# Mateo es mi instructor de yoga desde la semana pasada



## xmath2007

The sentence "_Mateo es mi instructor de yoga desde la semana pasada_." is translated as "_Mateo has been my yoga instructor since last week_." I have had a number of sentences in this form recently in my Duolingo exercises.
I'm not sure why '*es*' is translated as '*has been*' and not as '*is*'. I'm wondering if it is because Mateo is currently my yoga instructor and has been so since last week.
Then the sentence "_Gina has been my girlfriend since last year._" should translate as "_Gina es mi novia desde el año pasado_." applying that theory, rather than "_Gina ha sido mi novia_ ..."
*Am I correct about this, or is there something else at work here?*


----------



## elprofe

Yes, you're right. You shouldn't translate sentences with "*present perfect + for*" literally. 

In Spanish, "he vivido en Benidorm durante 5 años" is highly likely to be interpreted as a past event, as if you didn't live there anymore. However, "I have lived in Benidorm for 5 years" is to be interpreted as a current event that started 5 years ago.

In short:
*I have lived in Benidorm for 5 years*
_ · Vivo en Benidorm desde hace 5 años_

*I lived in Benidorm for 5 years*
_· He vivido en Benidorm 5 años / He vivido 5 años en Benidorm
· Viví en Benidorm 5 años / Viví 5 años en Benidorm_

Having said that, sentences with "since", rather than "for", are a bit more ambiguous, as the use of present perfect can be interpreted either as a past action or a on-going action. If you told me that "Gina ha sido tu novia desde el año pasado", I would be tempted to ask you something like "pero aún estáis juntos o no?"


----------



## xmath2007

Thank you very much for your help. It is greatly appreciated.


----------



## elprofe

I've just added my thoughts on "present perfect + since"


----------



## Circunflejo

elprofe said:


> However, "I have lived in Benidorm for 5 years" is to be interpreted as a current event that started 5 years ago.


----------



## elprofe

Circunflejo said:


>


Circun! ¿A qué se debe esa cara, a que no estás de acuerdo o a que no lo entiendes?


----------



## Circunflejo

elprofe said:


> Circun! ¿A qué se debe esa cara, a que no estás de acuerdo o a que no lo entiendes?


A priori, no estoy de acuerdo, pero, quizá, si me lo explicas, cambie de opinión.


----------



## elprofe

Ok! 

En inglés el present perfect es un tiempo verbal que conecta el pasado con el presente. A veces lo podemos traducir literalmente, pero otras no, ya que el significado cambia. En concreto, cuando describimos una acción que empezó en el pasado y sigue vigente, los tiempos verbales no se corresponden entre el castellano y el inglés
_· I have had a dog since 2016 = Tengo un perro desde 2016
· I have known her for 5 years = La conozco desde hace 5 años
· I have been a WR user since 2010 = Soy usuario desde 2010
· I have lived in Benidorm since 1991 = Vivo en Benidorm desde 1991
· I have lived in Benidorm for 30 years = Vivo en Benidorm desde hace 30 años_

Independientemente de que en castellano uses _tengo/ he tenido_ para expresar esa idea, en inglés _I have had a dog since..._ indica que todavía tienes al perro


----------



## Circunflejo

@elprofe, no recordaba el uso del _present perfect_ para acciones habituales. Yo ahí habría usado el _continuous_, pero parece que el simple es el que usan (habitualmente) los nativos. Gracias por tu tiempo y tu explicación.


----------



## elprofe

Circunflejo said:


> @elprofe, no recordaba el uso del _present perfect_ para acciones habituales que se extienden desde el pasado hasta el presente. Yo ahí habría usado el _continuous_, pero parece que el simple es el que usan (habitualmente) los nativos. Gracias por tu tiempo y tu explicación.



Un placer!


----------



## Circunflejo

@elprofe, el hecho de que se extiendan desde el pasado hasta el presente es lo que las convierte en habituales.  Sin embargo, el uso más común del _present perfect _es para hacer referencia a acciones acabadas en el pasado desde el punto de vista de sus consecuencias/implicaciones/resultados en el presente (like, for example, I've made the dinner).


----------



## elprofe

Circunflejo said:


> @elprofe, el hecho de que se extiendan desde el pasado hasta el presente es lo que las convierte en habituales.  ahhh, yo es que esto no lo entiendo como "acciones habituales"... pero si ese es el término que se usa en español, todo solucionado! Sin embargo, el uso más común del _present perfect _es para hacer referencia a acciones acabadas en el pasado desde el punto de vista de sus consecuencias/implicaciones/resultados en el presente (like, for example, I've made the dinner). Eeeso es! Pero aquí nosotros también usamos el pretérito perfecto compuesto, así que es relativamente fácil de entender



Un saludo!


----------



## elroy

elprofe said:


> If you told me that "Gina ha sido tu novia desde el año pasado", I would be tempted to ask you something like "pero aún estáis juntos o no?"


Can this really be used if they’re no longer together? 



Circunflejo said:


> Yo ahí habría usado el _continuous_


“I’m living in Benidorm for five years” no es correcto.
Lo que sí puedes decir es “*I’ve been living* in Benidorm for five years”. 



Circunflejo said:


> el hecho de que se extiendan desde el pasado hasta el presente es lo que las convierte en habituales.


Pues no, @elprofe tiene razón. 

_I almost never play chess, but I’ve been playing for the past hour. 

I usually work out in the evenings, but for the past two weeks I’ve hosted dinner parties in the evenings instead.
_
No son acciones habituales. Si por casualidad lo fuesen, no sería por el uso del _present perfect (progressive/continuous)_. 



Circunflejo said:


> el uso más común del _present perfect _es para hacer referencia a acciones acabadas en el pasado desde el punto de vista de sus consecuencias/implicaciones/resultados en el presente (like, for example, I've made the dinner).


No sé si sea el uso “más común”. Es uno de los usos comunes, eso sí. El uso que estamos hablando es muy común también.


----------



## gengo

elprofe said:


> However, "I have lived in Benidorm for 5 years" is to be interpreted as a current event that started 5 years ago.



That is true.  That sentence would always mean that you are still living there.  "I lived," as you say, would mean that you no longer live there.

However, there are constructions in which the present perfect tense does not indicate that the action continues to the present.

_I have lived in Japan, but now I live in California._

The difference is the inclusion of a period of time (for five years) in the original sentence.  If we include that period in my example, we have to change the tense.

_I lived in Japan for five years, but now I live in California._


----------



## elroy

gengo said:


> If we include that period in my example, we have to change the tense.
> 
> _I lived in Japan for five years, but now I live in California._


You can keep the tense if you add a comma.

_I have lived in Japan, for five years, but now I live in California._

One of those situations where a comma makes a big difference!


----------



## Circunflejo

elroy said:


> Lo que sí puedes decir es “*I’ve been living* in Benidorm for five years”.


That's what I meant (present perfect continuous).


elroy said:


> No son acciones habituales.


Son habituales dentro del marco temporal que la frase delimita para ese verbo.


----------



## elroy

Circunflejo said:


> That's what I meant (present perfect continuous).


Ojo, el que se puedan decir tanto “I’ve lived in B. for five years” como “I’ve been living in B. for five years” sin cambiar el significado (aunque sí cambia el matiz) es una particularidad del verbo “live”. 



Circunflejo said:


> Son habituales dentro del marco temporal que la frase delimita para ese verbo.


No.  _I’ve been sucking on this lollipop for five seconds._ De habitual, nada.


----------



## Circunflejo

elroy said:


> No. _I’ve been sucking on this lollipop for five seconds._ De habitual, nada.


En esos cinco segundos (marco temporal que delimita el verbo), totalmente habitual. Aunque estábamos hablando del present perfect (no del present perfect continuous), creo que es perfectamente extrapolable.


----------



## gengo

Circunflejo said:


> En esos cinco segundos (marco temporal que delimita el verbo), totalmente habitual. Aunque estábamos hablando del present perfect (no del present perfect continuous), creo que es perfectamente extrapolable.



I disagree.  You can't have habitual action if the action has only occurred one time.  I could do something for the first time in my life and say "I have been doing this for five minutes."  By definition, that cannot be a habitual action.


----------



## elroy

Circunflejo said:


> totalmente habitual


No.

HABITUAL: 
I suck on a lollipop every day after school.
I suck on a lollipop for five seconds every day after school.

NO ES HABITUAL: 
I'm sucking on a lollipop.
I've been sucking on a lollipop for five seconds.

El "every day after school" indica que es habitual.
El "for five seconds" no, solo indica un periodo de tiempo.


----------



## Circunflejo

At this point, I guess it's obvious that I disagree with @gengo and with @elroy. I'm not going to change my mind because I have a clear point of view about the question but I don't intend either to change anyone's mind about it so I guess I'm done.


----------



## elroy

There's no room for personal opinion in this case.  The term "habitual action" has a very clear meaning in linguistics, and neither the present perfect nor the present perfect continuous/progressive encode habitual action in English.



gengo said:


> You can't have habitual action if the action has only occurred one time. I could do something for the first time in my life and say "I have been doing this for five minutes." By definition, that cannot be a habitual action.


100%.


----------



## Forero

xmath2007 said:


> The sentence "_Mateo es mi instructor de yoga desde la semana pasada_." is translated as "_Mateo has been my yoga instructor since last week_." I have had a number of sentences in this form recently in my Duolingo exercises.
> I'm not sure why '*es*' is translated as '*has been*' and not as '*is*'. I'm wondering if it is because Mateo is currently my yoga instructor and has been so since last week.


The Spanish sentence does mean has been and is currently. "Matthew is my yoga instructor since last week" would mean the same thing, but present simple is seldom used with _since_ in current English.

In current English, "Matthew has been my yoga instructor since last week" is the most common way to express the same idea, despite the fact that it does not explicitly say Matthew is still the speaker's yoga instructor.


xmath2007 said:


> Then the sentence "_Gina has been my girlfriend since last year._" should translate as "_Gina es mi novia desde el año pasado_." applying that theory, rather than "_Gina ha sido mi novia_ ..."
> *Am I correct about this, or is there something else at work here?*


If you know that Gina is still the speaker's girlfriend, then "Gina es mi novia desde el año pasado" is the best translation. If you use "ha sido" in Spanish, you run the risk of having it interpreted almost like "fue"/"was" (as it would have to be in French).

But, as you know, English is context dependent, and a lot of what we think we are saying comes from outside the words and phrases we are using. In the case of the sentence "Gina has been my girlfriend since last year", we need context to tell us whether the speaker means Gina has been his girlfriend ever since last year or just that Gina has been his girlfriend at least once since last year.


elprofe said:


> *I have lived in Benidorm for 5 years*
> _ · Vivo en Benidorm desde hace 5 años_


That is one interpretation. But the same English sentence can be used about any 5 years in the past (or possibly, though much less likely, even about a contracted time period intended to be 5 years but that has not yet ended). It would be clearer to say "I have lived in Benidorm ever since 5 years ago", or maybe "I have lived in Benidorm for the last 5 years", if that is what you mean.


----------



## Rocko!

elprofe said:


> In Spanish, "he vivido en Benidorm durante 5 años" is highly likely to be interpreted as a past event, as if you didn't live there anymore.


Esa explicación es perfectamente válida para el español europeo, pero no es así dentro del español mexicano. Por aquí, “_he vivido en_...” significa “_he vivido y sigo viviendo_...”
No diría esto si no fuera por el hecho de que hay varios foreros estadounidenses leyéndolo. Los foreros británicos quizá quieran “ajustarse” a la interpretación española.
Saludos.


----------



## elprofe

Rocko! said:


> Esa explicación es perfectamente válida para el español europeo, pero no es así dentro del español mexicano. Por aquí, “_he vivido en_...” significa “_he vivido y sigo viviendo_...”
> No diría esto si no fuera por el hecho de que hay varios foreros estadounidenses leyéndolo. Los foreros británicos quizá quieran “ajustarse” a la interpretación española.
> Saludos.



Síii bien visto 
Cuando explico mi interpretación de las oraciones lo hago basándome en mi variedad de español, así que nunca está de más que los foreros de otros lugares maticen las diferencias!


----------



## OtroLencho

Rocko! said:


> Esa explicación es perfectamente válida para el español europeo, pero no es así dentro del español mexicano. Por aquí, “_he vivido en_...” significa “_he vivido y sigo viviendo_...”



Buena observación.

Esta diferencia gramatical regional siempre me ha intrigado (y de hecho, *sigue* intrigándome).


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> "Matthew is my yoga instructor since last week" would mean the same thing, but present simple is seldom used with _since_ in current English.



Seldom?  I'd say never.  It sounds incorrect to me.  In fact, it sounds like something a foreigner would say.



Forero said:


> In current English, "Matthew has been my yoga instructor since last week" is the most common way to express the same idea, despite the fact that it does not explicitly say Matthew is still the speaker's yoga instructor.



I disagree with the underlined.  The present perfect here clearly indicates that the status remains unchanged up to the present.  If Matthew were no longer your instructor, you would have to use another tense, and probably other words, such as "Matthew was my instructor from last week until yesterday."  Using "has been" tells us that the action continues up to the present.


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> Seldom?  I'd say never.  It sounds incorrect to me.  In fact, it sounds like something a foreigner would say.


An example:

_At least since my graduation in 1969, I always eat the same thing for breakfast._

That does not sound foreign to me.


gengo said:


> _I disagree with the underlined.  The present perfect here clearly indicates that the status remains unchanged up to the present.  If Matthew were no longer your instructor, you would have to use another tense, and probably other words, such as "Matthew was my instructor from last week until yesterday."  Using "has been" tells us that the action continues up to the present._


I guess we probably just have to agree to disagree. To me, what has been is not necessarily what is.

Two examples:

Q: _Are you a licensed physician?_
A: _Well, I have been (for fifty years), but I'm retired now. (I let my license expire.)_

Q: _Are you staying at the Hilton Inn in Bentonville?_
A: _Not currently. I have been there for a week, but I checked out yesterday._

Would you really have to use some other tense for these examples?

People use the term "has been" to refer to a person who is no longer "somebody". Would you have to call them a "was"?


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> _At least since my graduation in 1969, I always eat the same thing for breakfast._
> 
> That does not sound foreign to me.



Nor to me. I was only referring to the sentence I quoted from your other post.  However, I would say that the above is colloquial, and more properly should be "I have always eaten."  Of course, we don't always use proper grammar when we speak.



Forero said:


> Q: _Are you a licensed physician?_
> A: _Well, I have been (for fifty years), but I'm retired now. (I let my license expire.)_
> 
> Q: _Are you staying at the Hilton Inn in Bentonville?_
> A: _Not currently. I have been there for a week, but I checked out yesterday._
> 
> Would you really have to use some other tense for these examples?



Absolutely.  Those both sound incorrect to me, even non-native.

Well, I was...
I was there for a week...


----------



## gvergara

Hi,


elprofe said:


> In Spanish, "he vivido en Benidorm durante 5 años" is highly likely to be interpreted as a past event, as if you didn't live there anymore.


This is not true in my variety of Spanish, and I guess it should not be in the many other varieties in which the Spanish perfecto is used for actions which are somewhat linked to the present situation, but not to talk about past events. To us Chileans, _He vivido en Benidorm durante 05 años _would never be understood as a past event.

ADDITION: As to the original question, well, to talk about the duration of a present event, we tend to use the presente simple (_*Vivo *(por) 05 años en Benidorm_). Some few people would use the same tense as in English (_*He vivido* (por) 05 años en Benidorm_), but it is not at all common. I think the previoulsy underlined sentence summarizes the answer to your question.


----------



## Forero

gvergara said:


> ADDITION: As to the original question, well, to talk about the duration of a present event, we tend to use the presente simple (_*Vivo *(por) 05 años en Benidorm_).


Even though the 5 years have ended?


----------



## Mister Draken

Forero said:


> Even though the 5 years have ended?



Las posibilidades son:

Mateo fue mi instructor de yoga durante 5 años.
Mateo ha sido mi instructor de yoga durante cinco años.

¿En cuál de los dos casos te parece que Mateo ya no es el instructor?


----------



## OtroLencho

forero said:


> _Q: Are you staying at the Hilton Inn in Bentonville?_
> A: _Not currently. I have been there for a week, but I checked out yesterday._





gengo said:


> Absolutely.  Those both sound incorrect to me, even non-native.



I agree with you.

But, if the above answer were 

"A: No; I have been there before, but I didn't like it."

That does not extend to the present, and it sounds natural to me.  I can't explain the difference; imagine trying to master this as a second-language student.


----------



## gvergara

Forero said:


> Even though the 5 years have ended?


If the 05 years have ended, it would not be a present situation. What I said holds true for present situations. And if they have ended, we would not use the perfecto, but the indefinido: Viví 05 años en Benidorm.


----------



## swift

“Vivo (por) cinco años en Benidorm” me suena rarísimo, a no ser que se trate de un presente con valor narrativo en función de pasado: vivo por cinco años en Benidorm y de ahí me voy a Murcia.


----------



## elroy

Si vivo actualmente en Benidorm y llevo cinco años allí, yo digo:

- Vivo en Benidorm desde hace cinco años.
- Llevo cinco años viviendo en Benidorm.
- Hace cinco años que vivo en Benidorm. 

Para la segunda creo que en México se usa también “tengo”. 

Si viví allí en el pasado, digo:

- Viví cinco años en Benidorm.
- Estuve cinco años viviendo en Benidorm.

¿Qué tal os parecen mis variantes? Me doy cuenta de que no uso “he vivido” en ninguno de los dos casos, tal vez para escaquearme del rollo España/América.


----------



## swift

elroy said:


> - Vivo en Benidorm desde hace cinco años.
> - Llevo cinco años viviendo en Benidorm.
> - Hace cinco años que vivo en Benidorm


Todas idiomáticas por estos cafetales, así como “tengo cinco años de vivir en Benidorm”.


elroy said:


> - Viví cinco años en Benidorm.
> - Estuve cinco años viviendo en Benidorm.


También idiomáticas por estos cerros, valles y llanuras.


----------



## elprofe

Si, yo coincido con Swift y Elroy


----------

