# He has been sick until 2003.



## britneyM

I would like to know the function of the present perfect and the past perfect.
Say the speaker is telling the sentences in 2008.
In this situation, are the following sentences, S11 to S42, correct?

s11: He has been sick until 2003.
s12: he had been sick until 2003.

s21: He has been sick when he was in Paris.
s22: he had been sick when he was in Paris.

s31: He has been sick since five years ago.
s32: he had been sick since five years ago.

s41: He has been sick until five years ago.
s42: he had been sick until five years ago.

Thank you.


----------



## Forero

S12 is fairly easy to imagine a context for, but none of the others makes much sense alone:

s11: He has been sick until 2003. 
s12: *H*e had been sick until 2003. 

s21: He has been sick when he was in Paris. 
s22: he had been sick when he was in Paris. 

s31: He has been sick since five years ago. 
s32: he had been sick since five years ago. 

s41: He has been sick until five years ago. 
s42: he had been sick until five years ago.


----------



## Dimcl

britneyM said:


> I would like to know the function of the present perfect and the past perfect.
> Say the speaker is telling the sentences in 2008.
> In this situation, are the following sentences, S11 to S42, correct?
> 
> s11: He has been sick until 2003.
> s12: he had been sick until 2003.
> 
> s21: He has been sick when he was in Paris.
> s22: he had been sick when he was in Paris.
> 
> s31: He has been sick since five years ago.
> s32: he had been sick since five years ago.
> 
> s41: He has been sick until five years ago.
> s42: he had been sick until five years ago.
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## britneyM

The judgements about s22 and s42 are different.
If I could get some more explanation, I would be very happy.

Thank you.


----------



## Elwintee

britneyM said:


> The judgements about s22 and s42 are different.
> If I could get some more explanation, I would be very happy.
> 
> Thank you.



I agree with Dimcl:
s42: he had been sick until five years ago.
This is in the past, so 'had' is needed.  'Has' would imply that he is still sick now (as in 'He has been sick since last Tuesday [and is still sick]'.
Incidentally, '*sick'* is the AE term and (as I understand it) generally means illness over a period of time.  In BE we are '*ill*'.  In BE 'sick' generally means vomiting, and 'sick' the noun [= vomit] is the unpleasant stuff that has to be cleared up after someone has been sick/vomited.  I admit that BE is not consistent over this, as we talk of 'sick leave' and not 'illness leave'.


----------



## britneyM

Please let me ask about s22.

Say he was in Paris only from 1998 to 2003 in his life.
Which does s22 mean, m1 to m3?

m1: He had been sick between 1998 and 2003.
m2: He had been sick before 1998.
m3: He had been sick before 2003.


----------



## liliput

britneyM said:


> I would like to know the function of the present perfect and the past perfect.
> Say the speaker is telling the sentences in 2008.
> In this situation, are the following sentences, S11 to S42, correct?
> 
> s11: He has been sick until 2003. _Until_ doesn't work with present perfect.
> s12: he had been sick until 2003. Fine if it's in the correct context.
> 
> s21: He has been sick when he was in Paris. He _was _in Paris (simple past) so he _was_ sick at that time (also simple past).
> s22: he had been sick when he was in Paris. Fine if it's in the correct context.
> 
> s31: He has been sick since five years ago. This is correct use of present perfect with since. He became sick five years ago and is still sick.
> s32: he had been sick since five years ago. I think this would also work in the correct context, such as part of a narrative.
> 
> s41: He has been sick until five years ago._Until_ doesn't work with present perfect.
> s42: he had been sick until five years ago. I think this would also work in the correct context, such as part of a narrative.
> 
> Thank you.


 
I'm afraid my interpretation is also different but I have offered some explanation.


----------



## britneyM

What about question #6?


----------



## Porteño

britneyM said:


> Please let me ask about s22.
> 
> Say he was in Paris only from 1998 to 2003 in his life.
> Which does s22 mean, m1 to m3?
> 
> m1: He had been sick between 1998 and 2003.
> m2: He had been sick before 1998.
> m3: He had been sick before 2003.


----------



## LastManStanding

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the present perfect, according to Murphy, is used to express an action that happened within the same period of time as the one in which the speaker is speaking. So, if we are speaking in 2008, he "hasn't been" sick, but he "was" sick, because now he is ok.
Same thing with the past perfect applied to the past.


----------



## Porteño

LastManStanding said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the present perfect, according to Murphy, is used to express an action that happened within the same period of time as the one in which the speaker is speaking. So, if we are speaking in 2008, he "hasn't been" sick, but he "was" sick, because now he is ok.
> Same thing with the past perfect applied to the past.


 
That's absolutely right.


----------



## Ume

The Longman Dictionary says:
Do not use 'since' or 'before' with *ago*.
- I came to the USA two months ago (NOT since/before two months ago).


----------



## Porteño

Umeboshi said:


> The Longman Dictionary says:
> Do not use 'since' or 'before' with *ago*.
> - I came to the USA two months ago (NOT since/before two months ago).


 
You're absolutely right. You would have to say 'he has been sick since 2003,' for example. 'Ago' takes the simple past tense, not the present perfect since it relates to a specific past time.


----------



## Forero

britneyM said:


> Please let me ask about s22.
> 
> Say he was in Paris only from 1998 to 2003 in his life.
> Which does s22 mean, m1 to m3?
> 
> m1: He had been sick between 1998 and 2003.
> m2: He had been sick before 1998.
> m3: He had been sick before 2003.


Even restricting the discussion to s22, your question is still difficult to answer accurately.  S22 is a possible sentence, but it needs context to explain the timing/order of events.

More often than not, an adverb of time with "has/had been ill" would not specify the time of the illness but a time when the illness, or part of the illness, is/was history, a time which began when the illness began and may or may not continue indefinitely.  "Being sick", when it does not refer to vomiting, is indefinite as to time, and the perfect construction "had been ill" is even more indefinite.

The sentence "When he was in Paris, he had been ill" says that an illness affecting him began before he left Paris.  It suggests, but does not directly say, that the illness began before he arrived in Paris.  It does not say whether the illness ended before Paris, in Paris, after Paris, or at all, but without context, I can be, I'll say, 85% confident, from believing this sentence, that the particular illness is not still with him.

But s22 has the adverb of time after "sick", which can make a difference, and the word "sick" complicates matters by being a  euphemism for vomiting, which hopefully was of short duration, and that too affects the interpretation of the time sequence.  To my ear s22 sounds less complete and more ambiguous than my sentence with the time adverb first.


----------



## britneyM

Hello Forero,

Why is s42 incorrect?


----------



## Forero

britneyM said:


> Hello Forero,
> 
> Why is s42 incorrect?


Hi, Britney.

S42 is not really incorrect, but I feel it is incomplete because the use of the perfect is not justified by anything in the sentence as it stands.  What I imagine it means (without further context) is:

m42: "*H*e *was* sick until five years ago."

If you really want to use the perfect, my AE sensibilities say you need to have justifying context.    For example:

c42: "When I asked him how his health had been since I last saw him, he said *he had been sick from the time his wife left him **until he** remarried five years ago**.*"

The blue and green parts are not needed to justify the past perfect.  I added the blue part to make clear that the "being sick" was not an event (such as an instance of vomiting) but a status over a period of time, and  I added the green part to make it obvious that _ago_ does not mean "before I saw him" or "before I asked him".  (It always means "before now".)

The past perfect in c42 is justified, in two places, by the use of _asked_, past tense, and the idea, conveyed by _since I last saw him_, that I wanted to hear not just about the time of my asking him but about a period of time before that.

Taking similar liberties with s41, I can make it work too, in context:

c41: Every time he has started to pay his taxes, *he has been sick* - *until five years ago.
*
The hyphen is my computer's version of a dash.  I want a dash here to allow the reader to understand the use of the present perfect before reading about all of that being in the past.  "He has been sick" does not mean he is still sick now when we talk about multiple instances of his feeling ill.


----------



## britneyM

Hello Forero, Dimcl, Elwintee, liliput, Porteño, LastManStanding, Umeboshi,

Thank you very much for your prompt, detailed, and kind replies.
Especially I would like to thank you heartily, Forero, for your warm and nice replies, which lead me into the new world of the perfect.

Thank you.


----------



## liliput

Umeboshi said:


> The Longman Dictionary says:
> Do not use 'since' or 'before' with *ago*.
> - I came to the USA two months ago (NOT since/before two months ago).


 
But there's nothing wrong with "I've been here since two years ago" nor "I hadn't been here before two years ago".
You could also say "I came to the USA before two months ago" although the meaning would be different.
It's true that you can't say "I came to the USA since two months ago" because this makes no sense. "Since" is always used with a perfect tense.


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> But there's nothing wrong with "I've been here since two years ago" nor "I hadn't been here before two years ago".
> You could also say "I came to the USA before two months ago" although the meaning would be different.
> It's true that you can't say "I came to the USA since two months ago" because this makes no sense. "Since" is always used with a perfect tense.


 
I would say there is everything wrong with 'I've been here since two years ago' and 'I hadn't been here before two years ago'. Neither could you say 'I came to the USA before two months ago'. In the first two instances the correct structures would be:

_I've been here *for* two years._
_I hadn't been here *until *two years ago._

As for the third, it simply doesn't make any sense. The best you could do would be to say 'I came to the USA *more than* two months ago'.


----------



## liliput

Porteño said:


> I would say there is everything wrong with 'I've been here since two years ago' and 'I hadn't been here before two years ago'. Neither could you say 'I came to the USA before two months ago'. In the first two instances the correct structures would be:
> 
> _I've been here *for* two years._
> _I hadn't been here *until *two years ago._
> 
> As for the third, it simply doesn't make any sense. The best you could do would be to say 'I came to the USA *more than* two months ago'.


 
Hmm. Maybe I've been spending too long with non-native speakers.


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> Hmm. Maybe I've been spending too long with non-native speakers.


 
It happens. If I were not teaching English every day, I might well have fallen into the same trap. That doesn't mean to say that I am exempt either!


----------



## Forero

The right context can make "since/before two years ago" perfectly acceptable, to my ear:

_I've been here since two years ago, when I got the job with the ... Department.
_(or _I've been here since I got the job two years ago._)

_I hadn't been here before two years ago, when I moved from ... City.
_(or _I hadn't been here before I moved from ... City two years ago._)

The same goes for _since_ without a perfect tense:

_Since I was laid off from the job in ... City, (it seems) I moved every time the weather changed - until last year, when I got the opportunity of a lifetime.
_(I would not use a perfect tense in this sentence.)


----------



## Porteño

Forero said:


> The right context can make "since/before two years ago" perfectly acceptable, to my ear:
> 
> _I've been here since two years ago, when I got the job with the ... Department._
> (or _I've been here since I got the job two years ago._)
> 
> *The second one is perfectly OK as you are using 'since' with the Present Perfect and 'ago' with the Simple Past. However, the first version is completely wrong.*
> 
> _I hadn't been here before two years ago, when I moved from ... City._
> (or _I hadn't been here before I moved from ... City two years ago._)
> 
> *Similarly the first one is just plain wrong, but the second one follows the structure as above.*
> 
> The same goes for _since_ without a perfect tense:
> 
> _Since I was laid off from the job in ... City, (it seems) I moved every time the weather changed - until last year, when I got the opportunity of a lifetime._
> 
> (I would not use a perfect tense in this sentence.)


 
*This frankly sounds very strange. In my opinion 'since' should be replaced by 'after'.*


----------



## Loob

I agree with Forero's post 22.

It follows that I disagree with Porteño where he disagrees with it


----------



## Porteño

Loob said:


> I agree with Forero's post 22.
> 
> It follows that I disagree with Porteño where he disagrees with it


 
Frankly, you surprise me. _I've been here since two years ago, I hadn't been here before two years ago, _are completely unacceptable in my opinion.


----------



## Forero

I can see a context in which s31 is valid and "he has been sick" does not imply he is still sick:

He was in Paris five years ago.
Since then, he has been sick three times.
He is not sick now.

Thus, although is he not sick now, it is true that -

s31: He has been sick since five years ago.


----------



## Porteño

Forero said:


> I can see a context in which s31 is valid and "he has been sick" does not imply he is still sick:
> 
> He was in Paris five years ago.
> Since then, he has been sick three times.
> He is not sick now.
> 
> Thus, although is he not sick now, it is true that -
> 
> s31: He has been sick since five years ago.


 
If he has been sick since five years ago, it means he is still sick, there's no getting away from it.


----------



## Forero

There is more than one kind of "having been sick".  As I see it, there's "having vomited", which we have been setting aside for the most part; there's "suffering from a continuing illness", which we have been looking at during most of this discussion; and then there's "having taken ill at least once", which I can see now as a workable meaning for s31.

I think my context says that "he has been sick" is just the opposite of "he has not been sick" and says nothing about his current health.


----------



## Porteño

Forero said:


> There is more than one kind of "having been sick". As I see it, there's "having vomited", which we have been setting aside for the most part; there's "suffering from a continuing illness", which we have been looking at during most of this discussion; and then there's "having taken ill at least once", which I can see now as a workable meaning for s31.
> 
> I think my context says that "he has been sick" is just the opposite of "he has not been sick" and says nothing about his current health.


 
Just not to confuse matters, I have at no time alluded to being sick as relating to vomiting. The fact of the matter is that the Present Perfect Tense is mostly used to describe events which began in the past and have either just finished or continue through the present. Thus 'he has been sick' means that his illness has either just finished or is still around.
Furthermore, as has been stated more than once in earlier posts, 'since' can not be used with 'ago', the latter being almost exclusively associated with the Simple Past. To describe the fact that a person started being ill five years ago and has just finished or continues, you have to use the expression 'for' plus a time period, i.e. he has been sick *for* five years. If however, you are referring to the fact that he was sick once during that period you would need to say as much. 'He was sick once during the last five years.'


----------



## liliput

I agree with Forero here. If we refer to separate periods of illness, rather than a continuous period, then it's possible to say "He's been sick since five years ago", of course it's much less ambiguous if we specify the number of times; "He's been sick three times since five years ago."

I think Porteño's sentence "he was sick once during the last five years" should be in the present perfect rather than simple past; "He has been sick once during the last five years". We are referring to a time period which leads up to the present.

Perhaps some of the difference of opinion arises from the fact that we are talking about two different tenses: Present Perfect Continuous and Present Perfect Simple. With a non-action verb like "to be" the two tenses have the same structure, but if we use an action verb like "to do" the difference is clearer:
He has played football three times since Tuesday (instead of "he has been sick three times since...")
He has been playing football since 3 o'clock (instead of "he's been sick since..")


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> I agree with Forero here. If we refer to separate periods of illness, rather than a continuous period, then it's possible to say "He's been sick since five years ago", of course it's much less ambiguous if we specify the number of times; "He's been sick three times since five years ago."
> 
> *I think what you fail to see is that 'since five years ago' is an impossible structure - it simply doesn't work. Since and ago are incompatible.*
> 
> I think Porteño's sentence "he was sick once during the last five years" should be in the present perfect rather than simple past; "He has been sick once during the last five years". We are referring to a time period which leads up to the present.
> 
> *It could be expressed either way depending upon the perspective.*
> 
> Perhaps some of the difference of opinion arises from the fact that we are talking about two different tenses: Present Perfect Continuous and Present Perfect Simple. With a non-action verb like "to be" the two tenses have the same structure, but if we use an action verb like "to do" the difference is clearer:
> He has played football three times since Tuesday (instead of "he has been sick three times since...")
> He has been playing football since 3 o'clock (instead of "he's been sick since..")


 
*As far as I can see the Present Perfect Continuous had never come into play in this thread, so I think that is confusing the issue somewhat.*


----------



## Loob

Porteño said:


> *I think what you fail to see is that 'since five years ago' is an impossible structure - it simply doesn't work. Since and ago are incompatible*


 
It looks like we're going to have to agree to differ, P - _since five years ago_ seems perfectly possible to me


----------



## liliput

Porteño said:


> *As far as I can see the Present Perfect Continuous had never come into play in this thread, so I think that is confusing the issue somewhat.*


 
This is simply incorrect. With this statement, you have proved my point that there is confusion between Present Perfect Continuous and Present Perfect Simple. 

"He has been sick since five years ago", one of the original sentences of this thread, is *Present Perfect Continuous*. It expresses a fact that sarted in the past, has continued up to the present inclusive and will probably continue into the future. Because it is not an action verb, it looks like Present Perfect Simple, but it isn't

"He has been sick three times this year" is present perfect simple because it refers to a period of time that is still in effect (this year).

You are correct to say that I fail to see that "since five years ago" is an impossible structure - it is used and understood by many people as you can see from the posts by other forum members.

You are also correct to say that "...was sick during the last five years" and "...has been sick during the last five years" are both possible. But as you yourself pointed out; Why introduce a tense that is not relevant to the thread?


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> This is simply incorrect. With this statement, you have proved my point that there is confusion between Present Perfect Continuous and Present Perfect Simple.
> 
> "He has been sick since five years ago", one of the original sentences of this thread, is *Present Perfect Continuous*. It expresses a fact that sarted in the past, have continued up to the present inclusive and will probably continue into the future. Because it is not an action verb, it looks like Present Perfect Simple, but it isn't.
> 
> *The Present Perfect Simple is used for that purpose, not the Continuous. The Continuous is usually synonymous with the Simple and has practically the same meaning but is usually used to give more emphasis to the continuity of the action.*
> 
> *We have worked hard this morning. =*
> *We have been working hard this morning.*
> 
> "He has been sick three times this year" is present perfect simple because it refers to a period of time that is still in effect (this year).
> 
> *Obviously.*
> 
> You are correct to say that I fail to see that "since five years ago" is an impossible structure - it is used and understood by many people as you can see from the posts by other forum members.
> 
> *That does not make it correct, it may be colloquial or even regional usage, as are many other commonly used non-grammatical expressions.*
> 
> You are also correct to say that "...was sick during the last five years" and "...has been sick during the last five years" are both possible. But as you yourself pointed out; Why introduce a tense that is not relevant to the thread?


 
*?????*


----------



## Porteño

Loob said:


> It looks like we're going to have to agree to differ, P - _since five years ago_ seems perfectly possible to me


 
Yes, indeed. I think we can agree on that!


----------



## liliput

Porteño said:


> *?????*


 
If you mean "grammatically incorrect" or "colloquial" then it would be helpful to say so rather than insisting that commonly used structures are "impossible".

We can agree to differ on the uses of present perfect tenses, but I recommend that you read a good grammar book such as Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" which specifically uses the sentence "John's been ill all week" as an example of the present perfect continuous which doesn't use the continuous form (the other verbs commonly used in this way are _have_ and _know_).

We use the continuous for shorter or temporary situations, whereas the simple tends to be used for much longer term, or permanent situations. To take your examples:
"We've been working hard all morning"
"We've worked hard all our lives."
We also use the simple tense for frequency, such as how often someone has been sick since last week.


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> If you mean "grammatically incorrect" or "colloquial" then it would be helpful to say so rather than insisting that commonly used structures are "impossible".
> 
> *Perhaps I was a little overbearing on that point but I really hate what is to my ear, such horrendous usage.*
> 
> We can agree to differ on the uses of present perfect tenses, but I recommend that you read a good grammar book such as Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" which specifically uses the sentence "John's been ill all week" as an example of the present perfect continuous which doesn't use the continuous form (the other verbs commonly used in this way are _have_ and _know_).
> 
> *I believe the grammar book I use (A Practical English Grammar - Thomson & Martinet) is also very good (I did not like the implication very much that I can not differentiate between a good and a bad book). **There is no mention in that book of the structure you mention, but I am not going to say it does not exist for obviously your author considers that it does. Grammarians do not always agree on everything and have different ways of expressing their ideas. QED.*
> 
> We use the continuous for shorter or temporary situations, whereas the simple tends to be used for much longer term, or permanent situations. To take your examples:
> "We've been working hard all morning"
> "We've worked hard all our lives."
> We also use the simple tense for frequency, such as how often someone has been sick since last week.


 
*That goes without saying.*


----------



## Forero

Here is a case where, in my opinion, _since_ and _ago_ don't go together:

 x1: _It has been five years ago since he was sick. 
_x2: _It has been five years since he was sick. 
_x3: _It was five years ago that he was sick. 
_
To me, "five years" is a period of time but "five years ago" is a point in time. We say "since ten o'clock", so "since (that time/one time) five years ago" is basically the same I think.

I have problems with "since before five years ago" too, but not with "since before" _per se_:

x4: _He has been sick since before ten o'clock. *OK*
_ x5: _He has been sick since before five years ago. _
x6: _He has been sick for over five years. _
x7: _He was sick before five years ago. 
_ x8: _He has been sick ever since five years ago. __*OK with me *_(in context)_*

*_Somehow "before five years ago" is more of a period of time and less a point in time than "before ten o'clock".


----------



## JamesM

liliput said:


> But there's nothing wrong with "I've been here since two years ago" nor "I hadn't been here before two years ago".
> You could also say "I came to the USA before two months ago" although the meaning would be different.
> It's true that you can't say "I came to the USA since two months ago" because this makes no sense. "Since" is always used with a perfect tense.


 
It seems like we've drifted a bit off of "until 2003" but perhaps it's all related.

I would have trouble with all of these, liliput.  In fact, this use of "since" is one of the key markers for me that I'm dealing with a non-native speaker.  French speakers seem to do this all the time as a direct translation from French.

I'm with Forero on this.  "Since X ago" simply doesn't work, in my opinion.  As you said, it may be a regionalism but it sounds distinctly wrong to my ear.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> I'm with Forero on this.  "Since X ago" simply doesn't work, in my opinion.  As you said, it may be a regionalism but it sounds distinctly wrong to my ear.


Pardon me.  I'm the one that marked Xs by all but one of the original sentences, but decided that "since _x_ ago" can work if context supports "_x_ ago" as a particular time such as "since five years ago when he moved here" = "since he moved here five years ago".


----------



## Porteño

Forero said:


> Pardon me. I'm the one that marked Xs by all but one of the original sentences, but decided that "since _x_ ago" can work if context supports "_x_ ago" as a particular time such as "since five years ago when he moved here" = "since he moved here five years ago".


 
Now that's very interesting and I could accept that last phrase even though it clashes with be belief that since and ago are incompatible. In this case it makes perfect sense to me, but does not change my opinion about some of the earlier sentences which sounded awful and didn't make sense to me. 

I have to agree with JamesM's idea of the use of since marking a non-native speaker. I have the same problem with my Spanish-speaking students.


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> Pardon me. I'm the one that marked Xs by all but one of the original sentences, but decided that "since _x_ ago" can work if context supports "_x_ ago" as a particular time such as "since five years ago when he moved here" = "since he moved here five years ago".


 
I guess we don't completely agree, then.  I don't think "since five years ago when he moved here" works, either. "Since he moved here five years ago" is fine, in my opinion.


----------



## una madre

"Since x ago"  is never right in any context.


----------



## Porteño

una madre said:


> "Since x ago" is never right in any context.


 
Here we go again!


----------



## Forero

I agree when it comes to foreign "translations".  What I mean is that when a person wants to say "He has been sick for five years" but starts with the Spanish equivalent ("_Está enfermo desde hace 5 años"_), it is tempting for a non-English speaker to translate bit by bit, taking the usual translation of each part to get "He is sick since five years ago", which of course is not the correct translation and is quite jarring grammatically.  Correcting this to present perfect still leaves quite a problem.

When I first saw the original list of "sentences", none of them seemed like idiomatic English.  To make much sense out of them, I had to isolate each one and work out context to justify the unusual stuctures.  Now most of them no longer seem as strange to me, but the past perfect does seem to come out of nowhere in several of them.


----------



## liliput

*



I believe the grammar book I use (A Practical English Grammar - Thomson & Martinet) is also very good (I did not like the implication very much that I can not differentiate between a good and a bad book). There is no mention in that book of the structure you mention, but I am not going to say it does not exist for obviously your author considers that it does. Grammarians do not always agree on everything and have different ways of expressing their ideas. QED.

Click to expand...

* 
I only recommended that you read a good grammar book and gave a helpful example of one that has been recommended to me by many people. The implication is that you _are _perfectly capable of choosing a good grammar book, I can't imagine why you would take it to mean otherwise. 

Anyway, what the grammar book I mentioned actually says is that *the simple tense structure is used because it's a non-action verb, even though the continuous tense would be preferred.* This differs slightly (but not much) from the explanation I gave because I sometimes use a different book - as Porteño says, grammarians differ in their opinions. Perhaps we should both broaden our reading, I'd be interested to see what Thomson & Martinet say about the present perfect.

Regarding the structure "since...ago" and translations from other languages, I find that many Spanish students simply say "since five years" and have to be told to add "ago". My advice is that "for five years" is preferred but it's also perfectly possible to use "since five years ago" - it makes perfect sense to me and is seemingly indispensable in a phrase such as that quoted by forero.

You might also take a look at this thread; http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=320770 in which Panjandrum gives many examples of "since...ago" usage from sources such as the BBC and the US Department of Agriculture.


----------



## grippa

he was sick until 2003?


----------



## liliput

britneyM said:


> Please let me ask about s22.
> 
> Say he was in Paris only from 1998 to 2003 in his life.
> Which does s22 mean, m1 to m3?
> 
> m1: He had been sick between 1998 and 2003.
> m2: He had been sick before 1998.
> m3: He had been sick before 2003.


 
m1: Firstly this means that our point of reference is in the past, possibly it's some kind of narrative and then we are referring to a something further in the past. For example. "John was running down the street. He had been sick between 1998 and 2003. 2004 was a new year and he was feeling much better."

m2. The same applies here, but in this case we are simply saying that he was sick at some time before 1998. This is not the same as "he was sick _until _1998" which would indicate a continuous period of illness leading up to 1998.

m3: This is exactly the same as m2 but with a different year!


----------



## JamesM

liliput said:


> You might also take a look at this thread; http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=320770 in which Panjandrum gives many examples of "since...ago" usage from sources such as the BBC and the US Department of Agriculture.


 
I took a look at this thread, since Panjandrum is an excellent researcher from whom I learn a lot. Here are the examples he gave:



> Accumulative exports from January to October were $49.3 billion, a 9-percent increase since a year ago. US Department of Agriculture
> 
> But, the problems of Caribbean airlines have not changed since a year ago. BBC
> 
> Since two years ago (27,700) - from the first ten:
> 
> The shape of Kennedy Island (the closest beach) has changed since two years ago. PCR Foundation


 

In each case, "since X ago" is referring to a mark in time and comparing it to the present. It's not saying, for example, "The shape of Kennedy Island has been changing since two years ago."  

I do see that "since X ago" works in the examples given, but I still don't think that it works if you are trying to refer to some continuous state, such as "we've been living here since eight years ago."


----------



## Porteño

liliput said:


> I only recommended that you read a good grammar book and gave a helpful example of one that has been recommended to me by many people. The implication is that you _are _perfectly capable of choosing a good grammar book, I can't imagine why you would take it to mean otherwise.
> 
> *I have no wish to prolong this discussion much further after all the widely-differing and sometimes utterly ridiculous examples that have been expressed here. However, the way you phrased your recommendation:  'I recommend you read a good grammar book', to me implied that I didn't know what I was talking about and was very offensive.*
> 
> Anyway, what the grammar book I mentioned actually says is that *the simple tense structure is used because it's a non-action verb, even though the continuous tense would be preferred.* This differs slightly (but not much) from the explanation I gave because I sometimes use a different book - as Porteño says, grammarians differ in their opinions. Perhaps we should both broaden our reading, I'd be interested to see what Thomson & Martinet say about the present perfect.




*I will send you a PM. Best wishes.*


----------



## Porteño

JamesM said:


> I took a look at this thread, since Panjandrum is an excellent researcher from whom I learn a lot. Here are the examples he gave:
> 
> *I also did that for the same reason.*
> 
> 
> In each case, "since X ago" is referring to a mark in time and comparing it to the present. It's not saying, for example, "The shape of Kennedy Island has been changing since two years ago."
> 
> I do see that "since X ago" works in the examples given, but I still don't think that it works if you are trying to refer to some continuous state, such as "we've been living here since eight years ago."


 
*I agree entirely.*


----------



## liliput

> I do see that "since X ago" works in the examples given, but I still don't think that it works if you are trying to refer to some continuous state, such as "we've been living here since eight years ago."


 
I still fail to see the problem with the "since..ago" structure in present perfect continuous. "Eight years ago" is a point in time and we've been living here from that point in time to this one; "since eight years ago" is exactly equivalent to "for eight years" or "since 2000".


----------



## JamesM

liliput said:


> I still fail to see the problem with the "since..ago" structure in present perfect continuous. "Eight years ago" is a point in time and we've been living here from that point in time to this one; "since eight years ago" is exactly equivalent to "for eight years" or "since 2000".


 
I can understand that you see it that way. I don't think it's exactly equivalent in use, although it's similar in logic. We simply disagree. It sounds awkward and clunky to me. I'm not saying that it's grammatically incorrect. I'm simply saying that I would avoid it as a construction because I think it sounds awkward and mismatched to the purpose.

I would not have a problem with "Since we moved in here eight years ago we have had nothing but problems with our landlord." This refers to that point in time. "We have had problems _for _eight years" is how I would construct it if I wanted to refer to the period of time, not "We have had problems since eight years ago."  

I suppose you could call it a stylistic preference, but it's a _strong_ preference.


----------



## cuchuflete

Leaving the grammarians aside, I tend not to use "since..ago" often, but there are 
cases in which it seems unobjectionable to me.  For those who find it distressing, please
point out why it doesn't work in an example such as this:

1. _Since I arrived on this island two years ago, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
_
or...
2. _I've been eating cactus and squid since my arrival here five years ago.  _


----------



## JamesM

Being one of the ones who objected, I'd have no problem with your examples, cuchuflete. They are similar to mine in the previous post. In this case, "since" is somehow linked to the event ("I arrived on this island", "my arrival here"). 

I would have problems with:

1. I've been eating lots of tropical fruit since two years ago when I arrived on this island.

or...

2. I've been eating cactus and squid since five years ago.

It is the combination of "since (time period) ago" that I find to be a problem, not "since (event) (time period) ago" or "since (action) (time period) ago". I'm not alone in this. I've found several sites stating objections to it, but I haven't found a style guide or grammar book yet that says not to use it. It may be an instinctive thing, a learned bias, or the result of the perverse teaching of some elementary English teachers,  but it grates on my nerves to read or hear it.

[edit] Although it's only one reference, here's a grammar book that is teaching the same thing I apparently learned along the way:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sX...r60-nyj&sig=sLUowjTG5pWmJ6prJ4sD1JOKzQk&hl=en


----------



## una madre

cuchuflete said:


> Leaving the grammarians aside, I tend not to use "since..ago" often, but there are
> cases in which it seems unobjectionable to me.  For those who find it distressing, please
> point out why it doesn't work in an example such as this:
> 
> 1. _Since I arrived on this island two years ago, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
> _
> or...
> 2. _I've been eating cactus and squid since my arrival here five years ago.  _



Hi cuchuflete,

There's nothing wrong with *your* sentences but there would be a lot wrong with the following, which follow the model many have been presenting in this thread:

Since two years ago, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
I've been eating cactus and squid since five years ago.


----------



## Loob

una madre said:


> Hi cuchuflete,
> 
> There's nothing wrong with *your* sentences but there would be a lot wrong with the following, which follow the model many have been presenting in this thread:
> 
> Since two years ago, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
> I've been eating cactus and squid since five years ago.


I think the "model many have been presenting in this thread" is not your quoted sentences but something closer to:

Since two years ago, when I arrived on this island from the rainy shores of England, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
I've been eating cactus and squid since five years ago, when I arrived on this island from the rainy shores of England.

The qualifying phrase makes a big difference.


----------



## Porteño

JamesM said:


> [edit] Although it's only one reference, here's a grammar book that is teaching the same thing I apparently learned along the way:
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=sX...r60-nyj&sig=sLUowjTG5pWmJ6prJ4sD1JOKzQk&hl=en


 
Great JamesM, that's exactly the explanation that was needed to try and clear up this nitty-gritty problem.


----------



## Forero

This context works for me too:

_It has been two years since I was marooned on this tropical island.  Since two years ago, I've been eating lots of tropical fruit.
_
The difference is that this context makes "two years ago" equivalent to "the day I was (first) marooned on this tropical island".


----------

