# I have been married



## junxi3q

When I'm talking about my marriage status, what should I say if I mean 'I am not single'?

'I'm married.'
'I have been married.'
'I have been married for 3 years.'

I read from a book, saying that 'I have been married' doesn't mean 'I'm not single now' but means 'I had married to someone but then divorced'. I don't quite understand this, because I heard this sentence from a movie:

'Satellite surveillance has been disabled.'
Obviously, this sentence doesn't mean 'satellite surveillance was available and then it was disabled'.

I'm really wondering about this. Can someone explain it a little bit?
Thanks a lot!


----------



## nzfauna

Your first and third sentence mean that you are currently married.

Your second sentence generally means that you were married before, but not any more. But you wouldn't really say it on its own.

Examples:

I have been married 3 times, but am not married anymore. (or I was married 3 times, but not anymore)

I have been married 3 times, and am still married.

I have been married before, but not now.

I was married once, but not now.

The pluperfect is generally used for something that originated in the past, but is still continuing.

The satellite has been disabled = the satellite was disabled in the past (even recent past) and is still disabled. So actually, it DOES mean that the satellite was available then became (and still is) disabled.


----------



## Forero

In the absence of further context, the most likely meaning of "the satellite has been disabled" is as a passive voice clause meaning "someone/something has disabled the satellite", but it might also mean "the satellite has remained in disabled status", e.g. since February.

"I have been married" is also ambiguous, but I would expect a longer explanation if "I have been married" were meant as passive voice, because "married" is usually taken as an adjective of status, the opposite of "single".


----------



## Ruminante

Good morning,

I was surprised to read what Junxi3q found in a book, 





> 'I have been married' doesn't mean 'I'm not single now' but means 'I had married to someone but then divorced'. I


 
I think it is exactly the contrary; in addition, there is a mistake in "I had married" followed by the preposition "to" - it should be transitive, isn't it?: either "I had married someone" or "I was married to someone". 

I am not a native but I remember the rule of using the pluperfect (present perfect) tense when the action/situation is still valid in present. The example that I retained in memory is this one:

I have worked for three years -----> means that I am still working
I worked for three years ------> means that I worked for 3 years then stopped. 

Nzfauna seems to suggest that there can be exceptions, since he used the adverb "generally": 





> The pluperfect is generally used for something that originated in the past, but is still continuing


 
Apart from exceptions, here are my corrections according to what I have been taught:

I have been married 3 times, but am not married anymore
should read: “I was married 3 times, but not anymore”

I have been married 3 times, and am still married. OK

I have been married before, but not now.
should read “I was married before, but not now.”


----------



## Loob

Ruminante said:


> Good morning,
> 
> I was surprised to read what Junxi3q found in a book,


I understand your surprise, but actually the book is quite correct.

I have been married for three years implies that I am still married.
I have been married implies that I am not still married.

Compare I have lived in London for three years _(and I'm still living there)_ and I have lived in London _(in the past, but I'm not living there now)._

If you change the tense to the simple past, you are referring to a specific date or period in the past
Having got married at eighteen, I was married for ten years; then my husband and I divorced.

I lived in London from 1991 to 1996.


----------



## Ruminante

OK, this means that I misunderstood the rules.
For years, I have thought that "I have lived in London" could only mean that I still live there.
Thank you.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Ruminante, the "pluperfect" is not the "present perfect" but the "past perfect" (had + past participle). Uniformity in terminology is paramount.
Best.
GS
PS How can you say you've always thought.....? I do not think you've ever pronounced the sentence "I've lived in London" out of the blue — to express the notion that you were living in London at that time you certailly said "I live/am living in London". Period. Therefore, when you pronounced the sentence we're discussing, you always added something like "for 3 years/since 2002". As you can see then, you behaved exactly as Loob very clearly explained.


----------



## se16teddy

Forero said:


> In the absence of further context, the most likely meaning of "the satellite has been disabled" is as a passive voice clause meaning "someone/something has disabled the satellite", but it might also mean "the satellite has remained in disabled status", e.g. since February.
> 
> "I have been married" is also ambiguous, but I would expect a longer explanation if "I have been married" were meant as passive voice, because "married" is usually taken as an adjective of status, the opposite of "single".


Yes, this is very interesting. Even in a context where we might expect a past participle (_I have been ...._), without context to help we normally interpret _married_ as an adjective meaning _not single_, and not as the participle of the verb _marry_. It is the other way round with _disabled_. 

If _married _is an adjective, _I have been married_ tends to imply that I am not married now, but my status was "married" in the past.

If _married _is a past participle, _I have been married_ implies that I am still married now - the effect of the marriage ceremony is continuing in the present.


----------



## Rival

Some of the confusion here seems to stem from an incorrect definition.



nzfauna said:


> The pluperfect is generally used for something that originated in the past, but is still continuing.



Actually the *present perfect* is generally used for something that originated in the past, but is still continuing. (1)
(e.g I have been married for 3 years).

The *pluperfect*, aka the *past perfect*, is generally used for an action (or state) took place prior to another action. 
(e.g. I had been married before I met my present wife).



(1) I imagine we all know this is not the only use of the present perfect.
.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Teddy,
You know only too well the fundamental differences in meaning and use of the English Present Perfect vis-à-vis other similar tenses this side of the Channel.
"Married" has to be considered an adjective, just like "blonde" or "divorced" or "slim".
"Sue's been blonde .... since she dumped that jerk Mortimer"
Best.
GS


----------



## Forero

Context is everything:
_
Sue has been disabled since she fell off the horse.

_


----------



## Loob

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> "Married" has to be considered an adjective


There's no "has to" about it, Giorgio. "Married" is usually an adjective, but it can certainly be a past participle, as in "she has been married twice in the same church".

See Forero's post 6.


----------



## JamesM

Loob said:


> There's no "has to" about it, Giorgio. "Married" is usally an adjective, but it can certainly be a past participle, as in "she has been married twice in the same church".
> 
> See Forero's post 6.


 
Yes, or "I married an older man."


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Loob,
I mean that in a sentence like "I've been married for 2 years", married is to/has to/should/ought to be considered an adjective, because that was its function is.
Don't you agree?
Best.
GS


----------



## Loob

I must have misunderstood, Giorgio. Since you addressed your "married has to be considered an adjective" comment to se16teddy, I assumed you were disagreeing with his post 8. 

Yes, I agree that in "I've been married for two years", _married_ is an adjective.


----------



## Silver

Hi,

I also have a question about this topic:

I said something yesterday:

Liu qiangdong, a billionaire, has married Zhang who is much younger than him recently.

And the whole context goes like this:

Liu qiangdong is a successful Chinese entrepreneur, he knew a young woman called Zhang zetian perhaps for two years. But Zhang is much younger than him. A few days ago, the news report said they're married. 

I don't think the usage of the tense with the word marry is fine, I looked up in dictionary and found this thread. Can you help?

Do I simply need to say "married"?


----------



## owlman5

Silverobama said:


> Do I simply need to say "married"?


Hi, Silver.  This is a good idea.  "Recently" tells me this event happened in the past.  I see no particular need for the present perfect if you just want to say that Liu married Zhang recently (at some time in the recent past).


----------



## Forero

Silverobama said:


> Hi,
> 
> I also have a question about this topic:
> 
> I said something yesterday:
> 
> Liu qiangdong, a billionaire, has married Zhang who is much younger than him recently.
> 
> And the whole context goes like this:
> 
> Liu qiangdong is a successful Chinese entrepreneur, he knew a young woman called Zhang zetian perhaps for two years. But Zhang is much younger than him. A few days ago, the news report said they're married.
> 
> I don't think the usage of the tense with the word marry is fine, I looked up in dictionary and found this thread. Can you help?
> 
> Do I simply need to say "married"?


The adverb _recently_ is misplaced here. It does not belong with "is much younger than him".

I might say "Liu Qiangdong, a billionaire, has recently married Zhang, who is much younger."

The present perfect is really not about the present except inasmuch as the past is present history. "I have been married" does not say "I am still married"; neither does it say "I am no longer married". Even adding "for _x_ years" does not make it about the present. In fact "I have been married for _x_ years" does not even have to mean "I have been married for the last _x_ years".


----------



## taraa

Forero said:


> The adverb _recently_ is misplaced here. It does not belong with "is much younger than him".
> 
> I might say "Liu Qiangdong, a billionaire, has recently married Zhang, who is much younger."
> 
> The present perfect is really not about the present except inasmuch as the past is present history. "I have been married" does not say "I am still married"; neither does it say "I am no longer married". Even adding "for _x_ years" does not make it about the present. In fact "I have been married for _x_ years" does not even have to mean "I have been married for the last _x_ years".


 Hi Forero
Why did you say "I have been married for _x_ years" doesn't have to mean "I have been married for the last _x_ years"? Why do others say it implies that "I have been married for the last _x_ years"?


----------



## heypresto

"I have been married for _x_ years" doesn't _have_ to mean "I have been married for the last _x_ years". It _could_ mean that you have been married or a period of X years at some time in the past.

_Context _would probably make it clear what you meant.


----------



## taraa

Why?
I know that one can say "I were married three times I have been married for three years but I am divorced now." here  It means that I have been married for a period of 3 years at some time in the past. But I didn't mean that. I meant:
When someone says that "I have been married for three years", it implies that s/he is  still married.


I have been married for three years implies that I am still married.


----------



## Forero

taraa said:


> Why?
> I know that one can say "I *was* married three times I have been married for three years but I am divorced now." here  It means that I have been married for a period of 3 years at some time in the past. But I didn't mean that. I meant:
> When someone says that "I have been married for three years", it implies that s/he is  still married.
> 
> I have been married for three years implies that I am still married.


You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I'll share my point of view as explicitly as I can.

The statement "I have been married for three years" is not a sufficient condition to conclude that the speaker is still married. So, as a person trained in mathematical logic, I would never say that "I have been married for three years" means or implies that the speaker is still married.

For me, a suggestion of something is not automatically an implication or a statement of that something.

And adding more clauses does not change the meaning of a given clause, though it can serve to disambiguate various elements in it.

But the word _implies_ has a loser meaning for many English speakers, for whom it means little more than _suggests_. And by itself, in the absence of context, and provided the word _have_ is unstressed, the sentence "I have been married for three years" does suggest to many English speakers that the speaker has been married for all of the last three years and is very likely still married.

I hope this helps.


----------



## taraa

Thank you so much
Is "I have been married for _x_ years" ambiguous for you or not?


----------



## Linkway

taraa said:


> Is "I have been married for _x_ years" ambiguous for you or not?



In general, "I have been married for x years" tells the listener/reader that the period referred to (x years) is up to the present, ie you are still married.

If you were asked in a law court: "What is your relationship to this man?" and you answered "We have been married for three years", the court would understand that to mean you are still married.
If you meant that you were previously married but no longer, you could say "We were married for three years, but got divorced last year".

Similarly, if someone said "I have been waiting for three hours" that would generally mean for three hours up the moment of speaking or up to the very recent past.

Jack (who has just arrived moments ago): Sorry I'm late.
Jenny: I've been waiting for three hours. You are in big trouble!


But note that the above refers to periods of time.  If we are referring to "events", things change a bit:

Josh:  Have you been to Harare?
Jake:  Yes, I've been there for short visits three times - in 2010, 2015 and 2017.


----------



## velisarius

Linkway said:


> In general, "I have been married for x years" tells the listener/reader that the period referred to (x years) is up to the present, ie you are still married.



I agree. It would require special context for me to suspect that the speaker is no longer married, and if this proved to be the case I would feel that he/she had been deliberately trying to mislead me.


----------



## Forero

taraa said:


> Thank you so much
> Is "I have been married for _x_ years" ambiguous for you or not?


For me, "I have been married" always means the same thing, and it does not say whether the speaker is currently married.

And adding "for _x_ years" says a/the marriage has lasted _x_ years but it does not unequivocably say which _x_ years.

The question "What is your relationship to this man?" is context. Logically, a question about the present should be answered with information about the present.

Depending on the case, and on who is asking the questions, "We have been married for three years" may be a sufficient answer. For one thing, the current status of said marriage may not matter, since three years of marriage is sufficient proof that the two know each other fairly well.

If that current status does matter and cannot be ascertained from other context, I would expect a followup question.

A proper answer to the question "What is your current relationship to this man?" would be something like "I am his wife" or "We are husband and wife."

It might also be appropriate to answer the question and then provide extra information, saying something like "We are married and have been for three years" or "He is my husband of three years."


----------



## velisarius

_I've been married for ten years. I have three children. My husband is a chef.
_
None of those sentences* has* to mean what it seems to mean. If want to equivocate, the following statements could also be true:

_I've been married for ten years in the past, but no longer am. The three children are not mine, but I'm having them to stay at my house for a while. My husband (one of them, anyway) is a trained chef, but is working as a bank manager._


----------



## JamesM

To me, the general meaning of "I have been married for 3 years" means that I am still married, just as "I have been a teacher for 20 years" means that I am still teaching.  To clearly signal that it is no longer the case I would expect "I was married for 3 years" and "I was a teacher/I taught for 20 years".


----------



## Forero

velisarius said:


> _I've been married for ten years. I have three children. My husband is a chef.
> _
> None of those sentences* has* to mean what it seems to mean. If want to equivocate, the following statements could also be true:
> 
> _I've been married for ten years in the past, but no longer am. The three children are not mine, but I'm having them to stay at my house for a while. My husband (one of them, anyway) is a trained chef, but is working as a bank manager._


My point is that "I've been married for ten years" does not mean "but no longer am", and it does not mean "and still am". More evidence or more words are needed to express either of those ideas.

Similarly, "I have three children" does not say whether the speaker is having three children stay at her or his house. That, too, requires more evidence or more words to express.





JamesM said:


> To me, the general meaning of "I have been married for 3 years" means that I am still married, just as "I have been a teacher for 20 years" means that I am still teaching.  To clearly signal that it is no longer the case I would expect "I was married for 3 years" and "I was a teacher/I taught for 20 years".


I would too, in the absence of other context. And to clearly signal that it is still the case, I would expect more words or context.

If we see a young woman sitting at a desk in front of a blackboard and she says "I have taught for 3 years", it is reasonable to assume she means for the last three years and that she is still a teacher.

And if we see a sign on the door to a conference room that says, for example, "Jefferson County Teachers' Conference", and inside we see a group of adults sitting around a table and the apparently youngest of them says "I have taught for 3 years", we may surmise that he or she is still a teacher.

But in either case, we have a surmise, not a deduction from the sentence "I have taught for 3 years."

Does "I have been to Paris for three years" mean to you that the speaker is still there?


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> My point is that "I've been married for ten years" does not mean "but no longer am", and it does not mean "and still am". More evidence or more words are needed to express either of those ideas.



If you are in a courtroom, yes.   In casual conversation it almost always means "and I am still married".   The accepted meaning of a phrase can be either more narrow or completely divorced from its purely logical meaning.

It would be extremely odd to me if someone said "I've been married for ten years" and I responded with "Congratulations!" and they replied "Oh, I'm divorced now."    It is logically possible but idiomatically dissonant.


----------



## taraa

Than you all so much


velisarius said:


> _I've been married for ten years. I have three children. My husband is a chef.
> _
> None of those sentences* has* to mean what it seems to mean. If want to equivocate, the following statements could also be true:
> 
> _I've been married for ten years in the past, but no longer am. The three children are not mine, but I'm having them to stay at my house for a while. My husband (one of them, anyway) is a trained chef, but is working as a bank manager._





JamesM said:


> If you are in a courtroom, yes.   In casual conversation it almost always means "and I am still married".   The accepted meaning of a phrase can be either more narrow or completely divorced from its purely logical meaning.
> 
> It would be extremely odd to me if someone said "I've been married for ten years" and I responded with "Congratulations!" and they replied "Oh, I'm divorced now."    It is logically possible but idiomatically dissonant.


If "I have been married" is not ambiguous and mean "I am not still married" we can use that when we want to say "I was married", no?

And se16tedy in #8 has another opinion


se16teddy said:


> Yes, this is very interesting. Even in a context where we might expect a past participle (_I have been ...._), without context to help we normally interpret _married_ as an adjective meaning _not single_, and not as the participle of the verb _marry_. It is the other way round with _disabled_.
> 
> If _married _is an adjective, _I have been married_ tends to imply that I am not married now, but my status was "married" in the past.
> 
> If _married _is a past participle, _I have been married_ implies that I am still married now - the effect of the marriage ceremony is continuing in the present.


Hi, se16teddy,
When _married _is an adjective can I  use "I have been married" and "I was married" interchangeably?


----------



## taraa

Forero said:


> For me, "I have been married" always means the same thing, and it does not say whether the speaker is currently married.
> 
> And adding "for _x_ years" says a/the marriage has lasted _x_ years but it does not unequivocably say which _x_ years.
> 
> The question "What is your relationship to this man?" is context. Logically, a question about the present should be answered with information about the present.
> 
> Depending on the case, and on who is asking the questions, "We have been married for three years" may be a sufficient answer. For one thing, the current status of said marriage may not matter, since three years of marriage is sufficient proof that the two know each other fairly well.
> 
> If that current status does matter and cannot be ascertained from other context, I would expect a followup question.
> 
> A proper answer to the question "What is your current relationship to this man?" would be something like "I am his wife" or "We are husband and wife."
> 
> It might also be appropriate to answer the question and then provide extra information, saying something like "We are married and have been for three years" or "He is my husband of three years."


Than you so much.
Is that ambiguous for you whether "married" is an adjective or a past participle?


----------



## Myridon

It is possible for the sentence to have the other meaning in an unlikely context.

How many European cities have you been to?
I have been to Paris.  I have been to France twice.
How long have your marriages been?
I have been married for three years.  I have been married for five years twice.


----------



## JamesM

I simply wouldn't use "I have been" for the second sentence, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, either.  "I was married twice, for five years each time."

Being married is a state.  Being to France is an action (when we use "have been" to mean "have gone (and come back)".  For the action I would use "get" or just "married".  "I (got) married twice."


----------



## Myridon

JamesM said:


> I simply wouldn't use "I have been" for the second sentence, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, either.  "I was married twice, for five years each time."


My point is that you could. It is, in fact, possible.
I have been to France and come back.  I have been married and I have gotten divorced.


----------



## JamesM

We simply disagree on this point, Myridon, and I doubt either of us will change our opinion.  

I have been married is not an action to me, it is a state.  "I was married in my home church" is the action, not "I have been married in my home church."  "I was married to the man for 50 years and then he died", not "I have been married to the man for 50 years and then he died".  The state changed.

It's the same as "I am single/I have been single".  If someone says "I have been single for 5 years" it means only one thing to me: they are now single.  "I was single for 5 years" means that they are no longer single.  The state of being has changed.


----------



## Myridon

JamesM said:


> To me, the general meaning of "I have been married for 3 years" ...


I wonder why you say "the general meaning" if you believe that no other meaning is possible.


----------



## taraa

JamesM said:


> We simply disagree on this point, Myridon, and I doubt either of us will change our opinion.
> 
> I have been married is not an action to me.  "I was married in my home church", not "I have been married in my home church."  "I was married to the man for 50 years and then he died", not "I have been married to the man for 50 years and then he died".


You can say "I have been married the man  but after 50 years he died" and it is an action, no?


----------



## JamesM

taraa said:


> You can say "I have been married the man  but after 50 years he died" and it is an action, no?


No, you didn't marry him repeatedly over 50 years.


----------



## JamesM

Myridon said:


> I wonder why you say "the general meaning" if you believe that no other meaning is possible.



Another meaning is possible, but the original question was "What _should_ I say when I'm talking about my marriage status?"  I think you _should_ say "I am married" and "I have been married for 5 years" to indicate a current state and "I was married for 5 years" to indicate you are no longer married.  "I have been married for 5 years, but then I got divorced" does not sound like natural English to me.  It's possible to glean the facts from it but I would wonder where the person learned English.

I do agree that in some contexts it can indicate a state that may or may not still be true. "I have been rich. I have been poor.  I have been single. I have been married.  I have been divorced."   We don't know in this context whether the person is still rich, poor, single or married.  That doesn't really apply to what a person should say who is currently married.


----------



## Myridon

JamesM said:


> Another meaning is possible, but the original question was "What _should_ I say when I'm talking about my marriage status?"  I think you _should_ say "I am married" and "I have been married for 5 years" to indicate a current state and "I was married for 5 years" to indicate you are no longer married.  "I have been married for 5 years, but then I divorced" does not sound like natural English to me.


I never said that wasn't the case.  If someone asked you "How long have your marriages been?", many people would answer in the same tense whether it's "natural English" or not.


----------



## Loob

taraa said:


> You can say "I have been married the man  but after 50 years he died"


No, you can't.





taraa said:


> and it is an action, no?


No, it isn't.


----------



## JamesM

Myridon said:


> I never said that wasn't the case.  If someone asked you "How long have your marriages been?", many people would answer in the same tense whether it's "natural English" or not.



And that's not a question I've ever heard.  "How long were you married (each time)?" sounds natural to me. "How long have your marriages been?" sounds like a question about a recurring medical condition.


----------



## taraa

JamesM said:


> For the action I would use "get" or just "married".  "I (got) married twice."


If I mean the wedding ceremony (the action), should I use which one please?
My parents *were married/married/got married* twice. Once in my mother's city and once in my father's city.


----------



## JamesM

To be perfectly clear I'd say "My parents had two wedding ceremonies".  "Married" is as ambiguous to natives as it is to non-natives.    Besides, they really only got married once in that situation.  They simply had two ceremonies to celebrate it with different groups of people.

"My parents got married twice" could mean they married, then divorced and then remarried each other.


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> If you are in a courtroom, yes.   In casual conversation it almost always means "and I am still married".   The accepted meaning of a phrase can be either more narrow or completely divorced from its purely logical meaning.


That is what we call an "expression", or "figure of speech", of which meiosis is an example.

We also regularly "read between the lines", surmising something without being directly told.

I think it is important for learners that we mention the literal meaning of a sentence being asked about and not just our overall conclusion about it.





> It would be extremely odd to me if someone said "I've been married for ten years" and I responded with "Congratulations!" and they replied "Oh, I'm divorced now."    It is logically possible but idiomatically dissonant.


I would find that odd too, but the reason is not that the statement itself says "I am still married" but that this is how a conversation begins. Why would a person mention their ten years of marriage if the marriage were not ongoing?

Similarly if a person in Paris says "I have been to Paris 3 times now", we know they are still in Paris, for the third time. But that knowledge does not come entirely from the sentence itself. It comes partly from the context.

Instead of imagining a person suddenly saying "I have been married for ten years", imagine you overhear "I have been married for ten years" as part of a conversation, but you are not privy to any more of that conversation.

Would you know then that the speaker is either currently married or was lying? I wouldn't.


----------



## JamesM

As I said before, and will repeat as many times you'd like me to , the common way I hear it in conversation if the person is no longer married is "I was married for ten years".  Perhaps people in Texas phrase things differently.  "I have been a student at XYZ for three years" means _only _"and I'm currently attending there" to me.


----------



## Myridon

JamesM said:


> As I said before, and will repeat as many times you'd like me to , the common way I hear it in conversation if the person is no longer married is "I was married for ten years".  Perhaps people in Texas phrase things differently.  "I have been a student at XYZ for three years" means _only _"and I'm currently attending there" to me.


Sure, but the question was asked (or, at least, implied) if it is ever possible or even grammatical. No matter how unlikely it may be, it is possible and it could even make sense in a very unlikely circumstance.


----------



## JamesM

Really?  I must have missed that. I didn't see that question.


----------



## Forero

Myridon said:


> I never said that wasn't the case.  If someone asked you "How long have your marriages been?", many people would answer in the same tense whether it's "natural English" or not.


I think it is most appropriate to answer in the same tense. It is polite to answer the question asked unless you know the person asking it really needs to know more than the mere answer to the question.

"I have been married for 5 years, but then I got divorced" sounds odd because of the last part, but it is not because "I have been married for 5 years" means I am still married.

"I have been to Paris for 3 years, but then I went to Madrid" sounds equally odd, but does "I have been to Paris for 3 years" say I am in Paris now?


----------



## taraa

Forero said:


> I think it is most appropriate to answer in the same tense. It is polite to answer the question asked unless you know the person asking it really needs to know more than the mere answer to the question.
> 
> "I have been married for 5 years, but then I got divorced" sounds odd because of the last part, but it is not because "I have been married for 5 years" means I am still married.
> 
> "I have been to Paris for 3 years, but then I went to Madrid" sounds equally odd, but does "I have been to Paris for 3 years" say I am in Paris now?


 Thank you so much Forero


Myridon said:


> Sure, but the question was asked (or, at least, implied) if it is ever possible or even grammatical. No matter how unlikely it may be, it is possible and it could even make sense in a very unlikely circumstance.


Thank you so much


JamesM said:


> To be perfectly clear I'd say "My parents had two wedding ceremonies".  "Married" is as ambiguous to natives as it is to non-natives.    Besides, they really only got married once in that situation.  They simply had two ceremonies to celebrate it with different groups of people.
> 
> "My parents got married twice" could mean they married, then divorced and then remarried each other.


 
 Thank you so much


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> I think it is most appropriate to answer in the same tense. It is polite to answer the question asked unless you know the person asking it really needs to know more than the mere answer to the question.
> 
> "I have been married for 5 years, but then I got divorced" sounds odd because of the last part, but it is not because "I have been married for 5 years" means I am still married.
> 
> "I have been to Paris for 3 years, but then I went to Madrid" sounds equally odd, but does "I have been to Paris for 3 years" say I am in Paris now?



As I've said before, "I have been to Paris" and "I have been married" are not the same use of "have been" in my book.

"I have been sick for three years" speaks of a state.  It is almost always used in the sense of "and I still am".  It indicates an ongoing condition.  This aligns with the married model.  (No comment on marriage intended.  )

"I have been to the store three times today" speaks of an action.  It is almost always used as a completed action.  This aligns with the Paris model.

"I have been" has two uses, at least.

From a logic point of view you can argue (and you have) that these _can_ mean something else in very specific circumstances.  From a language point of view they have an accepted and assumed meaning.  I think it's important to underline that the accepted meaning is the most likely meaning you will come across and the most likely sense in which your words will be taken by a native speaker.


----------



## Forero

It is debatable whether having been to a place includes going there or coming back, but how about "I have been in Paris"? Being in Paris is a state, and "I have been in Paris" does not say whether the speaker is in Paris now, does it?

I just don't buy the notion that present perfect ever says whether the action or state that "has been" either "still is" or "is no more".***

I don't think "I have been in Paris temporarily" says whether the speaker is still there, temporarily or otherwise.

And "I have been in Paris for 3 years" does not make clear what 3 years are being referred to. The most likely meaning is that the 3 years in question are now past. But there is another possible meaning: that the 3 years were planned but not yet realized (as in "I am in Paris for 3 years" or "I have been in Paris for 3 years on more than one occasion but have always had to leave before the 3 years was up").

Is that what you mean? Would you really say "I have been in Paris for 3 years, of which 2 years have already past"?

I wouldn't, without adding more words of explanation. For me, the 3 years in "I have been in Paris for 3 years" have likely ended, whether it was long ago or just now.

In other words, in the most likely meaning of the sentence, the time in which "I have been in Paris" is now past, though the speaker may (or may not) continue being there.

In my opinion, saying present perfect*** is ever about the action or state expressed by the verb in past participle form continuing from past to present is misleading, makes any explanation unnecessarily complicated, and can confuse people trying to learn the language. Yes, figures of speech abound, and need to be learned as part of the culture, but I think it is important for learners at all levels to understand the literal meaning of a construction whenever there is one. In fact, knowing the literal meaning is often more than halfway to knowing any figurative meanings too.

*** Except in one case: "I have got", in which "got" does not even mean "gotten" and has little if anything to do with getting/obtaining.

"Satellite service has been disabled" probably means "Someone has disabled satellite service" or, possibly, "Satellite service has become disabled" (referring to an action, i.e. change of state), but it could also mean "Satelite service has been in a disabled state". Either way, the action or state of "being disabled" mentioned in the sentence is in the past, either at a moment (or at various moments) in the past or throughout (some part or parts of) the past.

If a window appears on my screen that says "Satellite service has been disabled", I would guess satellite service is still disabled unless a contradictory message appears after it or on top of it. But that is just a guess and is not deducible from the statement alone.

"I'm married" (most likely, since "married" is probably an adjective here) says the speaker is not single.
"I have been married" is unclear in more than one way (e.g. it could conceivably mean "I have gotten married" or "Someone has married me").
"I have been married for 3 years" is also unclear but I don't think we would begin a conversation with it unless we meant "... for all of the last/past/most recent 3 years", and a marriage that has lasted through all of the most recent part of the past is probably ongoing.


----------



## JamesM

> It is debatable whether having been to a place includes going there or coming back, but how about "I have been in Paris"? Being in Paris is a state, and "I have been in Paris" does not say whether the speaker is in Paris now, does it?



I don't know _anyone_ who says "I have been in Paris" with no other qualifier.  I would assume English was not their first language.



> In my opinion, saying present perfect*** is ever about the action or state expressed by the verb in past participle form continuing from past to present is misleading, makes any explanation unnecessarily complicated, and can confuse people trying to learn the language. Yes, figures of speech abound, and need to be learned as part of the culture, but I think it is important for learners at all levels to understand the literal meaning of a construction whenever there is one. In fact, knowing the literal meaning is often more than halfway to knowing any figurative meanings too.



_My_ explanations are unnecessarily complicated?  

How many times do you think we will go back and forth on this with neither of us changing our position?  Or is the goal to have the last word?


----------



## Forero

JamesM said:


> I don't know _anyone_ who says "I have been in Paris" with no other qualifier.  I would assume English was not their first language.


I am surprised by this. It sounds like a normal sentence to me, and I can say it. (I have in fact been in three different Parises at different times.)





> _My_ explanations are unnecessarily complicated?




I don't mean your explanations per se, and I don't know what your overall theory is, but there seem to be a lot of grammar books out there, that people quote on this forum, with "explanations" that apparently don't accurately describe their own examples. Examples are of the essence, of course, but the grammars I am talking about are full of contradictory "meanings" of the present perfect that, frankly, apply equally well to the past simple.

I believe my theory of the present perfect has only the one exception: "have/has got" with present tense meaning. The theories people keep asking about, on the other hand, have more exceptions than examples they apply to. This makes them unncessarily complicated as well as inaccurate.





> How many times do you think we will go back and forth on this with neither of us changing our position?  Or is the goal to have the last word?


My purpose with all this verbiage is not to go back and forth or to have the proverbial last word but to clarify where I am coming from and to see whether we are just using different definitions but actually already agree (except maybe on how often people in our respective environments intend to say one thing rather than another).

I am not convinced we have different "positions" in the sense of opinions to defend, just different viewpoints from which to look at what, as far as I know, is the same, or almost the same, thing.

And I feel it is important to point that out.


----------

