# I am seeing you for the first time



## Ivan_I

Could you explain why there must be the present continuous in this sentence?

* I am seeing you for the first time.*

Why not: I see you for the first time?


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> Could you explain why


Not without context.


----------



## Ivan_I

But it's true that "I see you for the first time" is wrong without any context.

The sentence is self-explanatory.

- Hello Ivan! It's me Andygc!
- Who? I am seeing you for the first time.


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> But it's true that "I see you for the first time" is wrong without any context.


So is "I am seeing you for the first time".
Apart from "Who?", your part of that little conversation is so wholly unidiomatic as to be considered wrong.


----------



## Szkot

There are probably more polite ways of saying it, but a more natural response would be 'I have never seen you before'.


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> But it's true that "I see you for the first time" is wrong without any context.


What I should have added: in the right context there is nothing at all wrong with that.


----------



## Ivan_I

Andygc said:


> So is "I am seeing you for the first time".
> Apart from "Who?", your part of that little conversation is so wholly unidiomatic as to be considered wrong.


Are you saying that "Hello Ivan! It's me, Andygc!" is unidiomatic?



Szkot said:


> There are probably more polite ways of saying it, but a more natural response would be 'I have never seen you before'.


Maybe, but what does it have to do with my inquiry?


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> Are you saying that "Hello Ivan! It's me, Andygc!" is unidiomatic?


No. I said "your part". I assumed you wrote "Hello Ivan ..." as my part of the conversation.


Ivan_I said:


> Maybe, but what does it have to do with my inquiry?


It's probably the closest way of saying "I am seeing you for the first time" in idiomatic English.


----------



## Ivan_I

Andygc said:


> It's probably the closest way of saying "I am seeing you for the first time" in idiomatic English.


Maybe, but what does it have to do with my inquiry?

There are different categories of the wrong. What you called wrong is not really wrong. Why? Because. Grammatically it's not wrong. Semantically it's not wrong. Culture-wise? Maybe. But it's too categorical to say it's wrong. It feels like the only message you wished to communicate is that I am wrong... But saying that something is wrong without saying what is right is wrong. 

You said that "I see you for the first time" is correct in the right context. Well... I agree. In the right context even wrong things are right. 

- Have you met him before?
- No, I see this person for the first time.  
- No, I am seeing this person for the first time.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

I am seeing you for the first time.* *
This is the first time I've seen you. ** (In the context you give.)

A classic mistake with the usage of the present instead of the present perfect.


----------



## Ivan_I

Enquiring Mind said:


> I am seeing you for the first time.* *
> This is the first time I've seen you. ** (In the context you give.)
> 
> A classic mistake with the usage of the present perfect.


The second option stands on its own. Of course it's a good one. Nevertheless, I can't see why the first one is wrong. I have collected similar sentences from our forum.

1 Not the most flattering introduction to this word, which *I am here seeing for the first time*.  
2 Assembled there, the people fasten their eyes on the coming boat as they would *on a wonder they are seeing for the first time*." 
3 "Do you dislike her?" is fine grammatically, but logically impossible _for_ a person whom you have never met or spoken to and *are seeing for the first *_*time*_ at a distance.


----------



## heypresto

They are all fine. Of course you can see things for the first time. 

But what _context _do you have in mind for "I am seeing you for the first time"? In what situation would you say this?


----------



## Andygc

You seem to have forgotten:


Andygc said:


> Not without context.


You made a bald and inaccurate statement in your question.


Ivan_I said:


> there must be the present continuous in this sentence


Once you had provided some context it was clear that your belief and intended usage were wrong. That you can find contexts where the continuous form can be used is beside the point; my comments were about the context you provided originally.


Ivan_I said:


> In the right context even wrong things are right.


No. In an appropriate context something can be right that would be wrong in a different context


Ivan_I said:


> - Have you met him before?
> - No, I am seeing this person for the first time.


No. That is wrong in BE unless there is some additional specific context and background, but might be acceptable in India.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> They are all fine. Of course you can see things for the first time.
> 
> But what _context _do you have in mind for "I am seeing you for the first time"? In what situation would you say this?


A very simple one. I have provided two already (not including the ones from other threads). Here is one more.

- Have we met before?
- No. I am seeing you for the first time.

I have now collected other examples which are very similar (if not identical) to mine.

1 _*I am seeing you for the first time*_, and already I do not like you. (Leading the Way Through Galatians. Michael Youssef) I must admit that the author was born in Egypt and moved to the USA later.
2 _*I am seeing you for the first time*_. I have just come from Ankara today. If you go on talking nonsense I cannot interrogate you and we shall be forced to send you to the hospital in Order to check your state of mind'. (Jane Cousins ) I understand that English is her first language.

Here are some examples with HEAR

3 Well, I do not know. I never read his testimony. _*I am hearing it for the first time*_. Senator Wheeler. 
4 This Alhaji was said to be a friend of the deputy commandant, and the natives are alleging that it was the deputy commandant who supplied the ammunition? This is new to me. _*I am hearing it for the first time*_*. *


----------



## sound shift

Ivan_I said:


> A very simple one. I have provided two already (not including the ones from other threads). Here is one more.
> 
> - Have we met before?
> - No. I am seeing you for the first time.


I can't imagine anyone I know saying that. Maybe it's idiomatic in US English, but I doubt it.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Whatever other supposedly English native speakers might say, I regard such a  use of the present continuous  as one of the mistakes typical of lower stage learners. The present perfect is the accepted way of describing this situation. "This is the first time I have seen you."
You also need to find out what 'context' means. It means the situation in which the proposed construction might be used.  Recently I have seen some online friends for the first time as we link up using Zoom or Facetime or whatever.


----------



## Ivan_I

Hermione Golightly said:


> Whatever other supposedly English native speakers might say, I regard such a  use of the present continuous  as one of the mistakes typical of lower stage learners. The present perfect is the accepted way of describing this situation. "This is the first time I have seen you."


Do you also regard all the examples I have found on the internet to be wrong in terms of the issue at hand?



Hermione Golightly said:


> You also need to find out what 'context' means. It means the situation in which the proposed construction might be used.


What obstructs this dialogue from being regarded as a context?

*- Have we met before?
- No. I am seeing you for the first time. *



Hermione Golightly said:


> Recently I have seen some online friends for the first time as we link up using Zoom or Facetime or whatever.


I wonder what it means "link up using Zoom"


----------



## heypresto

No amount of other examples, in other sentences in other contexts will make "- Have we met before? - No. I am seeing you for the first time" sound natural. As others have said, we just wouldn't say it.

You are expending a lot of time and effort trying to prove to us that it is acceptable. I'm sure these efforts could be put to better use.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> [...]
> But it's true that "I see you for the first time" is wrong without any context.


If this is saying that there is no context in which one might say 'I see you for the first time', I think it is mistaken.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> You are expending a lot of time and effort trying to prove to us that it is acceptable. I'm sure these effort could be put to better use.


Thank you for the kind remark. You are right that it took much time and effort but I assure you that I am not trying to prove it to you or convince you. I know it's not possible and of no use. I simply know that it often takes a lot of time to figure out something. It's a normal procedure. It has happened many times that when I provided more examples people changed their minds. But I don't want to change your mind for the sake of changing it, I am thoroughly investigating the issue.


Thomas Tompion said:


> If this is saying that there is no context in which one might say 'I see you for the first time', I think it is mistaken.


I meant this:
*- Have we met before?
- No. I see you for the first time.*

_<...>_ I want to make it clear that this is my context:

*- Have we met before?
- No. I am seeing you for the first time.*

_<Off-topic comment removed by moderator (Florentia52)>_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> [...]
> I want to make it clear that this is my context:
> 
> *- Have we met before?
> - No. I am seeing you for the first time.*


The problem now, Ivan, is that the answer seems to have little relationship to the question.

It reminds me of the questions and answers you sometimes hear in court:

Barrister:_ Is it true that if you died in the night you wouldn't know about it until the following morning?_
Expert medical witness:_ Did you really pass the bar exam?_


----------



## Andygc

Ivan_I said:


> _<...> _I want to make it clear that this is my context:
> 
> *- Have we met before?
> - No. I am seeing you for the first time.*


I think that anybody reading this thread knows that - you have repeated it often enough. We have also repeated that it is wholly unidiomatic and is, in our various opinions, wrong.

One of your variants was:
- Have you met him before?
- No, I am seeing this person for the first time. 
Just a slight change in context:
- Have you met him before?
- No, I am seeing this person for the first time tomorrow. 
You may also have this, which I assume is a telephone conversation:
- Have we met before?
- No. I see you for the first time tomorrow.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Suppose you had an appointment with a specialist for a foot problem, he might just ask you if you'd been before and you might answer:  _No, I am seeing you for the first time._

In that very specialised context, _*to see *_means *to come to see* (usually in a formal way, as to a doctor or a tax inspector).  Can you be asking about this, Ivan?


----------



## Ivan_I

Thomas Tompion said:


> Can you be asking about this, Ivan?


Of course, I am open to all possible scenarios relevant to this sentence.


----------



## heypresto

But it's up to _you _to provide the context for any sentence you ask about. We shouldn't have to contrive contexts in which a random sentence might work.


----------



## SevenDays

Ivan_I said:


> Could you explain why there must be the present continuous in this sentence?
> 
> * I am seeing you for the first time.*
> 
> Why not: I see you for the first time?



Well, maybe that's just how _sense verbs_ work. When describing a deliberate action (i.e. the speaker is actively involved in the use of this particular sense), the progressive construction is the _default _form: _I'm seeing you for the first time._ Similarly, if someone says, "Hey. This is important. put the phone down and pay attention," you intuitively respond _Ok. Go ahead, I'm listening_, rather than "Ok. Go ahead. I listen."

We tend to use the present form when we become aware/experience something, unintentionally. For example,

_Hey! That man is naked!
I know.
But he is naked!
I know. I see him. Can you just keep driving, please?  _

But there is no rule involved; these are just general observations.


----------



## se16teddy

The English language likes to put the main point of a sentence into the verb. 

Accordingly, the main point of the sentence _We are meeting for the first time _is that we are meeting. Which is an odd point to make, as it is obvious to all concerned.

It is much better to put the main point of the sentence into the main verb. _This is the first time we have met. _


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> But it's up to _you _to provide the context for any sentence you ask about. We shouldn't have to contrive contexts in which a random sentence might work.


What about this one?

- Look! There's a bear back in the woods!
- Yes, I see it! (Good) -Yes, I'm seeing it! (Grammatical but strange, unidiomatic)
- Have you ever seen a bear in these woods before?
- No, I'm seeing one for the first time. (Good) - No, I see one for the first time. (Grammatical but strange, unidiomatic)
- No, this is the first time I've seen one. (Best)


----------



## heypresto

Look! There's a bear back in the woods! 

Yes I see it. 
Yes, I'm seeing it. 

Yes, I can see it.   
Oh yes. 

Have you ever seen a bear in these woods before? 

No, I'm seeing one for the first time. 
No, I see one for the first time.   
No, this is the first time I've seen one.  



My advice is to forget 'I'm seeing it' and 'I'm seeing one' altogether.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> My advice is to forget 'I'm seeing it' and 'I'm seeing one' altogether.


*heypresto *thank you for the comments! Of course, all the sentences marked as  by you, were marked as "(Grammatical but strange, unidiomatic)" originally in the diaologe.

For the record, the diaologe  was crafted by a native adult speaker of English. So, I don't think it's worth forgetting "I am seeing one for the first time" but instead taking into consideration how versatile the English language can be.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> *heypresto *thank you for the comments! Of course, all the sentences marked as  by you, were marked as "(Grammatical but strange, unidiomatic)" originally in the diaologe.
> 
> For the record, the diaologe  was crafted by a native adult speaker of English. So, I don't think it's worth forgetting "I am seeing one for the first time" but instead taking into consideration how versatile the English language can be.


Here's another adult native speaker of English, who supports Heypresto's post.  Wholeheartedly.  I assure you 'I am seeing it for the first time' deserves to be forgotten, Ivan.

I gave you earlier one very specialised sense in which to see can be used with the continuous present.  I wouldn't use it otherwise.

Did your 'native adult speaker of English' really craft 'I'm seeing one for the first time (Good)'?  If so, I'd want to know what company he'd been keeping. 

We just don't say these things.


----------



## Ivan_I

Thomas Tompion said:


> We just don't say these things.


Thomas, I think that you have learnt something new today, that is, there are some English speaking people in this world who find it acceptable to say " I am seeing..." I think the company he had been keeping is not a bad one but american.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan.  I'm sorry if you found my tone patronising earlier.

I have revised my post #31, to make the obvious point that we do use the continuous present of _*to see*_ in various non-eventive ways:

_I am seeing her every evening.
I am seeing her tonight_

But _*'for the very first time'*_ forces an eventive sense onto the  verb form which is usually, in my experience, incompatible with it.

You know, Ivan, that I lay no claims to speaking American English.

There are 457 examples of 'I am seeing' in the American Corpus.  Can you find one using the formula in an eventive sense?

Can you find one in the British Corpus?


----------



## heypresto

Did the native speaker also craft 'Look! There's a bear back in the woods!'?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

heypresto said:


> Did the native speaker also craft 'Look! There's a bear back in the woods!'?




Perhaps they were in one of the wilder parts of Surrey.


----------



## Ivan_I

Thomas Tompion said:


> Ivan.  I'm sorry if you found my tone patronising earlier.


That's all right! I am concentrated on your answers and they are shrewd.


Thomas Tompion said:


> You know, Ivan, that I lay no claims to speaking American English.
> 
> There are 457 examples of 'I am seeing' in the American Corpus.  Can you find one using the formula in an eventive sense?
> 
> Can you find one in the British Corpus?


To be honest, I don't know how to perform a search in those sources. But even if I found nothing were I to make an attempt, I can't brush it under the carpet. Obviously, some people, presumably Americans, can use it that way.
Still, I have provided some examples found on the forum in my post 11.

1 Not the most flattering introduction to this word, which *I am here seeing for the first time*.
2 Assembled there, the people fasten their eyes on the coming boat as they would *on a wonder they are seeing for the first time*."
3 "Do you dislike her?" is fine grammatically, but logically impossible _for_ a person whom you have never met or spoken to and *are seeing for the first *_*time*_ at a distance.



heypresto said:


> Did the native speaker also craft 'Look! There's a bear back in the woods!'?


Absolutely yes! Which tells me that English is versatile. Maybe Russian is also that way. I have never scrutinized it so closely, though.


----------



## heypresto

It's an odd sentence. We would only say it if there used to be a bear in the woods at some time on the past, and now it's suddenly returned. Even then, it wouldn't sound natural. That's why I struck a line through 'back' in my post #29.


----------



## Ivan_I

I don't think it means that it has returned. I understood it as "far away or removed from the front or main area, position, or rank;
remote".

"Back in the woods" to me means "The bear is behind the trees" not in the foreground. I am surprised that you interpreted it differently.


----------



## Ponyprof

Ivan_I said:


> But it's true that "I see you for the first time" is wrong without any context.
> 
> The sentence is self-explanatory.
> 
> - Hello Ivan! It's me Andygc!
> - Who? I am seeing you for the first time.



No, that's just an odd response. It does not work.

The only situation I can imagine this phrase working is not literal.

Bob knew Susie when they were both little children. But over the past year she has matured into a beautiful young woman. He meets her at a party and is suddenly attracted to her. It was as if he was seeing her for the first time.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> "Back in the woods" to me means "The bear is behind the trees" not in the foreground. I am surprised that you interpreted it differently.


If that were the case, we wouldn't say it was 'back in the woods', (nor would we say 'behind in the trees').  That's not what it means at all. I'm not surprised I interpreted it differently. But we are going off-topic - it has nothing to do with your OP question.


----------



## lentulax

Ivan_I said:


> Could you explain why there must be the present continuous in this sentence?


Who says that there 'must be' ? By what criterion or criteria has this obligation been determined? 

Both your sentences include 'you' as the object ('*I am seeing you for the first time.'*I see you for the first time'). Your supporting examples (#11) do not. Is the 'you' essential ? If so , all your other examples are irrelevant.  (a) If the object does not have to be 'you', then contexts can be constructed in which both your sentences are admissible (see earlier threads in this forum), and the assumption on which your question is based is false. (b) If the 'you' is essential, then both sentences are 'grammatically' correct , but neither is idiomatic, and again the assumption in your question is false.

Questions about the 'correctness' of a certain collocation of words, by which the questioner means 'Is it possible '*in any scenario*' [#24] you can imagine, however unlikely, to attach meaning to these words?',  waste a lot of time on these forums - millions of sentences which have , as far as one can tell, never been used by a native speaker could be justified in this way - to what purpose? What are the criteria of correctness which would accept things no native speaker has ever said or written?


----------



## Andygc

lentulax said:


> Who says that there 'must be' ? By what criterion or criteria has this obligation been determined?


That was commented on a while back, but we never got to hear who said it.


Andygc said:


> You made a bald and inaccurate statement in your question.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Ivan_I said: 





> ... which tells me that English is versatile. Maybe Russian is also that way. I have never scrutinized it so closely, though.


 In every language, there are people who don't always* speak* it correctly, for all kinds of reasons, and especially if they are in a state of heightened emotion, such as when they've just seen a bear for the first time, so this particular scenario is a relevant piece of context here.  If the same people were *writing,* they would almost certainly take more care to use the language correctly. The same applies in Russian.


----------



## Ivan_I

Enquiring Mind said:


> In every language, there are people who don't always* speak* it correctly, for all kinds of reasons,


Or it may boil down to the British/American difference.
I should point out that the dialogue with the bear is fictional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There are also some people who don't speak correctly even when they haven't just seen a bear for the very first time.


----------



## Ivan_I

Thomas Tompion said:


> There are also some people who don't speak correctly even when they haven't just seen a bear for the very first time.


Thomas, it's getting too ad hominem. The person who provided the context speaks correctly. At least not worse than any other English speaking person in the forum. I think that it's not about correctness but about the breadth of language tools at one's disposal. I have come across a few incompatible concepts different English speakers stick to. Who is right? Well, I don't think that the matter can be settled by a simple proclamation that someone speaks incorrectly. It's too deep an issue to be solved that easily.


----------



## Ponyprof

Ivan_I said:


> Thomas, it's getting too ad hominem. The person who provided the context speaks correctly. At least not worse than any other English speaking person in the forum. I think that it's not about correctness but about the breadth of language tools at one's disposal. I have come across a few incompatible concepts different English speakers stick to. Who is right? Well, I don't think that the matter can be settled by a simple proclamation that someone speaks incorrectly. It's too deep an issue to be solved that easily.



You can create a million different sentences in any language that are grammatically correct in isolation but are not correct in a given situation or in response to a given question.

Neither of the sentences in the original post worked in the context you gave for them. Obviously there are contexts where they could work. But that's why we require contexts here.

Thrashing around for a context where the sentence could work doesn't prove anything about the original question.

Creating a strained or improbable dialogue in which to situate a given sentence doesn't prove anything about the original question either. And muddying the waters by generating multiple contexts and getting everyone talking at cross purposes does not mean the grammar of English is subjective and impressionistic. It just means you've confused the thread enough that everyone is confused.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> If that were the case, we wouldn't say it was 'back in the woods', (nor would we say 'behind in the trees').  That's not what it means at all. I'm not surprised I interpreted it differently.


This is that same "back" as "in the back of the room.
By the by, I never said "behind IN the trees".


----------



## heypresto

No it isn't. If it was it would be 'There's a bear at _the back of the_ woods'. But even this sounds strange. I wouldn't know what it meant.

Forget 'back' altogether. 'Look! There's a bear in the woods!'.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> No it isn't. If it was it would be 'There's a bear at _the back of the_ woods'. But even this sounds strange. I wouldn't know what it meant.


I think it's a collision of native speakers' opinions. As it wasn't my opinion.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ivan_I said:


> I think it's a collision of native speakers' opinions. As it wasn't my opinion.


You've used this ploy - the unnamed native speaker in the wings - at least once already in this thread, Ivan.

Last time he was an American speaker.


----------



## Ivan_I

Thomas, there is no point in using this ploy on my end. I am not proving anything I am considering options. My acquaintance is American. If you don't believe me, well, it's up to you.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> I am considering options.


In that case, consider the option of forgetting 'back'. And then go for it.


----------

