# it's (been) a long time since + present perfect?



## henrylee100

The other day I came across this sentence

_'It's been a long time since *I've heard* from you.'
_
It may be just me, but it sounds a bit weird to me because of the present perfect after since.
I mean, isn't the sentence supposed to mean the same as ' I haven't heard from you in a long time' , which means that the last time I heard from you was a long time ago, way in the past and so isn't the hearing from you bit supposed to be in the simple past tense?


----------



## owlman5

I agree, henrylee100, that this sounds a little odd.  I sometimes hear native speakers use the present perfect after "since", but I think using the simple past works better.  A search through COCA* only provided ten examples of the use.  That means that this construction is rare among the sentences sampled in that collection.  Here are a few of them:

In fact, it has been *a* *long* *time* *since* *I* *have* heard him put more than three or four sentences together at a time.
  I realize that it has been *a* *long* *time* *since* *I* *have* really talked to anybody.
It has been *a* *long* *time* *since* *I* *have* been sunburned.

I think you should regard these as mistakes.  It's safer to use the simple past after "since"; especially when you are writing to please an editor or a teacher.

*Corpus of Contemporary American English


----------



## henrylee100

Thanks for your input, owlman5.
Just came across this example here http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/since_2
_It's twenty years since I've seen her
_This kind of doesn't make much sense to me either, because the only thing this sentence can mean is that it's been twenty years since the last time he/she saw her, and you can't really say, 'it's twenty years since the last time I've seen her,' can you?


----------



## owlman5

henrylee100 said:


> Thanks for your input, owlman5.
> Just came across this example here http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/since_2
> _It's twenty years since I've seen her
> _This kind of doesn't make much sense to me either, because the only thing this sentence can mean is that it's been twenty years since the last time he/she saw her, and you can't really say, 'it's twenty years since the last time I've seen her,' can you?


You're welcome.  I suspect that speakers who use this sort of sentence are mixing two ideas: (1)  I haven't seen her for a long time.  (2) It has been twenty years since I saw her last.  People _do_ say things like that, henrylee100.  Does it surprise you much to learn that not everybody uses perfect grammar all the time?  Even though I know it's wrong, it doesn't sound like a horrible error to me.  Instead, it sounds as if the speaker is a little shaky when using the present perfect.  As long as you know better, it will be easy for you to avoid doing the same thing.


----------



## ALEX1981X

Evening guys

Could the sentence provided: _'It's been a long time since *I've heard* from you"

_mean something like_ : I've heard from you for a long time?

_Is it possible?Thanks


----------



## loghrat

ALEX1981X said:


> Evening guys
> 
> Could the sentence provided: _'It's been a long time since *I've heard* from you"
> 
> _mean something like_ : I've heard from you for a long time?
> 
> _Is it possible?Thanks



No, Alex, _I've heard from you for a long time?  _makes no sense in English. 
Also, your sentence is 'positive', whereas the sentence in OP is 'negative'.

It's been a long time since I heard from you.
= I haven't heard from you for a long time.


----------



## ALEX1981X

loghrat said:


> No, Alex, _I've heard from you for a long time?  _makes no sense in English.
> Also, your sentence is 'positive', whereas the sentence in OP is 'negative'.
> 
> It's been a long time since I heard from you.
> = I haven't heard from you for a long time.



Thanks a lot

So we can say that* It's been a long time since I heard from you= I haven't heard from you for a long time. 				*

Is *It's been a long time since I have heard from you* a mistake? To me it has the very same meaning as the above

I often noticed that it is not regarded as a mistake but the present perfect just stresses the emphasises on the span of time starting from the last time I heard from you up until now.

Is that correct?


----------



## DonnyB

ALEX1981X said:


> So we can say that It's been a long time since I heard from you= I haven't heard from you for a long time.


Yes, those two variants mean the same thing.                



> Is *It's been a long time since I have heard from you* a mistake? To me it has the very same meaning as the above
> 
> I often noticed that it is not regarded as a mistake but the present perfect just stresses the emphasises on the span of time starting from the last time I heard from you up until now.


I wouldn't use a perfect tense there, and I'd go so far as to class it as a mistake.  I think the duration implicit in "a long time" pre-supposes a simple past tense and contradicts the recent event which often (although not always) accompanies the use of the perfect.  Although the _meaning_ is the same, that sentence just sounds odd to me with that combination of tenses.


----------



## loghrat

I would agree with you, Alex, that the two versions have the same meaning, and to my ear using the present perfect '_have heard' _sounds perfectly fine, if - as you say - the emphasis is on the span of time, rather than the 'point in time' when 'you last heard form X'. 
But apparently it's considered an error. 

To me it depends on the context, e.g.
It is a long time since I came to Australia. 
It is a long time since I have come to Australia.(the present perfect sounds completely wrong here)


----------



## ALEX1981X

loghrat said:


> I would agree with you, Alex, that the two versions have the same meaning, and to my ear using the present perfect '_have heard' _sounds perfectly fine, if - as you say - the emphasis is on the span of time, rather than the 'point in time' when 'you last heard form X'.
> But apparently it's considered an error.
> 
> To me it depends on the context, e.g.
> It is a long time since I came to Australia.
> It is a long time since I have come to Australia.(the present perfect sounds completely wrong here)



Thanks DonnyB and loghrat 

@lohrat, could you please tell me why *since I have heard from you* sounds correct to your ears and *since I have come to Australia* isn't?
What is the nuance?


----------



## loghrat

ALEX1981X said:


> Thanks DonnyB and loghrat
> 
> @lohrat, could you please tell me why *since I have heard from you* sounds correct to your ears and *since I have come to Australia* isn't?
> What is the nuance?



Good question, Alex. I'll try to analyse it.

In 'It's a long time since I *have heard* from you' the span of time (up to the present) during which I haven't heard form you is more important than the point of time when I last heard from you, hence _present perfect._ 
Just as I would say 'I *haven't heard* from you for a long time' (NOT 'I didn't hear from you for a long time). 
Whereas,
in 'It is a long time since I *came* to Australia' the 'coming' happened at a point of time in the past (finished time), hence I use _past simple_ 

P.S. However, I also accept the logic of 'It's a long time since I *heard *from you'.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Ciao, Alex 

*1*. It's been a long time since I heard from you.

and

*2*. I haven't heard from you for a long time.

_do_ mean "the same", but while *1*. focuses on the *moment in the past* when something happen*ed*, 
*2*. focuses on the *quantity of time* that *has elapsed* from that moment to the present.

Stammi bene.

GS


----------



## bwuw

Hi, 
Then, besides the example you're talking about, should we use the past simple after "It's been a long time since..."? For instance:

- It's been a long time since I didn't study English.

Is this correct? 
Thanks!

B


----------



## Smauler

bwuw said:


> It's been a long time since I didn't study English.



This is possibly understandable, but odd.


----------



## bwuw

I thought so. Then, it would be better:

It's been a long time since I haven't studied English.

What do you think?

Thanks!

B


----------



## Forero

bwuw said:


> Hi,
> Then, besides the example you're talking about, should we use the past simple after "It's been a long time since..."? For instance:
> 
> - It's been a long time since I didn't study English.
> 
> Is this correct?
> Thanks!
> 
> B


I think you mean "It's been a long time since I (have) studied English."

It would be most odd to try to measure time from when I did not study English. When was that?

But you might say "It's been a long time since I wasn't studying English (all the time)."


----------



## bwuw

Of course, you're right! : ) I was trying to say "It's been a long time since I (have) studied English."
Thanks a lot!


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Or "since I stopped/ceased/studying English"; or "since I last studied English".
*Since* points to a _moment in time_ when something happen*ed*, d*id*n't happen, etc.; I'm afraid you can't say "*It's been a long time since have studied English." 

GS


----------



## bwuw

Then,

-It's been a long time since I last studied Enlgish.
-It's been a long time since I have studied English. 

Correct?


----------



## Forero

_It's been a long time since I last studied English._
= "I last studied English a long time ago."
This version is about the length of time between when I last studied English and now.

_It's been a long time since I have studied English._
= "I have not studied English for a long time."
This version is about the length of time during which I have not studied English.


----------



## henrylee100

Forero said:


> _It's been a long time since I last studied English._
> = "I last studied English a long time ago."
> This version is about the length of time between when I last studied English and now.
> 
> _It's been a long time since I have studied English._
> = "I have not studied English for a long time."
> This version is about the length of time during which I have not studied English.



What about, 'It's been a long time since I've known her'  - wouldn't that mean the same as I've known here for a long time? 
And if that is the case that wouldn't your second example mean that I have studied English for a long time.

I do realise that people actually talk like this a lot these days (It's been a long time since I've seen him to mean that you haven't seen him in a long time) but from the point of view of pure logic this pattern makes very little sense if any, because it's like saying 'I haven't seen her *since *ten years' when what you mean is that you haven't seen her *in *ten years.

This pattern kind of goes against the semantic of *since. *But alas, languages change and who are we to stand in the way of these changes?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, henry.

It's been a long time since I *met* her. = I'*ve known* here for a long time.

GS


----------



## RainbowDash

henrylee100 said:


> I do realise that people actually talk like this a lot these days (It's been a long time since I've seen him to mean that you haven't seen him in a long time) but from the point of view of pure logic this pattern makes very little sense if any, because it's like saying 'I haven't seen her *since *ten years' when what you mean is that you haven't seen her *in *ten years.
> 
> This pattern kind of goes against the semantic of *since. *But alas, languages change and who are we to stand in the way of these changes?



Alas, natural languages have little to do with 'pure logic', and I don't know what 'semantics of *since*' you mean, but this particular usage of the present perfect after _since _is very well established and is centuries old. Here are some examples from the early 19th century texts:



> ...tis five years since I have seen him; he was then a lad; he must be much changed
> I believe thou hast been pretty busy since I have been gone


----------



## henrylee100

RainbowDash said:


> Alas, natural languages have little to do with 'pure logic', and I don't know what 'semantics of *since*' you mean, but this particular usage of the present perfect after _since _is very well established and is centuries old. Here are some examples from the early 19th century texts:



well this just goes to show that, as you pointed out, there is no logic to natural languages and they not only change, they often also change back and forth. 

Btw, just out of curiosity, what would be your interpretation of 'It's been years since I've known her', would you construe it the same as 'I've known her for years'?


----------



## Forero

henrylee100 said:


> What about, 'It's been a long time since I've known her'  - wouldn't that mean the same as I've known *her* for a long time?


No. Why do you expect it to mean that?





> And if that is the case that wouldn't your second example mean that I have studied English for a long time.
> 
> I do realise that people actually talk like this a lot these days (It's been a long time since I've seen him to mean that you haven't seen him in a long time) but from the point of view of pure logic this pattern makes very little sense if any,


It makes perfect sense to me.





> because it's like saying 'I haven't seen her *since *ten years' when what you mean is that you haven't seen her *in *ten years.


"Since ten years" is not valid in standard American English, but "I haven't seen her since ten years *ago*" does mean the same as "I haven't seen her in the last ten years".





> This pattern kind of goes against the semantic of *since. *But alas, languages change and who are we to stand in the way of these changes?


What semantic are you thinking of here?





RainbowDash said:


> ... but this particular usage of the present perfect after _since _is very well established and is centuries old. Here are some examples from the early 19th century texts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...tis five years since I have seen him; he was then a lad; he must be much changed
> I believe thou hast been pretty busy since I have been gone
Click to expand...

I am curious where you got these examples and what their context is. Whole sentences would help.

The first illustrates what we have been talking about, but the second seems to be of a different type, in which "since I have been gone" is apparently a conflation of "since I left" and "while I have been gone".

We do use conflated sentences like this sometimes (another example: "It's ten years since I've been living here" = "It's ten years that I've been living here."), and this may be the source of some of the confusion expressed in this thread.


----------



## Radioh

Hi,


Forero said:


> _It's been a long time since I last studied English._
> = "I last studied English a long time ago."
> *This version is about the length of time between when I last studied English and now.*
> 
> _It's been a long time since I have studied English._
> = "I have not studied English for a long time."
> *This version is about the length of time during which I have not studied English.*


Having read Forero's explanation, I feel confused, too. To my understanding, both versions mean 'I stopped studying English a long time ago' ?
R.


----------



## Forero

Radioh said:


> Hi,
> 
> Having read Forero's explanation, I feel confused, too. To my understanding, both versions mean 'I stopped studying English a long time ago' ?
> R.


If I studied English in the past but have long since stopped, they are both equally true; but if I have never studied English, the first version mentions a "last" time that does not exist, but the second version (with present perfect) is still quite true.


----------



## Radioh

Ah! I understand. Thank you sooo much. You are a great forero, Forero.
R.


----------



## henrylee100

Forero said:


> It's been a long time since I've known her
> 
> No. Why do you expect it to mean that?



And how do you read this sentence? The reason I picked this example is that at least some native speakers interpret it to mean 'I've known her for years.' Think about this example, for instance:

'We've been friends ever since we've known each other'

You see, if you look 'since' up in a dictionary, as a conjunction this word designates a certain point/event in the past after which something has been the case or has been going on until now or until some other point in the future or in the past. 

The reason I say the use of the present perfect is 'illogical' after 'since' is because one would assume that since 'since' implies a certain point in time in the past when something happened/was the case the most logical tense to use after 'since' would be simple past.

Ultimately saying something like, 'It's been years since I've seen him' is the same as saying ,'I've seen him many years ago,' if you follow the logic of what 'since' is supposed to mean.

Again, I could rationalise the use of present perfect in 'I've seen him many years ago' by suggesting that this sentence 'emphasises' the period of time over which I haven't seen him while 'I saw him many years ago' simply states the fact that me seeing him happened many years ago, or something to that effect. 


 By the same token, your explanations about how 'It's been years since I last studied English' means, 'I last studied English many years ago,' while 'It's been years since I've studied English,' means 'I haven't studied English in years,' don't really explain anything but rather rationalise the existence of two different forms that essentially mean one and the same thing. Tell me what's the difference in meaning between 'I last studied English many years ago' and 'I haven't studied English in years.'? 


The pattern ' it's been years since + present perfect' is simply an idiom that people have gotten used to, but it doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of the semantics of 'since' or the way present perfect is used elsewhere in English. 


The source of the confusion in this thread is the ambiguity in how certain words and grammar patterns are used in English at least by some people. Plus the fact that most textbook emphasising British English don't teach the pattern 'It's been years since + present perfect', probably because in British English this pattern is regarded as non-standard or something like that. And apparently it is regarded as non-standard at least by some native speakers: note the first reply in this thread.


----------



## Forero

henrylee100 said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henrylee100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about, 'It's been a long time since I've known her'  - wouldn't that mean the same as I've known *her* for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> No. Why do you expect it to mean that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do you read this sentence?
Click to expand...

It means "I haven't known her for a long time."





> The reason I picked this example is that at least some native speakers interpret it to mean 'I've known her for years.'


Really?





> Think about this example, for instance:
> 
> 'We've been friends ever since we've known each other'


Yes, this one does mean "We've been friends as long as we've known each other" = "We've been friends ever since we first met", but I would call this use of "since" the illogical one.





> You see, if you look 'since' up in a dictionary, as a conjunction this word designates a certain point/event in the past after which something has been the case or has been going on until now or until some other point in the future or in the past.


Not exactly. What you are saying here applies to "ever since" together with a present perfect in the main clause, not to every use of "since". Another example of "since" that does not mean "ever since": _I have seen him three times since last year._


> The reason I say the use of the present perfect is 'illogical' after 'since' is because one would assume that since 'since' implies a certain point in time in the past when something happened/was the case the most logical tense to use after 'since' would be simple past.


"Since" means something like "after", but "after" requires matching finite verb tenses in the two clauses. "Since" allows, for example, present tense in the main clause and past tense in the "since" clause.





> Ultimately saying something like, 'It's been years since I've seen him' is the same as saying ,'I've seen him many years ago,' if you follow the logic of what 'since' is supposed to mean.


"It's been years since I've seen him" means "I haven't seen him in years" and is not at all like saying "I've seen him many years ago." The latter is indeed illogical, with an "ago" phrase modifying a present tense (the "have" in "I've"). We might say something like "I've seen him once, many years ago", but the comma makes the "ago" phrase parenthetical, a nondefining modifier for "once", not for "have". (Imagine "which was", past tense, just after the comma.)

Note that "It's been years since I've seen him" does not mean "It's been years as long as I've seen him" or "It's been years that I've seen him" either. It uses the usual meaning of "since", not the exceptional one in "We've been friends ever since we've known each other".

The exceptional meaning depends on two things that "since I've seen him" does not have: (1) The "ever since" idea, as opposed to the "at least once since" (as in my "three times since last year" above), and (2) something like "known" or "been living here", that can suggest continuity.

"We've been friends since we've known each other" is ambiguous because knowing can be discontinuous, with a beginning and an end, and thus "since" might mean "at least once since". If you want to force the exceptional meaning of "since", you need to include the word "ever".





> Again, I could rationalise the use of present perfect in 'I've seen him many years ago' by suggesting that this sentence 'emphasises' the period of time over which I haven't seen him while 'I saw him many years ago' simply states the fact that me seeing him happened many years ago, or something to that effect.
> 
> By the same token, your explanations about how 'It's been years since I last studied English' means, 'I last studied English many years ago,' while 'It's been years since I've studied English,' means 'I haven't studied English in years,' don't really explain anything but rather rationalise the existence of two different forms that essentially mean one and the same thing. Tell me what's the difference in meaning between 'I last studied English many years ago' and 'I haven't studied English in years.'?


See my reply to Radioh.





> The pattern ' it's been years since + present perfect' is simply an idiom that people have gotten used to, but it doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of the semantics of 'since' or the way present perfect is used elsewhere in English.


It does not match some "explanations" of present perfect, but it does make sense in terms of how present perfect is used elsewhere in English, and it jibes with my understanding of it.

Consider the following examples of "_It has been_ + amount-of-time + conjunction + present-perfect":

_It has been an hour once he has run half a mile._
_It has been an hour when he has run half a mile._
_It has been an hour after he has run half a mile._
_It has been an hour since he has run half a mile._

There are subtle differences between "once", "when", "after", and "since", but the pattern is the same, and, semantically speaking, the "amount-of-time" in each case follows (upon) his completion of a half mile run. With "since", as with these other conjunctions, the "certain point" in the past being mentioned is the completion of the half mile run, not the beginning of it.

In the same way the "long time" should logically follow my knowing her in "It has been a long time since I have known her" because the "certain point" in the past being reckoned from is the end of my knowing her, not the beginning of it.

Now consider the following two sentences:

_He gets caught before he has run half a mile._
_It is a long time since he has run half a mile._

With "before", as with the other conjunctions, the time being reckoned from is the completion of the half mile run. "Since" is the opposite of "before", and just as "before he has run half a mile" refers to a time or a situation in which he has not run half a mile (yet), "since he has run half a mile" refers to a time or a situation in which he is not running that half mile (any more). And in either case the time when he has run half a mile (= the moment of completion of his half-mile run) does not have to exist. He may have begun the run but never reached the half-mile mark— or he may never have run at all.

This is why I say that "It has been a long time since I have known her" does not presuppose that I have ever known her.

Because present perfect after "since", like present perfect after "before", is essentially a negative context, we can say things like "It has been a long time since I have known anyone like her" but not ***"I have known anyone like her for a long time", just as we can say "The protagonist, unfortunately, dies before he has ever met his mother" but not ***"The protagonist has ever met his mother while he, unfortunately, dies."





> The source of the confusion in this thread is the ambiguity in how certain words and grammar patterns are used in English at least by some people. Plus the fact that most textbook emphasising British English don't teach the pattern 'It's been years since + present perfect', probably because in British English this pattern is regarded as non-standard or something like that. And apparently it is regarded as non-standard at least by some native speakers: note the first reply in this thread.


People are free to have their own opinions, but "_It's been years since_ + present perfect" makes logical sense to me, as I have said, and I don't see any reason to censure it.


----------



## VicNicSor

<This post was moved from since we <have been/had been/are/were> children
to this thread discussing the same sentence.  Please scroll up and read from the top. 
Cagey, moderator. >


What about this?


> It's twenty years *since I've seen her*.


(OALD)
It definitely means that I saw her last twenty years ago. So it works  in the opposite way to "_We've been friends since *we've been working together*"_ and other examples here?...

edit: maybe the difference present perfect vs present perfect continuous matters...


----------



## Dale Texas

(1) It's (it is) twenty years since...

(2) It's (it has) been twenty years since

Sentence 1 is wrong, but reveals a common mistake made by speakers of foreign languages who do form the tense that way. (In particular,German and Yiddish, and later on, in the speech of Jewish Americans.)

You can still hear it *said* by some New York City residents, where children, grand children, and great grand children of the wave of immigrants who first arrived to these shores in the early part of the 20th century used the foreign pattern which got passed down to later generations by natural imitation.

New York is probably not alone in this, but it's the major example of it.

It sounds very foreign and/or comically wrong. 

There have been other threads on this point.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you! But this is arguable, isn't it?:


Dale Texas said:


> (1) It's (it is) twenty years since...
> ....
> There have been other threads on this point.


And other threads show that
After all, this is an example from the Oxford dictionary.


----------



## Forero

I don't share Dale Texas's feelings about "It's twenty years since ...." Things like _with_ as an adverb sound foreign to me, probably for the reason Dale cites, but to me "It is twenty years since ..." sounds natural.

This is not to say that there is no sentence in which folks with a German-type background use "it is" where other native English speakers never would, but this particular sentence is not one of those.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you.


----------



## Dale Texas

I strongly disagree with Forero's comment.  "It's twenty years since..." is _precisely_ the kind of sentence that marks someone as not using standard English grammar and recommend that all foreign learners drop it like a hot potato, whether or not they are taking exams.


----------



## VicNicSor

Dale Texas said:


> I strongly disagree with Forero's comment.  "It's twenty years since..." is _precisely_ the kind of sentence that marks someone as not using standard English grammar and recommend that all foreign learners drop it like a hot potato, whether or not they are taking exams.



My, a non-native speaker's, opinion on why "It's twenty years since" is acceptable is because the verb "is" denotes a state rather than an action. Compare:
_Twenty years *have passed* since I saw her last.
Twenty years *pass *since I saw her last.
It*'s been* twenty years since I've seen her.
It*'s* twenty years since I've seen her._
("Pass" denotes an action)
What do you think?...


----------



## Oddmania

"_I've been here since 4 o'clock_" describes a state too, and yet you certainly can't say "_I'm here since 4 o'clock_". If the Cambridge Dictionary is anything to go by, « _It’s been years since …_ is more common in American English than _It’s years since …_».

Who would have thought?  The British don't say "_Did you eat yet?_", but they do say "_It's years since I saw him_". Language is complex!


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> "_I've been here since 4 o'clock_" describes a state too, and yet you certainly can't say "_I'm here since 4 o'clock_".


The "to be" here is an intransitive verb denoting a location. In "it's twenty years ..." it's a linking verb, and "it" is dummy


----------



## Oddmania

And "4" is a figure. What's your point?


----------



## VicNicSor

My point is pretty obvious: "I've been here since 4 o'clock" is closer to "I have_ worked/been working_ here since ..." than to "It's been/is two years since ...".


----------



## Oddmania

I'm sorry, I thought you were arguing that "_It's years since_..." is acceptable because the verb describes a state (which is not true, since "I've been here since..." describes a state too and isn't interchangeable with "I'm here since...").


----------



## Forero

A sentence such as "It is twenty years since I last saw James" is a kind of cleft sentence. Essentially it means "The time since I last saw James is twenty years."

The issue is not just that "is" is stative but that "since I last saw James" is not adverbial. In my paraphrase, it modifies "the time". In the cleft sentence, I would say it modifies "it". Because "twenty years" is a length of time, "it" also represents a length of time.

In "It is James I saw twenty years ago", James is a person, so it means "The person I saw twenty years ago is James." Though I haven't seen him in twenty years, he is still James, and the length of time since then is, as of now, twenty years.


----------

