of my waking hours on this site, trying to help explain the intricacies of English to people from around the world?


Can't see why you wouldn't/couldn't. Don't see how one relates to the other.


----------



## london calling

Ivan_I said:


> I never said the reply was delivered over the internet. And it's now the point how it was delivered. I don't think it's the right approach to justify wrong grammar by physical facts.


Well if you didn't you should have, in your first post. It's called 'context'. So how was the message delivered?


----------



## Ivan_I

london calling said:


> Well if you didn't you should have, in your first post. It's called 'context'. So how was the message delivered?


If I didn't why did you make it up? You shouldn't have. The message was delivered in person.


----------



## lingobingo

Ivan_I said:


> But I am concerned about the case when I say that "Internet access hasn't been available for the last two days" and at the same time writing an email which means that internet connection has been resumed.





Ivan_I said:


> I never said the reply was delivered over the internet. And it's not the point how it was delivered. I don't think it's the right approach to justify wrong grammar by physical facts.





Ivan_I said:


> If I didn't why did you make it up? You shouldn't have. The message was delivered in person.


----------



## Ivan_I

But I think it's pointless to try to establish any coherent connection between the means of delivery and grammar. It doesn't matter how it was delivered, the only thing matters is when the internet connection resumed and when I said about its absence.


----------



## Ivan_I

That internet scenario in post 13 was inflicted on me by London Calling, first. Second, the point is not to prove how it was meant to be delivered but to show which tenses to use. If you see that depending on the means of communication we should use different tenses then submit examples. But looking for flaws is not productive. The truth is the message can be delivered by different means. Can you cover all of them? I think it's not important how it was delivered and the issue is more or less settled.


----------



## london calling

We didn't 'make it up'. You didn't provide the context.



Ivan_I said:


> But I think it's pointless to try to establish any coherent connection between the means of delivery and grammar. It doesn't matter how it was delivered, the only things matters is when the internet connection resumed and when I said about its absence.


You're wrong.

You said: "If I want to say that I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days". You didn't say "If I want to say that I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days so I delivered the reply in person.", which is what you should have said (context).



Ivan_I said:


> That internet scenario in post 13 was inflicted on me by London Calling, first.



If I inflicted it on you why didn't you correct me and *provide the context?* Why didn't you say "If I want to say that I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days so I delivered the reply in person"? instead of 'I couldn't answer someone's e-mail because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days' which to a native English speaker means you are replying *now*, via the internet, as you now have access to the internet again?

And in any case what I said above still stands, so I don't understand your problem, or is it that you think you're right and that we're wrong?


a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an* internet access for two days.
c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an* internet access for the last two days.
d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.


----------



## lingobingo

Ivan — Your original question has rather got lost in all this unnecessary argument. As you’ve been told, there is no ambiguity in telling someone that you have been without Internet access for the past two days (however you wish to phrase that). It’s a simple statement that means “as of this moment” this is the situation. Hence the use of the present perfect tense, which relates to what has been the case up to now. It looks backward in time, not forwards, therefore it says nothing about what will happen next. All of which is also explained in your other thread: For the last X days


----------



## Ivan_I

london calling said:


> You're wrong.


Don't get offended but I feel like that's the main message you want to communicate. I am sure I am not wrong as my question is reasonable upon any context. Do you want to say that there are different tenses to be used depending on the means of communication? That's what you are trying to say. OK, let's do it your way.
1) The reply was over the internet.
2) The reply was in person.

If the only reason you are dissatisfied is because I didn't give you a chance to be more helpful then here we go. Please, tell me how to treat the 2 above. Not a problem for me.


----------



## london calling

I'm not offended and I hope you're not either. This, which I said right at the beginning stlll stands, as I said:


a) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have an internet access for the last two days.
b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an* internet access for two days.
c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an* internet access for the last two days.
d) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had an internet access for two days.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the use of tenses with 'the last two days' and 'for two days' which we was discussed in your other thread. We have answered your question time and time again, here and in the other thread, but you seemingly didn't want to accept our explanations. I hope you do now.

In any case there really is no use arguing about it any more.


----------



## jasio

london calling said:


> b) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I didn't have *an* internet access for two days.
> c) I couldn't get back to you earlier because I haven't had *an* internet access for the last two days.


One more question (not arguing anyway ;-) ). Does b) imply that they are the two last days, or could it be virtually *any* two days? I'm not discussing the logic of the phrase (if I didn't have access for two days last week, perhaps something else stopped me from responding this week), just grammar and typical usage.


----------



## london calling

See the other thread: For the last X days


----------

