# Since like 5 months ago



## Mackinder

Hi, friends

I have a little question: is the following OK?

Carl had been cheating on her girlfriend with his neighbor since like 5 months ago!


December: Carl starts making out with his neighbor.
January
February
March
April
May: Carl is caught and ends affair with his neighbor.
June
July
August: Present. "Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since 5 months ago!" is said here.



Thank you!


----------



## dadane

No. You are saying the affair started five months ago (i.e. March). I think your intended meaning is 'Karl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbour for [like] five months'. I would be very surprised to find many, if any, English speakers on this forum who would add 'like' to this sentence.


----------



## Dexta

_is the following OK?_

Whether or not it's 'OK' will be a matter of opinion. The use of 'like' here is an informal usage meaning approximately, around or almost. I also think you mean 'his girlfriend', not 'her'.


----------



## defghi

Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend since like 8 months ago.

Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend for like 5 months.

informal phrasing, but these would sound fine in conversation.


----------



## Mackinder

Thank you very much, guys!!  And sorry for the mistake!


----------



## sdgraham

defghi said:


> Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend since like 8 months ago.
> 
> Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend for like 5 months.
> 
> informal phrasing, but these would sound fine in conversation.



Not among mature, educated English speakers who find the obsessive use of the "like" crutch abhorrent.

I recommend this previous thread: 
I was like, She was like - expletive like, quotative like


----------



## Parla

I agree with SDGraham. Also, "had" should be _has_, and small numbers are spelled out in English prose:

Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend for five months.


----------



## defghi

Parla said:


> I agree with SDGraham. Also, "had" should be _has_, and small numbers are spelled out in English prose:
> 
> Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend for five months.



No. "has" would be correct if the cheating continued to the present. The cheating ended three months ago, so it should be "had". He had been cheating on his girlfriend for five months, but then he was caught and ended the affair.



sdgraham said:


> Not among mature, educated English speakers who find the obsessive use of the "like" crutch abhorrent.
> 
> I recommend this previous thread:
> I was like, She was like - expletive like, quotative like



 _<< --- comment deleted --- >>_ This use of "like" is none of the uses mentioned in that thread. Here it is used to mean an approximation, and in informal conversation it would be acceptable to most people, _<< --- comment deleted --- >>_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SDG and I are clearly then not included in _most people_.


----------



## Elwintee

Nor am I included in those who can tolerate this use of 'like'.  In the UK, at least, it is a sure marker of uneducated English.  It is the butt of comedians who want to imitate 'yob' speech.  Please do not encourage learners to think it is acceptable.


----------



## dadane

Thomas Tompion said:


> SDG and I are clearly then not included in _most people_.


 And, as previously mentioned, parla and myself. 

The problem we have here is that there is no denying that this is common usage and will most likely remain so. If Ginazec is trying to create a narrative which details a real conversation, it is not wrong. I don't like it. I don't use it. Is it incorrect? I like to take descriptivist stance, my answer has to be 'no'.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I agree with the detesters of "like" with all my heart.

As for Ginazec's sentence, I wonder whether "for five months" could substitute for "since five months ago": "Carl had been cheating on her girlfriend with his neighbor for 5 months". 
After all, we're saying that at a given moment in the past (the "point of reference"), the cheating had been perpetrated for a _certain number of months_: hence "for" and not "since". 

My impression, of course. 
GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dadane said:


> And, as previously mentioned, parla and myself.
> 
> The problem we have here is that there is no denying that this is common usage and will most likely remain so. If Ginazec is trying to create a narrative which details a real conversation, it is not wrong. I don't like it. I don't use it. Is it incorrect? I like to take descriptivist stance, my answer has to be 'no'.


Yes, but all sorts of primitive mumblings and grunting can be commonly heard on the lips of some native speakers; that doesn't mean we should encourage non-native learners to do as they do.


----------



## Elwintee

dadane said:


> And, as previously mentioned, parla and myself.
> 
> The problem we have here is that there is no denying that this is common usage and will most likely remain so. If Ginazec is trying to create a narrative which details a real conversation, it is not wrong. I don't like it. I don't use it. Is it incorrect? I like to take descriptivist stance, my answer has to be 'no'.



I agree that from a descriptivist viewpoint nothing is 'incorrect' enough to be outlawed or condemned - we don't want to censor speech or writing.  But surely there is room to assume that learners wish to master 'educated' English before learning slang and widely derided forms?  Of course it would be wrong to deny writers the freedom to use whatever style and register they choose for specific purposes, but this is a forum much used by those just starting on the English language journey.  I think the basic principle of 'anything goes as long as it is comprehensible' has to be advocated in that context.


----------



## dadane

I completely agree, Elwintree, and I have made it very clear that I, personally, do not condone this usage. But, learners of the language are going to encounter it and, if not otherwise directed, use it. So is it not better to discuss this matter openly than simply condemn it?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

It's not entirely clear to me what Ginazec intended by his use of 'like'. It occurs to me that it might have been an innocent mistake, as opposed to a deliberate attempt to deploy 'like' in this evidently controversial sense.

What were you trying to say, Ginazec?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

I find some difficulty in trying to get rid of the idea that, to a foreign learner of English, correcting the expression "*since 5 months ago" is more important than the use/non-use of ubiquitous "like".

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo.
> 
> I find some difficulty in trying to get rid of the idea that, to a foreign learner of English, correcting the expression "*since 5 months ago" is more important than the use/non-use of ubiquitous "like".
> 
> GS


Do you think it needs correcting, Giorgio?


----------



## PaulQ

Ginazec said:


> Hi, friends
> 
> I have a little question: is the following OK?
> 
> Carl had been cheating on her girlfriend with his neighbor since like 5 months ago!


No. It is filled with mistakes and is horrible! 

Carl had been cheating on *her *girlfriend with his neighbor *since like *5 months *ago*! 

Carl is male, so *her *is wrong: it is *his*
You can't have the past perfect (*had*) and *since* + *<period of time>* it has to be past perfect (*had*) and *for*
You can't have *since +<period of time>+ago* 
As everyone else has said, avoid this use of "*like*": it makes the speaker sound stupid.

So, the acceptable version is: "Carl had been cheating on *his* girlfriend with his neighbor *for* 5 months!"


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

What I wrote in post #12.

And yes, Thomas, I do.

GS


----------



## Chasint

sdgraham said:


> Not among mature, educated English speakers who find the obsessive use of the "like" crutch abhorrent.
> 
> I recommend this previous thread:
> I was like, She was like - expletive like, quotative like


Unless this is an attempt to say "approximately". 

In that case the sentence would be "Carl had been cheating on her girlfriend with his neighbor since about 5 months ago!


----------



## Chasint

PaulQ said:


> ...
> You can't have the past perfect (*had*) and *since* + *<period of time>* it has to be past perfect (*had*) and *for*
> You can't have *since +<period of time>+ago*


With respect PaulQ, I think you may be hypercorrecting here.

I agree you cant have since + period of time.  However "five months ago" is not a period of time. It is a point in time.

If (as I suspect) 'like' was intended to mean 'approximately" or "about" the sentence would become:

"Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since about 5 months ago!"

There is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned especially conversationally.

Reasoning

I start to say "Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend since <specific date>"  However, mid sentence, I realise that I don't know the exact date so I substitute an approximate date "about five months ago".

Perfectly acceptable.

______________________________________________________________
EDIT
Apologies Paul - I got confused somewhere along the way. Now I look again I see that you are probably right. It is not clear what is meant by the combination of "had" and "ago".


----------



## Chasint

Ginazec.  Can I just check if the following is now the sentence you want us to correct? Edited to remove inaccuracy.

_ "Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since 5 months ago!"_

Firstly you can (in my opinion) say:

_"Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since [about] 5 months ago!"_

However if you change 'has' to 'had' there is a problem because "ago" usually refers to the time of speaking. If you want to use 'had', I believe that PaulQ has it right.

EDIT
If you really want to use that form then I think you will have to exchange "ago" for "earlier".

_"[At the time we are discussing] Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since [about] 5 months earlier!"_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree entirely with Biffo here.

I see nothing wrong with *C has been cheating...since five months ago.

*I agree that with the past perfect you'd need to make that *since five months earlier *(or *before*), though a surprising number of fine writers fail to distinguish in this way between *ago* and *earlier*.  There may be English-speaking regions (Ireland?) where the distinction is not usually drawn.


----------



## tomtombp

defghi said:


> Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend since like 8 months ago.
> 
> Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend for like 5 months.
> 
> informal phrasing, but these would sound fine in conversation.



It's five months if your reference point is when they got caught.

"When he was caught, Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend for about/like *five* months."

"like" is often heard in informal conversations instead of "about" or for quoting somebody when telling a story, to express that it's not a word by word quote.

"Then she was like: Sorry guys I didn't mean..."
"Then I was like: ..."

Very typical among young people. One of the most used words for example in a chat between to young girls in a bar. It is also typical to add a short break after "like" for some reason. If overhearing a conversation like that, the lot of "like"s and pauses after them kind of break up the conversation. Another typical word in those chats is "kind of" that I just used. It is also expressing approximation. And the combination of the two: "kind of like" 

I wonder if it's just me or others also noticed this.


----------



## tomtombp

I'm with TT and Biffo. "Five months ago" is a point in time and as such it can go together with "since". And that using "ago" in the past sounds a bit odd.


----------



## PaulQ

To my ear, 
"He had been cheating on his girlfriend *since January*." is correct.
"He had been cheating on his girlfriend *since *five months." is wrong
"He had been cheating on his girlfriend *for *five months." is correct
"He had been cheating on his girlfriend *since *five months *ago*." is wrong.
"He *had started* cheating on his girlfriend *ø* five months ago." is correct
"He *has *been cheating on his girlfriend *since *five months ago." is correct.


----------



## Elwintee

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> It's not entirely clear to me what Ginazec intended by his use of 'like'. It occurs to me that it might have been an innocent mistake, as opposed to a deliberate attempt to deploy 'like' in this evidently controversial sense.
> 
> What were you trying to say, Ginazec?



The rest of us have been debating amongst ourselves but we have yet to hear back from Ginazec.


----------



## Mackinder

Nooo I was almost done with my anwser but the system somehow deleted it noooo OK I'm going to start over:




Biffo said:


> Ginazec. Can I just check if the following is now the sentence you want us to correct? Edited to remove inaccuracy.
> *
> Yup *
> 
> _"Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since 5 months ago!"_
> 
> Firstly you can (in my opinion) say:
> 
> _"Carl has been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since [about] 5 months ago!"_
> 
> However if you change 'has' to 'had' there is a problem because "ago" usually refers to the time of speaking. If you want to use 'had', I believe that PaulQ has it right.
> 
> EDIT
> If you really want to use that form then I think you will have to exchange "ago" for "earlier".
> 
> _"[At the time we are discussing] Carl had been cheating on his girlfriend with his neighbor since [about] 5 months earlier!"_






Beryl from Northallerton said:


> It's not entirely clear to me what Ginazec intended by his use of 'like'. It occurs to me that it might have been an innocent mistake, as opposed to a deliberate attempt to deploy 'like' in this evidently controversial sense.
> 
> What were you trying to say, Ginazec?





Elwintee said:


> The rest of us have been debating amongst ourselves but we have yet to hear back from Ginazec.




I'm so super sorry guys for not coming before it was the system's fault it didn't inform me about new posts so today I was going through my threads and I came here to find that it had many answers and the system never told me anything about it bad system ok anyway My doubt was whether *"since 5 months ago"* was correct 

I used "like" as a synonym for "approximately" and or "about" as you guys have stated  so the "like" usage was not actually part of my inquiry  I deleted it from my original post so as to prevent confusions about the thread's main issue because I had noted some of the first posts were concerning its usage but now I know I should have actually made a post about it instead of just editing the original post because no one noticed it but now I realize it was too late lol OK 

Thus I think we can conclude that

*He had been cheating on her for 5 months
He had been cheating on her since 5 months ago
He had started cheating on her since 5 months ago 
He had been cheating on her since 5 months earlier*

are all OK  

Thank you very much all of you guys for your kind help and answers!!!  Doubt so solved!!!


----------



## PaulQ

No. Only the first one sounds good to me.

I would forget trying to use "*since*" in the same sentence as *ago *if you are using the past perfect.


----------



## Mackinder

PaulQ said:


> No. Only the first one sounds good to me.
> 
> I would forget trying to use "*since*" in the same sentence as *ago *if you are using the past perfect.



Ohh I thought in your sentence "He *had started cheating on his girlfriend ø five months ago." **ø could be replaced with either since of for. What do you mean by **ø then? *


----------



## PaulQ

*ø =* nothing. It is the sign to emphasise that a word has not been used/that there is no word in that place/ that there is only a space.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

I think PaulQ is right.

_He had been cheating on her since 5 months ago
He had started cheating on her since 5 months ago 
He had been cheating on her since 5 months earlier

_are wrong because "since" introduces a DATE — which can be expressed in different ways: 2001; september 2001; the Twin Towers disaster; I was a kid; my 50th birthday; I last saw her; etc. — NOT A QUANTITY OF TIME. And the presence of "ago" doesn't turn a quantitative expression into a date; it is only an additional mistake.

GS


----------



## dadane

I'm slightly confused here, how do these suggestions relate to the scenario described in the OP? Or have we gone off-thread?


----------



## tomtombp

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo.
> 
> I think PaulQ is right.
> 
> _He had been cheating on her since 5 months ago__
> He had started cheating on her since 5 months ago__
> He had been cheating on her since 5 months earlier_are wrong because "since" introduces a DATE — which can be expressed in different ways: 2001; september 2001; the Twin Towers disaster; I was a kid; my 50th birthday; I last saw her; etc. — NOT A QUANTITY OF TIME. And the presence of "ago" doesn't turn a quantitative expression into a date; it is only an additional mistake.
> 
> GS



No. According to most of the previous posts and also my opinion only the first two sentences are wrong. And the reason is not that "five months ago" is not a date. It is not less of a date than your "I last saw her". It points back to an earlier point in time from the present moment. That's why it can be used with "since" in a sentence that is in present perfect. But every time past perfect is used, the reference point moves to the past so "earlier" should be used instead of "ago". "Ago" only makes sense when referencing from the present. The same way as "later" is used in the past and "in" in the present to refer to future events.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think both the following are correct, but mean different things:
*
He had been cheating on her since five months ago* - since five months before today.
*He had been cheating on her since five months earlier* - since five months before the moment in the past.

In both cases the cheating had gone on from the moment specified until the moment in the past referred to by the use of the past perfect.  The use of the past perfect is justified with *since*, as several people have said, by the use of a specific time marker designating a moment in the past. 

I'd hesitate to say the first because many people don't distinguish much between *earlier* and *ago*, in the way we've been recommending.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Thomas and tomtom.

I hereby subscribe to the notion that "five months ago" is not less of a date than any other date, but isn't there's disharmony between "had been cheating" and "since five months ago"?

I'd say:

He *has* been cheating ... since five months ago
He *had* been cheating ... since five months earlier/before

(Obviously, it would've been a lot easier to say "He's/d been cheating her *for* five months")

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Thomas and tomtom.
> 
> I hereby subscribe to the notion that "five months ago" is not less of a date than any other date, but isn't there's disharmony between "had been cheating" and "since five months ago"?
> 
> [...]


Hi Giorgio,

I don't think there is.

If we grant that* five months ago* points to a moment in time, as does* five months earlier*, then both seem to me valid.  When the sentence contains a past perfect, of course, *five months ago* and *five months earlier* point to different moments in time.


----------



## Einstein

defghi said:


> This use of "like" is none of the uses mentioned in that thread. Here it is used to mean an approximation.


I add my voice to the others who detest the meaningless addition of "like" every three words. However, defghi has a point, that in this case it's not completely meaningless and indicates an approximation. My answer to this is that "about" is far preferable! You could also say "something like five months".

As others have said, "for five months" is better than "since five months ago", but in any case "ago" wouldn't be right because it would mean five months before the present. We can say, for example:
_Carl had started cheating on his girlfriend five months before/earlier.
_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> [...]
> 
> As others have said, "for five months" is better than "since five months ago", but in any case "ago" wouldn't be right because it would mean five months before the present. We can say, for example:
> _Carl had started cheating on his girlfriend five months before/earlier.
> _


Wouldn't it be right, Einstein, if we wanted to indicate five months before the present?  I don't see that we can discount that possibility.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> Wouldn't it be right, Einstein, if we wanted to indicate five months before the present?  I don't see that we can discount that possibility.


In that case, yes, but in the original question we are speaking in August about something that went on from December to May. But certainly we could say _it had started eight months ago_, without implying that it continued up to the present. Is that what you mean?

Actually I got stuck on the first page and now, re-reading page 2, I realise that my comments have already been made by others.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yes, that's what I meant.  I get rather fussed about people who say *ago* when they mean* earlier*, but here, in the general case using the past perfect, I think we either would be possible.


----------



## tomtombp

Einstein said:


> In that case, yes, but in the original question we are speaking in August about something that went on from December to May. But certainly we could say _it had started eight months ago_, without implying that it continued up to the present. Is that what you mean?



Why not just say "The affair started eight months ago." (simple past) Would it imply more than the past perfect that it is still going on?
I understand that "The affair had started eight months ago when they got caught" makes it clear that their affair has stopped and the use of past perfect is justified.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, tom.
_I understand that "The affair had started eight months ago when they got caught" makes it clear that their affair has stopped and the use of past perfect is justified._​


I'm afraid you should use *before* instead of *ago
*
Also, I believe a more appropriate way of expressing the notion would be:

1. The(ir) affair had been going on for eight months when they got caught"

or

2. "When they got caught the(ir) affair had been going on for eight months"

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I regard discussion of better ways of communicating this idea as beside the point.

The OP asked whether the expression was OK.  That's what we should be debating surely.  I think some issues about it remain unresolved.


----------



## Mackinder

Hullo all

Thanks all for your kind help!


----------

