# Präteritum + "seit" vs. Past Progessive + "for/since"



## Janni65

Hello, I can't decide on the right tense to use here and would appreciate advice.

Die Euregio Rhein-Waal *führte* bereits seit einigen Jahren die Beratung von Wirtschaft und Bürgern durch.....Der Arbeitskreis Bildung und Arbeitsmarkt, in dem von Anfang an die Arbeitsverwaltungen beiderseits der Grenze vertreten waren, begleitete diese Aktivitäten.

I think it should be: The Rhein-Waal Euregio *had*, for some years, *been advising* businesses and members of the public....

Is that the correct tense?


----------



## brian

Looks right to me--past tense + _seit_ = _had been doing_ + _since/for_--except you need to throw in _bereits/already_.


----------



## Janni65

Thanks very much Brian.

But now - big apologies. This is a piece of work I had on file and to which I am now returning. I see that I've already asked a similar question before!! So sorry.


----------



## Frank78

I think it should be "hatte...durchgeführt" in German but that´s an error in the original. 
It seems to refer to an action in the past before another action happend.


----------



## Derselbe

Frank78 said:


> I think it should be "hatte...durchgeführt" in German but that´s an error in the original.
> It seems to refer to an action in the past before another action happend.


 
I see no reason for using Plusquamperfekt here. Can you give us some more explainations on your suggestion.


----------



## Derselbe

brian8733 said:


> Looks right to me--past tense + _seit_ = _had been doing_ + _since/for_--except you need to throw in _bereits/already_.


 
Is "was advising" wrong? It's not clear to me so far why backshift is necessary here. Neither in German nor English.


----------



## brian

In this case of verb + _seit_, English will be shifted back one tense (and progressive) with respect to German:

_Ich *lerne* Spanisch seit 2 Jahren = I *have been learning* Spanish for 2 years.
Ich *lernte* (*habe*) Spanisch seit 2 Jahren (*gelernt*) = I *had** been learning *Spanish for 2 years._

I don't know whether simple past or composite past is better for German there.


----------



## TheRock87

Derselbe said:


> Is "was advising" wrong? It's not clear to me so far why backshift is necessary here. Neither in German nor English.


 
It's wrong because they didn't stop advising. It doesn't exist in German grammar in that way but in English you have to replace "was" with "had been" in this case.

brian 7833 is spot on.


----------



## sokol

brian8733 said:


> _Ich *lernte* (*habe*) Spanisch seit 2 Jahren (*gelernt*) = I *had** been learning *Spanish for 2 years._


Well, semantically this doesn't make much sense - "seit" is wrong here, it should be rather "ich lernte 2 Jahre Spanisch" or "ich habe 2 Jahre spanisch gelernt".
With "seit" it sounds like you'd say "I had been learning Spanish *since *2 years".  (Which would indicate that you are still learning, while the time used suggests that you are finished with it. If you want to express that you are still learning then present tense is obligatory.)

But that just as a sidenote - else you're right.


----------



## brian

"I had been learning Spanish since 2 years" makes no sense in English. Or is that the point you were trying to make? 

English is able to express a variety of tenses depending on what is happening and when and in relation to whatever else is happening. So "had been doing X since/for" is very different from "did X for". So:

_Ich lernte 2 Jahre Spanisch = I studied Spanish for 2 years._

The action is complete. It means that some time in the past, I spent 2 years studying Spanish, but since then, I have stopped. There is a clear beginning _and_ end to the action.

Now, _I had been studying Spanish for 2 years_ is different. This requires another action in the context:

_When I met Federica, I was able to speak rather well with her because (at the time) I had been studying Spanish for 2 years._

Obviously, the action is NOW complete, but AT THE TIME it was NOT complete. So there is a difference. If it said _because I had studied Spanish for 2 years_, it would mean that in the past, I studied Spanish for 2 years, then I stopped, then I met Federica.

So in the former case, I assumed you would say _Ich lernte seit 2 Jahren Deutsch (als ich Federica kennenlernte)_. Is that wrong?


----------



## sokol

brian8733 said:


> "I had been learning Spanish since 2 years" makes no sense in English. Or is that the point you were trying to make?


Exactly. 
And the German counterpart wouldn't make sense either - it is, strictly speaking, "not really" grammatically wrong but it just don't makes sense.


----------



## brian

Did you see my examples? How would you distinguish in German between the following two sentences:

(1) _I had (already) studied German for 2 years when I met Federica. _("studying" had already stopped before I met her)

(2) _I had been studying German for 2 years when I met Federica. _("studying" was still occurring when I met her)

I assumed that (1) was _Ich lernte 2 Jahre Deutsch_ and that (2) was _Ich lernte Deutsch seit 2 Jahren.
_


----------



## mannibreuckmann

Bei (1) würde ich Plusquamperfekt im Hauptsatz verwenden, bei (2) Präteritum.

(1) Ich hatte schon zwei Jahre lang Deutsch gelernt, als ich sie kennen lernte.

(2) Ich lernte seit zwei Jahren Deutsch, als ich sie kennen lernte.


----------



## brian

Oh right, Plusquamperfekt in (1), of course. Just like in English.

But anyway, (2) is exactly how I thought it should be. And that's exactly how I read _führte...durch_ in the sentence in this thread. I don't think it should be _hatte...durchgeführt._


----------



## mannibreuckmann

I agree with you.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> "I had been learning Spanish since 2 years" makes no sense in English.


_When I came to Madrid 5 years ago I had been learning Spanish since 2 years._

I would prefer "for 2 years" but the sentence above is totally valid.


----------



## brian

We'll see what BE speakers say (once again ), but in AE it is totally _*in*valid_ and ungrammatical.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> We'll see what BE speakers say (once again ), but in AE it is totally _*in*valid_ and ungrammatical.


Why? Because of the use of _since_ alone or are there other things you object to in this sentence?


----------



## sokol

Oh, I've completely missed that sentence:


brian8733 said:


> So in the former case, I assumed you would say _Ich lernte seit 2 Jahren Deutsch (als ich Federica kennenlernte)_. Is that wrong?


Of course it would be correct if (and only if) you add that part about Frederica.


berndf said:


> _When I came to Madrid 5 years ago I had been learning Spanish since 2 years._
> 
> I would prefer "for 2 years" but the sentence above is totally valid.


Well, I also would prefer "for" - and I even think "since" is a little bit odd. 

Of course I trust Brian's judgement for AE; I only hope that BE speakers will confirm that "for" is valid in British English.


----------



## brian

berndf said:


> Why? Because of the use of _since_ alone or are there other things you object to in this sentence?



No, purely because of the "since." It's a common error (in my AE opinion) for English learners because languages like German, French, Italian... work exactly the same in this case: _seit, depuis, da, _... respectively. These words are often (but not always, in AE) translated _since_. So the result is that many non-natives use _since_ (because of native-language interference) where the correct word is _for_.

I've corrected such mistakes in the Italian forum and do not remember a BE speaker ever saying, "Stop! But I say _since_ in that context!"

So we'll see. 



sokol said:


> Of course I trust Brian's judgement for AE; I only hope that BE speakers will confirm that "for" is valid in British English.



I have no doubt that _for_ is valid; the real question is whether or not _since_ is invalid in BE.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> No, purely because of the "since."


Ok, I am with you there. I wouldn't use _since_ either (as I wrote). I reacted to you saying it were _meaningless_.
Is this use of _since_ unidiomatic? Certainly!
Is this use of _since _ungrammatical? I don't think so, but I won't insist.
Is the sentence meaningless? Definitly not! I can't see how you could misunderstand the sentence.


----------



## mannibreuckmann

Da bin ich ja mal gespannt auf die BE Sprecher.

Ich meine, mich deutlich an die Zuordnung "since -> Zeitpunkt" bzw. "for -> Zeitraum)" im Englischunterricht zu erinnern.


----------



## brian

Well, I will admit that if I read the sentence _I have been studying Spanish since 2 years_, I know that it means _for 2 years_, but I think it's only because 1) I have knowledge of languages that use the equivalent of _since_ in that context and/or 2) I have gotten used to non-natives incorrectly using _since_ in that context. So now I know what it means.

However, I would imagine that a native English speaker with no knowledge of a second language would be completely baffled by such a sentence. It sounds very incomplete, as if it should continue like this, for example:

_I have been studying Spanish since 2 years after I arrived in the US.

_...which of course means, I arrived in the US, then two years later I started studying Spanish, and I am still studying it.

So I would argue that it is meaningless insofar as it sounds very incomplete and confusing.


----------



## berndf

Ok, accepted. What about:
_When I came to Madrid 5 years ago I had been learning Spanish since 2 years earlier._

Now _since_ definitly refers to a point in time and not to a time span any more.


----------



## brian

Yeah, that's perfectly fine. When it refers to a specific point in time, _since_ is the right word. It's like saying _...*since* February 8, 2001._


----------



## Frank78

brian8733 said:


> No, purely because of the "since." It's a common error (in my AE opinion) for English learners because languages like German, French, Italian... work exactly the same in this case: _seit, depuis, da, _... respectively. These words are often (but not always, in AE) translated _since_. So the result is that many non-natives use _since_ (because of native-language interference) where the correct word is _for_.
> 
> I've corrected such mistakes in the Italian forum and do not remember a BE speaker ever saying, "Stop! But I say _since_ in that context!"
> 
> So we'll see.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that _for_ is valid; the real question is whether or not _since_ is invalid in BE.



I think it´s wrong in BE. You can say "since 2007" but not "since 2 years". "Since" is used for a point in time and "for" for a period of time


----------



## Derselbe

So, having read all that I'd still say the correct translation would be:

...was advising for two years.

The German sentence sounds somewhat strange (but definitely not wrong). It seems that there is something missing like:

Die Euregio Rhein-Waal *führte* bereits seit einigen Jahren die Beratung von Wirtschaft und Bürgern durch, als irgendetwas passierte.

Which means that they were still giving advises when the incident occured.

So I'd translate this as

They were advising for two years, when X occured.

If I read "They had been advising for two years, when/before X occured.", I would get the feeling that they stopped advising before X occured.

Am I mistaken?


----------



## brian

Unfortunately (or fortunately, since you get to learn something ), you are indeed mistaken... in my humble AE opinion.

You must say _They *had been* advising for 2 years when* X occurred_, and it means that when X occurred, they were _still_ advising.

*_before_ sounds a little strange here, and if it's used, then the sentence is ambiguous: you don't know whether the advising stopped or not before X occurred.

P.S. _occur*r*ed_


----------



## Derselbe

brian8733 said:


> Unfortunately (or fortunately, since you get to learn something ), you are indeed mistaken... in my humble AE opinion.
> 
> You must say _They *had been* advising for 2 years when X occurred_, and it means that when X occurred, they were _still_ advising.
> 
> P.S. _occur*r*ed_


 
So what do I have to say to express the idea that they had already stopped advising?

German sentence:

Sie hatten beraten, bevor X passierte.


edit:
_They *had been* advising for 2 years when* X occurred._
They *were* _still_ advising when X occurred.

So it's all just depending on adverbs?

edit2:
Okay now I'm getting really confused:
"you don't know whether the advising *stopped* or not before X occurred."
shouldn't it be
"you don't know whether the advising *had stopped* or not before X occurred."


----------



## brian

Depends on the context I think, but I'd probably say _They *used to* advise before X happened. _If you add a time element in there, it might change: _They *had advised* for 2 years before X happened._


----------



## elroy

Poor Brian!  Since it can't be easy to be the only native speaker of English participating in a discussion on English grammar and have to defend your viewpoints against some very intelligent and insistent non-natives , he could probably use some backing up, so I'll say that he is totally right that

1. _He has been doing X *since *Y years_ is completely incorrect and ungrammatical in every variety of English.  This I am sure of.   (Bernd, your English is so good I'm surprised you said it was "totally valid." )
2. You have to say _*had been *doing X for Y years when Z happened_ if X was still being done when Z happened.  _They *were* doing X when Z happened_ means that they were doing X at the same time that Z happened, and you cannot add _for Y years_ to the sentence with _was_.

As for the original sentence, I think more context is needed.  What is this about?  What is the sentence right before?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Bernd, your English is so good I'm surprised you said it was "totally valid."


I think this has been clarified in the meantime. What I had in mind was (cf. above):
_When I came to Madrid 5 years ago I had been learning Spanish since 2 years earlier._
I erroneously thought the ellipsis of _earlier_ would be understood by a native speaker.


----------



## elroy

Gotcha.  Whether it would be understood depends on the native speaker.   And probably on other factors as well.  Either way, it's not "totally valid" because it's ungrammatical.

But it's a very common mistake, as Brian said.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Gotcha. Whether it would be understood depends on the native speaker.  And probably on other factors as well. Either way, it's not "totally valid" because it's ungrammatical.


Brian had already convinced me that my original claim (without mentioning _earlier_) was untenable.



> But it's a very common mistake, as Brian said.


Indeed.


----------



## elroy

I'm sorry if you felt I was picking on you or being overly critical.  I was just genuinely surprised that you called it "totally valid."  It was meant as a compliment.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I'm sorry if you felt I was picking on you or being overly critical. I was just genuinely surprised that you called it "totally valid." It was meant as a compliment. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


No problem what so ever. I just wanted to be clear that you don't have to convince me and that I am completely in agreement with Brian and yourself.


----------



## Janni65

Since you ask....

For is correct, since + time period is not.

(If you've been doing something for a long time, you might say 'I've been doing this since forever', but it's not grammatically correct).


----------



## elroy

Janni65 said:


> (If you've been doing something for a long time, you might say 'I've been doing this since forever', but it's not grammatically correct).


 Depends on what you mean by "grammatically correct."   It's perfectly acceptable in informal colloquial English.


----------

