# Since four years ago



## Dennis Moore

Is this structure correct? Because I was sure that it wasn't but I've come accross it on an official Cambridge test, so I'd like to ask you guys about it. It's an exercise in which you have to rewrite the sentence they give so that it has the same meaning. 

It has been there for four years.

It has been there ________________ four years ago.

The answer, according to the Answer Key is since. Is that correct? Can you explain if it's always possible to say that? If not, when is it?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## sonorous

No, the answer given is not correct.


----------



## Chasint

The answer is correct.

It has been there since four years.    (This is a common mistake by learners of English.)

It has been there since four years ago. 

The reason is that 'four years' is a period of time whereas 'four years ago'  is a point in time.

P.S.

There appears to be some disagreement between native speakers. I think that is because we do not use that expression very often.  Native speakers almost always say 'It has been there for four years'

It is much more likely to occur when the sentence is split in some way.

Examples

"How long has it been there?"
"Since 199_ Oh I can't work it out! - since 17 years ago."


"How long has it been there?"
"Since, oh I don't know, a hundred years ago."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_Since_ can be used where a moment in the past is specified.

Thus we can say_ It has been there since Friday last_, or _since a year ago_.

The answer is correct, in my view.


----------



## Andygc

Biffo, I haven't seen any disagreement between native speakers. I agree with both you and TT - "four years ago" defines a point in time, so "since" is being used correctly.


----------



## Chasint

Andygc said:


> Biffo, I haven't seen any disagreement between native speakers...


Have a look at post #2   *for ten years, since ten years ago*


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Have some more. I'd never say 'It has been there since four years ago.' 

It has been there for four years.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Besides, according to Face2Face, also by Cambridge, "We don't use _ago_ with the Present Perfect: I've been married for two years. Not I've been married since two years ago." 

I'm baffled, to be honest, this is something I was completely sure about.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dennis Moore said:


> Besides, according to Face2Face, also by Cambridge, "We don't use _ago_ with the Present Perfect: I've been married for two years. Not I've been married since two years ago."
> 
> I'm baffled, to be honest, this is something I was completely sure about.


I think you may have misunderstood something here, Dennis.

We don't use the present perfect with _ago_ and with _ago_ only.  _I have been there five years ago_.

But we can use it with _since + expression of time duration + ago_.  _I haven't been there since five years ago_.


----------



## Chasint

Dennis Moore said:


> Besides, according to Face2Face, also by Cambridge, "We don't use _ago_ with the Present Perfect: I've been married for two years. Not I've been married since two years ago."
> 
> I'm baffled, to be honest, this is something I was completely sure about.


"I've been married since two years ago."  Context is important in English. That sentence would sound very strange to me even though it is grammatically possible.

I'll see if I can come up with an example that shows the difference.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Show us the Face2Face quotation, Dennis. If it declares that 'I've been married since two years ago' is somehow suspect, then I agree with it.


----------



## sound shift

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Have some more. I'd never say 'It has been there since four years ago.'
> 
> It has been there for four years.


----------



## Andygc

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Have some more. I'd never say 'It has been there since four years ago.'
> 
> It has been there for four years.


The question was "is that correct?", referring to a test answer key. It was not "what is the most idiomatic way of making this statement? " The test answer is grammatical and is correct. I would be unlikely to say that particular sentence, but it demonstrates the underlying grammar of the examples given by Biffo, and allows learners of English to understand those more complex sentences. If we claim that "It has been there since four years ago." is wrong, how do we then explain that "Since, oh I don't know, a hundred years ago." is correct?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I'm hardly likely to recommend something I would never say as being 'correct'. 

If there is disagreement over this, and it's clear to see that there is, it's entirely reasonable to let this be known.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I suspect that we'd be more likely to use the present perfect with *since + time duration + ago* in the negative than in the positive.

I'm happier with _I haven't seen him since four years ago_ than with_ I've been married since four years ago_.

I support Andy's point that we are here concerned with what is correct rather than with what is most idiomatic.  Like most people I'd prefer to say_ I've been married for four years._


----------



## sound shift

If something is unidiomatic, on what grounds might it nevertheless be correct?


----------



## Chasint

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> I'm hardly likely to recommend something I would never say as being 'correct'...


That's hardly an argument. I would never say "I am made of plywood" but it's still correct English.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sound shift said:


> If something is unidiomatic, on what grounds might it nevertheless be correct?


We're often concerned here with how people learn languages.

Many learn by guidelines as to what is correct and what not.

I always tried with my pupils to give them guidelines such that when they were broken, you got something which was clearly wrong.  I took the view that this helped them reach a certain proficiency, at which stage they were in a better position to understand exceptions, and conflicts between grammar and idiom.

This didn't mean, of course, that when the guidelines were not broken, we got something which was clearly right.  At times idiom conflicts with apparent correctness, and I think this is what we are dealing with here.

We all know that there are cases where an idiom has become so well established that it generates a sort of correctness of its own. _ To go down the pub_ has such currency that to insist that it is incorrect and that we need to say _to go down to the pub_ would be tiresomely pedantic, in my view.

So by suggesting that this expression doesn't offend against a rule of grammar, but that not many people would say it, I think we are saying something helpful to learners.

To divide the language more simply into the idiomatic (and therefore correct) and the unidiomatic (and therefore wrong) is, in my view, less helpful.  It suggests that learners should ditch guidelines which will see them through the early stages of learning the language.


----------



## George French

Dennis Moore said:


> It has been there for four years.
> 
> It has been there ________________ four years ago.
> 
> The answer, according to the Answer Key is since.



It has been there for four years. (And it's still there, today.)

GF..

Or am I going crazy? Now that is an open question:- that's dangerous.


----------



## Chasint

sound shift said:


> If something is unidiomatic, on what grounds might it nevertheless be correct?


That line of argument will lead you straight down a cul-de-sac.

Example

A tourist says "What time do you have?"

Another tourist says, "What time do you make it?"

Are those idiomatic? _(That's not a rhetorical question. What's your answer?)
_
Are they correct grammatical English?


----------



## George French

Biffo said:


> That line of argument will lead you straight down a cul-de-sac.
> 
> Example
> 
> A tourist says "What time do you have?"
> 
> Another tourist says, "What time do you make it?"
> 
> Are those idiomatic? _(That's not a rhetorical question. What's your answer?)
> _
> Are they correct grammatical English?



Now I would answer, it is possibly idiom, but it is not idiomatic..

At least, the WR dictionary implies that distinction.

GF..


----------



## sound shift

It's not a line of argument, Biffo. It's a question. Your reply doesn't answer my question; it merely makes an assertion and asks two further questions.


----------



## Chasint

George French said:


> Now I would answer, it is possibly idiom, but it is not idiomatic..
> 
> At least, the WR dictionary implies that distinction.
> 
> GF..


Answer

"What time do you have?" is idiomatic in AE.

"What time do you make it?" is idiomatic in BE.

This is why context is so important in English. We simply cannot pronounce on idiom or 'correctness' without some kind of background information.

______________________________________________________________



> At least, the WR dictionary implies that distinction.


Please can you give a link to this distinction?


----------



## George French

Biffo said:


> Please can you give a link to this distinction?



The WR dictionary... *idiom* and *idiomatic* definitions.. No link given.... have a good read.

GF..

Are we walking past one another?!


----------



## Chasint

George French said:


> ... have a good read...


I'm sorry, if you wish to make a point, it is your responsibility. It is not for me to search out your meaning in a dictionary. If you give me the source, the context and relevant quotations of not more than four sentences, then I'll gladly dispute your point.


----------



## e2efour

More on this (what shall I say? controversial?) use of _since ... ago_ at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=320770&page=2.


----------



## SpanishEnglish101

I have checked "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan and I couldn't find an example such as the one provided above - "It's been there since four years ago".  I had a look at the sections related to "since" (208 / 411.6 / 458.5 / 522). If "since" and "ago" are possible in the same sentence as in that example, what about "I have been living here for four years"? Can we say "I have been living here since four years ago"?


----------



## Andygc

SpanishEnglish101. Don't say it. You have a choice of being grammatical but not idiomatic or of being grammatical *and* idiomatic. The second is by far the better choice: say "I have been living here for four years".

EDIT
I think Biffo has put it well.


----------



## Chasint

SpanishEnglish101 said:


> ... Can we say "I have been living here since four years ago"?


Well that is the point in dispute. I think that any answer you get will simply be a reiteration of what people have said already.

I'll try to summarise but probably someone will disagree.

1. The normal phrase used by just about everyone just about all the time is "I have been living here for four years".  No native speaker will argue with this.

2. The phrase "I have been living here since four years ago" can be analysed semantically and syntactically and it will stand up to both of those scrutinies. It is not idiomatic.

3. In special circumstances (such as hesitation or limited contexts) the structure might be used by a native speaker. Some native speakers would be very unlikely to use it. Others (such as myself) would happily use it in certain circumstances.

Does that answer your question?

EDIT - Thomas Tompion has now blown this wide open #32


----------



## SpanishEnglish101

Yes, thank you. The one that I normally use is "I have been living here for four years", that's why "I have been living here since four years ago" seemed quite strange to me.


----------



## Chasint

SpanishEnglish101 said:


> Yes, thank you. The one that I normally use is "I have been living here for four years", that's why "I have been living here since four years ago" seemed quite strange to me.


You are certainly using the correct phrase.  

__________________________________________________________________________
If you ever hear some native speaker (like me) use the other version you can perhaps ask them what made them say it that way.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not sure that _*since x years ago *_is unidiomatic, though many might  hesitate to say it because the alternative is more attractive.

  Here are some examples in literature:

  "How long is it since you've seen--Miss Neilson?" he asked.
  “Two years."
  "And then only for a few minutes just before she sailed," amended Bertram. "We haven't really seen much of her since three years ago." Eleanor H. Porter - Miss Billy - Chapter XX. - Billy, the Myth

“Are you an American, sir?"
  “Yes; I was raised in Connecticut, but then I began going to sea when I  was only thirteen. I only arrived to-day, and I find the city changed  since ten years ago, when I used to know it."  Horatio Alger - Jack's Ward - Chapter IV. - Mrs. Harding Takes a Boarder


----------



## Chasint

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not sure that _*since x years ago *_is unidiomatic, though many might  hesitate to say it because the alternative is more attractive.
> 
> Here are some examples in literature:
> 
> "How long is it since you've seen--Miss Neilson?" he asked.
> “Two years."
> "And then only for a few minutes just before she sailed," amended Bertram. "We haven't really seen much of her since three years ago." Eleanor H. Porter - Miss Billy - Chapter XX. - Billy, the Myth
> 
> “Are you an American, sir?"
> “Yes; I was raised in Connecticut, but then I began going to sea when I  was only thirteen. I only arrived to-day, and I find the city changed  since ten years ago, when I used to know it."  Horatio Alger - Jack's Ward - Chapter IV. - Mrs. Harding Takes a Boarder


Well discovered!  This leads me to another usage, for example:

_In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic conditions *which have taken place since two years ago*, when the aggression in Korea forced us to a great expansion of our security programs._
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1952
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...c=y#v=onepage&q="since two years ago"&f=false

A non-native speaker might imagine that this means the changes took place two years ago but it doesn't. It refers to the changes that have occurred in the interval "two years ago <----> 1952"
That it is it describes the interval between two points in time.

If learners of English can understand that last quote, how it works, and what it means then I suggest they will know all there is to know about combining 'since' and 'ago'!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Another point that occurred to me may be just worth mentioning.

People have suggested that _for x years _serves exactly the same function as _since x years ago_, but more gracefully.

But there is an important difference between the two formulae: the _since x years ago_ formula throws the attention back to the start of the interim period we are invited to consider.  This means it's very handy when we wish to provide further explanation of what was happening at this initial time.

The second example in post #32 is a good instance of this: I find the city changed  since ten years ago, when I used to know it.

How would we say that using the other formula? I find the city has changed over the last ten years, which is when I used to know it.  More wordy; more clumsy.

I'm too unimaginative to see how f_or the last ten years _could easily be incorporated into a sentence with this precise meaning.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you may have misunderstood something here, Dennis.
> 
> We don't use the present perfect with _ago_ and with _ago_ only.  _I have been there five years ago_.
> 
> But we can use it with _since + expression of time duration + ago_.  _I haven't been there since five years ago_.



Yeah, I know, I'm not saying the present perfect is used with ago and with ago only, quite the contrary, I thought that ago should be used with the past simple and the past simple only and that "since 5 years ago" was therefore incorrect. I mean, if it's counting "time units" that you want, that's what the preposition for is used for, isn't it?



Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Show us the Face2Face quotation, Dennis. If it declares that 'I've been married since two years ago' is somehow suspect, then I agree with it.



Here you are.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Dennis Moore said:


> [...]Here you are.


Many thanks for that, Dennis.  It's just wrong, as we have argued.

If it had said that we don't do it very often, that might have been good advice.


----------



## Chasint

Thomas Tompion said:


> ...there is an important difference between the two formulae: the _since x years ago_ formula throws the attention back to the start of the interim period we are invited to consider.  This means it's very handy when we wish to provide further explanation of what what happening at this initial time.
> 
> The second example in post #32 is a good instance of this: I find the city changed  since ten years ago, when I used to know it.
> 
> How would we say that using the other formula? I find the city has changed over the last ten years, which is when I used to know it.  More wordy; more clumsy.
> 
> I'm too unimaginative to see how f_or the last ten years _could easily be incorporated into a sentence with this precise meaning.


Yes, I must say I'm delighted that my instinct for this has now been fleshed out. (a mixed metaphor?)

I decided to see what Google ngram could offer. I've only recently discovered that it allows the wildcard character '*'.

Google ngram: _since * years ago_

*Notes*

*A.* The ngram graph shows results for:since two years ago 
since three years ago 
since five years ago 
since ten years ago 
since many years ago 
since several years ago 
since four years ago 
since some years ago 
since years ago 
since forty years ago ​ *
B.* Before 1800 there are no significant results.

*C.* There are cases that are not relevant because of intervening punctuation. For example:
_This was six years *since*. *Two* years ago, the sac of the right side became inflamed_. 
The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 1

*D.* Once the non-applicable cases have been filtered out manually, there are still examples of the sort that Thomas Tompion has referred to.

I think that the case for sentences with "since...ago" has been proved.


----------



## e2efour

We can look for the relative frequencies of the two expressions in COCA.
This is what we get:

25 examples of "since <number> <years etc.> ago", e.g. _since ten years ago_
3563 examples of "for the last <number> <years etc.>", e.g. _for the last ten years_


----------



## Chasint

e2efour said:


> We can look for the relative frequencies of the two expressions in COCA.
> This is what we get:
> 
> 25 examples of "since <number> <years etc.> ago", e.g. _since ten years ago_
> 3563 examples of "for the last <number> <years etc.>", e.g. _for the last ten years_


Interesting. What conclusion do you draw personally?


----------



## e2efour

I conclude that one of these expressions is uncommon according to the corpuses. Of course, the latter are not necessarily a reliable indicator of how people actually speak at present, but it's all we have to go on.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

These figures are entirely consistent with the one being more popular than the other, in cases where they mean something very similar, and the other having to be used where the one is unsuitable.

Some people have been arguing, I think, that the other is unidiomatic and, therefore, incorrect.  These figures do nothing to support that contention, surely.


----------



## SpanishEnglish101

Thomas Tompion said:


> Another point that occurred to me may be just worth mentioning.
> 
> People have suggested that _for x years _serves exactly the same function as _since x years ago_, but more gracefully.
> 
> But there is an important difference between the two formulae: the _since x years ago_ formula throws the attention back to the start of the interim period we are invited to consider. This means it's very handy when we wish to provide further explanation of what was happening at this initial time.
> 
> The second example in post #32 is a good instance of this: I find the city changed since ten years ago, when I used to know it.
> 
> How would we say that using the other formula? I find the city has changed over the last ten years, which is when I used to know it. More wordy; more clumsy.
> 
> I'm too unimaginative to see how f_or the last ten years _could easily be incorporated into a sentence with this precise meaning.



Could we say, "The city is not as I used to know it ten years ago. Since then it has changed a lot"? It's still wordy and I have also added "a lot", but it could be an alternative to "since ten years ago".

However, the sentence below is more difficult to paraphrase using "ago" + "since (then)": 

_In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic conditions *which have taken place since two years ago*, when the aggression in Korea forced us to a great expansion of our security programs. 

_How can we paraphrase that sentence in order to avoid using "since" and "ago" in the same clause?


In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic conditions which have been taking place since the agression in Korea, which occurred two years ago, and forced us to a great expansion of our security programs. 

(I don't know if this could be an example of a "garden path sentence" because when you read the sentence for first time you may think that the economic conditions forced them to an expansion of their security programs. However what it actually occurred was that the aggression in Korea forced them to a great expansion of their security programs. So my version is probably ambiguous while the original one is not). 

How would you paraphrase that sentence in order to avoid using "since" and "ago" in the same clause without ambiguity?


----------



## Chasint

SpanishEnglish101 said:


> ..._In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic conditions *which have taken place since two years ago*, when the aggression in Korea forced us to a great expansion of our security programs.''..._How can we paraphrase that sentence in order to avoid using "since" and "ago" in the same clause?...
> How would you paraphrase that sentence in order to avoid using "since" and "ago" in the same clause without ambiguity?


I would say:

"..._In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic conditions *which have taken place in the two years* since the aggression in Korea forced us to a great expansion of our security programs.''
_
However that seems very clumsy. I prefer the original.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]The second example in post #32 is a good instance of this: I find the city changed  since ten years ago, when I used to know it.
> 
> How would we say that using the other formula? I find the city has changed over the last ten years, which is when I used to know it.  More wordy; more clumsy.
> 
> I'm too unimaginative to see how f_or the last ten years _could easily be incorporated into a sentence with this precise meaning.





SpanishEnglish101 said:


> Could we say, "The city is not as I used to know it ten years ago. Since then it has changed a lot"? It's still wordy and I have also added "a lot", but it could be an alternative to "since ten years ago".[...]


But this doesn't use the phrase _for the last ten years_ which was the point of my question.

Maybe you weren't answering my question.


----------



## SpanishEnglish101

Thomas Tompion said:


> But this doesn't use the phrase _for the last ten years_ which was the point of my question.
> 
> Maybe you weren't answering my question.



Sorry, I had not seen your question. Regarding "In this Report...", I also prefer the original one. Your sentence is quite difficult to paraphrase using _*for the last ten years*_. What I can think of is: 

This city (or name of the city), which I have known for the last ten years, have changed since (year). 

This city is not as I used to know it for the last ten years - _Can we say this_?-, as it has changed since (year). 

Since (year) this city, which I have known for the last ten years, is not what it used to be.

However, these sentences can be grammatical but I find them as the examples you provided, a bit wordy and clumsy.


----------



## Forero

Dennis Moore said:


> Is this structure correct? Because I was sure that it wasn't but I've come accross it on an official Cambridge test, so I'd like to ask you guys about it. It's an exercise in which you have to rewrite the sentence they give so that it has the same meaning.
> 
> It has been there for four years.
> 
> It has been there ________________ four years ago.
> 
> The answer, according to the Answer Key is since. Is that correct? Can you explain if it's always possible to say that? If not, when is it?
> 
> Thanks a lot!


The original sentence is open-ended as to what four years in the past it refers to.

But if we assume the four years mentioned in the original sentence are the most recent four years, then the only thing I can think of for the blank in question is "(ever) since". I would prefer "ever since" over plain "since" because plain "since" could mean "at least once since", which would make the meanings of the two sentences not only different but mutually exclusive.

On the other hand, if we assume the four years in question are not the most recent four years, possibly not even four consecutive years, I can think of no proper answer to the test question.

If I had the choice between "It has been there for the last four years" and "It has been there ever since four years ago" (I find both of these idiomatic), I would probably pick the former because it is shorter and apparently simpler— except in a context where "four years ago" has a special meaning such as "my wedding day four years ago" or "four years ago when we first came here".

As already mentioned, such a special meaning to "four years ago" has no place in the original sentence.


----------

