# haven't eaten <since> yesterday



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

The dictionary recognizes two time-related senses of "since":

*1 * in the time after (a specified time or event in the past)
*2 * from (a point in the past) until the present time

I am wondering whether ambiguity could arise between the two senses in a particular sentence.

For example, when you hear "I haven't eaten since yesterday," will you think 1) the person ate something yesterday, stopped eating sometime yesterday, and has not eaten anything since, or 2) the person stopped eating sometime after yesterday and has not eaten anything since?

Also, when you hear "I haven't seen John since yesterday," will you think 1) the person saw John sometime yesterday and hasn't seen him since, or 2) the person didn't see John yesterday and hasn't seen him either since?


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> *1 * in the time after (a specified time or event in the past)
> *2 * from (a point in the past) until the present time



"Since" is not ambiguous. There are two definitions in order to describe what "since" means with different verb tenses. It looks like (2) matches "present perfect" verbs, while (1) matches simple past verbs. 

If you want examples that use each meaning, pick examples that use both "present perfect" and "simple past". Both your examples use present perfect, so they both match (2).

"I haven't eaten since yesterday" does not say whether I ate yesterday. Some readers may assume I did.

"I haven't seen John since yesterday" does not say whether I saw John yesterday. Some readers may assume I did.


----------



## dojibear

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> *1 * in the time after (a specified time *or event *in the past)



I just thought of this: maybe you think that, in your examples, "since" means "since the event of eating yesterday" or "since seeing John yesterday".

It does not. It means "since" whatever is in the "since" clause, which is "yesterday". If we wanted to refer to the event, we would put the event in the "since" clause, like this:

_I haven't eaten since I ate yesterday. I haven't seen John since I saw him yesterday.
I haven't eaten since eating yesterday. I haven't seen John since seeing him yesterday._


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

dojibear said:


> "Since" is not ambiguous. There are two definitions in order to describe what "since" means with different verb tenses. It looks like (2) matches "present perfect" verbs, while (1) matches simple past verbs.
> 
> If you want examples that use each meaning, pick examples that use both "present perfect" and "simple past". Both your examples use present perfect, so they both match (2).
> 
> "I haven't eaten since yesterday" does not say whether I ate yesterday. Some readers may assume I did.
> 
> "I haven't seen John since yesterday" does not say whether I saw John yesterday. Some readers may assume I did.




What exactly do the two sentences mean? The following are my attempts, which I'd like you to confirm or reject:

1. There was a point in time yesterday at which the person stopped eating (but on that day, he may or may not have eaten prior to that point), and his non-eating state has continued up to the present.

2. There was a point in time yesterday at which the person didn't see John (but he may or may not have seen John prior to that point), and  his state of not seeing John has continued up to the present.


----------



## Forero

"I haven't eaten since yesterday" says that in the period between "yesterday" and now I have not eaten. It does not say whether I ate yesterday or whether I am eating right now.

"I haven't seen John since yesterday" says that between "yesterday" and now I have not seen John. It does not say whether I saw John yesterday or whether I see him right now.

Present perfect always refers to a period of time that includes the time interval ending right now. It may include all of history or only time beginning at a given time (as with _since_).

I don't see the reason for two "definitions" of _since_ rather than some other number.

The two definitions in that dictionary seem to cover two interpretations of the beginning of the time period in question that apply to "since yesterday", whether that period of time began at some point in time yesterday (definition *2*) or began only when yesterday ended (definition *1*).

Definition *1* does not explicitly mention an end to the time interval, so it applies not only to sentences with present perfect but also to sentences with other tenses:

_I have not lived in Arkansas since 2014.
I am actually feeling better since the accident than I did before.
I was actually feeling better since the accident than I had before.
If John does not show up today, I will not have seen him at all since the accident except for that one time yesterday._

I don't see any need to include "until the present time" with the "from" definition and not with the "after" definition. The dictionary writer must have had certain examples in mind, but I can't guess what they are.


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What exactly do the two sentences mean? The following are my attempts, which I'd like you to confirm or reject:
> 
> *I haven't eaten since yesterday*
> 1. There was a point in time yesterday at which the person stopped eating (but on that day, he may or may not have eaten prior to that point), and his non-eating state has continued up to the present.
> 
> *I haven't seen John since yesterday*
> 2. There was a point in time yesterday at which the person didn't see John (but he may or may not have seen John prior to that point), and  his state of not seeing John has continued up to the present.



I haven't eaten since yesterday = The last time I ate anything was yesterday (I DID eat then, but haven't since)
I haven't seen John since yesterday = The last time I saw John was yesterday (I DID see John then, but haven't since)

cross-posted


----------



## Forero

lingobingo said:


> I haven't eaten since yesterday = The last time I ate anything was yesterday (I DID eat then, but haven't since)
> I haven't seen John since yesterday = The last time I saw John was yesterday (I DID see John then, but haven't since)
> 
> cross-posted


For me:

_I haven't eaten since yesterday._ = I may have eaten yesterday, but not since.
_I haven't seen John since yesterday._ = I may have seen John yesterday, but not since.


----------



## lingobingo

Forero said:


> For me:
> 
> _I haven't eaten since yesterday._ = I may have eaten yesterday, but not since.
> _I haven't seen John since yesterday._ = I may have seen John yesterday, but not since.



We'll have to agree to differ. There's no doubt in my mind about this.


----------



## dojibear

As the above comments show, different people use this expression to mean different things. 

Certainly Forero and Lingobingo are both correct. I am sure they both have heard many people use it "their way". 

This may be a difference between AE and BE. Or it may simply be a difference between speakers.


----------



## Forero

Definition *1* says "after" and definition *2* says "from", but neither says anything about "at" or "before" the time or event in question.

_Since its inception in 1842, this company has never cheated anyone._

This does not say the company cheated someone at its inception in 1842, does it?

The sentences in question are without context. We don't know whether someone else mentioned "yesterday" first or whether the speaker has chosen to say "yesterday" for a reason. The use of first person is also suggestive, since presumably the speaker knows when she or he last saw John.

_I can't say whether John was here before I got here late yesterday, but I know he has not been here since yesterday, because if he had been, I would have seen him.
_
Is this sentence illogical? Does it say John was here yesterday?


----------



## dojibear

Context affects the meaning. The sentence may mean something different as a response to a question, as an added comment in a discussion, or as a standalone sentence.

Example choice affects the meaning. It is rare that someone does not eat for two days, but if "eaten" is changed to "read a book" it is common. "Since yesterday" means only today (so why not say "today"?), but "since Tuesday" means several days, and is the shortest way to say that.


----------



## kentix

I agree with lingobingo mostly. Especially the one about eating.
_
I haven't eaten since yesterday = The last time I ate anything was yesterday_ (I DID eat then, but haven't since).

Since eating is overwhelmingly a daily activity (and actually a multiple-times-per-day activity) the only reasonable interpretation of this sentence I can make (barring extraordinary circumstances) is that the last time I ate was sometime yesterday but I haven't eaten since. If I didn't eat yesterday and still haven't eaten today, I would say, "I haven't eaten for two days." Saying "I haven't eaten since yesterday" in circumstances where I haven't eaten for or two three days seems bizarre.

Saying "I didn't eat yesterday and I haven't eaten today" wouldn't be bizarre and would adequately describe that situation. It says nothing about whether you ate the day before yesterday, just that you have eaten neither yesterday nor today.

In the case of John, I see a little more flexibility since we don't (necessarily) have the expectation by default that it's normal to see John every day (like it's normal to eat every day). Of course, additional context would tell if seeing John every day is a normal situation.

_I haven't seen John since yesterday =? The last time I saw John was yesterday_ (I DID see John then, but haven't since)

Here I can see the argument for the idea that I didn't see John yesterday and since then either, if, for instance, I came to my current location yesterday and John wasn't here and he hasn't been back since. (I can see the argument but I think, if that's what you mean, you need to pick a better way to say it.)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about "since May it has only rained once"?

When did the rain occur? Did it only occur after May (e.g. in June)? Or did it occur anywhere in the period between May 1st and now?


----------



## kentix

I would say in the period June 1st to now.


----------



## Forero

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How about "since May it has only rained once"?
> 
> When did the rain occur? Did it only occur after May (e.g. in June)? Or did it occur anywhere in the period between May 1st and now?


To decide this, we need to know what is meant by "only rained once" and what is meant by "May". I can only think of one meaning of "since ..." that fits here, which can be expressed by either "in the time after ..." or "from ...". With the present perfect these become "in the time after ... and before now", "between ... and now", and "from ... until now".

To keep things simple, let's assume that by "only rained once" the speaker means "rained only once". I don't know exactly how to count rains, but let's assume some sort of consistent meaning for "rained once (and not again)".

What does the speaker mean by "May"?

If it means "the month of May", then the "once" is not in May but later.

The problem is that sometimes "since May" means something like "since our May staff meeting", "since that time it rained in May" or even "since that day in May I just mentioned".

Obviously, if "since May" means "since the last time it rained in May", then it did not rain in May after that and the "once" came after all of the month of May.

The other possibilities require supporting context (such as the context of a staff meeting, or the prior mention of a particular day in May), if a conversation begins with "Since May it has rained only once" as a stand-alone sentence outside of such context, it has to mean that there is only one "rain" (however you want to define that) in the time after the entire month of May and before now.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Sorry to revisit this now.

How about "We have served over 1,000 customers since January"?
When was the first customer served? After January in the manner of the "has only rained once" example?

I'm trying to work out how since-phrases are interpreted differently.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s an approximation. I would definitely take that to include January — to mean *counting from* [some time in] January. It seems to me unlikely that anyone would use “since January” if they were counting from the beginning of February.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Now consider 'It has rained four times since February." Is the since-phrase interpreted like the "Since May it has only rained once" example? Did the first rain session occur after February?

Or is "since February" interpreted like the customers example?


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t see a difference. It’s just as vague but just as likely to mean from May onwards rather than after May.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

So the two "rained" examples require different interpretations for their since-phrases. That's why I find the issue puzzling.


----------



## lingobingo

It would help if you repeated the 2 since-phrases you’re referring to, rather than expecting us to read through the whole of this old and rambling thread.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

"Since May it has only rained once"   vs. " 'It has rained four times since February."


----------



## lingobingo

It rained in May/February but has only rained once/four times in the months between then and now. 

That’s as good as it gets. I can’t imagine anyone actually ever saying something so pointless.


----------



## Forero

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "Since May it has only rained once"   vs. " 'It has rained four times since February."


Both _since_s mean the same thing.

But "May" could be referring to the whole month of May, in which case "since May" does not include any part of that month, or it could be referring to a particular time in May, e.g. when we last met or that time it rained all day. The same goes for "since February".

Such ambiguity is not usually a problem and goes by unnoticed. If we need to make perfectly clear what we mean, we add the necessary words.

Neither sentence seems pointless to me.

In AmE, present perfect here also means the same thing it always means: in a time interval extending up to "now" (but not including "now").

So "Since May it has only rained once" means that there was only one time between "May" (as above) and "now" that it rained, and "It has rained four times since February" means there were (at least) four times between "February" and "now" that it rained.

And in both sentences, IF it IS raining now, "this time" is probably meant to be included since it started before "now".


----------



## lingobingo

I should have said so pointlessly vague.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Thank you for showing the since-phrase in both sentences is actually interpreted in the same way.

I'm considering "John has lived in New York since 1998."  Here, "since 1998" is used differently, i.e., it can only mean "since some day in 1998," not after 1998.

I'm trying to work out what determines the difference.


----------



## lingobingo

What determines the difference is context, and common sense.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Is there a context that allows "John has lived in New York since 1998" to be interpreted so that "since 1998" means "in the time after 1998"?


----------



## lingobingo

“John has lived in New York since 1998” means from an unspecified date in that year. No one would “interpret” it to mean that he didn’t start living there until the following year. And – more to the point – no one would say it to mean that.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Right, so context alone cannot always determine which meaning the since-phrase has. There's something mysterious to its usage.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s not at all mysterious. A year is a long time, that’s all. If you refer to a specific year, you mean some point within that period. If you mean the year as a whole, you say so.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The issue is that even with a year, "since" could still be taken to mean "in the time after." We could change the aforementioned "rained" example and say "Since 2018 it has only rained four times." Here, "since 2018" could possibly mean "in the time after 2018," couldn't it?

Compare it with "Since 2018 John has lived in New York,' where such a possibility does not exist.


----------



## lingobingo

Your point is perfectly clear, but there is no simple answer to what you’re obsessing about. I don’t have a formula to eliminate inherent ambiguity. You just have to work around it, like everyone else.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The issue is that even with a year, "since" could still be taken to mean "in the time after." We could change the aforementioned "rained" example and say "Since 2018 it has only rained four times." Here, "since 2018" could possibly mean "in the time after 2018," couldn't it?
> 
> Compare it with "Since 2018 John has lived in New York,' where such a possibility does not exist.


The key in that example is the difference in context, or, more specifically, the difference in the verbs themselves.  Rain is something that happens and then stops, then happens and stops again.  Live does not do that - you don;t "live four times"


----------



## Forero

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Is there a context that allows "John has lived in New York since 1998" to be interpreted so that "since 1998" means "in the time after 1998"?


Actually, it always means "in the time after 1998", but "1998" does not have to refer to the entire year, and it is not customary to change residences only at midnight on January 0.





JulianStuart said:


> The key in that example is the difference in context, or, more specifically, the difference in the verbs themselves.  Rain is something that happens and then stops, then happens and stops again.  Live does not do that - you don;t "live four times"


Without further context, living in New York four times may not be the first thing you think of for a sentence like this, but I do know people who have done just that.





lingobingo said:


> Your point is perfectly clear, but there is no simple answer to what you’re obsessing about. I don’t have a formula to eliminate inherent ambiguity. You just have to work around it, like everyone else.


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> Actually, it always means "in the time after 1998", but "1998" does not have to refer to the entire year, and it is not customary to change residences only at midnight on January 0.Without further context, living in New York four times may not be the first thing you think of for a sentence like this, but I do know people who have done just that.


I knew someone wold bring that up, and I've lived in many places since I was born, but the distinction remains helpful in explaining "since".  IF we consider "live" to mean "spend some time living" then, of course, but as you say, that is a rather less common interpretation, or a contrived context  And we would be unlikely to say "I haven't lived since yesterday "


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Consider "It has rained a lot since May" vs. "It has only rained once since May."
I suspect (pending your confirmation) that the former typically means the rain started sometime in May, although both sentences are about rain.


----------



## JulianStuart

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Consider "It has rained a lot since May" vs. "It has only rained once since May."
> I suspect (pending your confirmation) that the former typically means the rain started sometime in May, although both sentences are about rain.


I don't read that implication into your first sentence: May could have been a dry month. In the second, I would interpret it to mean that it rained (at least once) in May .  To communicate precise details of rainfall instances when referring to long periods (like months) you will need more tools than _since_ and verb tense


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've thought of another rain example. Consider "It has been raining hard since August." Did the said rain start after the entire August ended? Is it different from the previous rain examples?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, there’s a difference in that here there is no ambiguity. It would naturally be taken to include August — the current persistent hard rain has been going on ever since it began in August.


----------



## kentix

_It's been raining hard since August._
The rain started in August.

_It's rained once since August._
After August ended, it has only rained once.


----------



## Forero

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I've thought of another rain example. Consider "It has been raining hard since August." Did the said rain start after the entire August ended? Is it different from the previous rain examples?


As far as what exactly "since August" means, it is no different.

It is still ambiguous and you have not provided disambiguating context. If you read or hear this isolated sentence and it is really important to you to know, you'd best ask.

On the other hand, what is so important about midnight September 0?


----------



## Linkway

I think the meaning of "since" depends on some contextual circumstances, explicit or implicit.

I have not eaten since [breakfast] yesterday. (I DID eat yesterday.)

I have not had any trouble with my new car since I bought it six months ago. (I've never had any trouble with it.)


----------



## RM1(SS)

Forero said:


> Without further context, living in New York four times may not be the first thing you think of for a sentence like this, but I do know people who have done just that.


I wouldn't want to live in New York even once, but I've lived in my current town three times since 1982.


----------

