# This is the first time I?



## nebt

Hello,

could you please explain me difference among these sentences? (I am going to give my suggestions for you to see what I request.):


_ This is the first time I am overseas._
- correct, when e. g. said during my travels.

_ This is the first time I have ever been overseas._
- correct when I reminisce about my travels to overseas.

_ This was the first time I have ever been overseas._
_ This was the first time I have ever been overseas._
- can these be correct at all? I would suggest _This was the first time I *had ever been*....
_ 
Are my assumptions right or not?
Thanks for your replies.


----------



## TrentinaNE

nebt said:
			
		

> _ This is the first time I am overseas._
> - correct, when e. g. said during my travels.
> _This is the first time I have been overseas._
> 
> _ This is the first time I have ever been overseas._
> - correct when I reminisce about my travels to overseas.
> _That was the first time I had ever been overseas._



I think the two sentences I added are the correct versions of your sentences.  You  match up present perfect in the subordinate clause with present tense in the main clause, and past perfect in the subordinate clause with past tense in the main verb.  Also, we tend to use _this_ to refer to an event in the present and _that_ for the past.

Elizabeth


----------



## roniy

TrentinaNe what it wrong with "This is the first time I am overseas."
it is the same as " this is the first time I am here " 
Isn't it ???


----------



## CAMullen

TrentinaNE is correct; The first may (or may not) be grammatically correct, but a native English speaker would use the second, even in the present.


----------



## nebt

Thank you. Very clearly explained. I think I understand now.


----------



## TrentinaNE

roniy said:
			
		

> TrentinaNe what it wrong with "This is the first time I am overseas."
> it is the same as " this is the first time I am here "
> Isn't it ???


 But we wouldn't say "This is the first time I am here."  Similar to the first example, it would be "This is the first time I have been here."  Alternatively, one could say "This is my first time here (visiting this place)."  

I'm not an expert on grammatical terms, but I think we use the "perfect" construction here because when you say "this/that is/was my first time" you're setting up a context of potential multiple visits, e.g., "This is the second time I have been here," "That was the third time I had been there."  In these cases, the present/past perfect sounds more natural, and grammatically, it might be the only correct choice, but I can't say for sure!

Elizabeth


----------



## panjandrum

Hey, it's difficult isn't it 
This is the first time I have been here.
It's right, but weird.

On the other hand, I have been thinking, in this particular context *I have been here* or *I have been overseas* runs right up to the current moment, so it's not as if there's really a tense clash.


----------



## nebt

> This is the first time I have been here.
> It's right, but weird.


 When it sounds weird to you, what would you suggest instead?
What would be the most natural way to say it for you, panj?


----------



## elroy

nebt said:
			
		

> When it sounds weird to you, what would you suggest instead?
> What would be the most natural way to say it for you, panj?


 
It doesn't _sound_ weird.  If I may speak for Panj, I think he meant that the logic behind it may be "weird," because if it's the first time you've done something, then one might assume that you would be able to use the present tense - however, notice Panj's follow-up remark, which provides a rationalization for the use of the present perfect.


----------



## nebt

Aha! Thanks for clarification, el roy. Thank you all.


----------



## Prower

Guys, I still don't understand one thing. If we say.

*This is the first time I have driven a car.*

Does it mean 
1) a completed action
2) an action in progress

To me it sounds like 1

So what do we do in order to convey the second one. Imagine, you are virtually driving a car and is saying about it holding the stear-wheel.

Would it be still PRESENT PERFECT?


----------



## ensoul

2) an action in progress

this is the first time i'm driving a car


----------



## Prower

Well, I wonder, if it is PRESENT CONTINUOUS, why nobody has come up with this variant during the discussion. hmmm...


----------



## Xander2024

The Perfect constructions like "This/That/It + be +the + ordinal numeral +time should be differentiated from similar constructions like "for the + ordinal numeral + time" which are indicative of Indefinite:

This is the first time I've been here.
I'm here for the first time.

It is true of the pair "Past Perfect - Past Indefinite":

It was the third time he had been in love that year.
He was there for the third time.

That said, I believe it should be "This is the first time I've driven a car" even if I'm behind the steering wheel at the time of speaking.


----------



## Prower

Xander2024 said:


> That said, I believe it should be "This is the first time I've driven a car" even if I'm behind the steering wheel at the time of speaking.



Then it means that English is not able, in this case, to convey two different things. As these are two different situations but there is only one way to express them. Am I right?

This is the first time I have driven a car.

means

1) an on-going action
2) an action to have just happened.


----------



## Xander2024

To me personally, it's not that important whether I'm driving right now or I drove a minute ago.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Prower said:


> This is the first time I have driven a car.
> 
> means
> 
> 1) an on-going action
> 2) an action to have just happened.


I would say it this way only for situation 1.  If the action is over, even by a minute, I'd say "That was the first time I ever drove a car."


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> Then it means that English is not able, in this case, to convey two different things. As these are two different situations but there is only one way to express them. Am I right?
> 
> This is the first time I have driven a car.
> 
> means
> 
> 1) an on-going action
> 2) an action to have just happened.


If the action is still in progress, I am still driving the car:
_1. This is the first time I have driven a car._

If the action has just completed, even if I am still sitting behind the wheel of the car:
_2. That was the first time I have driven a car._
or Trentina's:
_That was the first time I ever drove a car._

BUT in some situations I might still use (1) even if the action completed a little while ago.  It all depends what I mean by "This".  I could be referring to "this day" or even "this week".  As long as I'm speaking within the period defined by "this", (1) would probably be OK.  It's diifficult to be certain because a lot of the meaning and the understanding comes from context rather than the precise choice of tense.


----------



## Prower

Xander2024 said:


> To me personally, it's not that important whether I'm driving right now or I drove a minute ago.


It's not about our view of life and personal preferences but about the mechanism of the langauge which is or is not able to convey something. Apart from that, the time gap can be much longer than a minute. For example,

This is the first time I have driven a car today. (The time gap can be a few hours provided the same day is still on)


----------



## Xander2024

Prower said:


> For example,
> 
> This is the first time I have driven a car today. (The time gap can be a few hours provided the same day is still on)



In this case, I'd say "This was the first time I had driven a car today". Even if it is still today, I'm referring to the particular moment some time prior to the moment of speaking. Or even "I drove a car for the first time today".


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> _2. That was the first time I have driven a car._



This one is interesting. As far as I know most of the times the PAST SIMPLE in the first part of a sentence requires the PAST SIMPLE in the second part. Definitely it's not the case here.

*Would you say that even with YESTERDAY?*

YESTERDAY was the first time I have driven a car.


----------



## Prower

Well. There have been two options brought up such as

1) "This was the first time I *had driven* a car." (by Xander2024)
2) "This was the first time I *have driven* a car. (by panjandrum)

*I think they mean*

1) A person is telling us about his first driving experience provided there were others times when he drove a car *AFTER* that first time.
2) A person is telling us about his first driving experience which has just taken place and there hasn't been other cases of his driving so far.

What do you think? Is it so?


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> Well. There have been two options brought up such as
> 
> .......
> 2) "This was the first time I *have driven* a car. (by panjandrum)
> .......


 _*I didn't say that.*
_


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> _*I didn't say that.*
> _


Ok. You said "that was" 



panjandrum said:


> If the action has just completed, even if I am still sitting behind the wheel of the car:
> _2. That was the first time I have driven a car._


 I agree, if it makes the whole difference in the world then defenitely I am sorry to have switched *that *with *this*.

I shall reclaim and repeat.

1) "This was the first time I had driven a car." (by Xander2024)
2) "*That *was the first time I have driven a car. (by panjandrum)

1) A person is telling us about his first driving experience provided there were others times when he drove a car AFTER that first time.
2) A person is telling us about his first driving experience which has just taken place and there hasn't been other cases of his driving so far.

What do you think? Is it so?


----------



## panjandrum

The difference between "This was" and "That was" is quite significant.





Prower said:


> ...
> 2) "*That *was the first time I have driven a car. (by panjandrum)
> ...
> 2) A person is telling us about his first driving experience which has  just taken place and there hasn't been other cases of his driving so  far.
> 
> What do you think? Is it so?


Your understanding agrees with mine.


panjandrum said:


> ...
> If the action has just completed, even if I am still sitting behind the wheel of the car:
> _2. That was the first time I have driven a car._
> or Trentina's:
> _That was the first time I ever drove a car._
> ...


----------



## Prower

panjandrum said:


> The difference between "This was" and "That was" is quite significant.
> Your understanding agrees with mine.



What's the difference? I can see a difference between

*This is and That was. *

But I don't see a significant difference between This was" and "That was"

PS By the way, what about the first sentence. Do I understand it correct?

1) "This was the first time I had driven a car." (by Xander2024)

1) A person is telling us about his first driving experience provided there were others times when he drove a car AFTER that first time.


----------



## Xander2024

I don't rule out I should have put it "That was the first time..." if I were talking about something in the past.


----------



## EStjarn

Prower said:


> But I don't see a significant difference between This was" and "That was"


 
From post #2: "[...] we tend to use _this_ to refer to an event in the present and _that_ for the past."


----------



## Prower

EStjarn said:


> From post #2: "[...] we tend to use _this_ to refer to an event in the present and _that_ for the past."


That's right. But I don't see how THIS WAS can refer to the PRESENT.



panjandrum said:


> The difference between "This was" and "That was" is quite significant.
> Your understanding agrees with mine.


----------



## EStjarn

Prower said:


> [...] I don't see how THIS WAS can refer to the PRESENT.


 
The quotation above from post #2 hints that 'this was' - as used by nebt in post #1 and Xander in post #20 - is not correct; it should be 'that was'. Note that both nebt and Xander try to use the construction to refer to the past, i.e. no one is arguing (or even implying) that 'this was' can refer to the present.


----------



## panjandrum

Prower said:


> What's the difference? I can see a difference between
> *This is and That was. *
> But I don't see a significant difference between "This was" and "That was"
> ...





			
				EStjarn said:
			
		

> From post #2: "[...] we tend to use _this_ to refer to an event in  the present and _that_ for the past."


That is why I reacted as I did when you quoted me as saying "_*This was*_ the first time I have driven a  car."
I might have said "This is ..." or "That was...", but the combination of "This" with it's present connotations and "was", past, sounds really wrong to me.

The very significant difference, as I see it, is that in the red sentence only one is good English.


----------



## Prower

I have watched an american cartoon today and there was a sentence like - 

*This is the first time I hear this word.*

I think we haven't discussed this possibility. Do you find it ok or not?


----------



## EStjarn

Prower said:


> Do you find it ok or not?


 
As a stand-alone sentence, I see no flaw in it. The implication is that you're commenting on something that has just happened: a word has been pronounced.


----------



## Nunty

Prower said:


> I have watched an american cartoon today and there was a sentence like -
> 
> *This is the first time I hear this word.*
> 
> I think we haven't discussed this possibility. Do you find it ok or not?



It does not sound like something a native would say. Was the cartoon character supposed to be an American? An American would be more likely to say, "This is the first time (that) I've heard that word."


----------



## EStjarn

Nunty said:


> It does not sound like something a native would say.


 
If the simple present tense is used as the historical present, I think even a native could say it.


----------



## sandpiperlily

I don't think a native speaker would ever say "This is the first time I hear this word."  It sounds incorrect to me.

"This is the first time I've heard this word."
"I've never heard that word before."
"I'm hearing that word for the first time."


----------



## EStjarn

sandpiperlily said:


> I don't think a native speaker would ever say "This is the first time I hear this word."


 
Google Books shows that the frequency ratio between "this is the first time I've/I have heard" and "this is the first time I hear" is 24:1 (5,980 against 249 hits). These are some of the minority results:
*This is the first time I hear* the word “permanent” in connection with my injuries, and it makes an impression. Never before has a part of me broken that couldn't be fixed.

"You sound gloomy, and *this is the first time I hear* that you don't like plays." "Some I do, mother. But not these newer ones. I don't like to get confused, or nauseated."

*This is the first time I hear* about the new aunt who lives in Canada, where we might visit one day. Once in a while Mom mentions another aunt or uncle, out of the blue. Canada, Mom explains, is not as far away as Scotland.​


----------



## sandpiperlily

Interesting.  Of those three examples, the first two sound very old-fashioned to me (or perhaps just British... sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference!).  Perhaps "the first time I hear" was used more frequently in older writing, or in the UK.

The other thing I notice is that the second two examples are not quite the same as the example we're discussing.  They're saying "hear of" or "hear about" (an idea or person), rather than "hear [a word]."


----------



## sound shift

The first two from post 37 don't sound at all British to me.


----------



## EStjarn

sandpiperlily said:


> Interesting. Of those three examples, the first two sound very old-fashioned to me (or perhaps just British... sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference!).


 
The first example is from _Once a Marine_ (2008) by Nick Popaditch (retired U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant) and Mike Steere. (source)



sandpiperlily said:


> The other thing I notice is that the second two examples are not quite the same as the example we're discussing. They're saying "hear of" or "hear about" (an idea or person), rather than "hear [a word]."


 
Point taken. Here are some more 21st century Google Books results that hopefully avoid this problem, drawn from the same source as in my previous post:
*This is the first time I hear* you say that you are interested in that subject.

*This is the first time I hear* him talk to Enrique in the tone of voice the rest of us fear.

*This is the first time I hear* Eva describe the tree with healthy roots as an extended metaphor for the importance of heritage.

*This is the first time I hear* her laugh.

*This is the first time I hear* that voice, and I turn and get that cold, hard stare.​


----------



## sandpiperlily

Very interesting -- thanks for doing all this research.  This is the first time I hear of this!  

I would have thought that native speakers wouldn't use this construction at all; now I see that it's a rare variation that some editors seem to tolerate.  It still sounds "wrong" or at the very least "awkward" to me, so I would advise English learners to avoid it.


----------



## EStjarn

sandpiperlily said:


> It still sounds "wrong" or at the very least "awkward" to me, so I would advise English learners to avoid it.


 
I understand Nunty's and your suggestions, e.g. _'_This is the first time I've heard this word', to refer to the non-historical present. When giving an account in the historical present, and providing that the implication is that you will get to hear the word in question again, how would you express the sentence at hand?


----------



## Loob

EStjarn said:


> I understand Nunty's and your suggestions, e.g. _'_This is the first time I've heard this word', to refer to the non-historical present. When giving an account in the historical present, and providing that the implication is that you will get to hear the word in question again, how would you express the sentence at hand?


I would say "this is the first time I've heard it".

First time: _This is the first time I have done x._

Last time: _This is the last time I will do x._


----------



## EStjarn

Loob said:


> I would say "this is the first time I've heard it".


 
Thanks, Loob. So in other words, your version of the example in post #37 would be:
This is the first time I've heard the word “permanent” in connection with my injuries, and it makes an impression. Never before has a part of me broken that couldn't be fixed.​My problem is that I fail to see the awkwardness with using 'I hear' instead of 'I've heard'. Any kind of explanation of wherein this awkwardness lies more exactly, what (unreasonable) implication it has, would be of help.


----------



## Loob

EStjarn said:


> Thanks, Loob. So in other words, your version of the example in post #37 would be:This is the first time I've heard the word “permanent” in connection with my injuries, and it makes an impression. Never before has a part of me broken that couldn't be fixed.​My problem is that I fail to see the awkwardness with using 'I hear' instead of 'I've heard'. Any kind of explanation of wherein this awkwardness lies more exactly, what (unreasonable) implication it has, would be of help.


It's just one of those idiomatic things, EStjarn - that's the way we say it.


----------



## sandpiperlily

EStjarn said:


> Thanks, Loob. So in other words, your version of the example in post #37 would be:
> This is the first time I've heard the word “permanent” in connection with my injuries, and it makes an impression. Never before has a part of me broken that couldn't be fixed.​My problem is that I fail to see the awkwardness with using 'I hear' instead of 'I've heard'. Any kind of explanation of wherein this awkwardness lies more exactly, what (unreasonable) implication it has, would be of help.



I think what makes it awkward for me is that in English (much like in Spanish, actually), the simple present tense is often used to describe what happens in general, rather than a specific event in the present.

For example, "I read the newspaper" often means that I read the newspaper in general, whereas "I'm reading the newspaper" means that I'm doing it right now.

Another example: "I hear the word 'impact' used as a verb these days, which is irritating."  This means that I have heard the word more than once or that I tend to hear it, not that I'm hearing it this moment or that I'm hearing it only once.

For this reason, using the simple present "I hear" with "for the first time" is jarring, because "I hear" makes me think that it's going to be a general statement, whereas "for the first time" means that it's happening right now, a single time.


----------



## EStjarn

sandpiperlily said:


> For this reason, using the simple present "I hear" with "for the first time" is jarring, because "I hear" makes me think that it's going to be a general statement, whereas "for the first time" means that it's happening right now, a single time.


 
This is well put. Thanks, sandpiperlily.


----------



## Prower

sandpiperlily said:


> For this reason, using the simple present "I hear" with "for the first time" is jarring, because "I hear" makes me think that it's going to be a general statement, whereas "for the first time" means that it's happening right now, a single time.


That's right. I completely agree on that but would like to add that this logical explanation doesn't touch on Present Continouos option which is very logical but wrong.))


----------



## Prower

There is still one thing I'd like understand. What is the difference between 

1) That was the first time I did it.
2) That was the first time I had done it.

My guess

1) My doing was accomplished only once and hasn't been repeated since.
2) There have been more doings after that first doing.

What do you think?


----------



## ribran

Prower said:


> There is still one thing I'd like understand. What is the difference between
> 
> 1) That was the first time I did it.
> 2) That was the first time I had done it.
> 
> My guess
> 
> 1) My doing was accomplished only once and hasn't been repeated since.
> 2) There have been more doings after that first doing.
> 
> What do you think?



Let me give you some examples:

1) would almost always be at the end of a narrative. _...and that is the story of the first time I went skydiving._

2) _I watched as the color evaporated from my friend's face. He lay dead on the floor, and I was suddenly aware that he had died at my hand. Of the events that had transpired, the only one I could recall was that I had struck him in a fit of rage. It was the first time I had laid a hand on my beloved companion, and now I stood frozen over his corpse._


----------



## Prower

Thanks a lot. I appreciate. Still any more guide lines? What about a coloqual speech? How to use it then?


----------



## ribran

Prower said:


> Thanks a lot. I appreciate. Still any more guide lines? What about a coloqual speech? How to use it then?



I think that in general, you should use the past perfect when you wish to continue the narrative, and the simple past when you wish to complete it.

_We were up in the plane, about to jump out. A wave of fear came over me. It was the first time I had been so frightened._ <-- A colloquial example


----------



## Prower

What would you say about this constrcution? Is it possible?

This is the first time I have been walking this road.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> What would you say about this constrcution? Is it possible?
> 
> This is the first time I have been walking this road.


It still sounds odd, to me, Prower.

Assuming "walk this road" is OK (we can debate that), I'd say "This is the first time I've walked this road", not "this is the first time I've been walking this road".


----------



## wolfbm1

I have read this thread with great interest. To sum up let me list all the possibilities:

_1.This is the first time I’ve walked this road. __I've never walked this road before _(until now)_. __I’m still walking this road._ _I'm on this road for the first time._ _
2.This is the first time I’ve been walking this road.__ I’ve been walking this road since nine o’clock and it’s the first time I’ve (ever) walked it._ _I am on this road for the first time.__
3.This is the first time I walk this road. __    I am on this road for the first time.__
4.This is the first time I’m walking this road.__   I’m walking this road for the first time._
About a past experience one I say:
5._That was the first time I've walked that road._ Correct. I am not on the road any more. And now I can say: _I’m walking a different road now_.
_6.That was the first time I had walked that road_. = _That was the first time I  walked that road_. = _I walked that road for the first time last summer. _Correct.


This is the first time = It is the first time
*This is* the first time = This is the first time *up till now *(up to the present, so far)
*That was* the first time = That was the first time *then* (any point in time in the past, e.g. yesterday)
I can also use the expression 'for the first time' at the end of a sentence.

I think that the following quotation from Longman English Grammar by L.G. Alexander, page 171, sums up the problem nicely:
"Students speaking other European languages sometimes misuse the present perfect tense in English because of interference from their mother tongue. The present perfect is often wrongly seen as an alternaitve to the past, so that a student might think that *I’ve had lunch* and _*I had lunch*_ are interchangeable. It is also confused with the present, so that an idea like *I’ve been here since February* is wrongly expressed in the present with *I am*."

The above statement doesn't solve the problem. It just helps realise that it exists. 
The confusion will probably continue to exist. To find more about this problem, google: "misuse the present perfect".


----------



## Prower

1) This is the first time I have driven a car. (means that I am still driving) 
2) This is the first time I have lost my passport. (means that my passport was lost some time ago)

It seems to me that the same construction conveys two different timings

1) The action is still in progress
2) The action took place in the recent past

Is it so?


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> 1) This is the first time I have driven a car. (means that I am still driving)
> 2) This is the first time I have lost my passport. (means that my passport was lost some time ago)
> 
> It seems to me that the same construction conveys two different timings
> 
> 1) The action is still in progress
> 2) The action took place in the recent past
> 
> Is it so?



In both sentences it *is* the first time that you have experienced something (in your life). You focus on what it means for you now. Maybe it means that you need to fill in another application form and send it to the Passport Office. Or because you have experienced driving a car you consider it to be quite an accomplishment in your life. In both cases the experiences took place in the past. What counts is their effect on your present circumstances.


----------



## Prower

wolfbm1 said:


> In both sentences it *is* the first time that you have experienced something (in your life). You focus on what it means for you now. Maybe it means that you need to fill in another application form and send it to the Passport Office. Or because you have experienced driving a car you consider it to be quite an accomplishment in your life. In both cases the experiences took place in the past. What counts is their effect on your present circumstances.


Thank you for the contribution. However, I found your answer to be more philosophical rather than linguistical. We shouldn't forget that this construction accommodates not only "the first time" but the second, third and so on.

*This is the tenth time I have driven a car.  

*I find your comment about the "effect on your present circumstances" to be correct, however, my question refers to a technical aspect of the language. In my previous example I can see that this construction has two different timings, that is why I wanted to dicsuss this interesting phenomenon.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Prower said:


> 1) This is the first time I have driven a car. (means that I am still driving )
> 2) This is the first time I have lost my passport. (means that my passport was lost some time ago)
> 
> ...



Your premises are incorrect. "This is the first time I have driven a car" may or may not mean that you are still driving; it simply means that you haven't done it again since. "This is the first time I have lost my passport" simply means that the effect continues - e.g. you haven't found it again or applied for a new one.

If you want to express how recent it was, you do that with the main verb.  If it was in the more distant past, you will change the main verb to: "This was / That was..." and then naturally the perfect becomes pluperfect "...that I had lost / driven..."


----------



## Prower

These premises are not even mine but panjandrum's.

see his post
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=106515&p=10168254#post10168254

More or less he answers my question in his post, however, I like to have a few points of view as only a few points may shed the real light on murky spots.


----------



## PaulQ

Saying, whilst driving, “This is the first time I have driven a car.” is, to the English mind, perfectly natural.

In full, it may be expressed as, “This [the present experience of holding the steering wheel and pressing the accelerator - the concept of driving] is the first time I have driven a car.” But equally it is, “I am driving a car for the first time.” (Nicely in the present continuous because it is not the experience, it is the actual action.)

The *experience of current driving* is, by definition, an experience that has taken place in the past – i.e. immediately before you said it; that you are continuing (in the present) to drive the car is obvious and there is no need to express it.

If you have a passenger with you who suddenly wakes up and says, “What are you doing?” your reply is, “I am driving a car for the first time.” because the passenger is asking about a present continuing action and therefore asked in the present continuous tense.

If, at that very moment, you hit a tree, you would say, “That *was* the first time I *have driven* a car.”

When repeating the story to the police, you would say, “That *was* the first time that I *had driven* a car.”

*This *and *That *are crucial here, note how *this *refers to a present event but *that *refers to a past event.

*This *is used for the object indicated, or the closest object (in distance or time), or the first or only object. "*This *is a dog"; [points] "*This *is a dog, *that *is a cat" “*This *is the first time I have driven a car.” *This = *the *present *experience.
*That *is used for a more distant object, or subsequent objects (in distance or time), "That is his house over there."; "This is a dog, that is a cat" “*That *was the first time I have driven a car.” *That *= the *past *experience

At the end of your driving, you can get out of the car and show completion by saying, *"**That *[the *past *experience of holding the steering wheel and pressing the accelerator - the concept of driving]* is* the first time that I have done that." Where, as you see, *That *refers to the whole experience of driving a car, rather than simply the action.


----------



## Prower

Keith Bradford said:


> Your premises are incorrect. "This is the first time I have driven a car" may or may not mean that you are still driving; *it simply means that you haven't done it again since.*



Another interesting point is: if "This is the first time I have driven a car" means that I am still driving (you assume that this meaning can be found here as well) then your conclusion which is _"*it simply means that you haven't done it again since" *_is not clear. I am still driving, there hasn't been a time gap which would let me say "since". 

Well, may be I am splitting hair.)) But as long as I can find a new level of accuracy, I am after it.


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> ... However, I found your answer to be more philosophical rather than linguistical. ...  my question refers to a technical aspect of the language. In my previous example I can see that this construction has two different timings ...


I think that you were also a bit philosophic when you said: 1) This is the first time I have driven a car. (means that I am still driving).
It is true that one could say this sentence while still driving the car. One could also say it in other circumstances, e.g. when the person has just got out of the car. What do you think?


----------



## Prower

wolfbm1 said:


> I think that you were also a bit philosophic when you said: 1) This is the first time I have driven a car. (means that I am still driving).
> It is true that one could say this sentence while still driving the car. One could also say it in other circumstances, e.g. when the person has just got out of the car. What do you think?


Exactly. That's the problem here. At least a problem for me. This is what is called ambiguity. You may imply the first meaning and I might understand that you imply the second meaning. This is how we get misunderstanding. However a langauge is aimed to eliminate misunderstandings as far as I beleive.


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> Exactly. That's the problem here. At least a problem for me. This is what is called ambiguity. You may imply the first meaning and I might understand that you imply the second meaning.


But this sentence cannot exist in vacuum. It's got to have a concrete context and an intended meaning.
 As far as the time is concerned, the technicality of the present perfect is quite simple. If we don't include the words 'since or 'for' (other words like 'just' can have different meanings) the time encompasses our whole life up to now. Also the word 'have' tells us this. It  has a present form. This is how I understand it.


> This is how we get misunderstanding. However a langauge is aimed to eliminate misunderstandings as far as I beleive.


 That is why I ask questions on this forum. I don't always get it the first time.


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> Another interesting point is: if "This is the first time I have driven a car" means that I am still driving (you assume that this meaning can be found here as well) then your conclusion which is _"*it simply means that you haven't done it again since" *_is not clear. I am still driving, there hasn't been a time gap which would let me say "since".
> 
> Well, may be I am splitting hair.)) But as long as I can find a new level of accuracy, I am after it.



But Keith Bradford also said: "This is the first time I have driven a car" ... may not mean that you are still driving."  Now the statement "it simply means that you haven't done it again since" makes sense.


----------



## Prower

I am reading. - *Present Continuous*
I have read. - *Present Perfect*

*PP* and *PS *are two different tenses and they are not equal. I am sure it is not possible to confuse them. 

_What amazes me in the "This is the first time I have..."_ is that *PP* and *PS *are in it and as far as I see it's not possible to seperate one from another without a context. (I suspect, though, that even a context won't always help to do it).

However, out of this construction *PP* and *PS *live their own lives. Context is great but some things should be understood as they go. I don't think you need context in order to understand the following sentence - *This is a book.

*When a certain construction invites ambiguity without a context then this construction requires extra attention in my opinion.


----------



## LilianaB

Well, _This is the first time I have been driving a car_ means to me that the person is still driving. There may be some other contexts, but I cannot think about them right now.


----------



## Prower

wolfbm1 said:


> But Keith Bradford also said: "This is the first time I have driven a car" ... may not mean that you are still driving."  Now the statement "it simply means that you haven't done it again since" makes sense.



This is what he said

*"This is the first time I have driven a car" may or may not mean that you are still driving*


----------



## Prower

LilianaB said:


> Well, _This is the first time I have been driving a car_ means to me that the person is still driving. There may be some other contexts, but I cannot think about them right now.


This option was considered wrong by native speakers. You can check post #54


----------



## LilianaB

Not this sentence, but one about walking a road. Each example is different.


----------



## Prower

LilianaB said:


> Not this sentence, but one about walking a road. Each example is different.


What makes them different?


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> What makes them different?


That's a good question. 
Liliana:
_



			This is the first time I have been driving a car means to me that the person is still driving
		
Click to expand...

._
Loob:


> I'd say "This is the first time I've walked this road" , not "this is the first time I've been walking this road"


----------



## LilianaB

It is different because each word is different and can change the meaning of a construction. It may have something to do with the word walk, why the other construction with PP is better.


----------



## wolfbm1

LilianaB said:


> It is different because each word is different and can change the meaning of a construction. It may have something to do with the word walk, why the other construction with PP is better.


To me, both walking and driving are just different modes of transport. Is walking an exception here? I wonder what other verbs don't work well in this construction.


----------



## Prower

LilianaB said:


> It is different because each word is different and can change the meaning of a construction. It may have something to do with the word walk, why the other construction with PP is better.


Are you serious?


----------



## LilianaB

I am absolutely serious. Words are not just different Lego blocks you can exchange automatically.


----------



## LilianaB

In fact to have the construction with PPC correct you would have to add something like _This is _ _the first time I have been driving this car for three hours_, or _This is the first time I have been walking this road for 20 minutes_. i think then they will make perfect sense.


----------



## Prower

Is it just your personal opinion or you can back it up with some references to some grammar books or forum posts where this construction is presented? I would love to see it aproved by natives.


----------



## PaulQ

LilianaB said:


> In fact to have the construction with PPC correct you would have to add something like _This is _ _the first time I have been driving this car for three hours_,


I think that, although correct, it more likely that you would say, whilst driving, _"This is the first time I *have driven* this car for three hours."_


----------



## LilianaB

_This is the the first time I have driven this car_ is definitely correct in this context. The other construction should have the time more specified to indicate that something has been happening for a period of time. As for the difference between words, yes there is a big difference between words even of the same class; how they can be used in a particular construction and context. There are continuous verbs and non continuous verbs, mixed verbs, I think you know about it.


----------



## LilianaB

Do, you think, Paul this is just for economy reasons? I know often very long forms have a tendency to be expressed by less complex constructions, or simply shorter, especially in speech.


----------



## Prower

LilianaB said:


> _This is the the first time I have driven this car_ is definitely correct in this context. The other construction should have the time more specified to indicate that something has been happening for a period of time. As for the difference between words, yes there is a big difference between words even of the same class; how they can be used in a particular construction and context. There are continuous verbs and non continuous verbs, mixed verbs, I think you know about it.


I haven't seen any reply from a native where the usage of PRESENT PERFECT CONTINOUUS would have been approved. I know what you mean when you say about *"continuous verbs and non continuous verbs, mixed verbs". *However what makes you think that it is relevant here?


----------



## PaulQ

Prower said:


> I haven't seen any reply from a native where the usage of PRESENT PERFECT CONTINOUUS would have been approved.


Then you must have missed my post #61


----------



## Prower

PaulQ said:


> Then you must have missed my post #61


I have reread your post #61 and I didn't find present perfect continouos being used in "This is the first time I have been doing something"


----------



## Keith Bradford

*This is the first time I have done *_XYZ_ is the most normal construction. This is true for walking, driving or whatever.
_*That was the first time I had done* XYZ _is the past version of it.

However, in certain circumstances the present continuous is possible. Bear in mind that it is continuous - it expresses a continuity during which something else may happen. So it is possible to say, for example:
_*This is the first time I have been doing *XYZ *and have a pigeon land on my head*. _It means that this is the first time that I have had a pigeon landing on my head while I was doing XYZ.

This construction is quite rare - though not as rare as head-landing pigeons.


----------



## Prower

As for the meaning of this construction it is very much clear. The problem is whether it is acceptable. You are the first one to have said it is.


----------



## PaulQ

_*This is the first time I have been doing *XYZ *and have a pigeon land on my head*. _Hmmm...I would have gone with, *"This is the first time I have been doing *XYZ *and have had a pigeon land on my head*."

The construction* have ... bare infinitive* is more commonly found in such sentences as, "I* have* the maidservant *take* out all my rubbish."


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes, that's good too.  I probably felt there were too many '_haves' _in the sentance already...


----------



## wolfbm1

What I have understood so far is that while driving a car I can say: 
1. _This is the first time I *have been driving* a car and have driven through the red lights._ (A bit long but possible. An *experience*.)
2. _This is the first time I *have driven* through the red lights._ (The same meaning as above and a shorter sentence. An *experience*.)
3. _This is the first time I *have driven* a car for six hours without stopping._ (The *experience* of current driving for six hours without stopping.)
4. _This is the first time I *have been driving* a car for six hours without stopping._ (The *experience* of current driving for six hours without stopping. Similar meaning as above. The ongoing aspect of driving has been stressed.)
5. _I’*m driving* a car for the first time_. (It is *not the experience*, it is the actual action.)


----------



## Prower

I am still not sure if this comibination is legitimate. I mean "This is the first time + PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS". It is confusing because the absolute majority of natives were saying that this combination is not acceptable or at least they were telling that they would avoid using it. Apart from that I haven't found any books or whatsoever which would have this combination, may be I wasn't lucky to find it. All this makes me wonder how acceptable this construction at all *is*. 

The matter is that some people say that even Present Continuous is acceptable here

*This is the first time I am driving a car.

*However, others say it is completely wrong. This is why I can't be sure that this conbination is ok.


----------



## wolfbm1

Keith Bradford said:


> *This is the first time I have done *_XYZ_ is the most normal construction. This is true for walking, driving or whatever.


Does it make "*This is the first time I have been doing *_XYZ for a ..." _less normal but still acceptable?


----------



## PaulQ

"*This is the first time I have been driving *a car for 8 hours, I usually only drive to the local shops." is OK.

but more usually, "*This is the first time I have driven *a car for 8 hours, I usually only drive to the local shops."


----------



## sound shift

wolfbm1 said:


> Does it make "*This is the first time I have been doing *_XYZ for a ..." _less normal but still acceptable?


Well, I can't imagine myself saying this - unless the "been" means "gone", as in "This is the first time I've been swimming for months". I certainly could not say "This is the first time I've been cleaning the screen of my computer for a few weeks" (where "been" does _not _mean "gone").


----------



## wolfbm1

sound shift said:


> Well, I can't imagine myself saying this - unless the "been" means "gone", as in "This is the first time I've been swimming for months". I certainly could not say "This is the first time I've been cleaning the screen of my computer for a few weeks" (where "been" does _not _mean "gone").


What about Paul's example? Do you agree with Paul?


----------



## sound shift

wolfbm1 said:


> What about Paul's example? Do you agree with Paul?


I don't think I do - even though Paul and I are from the same town!


----------



## wolfbm1

sound shift said:


> I don't think I do - even though Paul and I are from the same town!


That's interesting. And in your sentence: "This is the first time I've been swimming for months" 'swimming' is a gerund not a present participle (go swimming).
While in Paul's example: "*This is the first time I have been driving* a car for 8 hours, I usually only drive to the local shops." 'driving' is a present participle'.

In order to have an equal standing with Paul's sentence, your sentence should read: "This is the first time I've been going swimming for months".


----------



## Prower

wolfbm1 said:


> That's interesting. And in your sentence: "This is the first time I've been swimming for months" 'swimming' is a gerund not a present participle (go swimming).


How did you figure it out?


----------



## Pertinax

Prower said:


> How did you figure it out?



I think that what wolfbm1 means is that "swimming" here is a gerund-participle acting as a predicative adjective rather than as part of a main verb.  It's like saying:
_This is the first time I've been (=gone) hungry for months._
.. which is not an example of the continuous aspect.


----------



## Pertinax

Prower said:


> I am still not sure if this combination is legitimate. I mean "This is the first time + PRESENT PERFECT CONTINUOUS". It is confusing because the absolute majority of natives were saying that this combination is not acceptable or at least they were telling that they would avoid using it. Apart from that I haven't found any books or whatsoever which would have this combination, may be I wasn't lucky to find it. All this makes me wonder how acceptable this construction at all *is*.
> 
> The matter is that some people say that even Present Continuous is acceptable here
> 
> *This is the first time I am driving a car.
> 
> *However, others say it is completely wrong. This is why I can't be sure that this combination is ok.



We use the continuous aspect for describing an event as it is taking place. The beginning and end of the event are disregarded.  But it's precisely the beginning or the end that marks the "first time" the event began or was completed.  You want to use "first time" to describe an achievement-in-progress.

I can certainly say:
_  It's the first time I'm flying to America._
referring to a proposed future event, but this use of "be" + gerund-participle marks the futurate rather than continuous aspect.

If I am on the plane now and flying to America for the first time, then I am much less likely to say either:
    1. _This is the first time I am flying to America._
    2. _This is the first time I've been flying to America._
than:
    3. _This is the first time I've flown to America._
even though I haven't even completed the trip yet.  The reason is that we tend to reserve (1) for the futurate, and we don't like describing an achievement-in-progress (2) as the "first" time. (1) and (2) are not wrong, but merely less natural.

There are only a few instances where I think that it would be natural to use the continuous aspect with the present perfect, and that is where it would be misleading to present the event as completed, e.g.
_ This is the first time he's been getting better._

Paul's sentence is not untenable, but he too prefers it without continuous aspect.


----------



## Prower

Pertinax said:


> We use the continuous aspect for describing an event as it is taking place. ........
> 
> 
> 
> If I am on the plane now and flying to America for the first time, then I *am much less likely* to say either:
> 1. _This is the first time I am flying to America._



Isn't it a bit confusing?


----------



## Pertinax

Prower said:


> Isn't it a bit confusing?



Quite possibly.  But it has a certain logic.

1.  As I explained, this is not the sole use of the continuous aspect. You can research this further by googling "progressive futurate".  To quote A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (Huddleston & Pullum):
_There are certain cases where clauses with progressive form do not have the usual "in progress" meaning. The most important involves the futurate construction._

2.  A pedant might say this is not the first time he has been flying to America. The first time was when the plane took off.  Every instant since then has been a subsequent time.  Pedantic or not, in English we prefer to use the term "first time" for the start or completion of an action, not for an achievement-in-progress.


----------



## Prower

For the sake of clarity, I should say that all tenses used in this  construction shouldn't be observed seperately from the "This is the  first time........" 
The continuous aspect, as such, is quite clear,  the problem appears when it comes to this opening of the phrase which is  "This is the first time + a certain tense". 
You brought another issue for me to think about.

You said that this is what you could say in order to convey an action in the FUTURE.

*It is the first time I am flying to America.*

What about this one?

*It will be the first time I have flewn to America.* (This option seems to me much more conventional)


----------



## Pertinax

Prower said:


> What about this one?
> 
> *It will be the first time I have flown to America.*



That construction certainly sounds better than a futurate without an explicit time-adjunct.

However, the futurate with an explicit time-adjunct, e.g.
1. _Next week I am flying to America for the first time._

.. is equally as good as:
2. _Next week I will be flying to America for the first time._

and as good as:
3. _I'm leaving next week.  *It will be the first time I have flown to America.*_


----------



## wolfbm1

monica. said:


> _This is the first time I have been overseas. is the correct sentence._


What do you mean? Is this your first journey overseas? Are you still there? Have you come back?


----------



## wolfbm1

Prower said:


> How did you figure it out?


Timpeac said something similar in this thread (post #10 http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=981658 ):
"To go swimming" (or "to go for a swim") suggests "to have a swimming session" 
Since sound shift considers his sentence  "This is the first time I've been swimming for months" as an example of the present perfect continuous construction, maybe it is. Maybe 'a swimming session' becomes a part of verb again. Although one cannot explicitly say it. Another disagreement about it is in this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1728887

PS: I consider Pertinax's explanation in post #100 very useful.


----------



## sunyaer

sandpiperlily said:


> ...  This is the first time I hear of this!
> 
> ...





sandpiperlily said:


> ...
> 
> For this reason, using the simple present "I hear" with "for the first time" is jarring, because "I hear" makes me think that it's going to be a general statement, ...



*sandpiperlily* use simple present "I hear of this" in his post #41, does it not sound right to all native speakers?


----------



## Florentia52

sunyaer said:


> *sandpiperlily* use simple present "I hear of this" in his post #41, does it not sound right to all native speakers?



The following posts (after #41) make it clear that it does not.


----------



## sunyaer

Florentia52 said:


> The following posts (after #41) make it clear that it does not.



Actually, post #46 was also posted by *sandpiperlily*. How come different uses were given? Did she change her mind?


----------



## Loob

No, she didn't change her mind, sunyaer. I'm reproducing post 41 below. Note (1) the wink after "This is the first time I hear of this!"  (2) the fact she advises against the construction.





sandpiperlily said:


> Very interesting -- thanks for doing all this research.  This is the first time I hear of this!
> 
> I would have thought that native speakers wouldn't use this construction  at all; now I see that it's a rare variation that some editors seem to  tolerate.  It still sounds "wrong" or at the very least "awkward" to me,  so I would advise English learners to avoid it.


----------



## sandpiperlily

Sorry for any confusion!  I sometimes forget that sarcasm doesn't translate well to the screen and across languages.  Loob's interpretation is correct.  The wink was supposed to indicate that I was using the "awkward sounding construction" in my own answer as something of a joke.


----------



## Anushka Athukorala

Hello PaulQ 
Thank you very much for your answer and it was great help to get rid of many confusions that I had. I have been also struggling to learn this construction for many years and I am still not 100% confident about using this in some situations. 
I am quoting a part of your answer which is a little difficult for me to understand.

"At the end of your driving, you can get out of the car and show completion by saying, *"That *[the *past *experience of holding the steering wheel and pressing the accelerator - the concept of driving]* is* the first time that I have done that." Where, as you see, *That *refers to the whole experience of driving a car, rather than simply the action.[/QUOTE]

Can't we use " This is the the first time I have driven a car " to mean the same completion?
If not how can I differentiate between them?
I would highly appreciate if you could give a cue to tell them apart.

Thanks


----------

