# Where are you now that I need you?



## JungKim

Song lyrics are sometimes outside the grammar rules. That said, I'd like to know if this line from Justin Bieber's new song "Where Are You Now?" sounds awkward in any way:
"Where are you now that I need you?"

The first part of the song says:


> I gave you the key when the door wasn't open, just admit it
> See, I gave you faith, turned your doubt into hoping, can’t deny it
> Now I’m all alone and my joys turned to moping
> Tell me, *where are you now that I need you?*


----------



## ayuda?

It sound perfectly OK to me.


----------



## Glenfarclas

It sounds fine to me, Jung.  The question is "Where are you?", and "now that I need you" tells us something specific about the time and circumstances.  It's no different from a sentence like "Now that I'm married, I have to consider another person's needs."


----------



## Cagey

Do you find 'now that' puzzling, JungKim?

If so, this thread may be helpful: now that/since

You can find more threads by searching for "now that" in the search box at the top of the page.

This discussion reveals a difference between American and British English that I wasn't aware of before I read the thread:  Now (that) she'd arrived she felt queasy inside.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks guys for the links and everything.

I am aware of the expression "now (that)" itself.

It's just that in the OP's context I'm not quite sure the expression "now that" is being used as it should be, i.e., the meaning of "as a consequence of the fact". 

In the OP's context, "now that" may not be readily interpreted as "as a consequence of the fact" or "since".
_Where are you now since I need you?_ (?)
Maybe it might work to say instead:
_I'm asking you where you are since I need you._
The latter is different from the original in that "since I need you" in the latter modifies "I'm asking you" rather than "where you are".


----------



## Cagey

I thought that Forero's explanation was the most helpful in understanding the use in this context:





Forero said:


> _Now that_ is used to indicate a change, for example from a time of conflict to a time of peace.
> 
> Since 2 + 3 is 5, 3 + 2 must also be 5.
> When _x_ was 1, _x_+3 was 4. Now that _x_ is _2_, _x_+3 has increased to 5.


The underlying thought is something like:  Things were different before, but now that I need you, you should be near me to help me.


----------



## JungKim

What I'm thinking is:
_You should be near me to help me now that I need you.
Where are you now that I need you?
Where are you since I need you?_

I don't know how to explain this but there must be something weird about the OP. Or is it just me? 

Let me put it this way.
I think it'd be much smoother if it was _Where are you *when* I need you?_, which is clearly different from _Where are you *since* I need you?_, would it not?


----------



## Cagey

I think "Where are you now that I need you?" is fine.   
_
"Now that I need you"_ is clearer and more emphatic than _"When I need you"_. 
_
"When I need  you"_ means something different from _"Now that I need you."_ This  is a complaint that the person isn't present at this particular time -- now -- which is the exact time the singer needs them.

I am sorry that I can't be more helpful.  I don't understand your objection to the line as the singer wrote it.


----------



## JungKim

Let me try again  and this time I'll step back and start with the Forero's explanation you quoted earlier.



Cagey said:


> I thought that Forero's explanation was the most helpful in understanding the use in this context:
> 
> 
> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Now that_ is used to indicate a change, for example from a time of conflict to a time of peace.
> 
> Since 2 + 3 is 5, 3 + 2 must also be 5.
> When _x_ was 1, _x_+3 was 4. Now that _x_ is _2_, _x_+3 has increased to 5.
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying thought is something like:  Things were different before, but now that I need you, you should be near me to help me.
Click to expand...


The gist of what Forero was explaining about "now that" is found in the Oxford Dictionaries definition that I quoted earlier: "as a consequence of the fact that", that is.

"When x was 1, x+3 was 4. As a consequence of the fact that x is 2, x+3 has increased to 5."

"Things were different before, but as a consequence of the fact that I need you, you should be near me to help me."

These all make sense to me.

But the following sounds awkward to me or at least not as natural as the above two examples:
(A) "Where are you as a consequence of the fact that I need you?".

Let me rephrase this to make it sound more natural to me:
(B) "Where are you? As a consequence of the fact that I need you, you should be near me to help me."

Perhaps the reason why I feel the OP awkward is that (A) tries to pack too much information, as shown in (B), in too few words.

If you were to pack all that information in as few words as the original lyrics, maybe you should rephrase it like this:
(C) "Where are you despite the fact that I need you?"

Now, you can't replace "despite the fact that" with "now that", can you?


----------



## Cagey

JungKim said:


> If you were to pack all that information in as few words as the original lyrics, maybe you should rephrase it like this:
> (C) "Where are you despite the fact that I need you?"
> 
> Now, you can't replace "despite the fact that" with "now that", can you?


No, you can't.  And you can't replace 'now that' with 'despite the fact that' either.  However, the meanings are closer than some of the other options discussed. 

Not every idiom is replaceable by another.  When we offer another of saying something, we are often trying to give an approximate idea of what they mean.  We aren't saying that the two mean exactly the same thing. 

In any case, I cannot really understand your difficulty.


----------



## JungKim

Cagey said:


> In any case, I cannot really understand your difficulty.



So don't you find (A) to be awkward at all?
(A) "Where are you as a consequence of the fact that I need you?"


----------



## Cagey

I don't know what that would mean.  
It doesn't mean _"Where are you now that I need you?"_

I don't understand why you think it should.


----------



## JungKim

Cagey said:


> I don't know what that would mean.
> It doesn't mean _"Where are you now that I need you?"_
> 
> I don't understand why you think it should.



Why do I think it should?
Because Oxford Dictionaries Online defines "now that" as "as a consequence of the fact that".
Moreover, as I have shown in post #9, the Forero's explanation that you cited is equivalent to that definition.

What am I missing?


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> Why do I think it should?
> Because Oxford Dictionaries Online defines "now that" as "as a consequence of the fact that".
> Moreover, as I have shown in post #9, the Forero's explanation that you cited is equivalent to that definition.
> 
> What am I missing?


To me, "as a consequence of the fact that" is a rather poor "translation" for "now that". A better one would be "now, when":

_Where are you now, when I need you?_

The idea is that perhaps I did not need you before, and perhaps you hung around a lot, but now something is different: Now I need you. Where are you?

The _that_ clause modifies or explains what the speaker means by "now". Now I need you. Where are you now?


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> To me, "as a consequence of the fact that" is a rather poor "translation" for "now that". A better one would be "now, when":
> 
> _Where are you now, when I need you?_
> 
> The idea is that perhaps I did not need you before, and perhaps you hung around a lot, but now something is different: Now I need you. Where are you?
> 
> The _that_ clause modifies or explains what the speaker means by "now". Now I need you. Where are you now?



If it is easily better understood by replacing "that" with "now", why would anyone use "now that" in the first place?

As for the definition "as a consequence of the fact that" being a poor definition, it may be rather cumbersome and a bit of a mouthful to use instead of "now that", but "definitions" by definition -- no pun intended -- are not meant to be succinct but they are simply meant to explain things by laying out the details. And that definition does explain well all the examples presented in this thread so far, except for the OP's example.

Also, you can look it up in other dictionaries as well. For example, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "now that" as "because the thing mentioned is happening or has just happened", which is even more cumbersome than "as a consequence of the fact that".

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this definition "since something is true : because of the fact that something happened".

The WR dictionary has perhaps the most short one: "inasmuch as; since" where "since" means "because".

Regardless of the length of the definition itself, they all work for all the "now that" examples in this thread, except for the OP.

So, did all the dictionaries that I cited here get it wrong?


----------



## Skin

Hi JungKim!
I think you just have to accept the fact that, at least in this case, "now that I need you" simply has a literal meaning: "in this very moment when I need you".
Bye


----------



## JungKim

Skin said:


> Hi JungKim!
> I think you just have to accept the fact that, at least in this case, "now that I need you" simply has a literal meaning: "in this very moment when I need you".
> Bye



Are you suggesting, contrary to most native speakers in this thread perhaps except for Forero, that the "now" in the OP is not a conjunction but an adverb?


----------



## velisarius

_Now (that) ~ We can use now that as a conjunction to refer to something and its result(s)_
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/now?q=now+that


_Can you afford to pay a bit more now that you have this extra income?_

That definition seems to fit the case, though only one of the examples given there is a question.
It's the question form that makes it difficult to apply the dictionary definitions to the OP sentence I think.

In the Cambridge example "now that" refers to something (you have extra income) and its result (you being able to pay more). Since it's a question, the "being able to pay more" is seen as a possible result. If it weren't a question, it would be straightforward: "You can afford to pay a bit more now that you have this extra income."

With "Where are you now that I need you", "now that" refers to something (I need you) but the result is not so clear to see. Since it's a question, the "being here" is seen as a possible result.
If it weren't a question it would be a simple statement: "You are (here) now that I need you."


----------



## Keith Bradford

JungKim said:


> ... Oxford Dictionaries Online defines "now that" as "as a consequence of the fact that".
> ...
> What am I missing?


You're missing the fact that even Oxford Online can make mistakes.  In fact, the very next example they give is "_now that you mention it, I haven’t seen her around for ages" _where not seeing her is obviously not a consequence of anybody mentioning anything.

Trust the other respondents: _now that_ in your case means _at this moment of time, when something significant has happened_.


----------



## Forero

_Now_, adverb = "at this time", nothing strange about it. _That_, conjunction = "when", relative adverb = "(the time) in which", rather unusual, especially if we include in our definition the extra little concept of things being different "now" than "before" and the fact that the _that_ clause seems to be nondefining but not separated from _now_ by a comma.

In something like "sufficiently open that the wind can come in", _that_ does introduce a consequence, but, in my view, not in "Where are you now that I need you?".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> _Now_, adverb = "at this time", nothing strange about it. _That_, conjunction = "when", relative adverb = "(the time) in which", rather unusual, especially if we include in our definition the extra little concept of things being different "now" than "before" and the fact that the _that_ clause seems to be nondefining but not separated from _now_ by a comma.
> 
> In something like "sufficiently open that the wind can come in", _that_ does introduce a consequence, but, in my view, not in "Where are you now that I need you?".


I must admit this is exactly how I see it.

_Where are you, now that I need you?_ - _Where are you at this time when my need for you has arisen? _(I'm not suggesting this wording is an improvement; it's an attempt at clarification of meaning).

_Now that you mention it_ is rather different; it means _As you happen to mention it_, ie. incidentally.  I'd think it an idiom, by which I mean a set phrase whose meaning isn't necessarily clear from analysis of the words alone.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> I must admit this is exactly how I see it.
> 
> _Where are you, now that I need you?_ - _Where are you at this time when my need for you has arisen? _(I'm not suggesting this wording is an improvement; it's an attempt at clarification of meaning).
> 
> _Now that you mention it_ is rather different; it means _As you happen to mention it_, ie. incidentally.  I'd think it an idiom, by which I mean a set phrase whose meaning isn't necessarily clear from analysis of the words alone.


For me "now that you mention it" is only different in that it is a kind of metalanguage, language about language.

For example, "He must have left his socks at home" is metalanguage because it is not about his obligation but about our obligation to believe in light of the evidence, and "the tall, or rather high, mountains" is metalanguage because it does not suggest that the mountains can make a better choice about what they are but that we can make a better choice about what to call them. And metalanguage like "not to get ahead of ourselves" might be inserted in discourse that is otherwise not about "us".

So something like "Now that you mention it, I think I saw him scratching his bare ankles" does not say the person's scratching happens when you mention it but that the speaker recalls the scratching once you have mentioned it.

In other words, "now that you mention it" is usually about the present conversation rather than the subject matter being discussed, and this phrase may often be used pretentiously, but as I see it, it represents at its heart the same meaning of "now that" that we have been discussing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_Now that you mention it_ can be a sort of rhetorical flourish to mean _given that you've brought the matter up_ (sometimes with the suggestion that the speaker wouldn't have talked about it otherwise). 

This is to relate it rather more closely to what has just been said than _incidentally_, or _by the way_.


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> _Now (that) ~ We can use now that as a conjunction to refer to something and its result(s)_
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/now?q=now+that
> 
> 
> _Can you afford to pay a bit more now that you have this extra income?_
> 
> That definition seems to fit the case, though only one of the examples given there is a question.
> It's the question form that makes it difficult to apply the dictionary definitions to the OP sentence I think.
> 
> In the Cambridge example "now that" refers to something (you have extra income) and its result (you being able to pay more). Since it's a question, the "being able to pay more" is seen as a possible result. If it weren't a question, it would be straightforward: "You can afford to pay a bit more now that you have this extra income."
> 
> With "Where are you now that I need you", "now that" refers to something (I need you) but the result is not so clear to see. Since it's a question, the "being here" is seen as a possible result.
> If it weren't a question it would be a simple statement: "You are (here) now that I need you."



With all due respect, I cannot agree that it's purely a matter of "clause type", i.e., whether it's a declarative or interrogative. I believe that there's more to it than that. 

In your example, an interrogative, taken from the Cambridge Dictionary, "now that" is replaceable with any of the dictionary definitions that I have presented in post #15, such as "as a consequence of the fact that" or "since" or "inasmuch as", etc. As you know, however, the same kind of replacement cannot be done to the OP's example without making the example impossible English.

As for "You are here now that I need you", which you think is the declarative counterpart of the OP's interrogative, I can see how that works. But at the same time, I can also see that your declarative is not a true counterpart of the OP. In the OP, the speaker is essentially saying, "You are not here now that I need you", if you want to make a declarative out of it. So, that's the true declarative counterpart and I don't think that makes any more sense than the OP's interrogative itself does.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JungKim said:


> So, that's the true declarative counterpart and I don't think that makes any more sense than the OP's interrogative itself does.



If you are referring to "Tell me, where are you now that I need you?", then, as everybody has been telling you, it _does_ make sense and it is perfectly good English.  I think you just need to accept that, learn from it, and move on.


----------



## JungKim

Keith Bradford said:


> You're missing the fact that even Oxford Online can make mistakes.


 You mean, only the Oxford Online? Or all the other dictionaries as well?



Keith Bradford said:


> In fact, the very next example they give is "_now that you mention it, I haven’t seen her around for ages" _where not seeing her is obviously not a consequence of anybody mentioning anything.


That's a good point. For the sake of argument, however, I could argue that "haven't seen" denotes how the speaker views the event with respect to "time", and that your action of mentioning it triggers the speaker to look back in time and say "I haven't seen her around her ages."



Keith Bradford said:


> Trust the other respondents: _now that_ in your case means _at this moment of time, when something significant has happened_.



I thought that most respondents viewed the "now" in the OP as a conjunction. No?
So do you take sides with the minority (including Foreor) who argue that the OP's "now" is not a conjunction but an adverb?
And do you want me to join the minority?


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Now_, adverb = "at this time", nothing strange about it. _That_, conjunction = "when", relative adverb = "(the time) in which", rather unusual, especially if we include in our definition the extra little concept of things being different "now" than "before" and the fact that the _that_ clause seems to be nondefining but not separated from _now_ by a comma.
> 
> In something like "sufficiently open that the wind can come in", _that_ does introduce a consequence, but, in my view, not in "Where are you now that I need you?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit this is exactly how I see it.
> 
> _Where are you, now that I need you?_ - _Where are you at this time when my need for you has arisen? _(I'm not suggesting this wording is an improvement; it's an attempt at clarification of meaning).
> 
> _..._
Click to expand...


Since both Forero and Thomas Tompion agree that the OP's "now" is not a conjunction but an adverb, it's about time for me to ask these questions:

(1) Do you guys view the OP's "now that" as a construction clearly different from the set phrase "now (that)" where "now" is classified as a conjunction?

OR

(2) Do you guys view the OP's "now that" as the same construction as the set phrase "now (that)" as shown in all the dictionaries? If so, do you guys simply think that all the dictionaries erroneously classified "now" in that set phrase as a conjunction, and that it should be classified as an adverb?


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> If you are referring to "Tell me, where are you now that I need you?", then, as everybody has been telling you, it _does_ make sense and it is perfectly good English.  I think you just need to accept that, learn from it, and move on.



If all the native speakers say it makes sense, how and why should I not accept it?
And I'm not really saying that.

The reason I had started this thread was that I simply viewed the "now that" in the OP as the set phrase as shown in all the dictionaries. And the definitions in those dictionaries didn't fit in with the OP, at least not to me.

And the respondents said that the OP's "now that" is exactly what the dictionaries list as a set phrase. For example, you said in post #3:


Glenfarclas said:


> It sounds fine to me, Jung.  The question is "Where are you?", and "now that I need you" tells us something specific about the time and circumstances.  It's no different from a sentence like "Now that I'm married, I have to consider another person's needs."



You said that it's the same "now that" in the OP and in your example. But "now that" in your example is replaceable with any of the dictionary definitions of the set phrase ("As a consequence of the fact that I'm married, I have to consider another person's needs"), whereas the OP's "now that" isn't ("Where are you as a consequence of the fact that I need you?").

And now some others seem to be telling me something clearly different from what you've told me in post #3.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Since both Forero and Thomas Tompion agree that the OP's "now" is not a conjunction but an adverb, it's about time for me to ask these questions:
> 
> (1) Do you guys view the OP's "now that" as a construction clearly different from the set phrase "now (that)" where "now" is classified as a conjunction?
> 
> OR
> 
> (2) Do you guys view the OP's "now that" as the same construction as the set phrase "now (that)" as shown in all the dictionaries? If so, do you guys simply think that all the dictionaries erroneously classified "now" in that set phrase as a conjunction, and that it should be classified as an adverb?


I can't speak for Forero, but I regard  the _now that_ in neither of these ways, if I have understood you correctly, JK.

I regard _now_ as an adverb and _that_ as a conjunction - ie. something like _at this time_ (now) _that_ (when) etc.

The when-clause indicates the time specified by the _this_ in _at this time._


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I can't speak for Forero, but I regard  the _now that_ in neither of these ways, if I have understood you correctly, JK.
> 
> I regard _now_ as an adverb and _that_ as a conjunction - ie. something like _at this time_ (now) _that_ (when) etc.
> 
> The when-clause indicates the time specified by the _this_ in _at this time._



Then, I think you think of it as (1). So this "now that" isn't the same expression as shown in the dictionaries.
Am I right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Then, I think you think of it as (1). So this "now that" isn't the same expression as shown in the dictionaries.
> Am I right?


You may be.  

The Cambridge Online you linked produced an example where the 'now that' came at the beginning of the sentence, to provide emphasis, and the 'that' acted as a conjunction.

I'm not clear that 'now' in your example is being used to add emphasis, JK, so maybe I don't agree that that part of that dictionary is using the phrase as in the OP.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> You may be.
> 
> The Cambridge Online you linked produced an example where the 'now that' came at the beginning of the sentence, to provide emphasis, and the 'that' acted as a conjunction.
> 
> I'm not clear that 'now' in your example is being used to add emphasis, JK, so maybe I don't agree that that part of that dictionary is using the phrase as in the OP.


You seem to be referring to this example of the dictionary, right?:
_now you mention it, I haven’t seen her around for ages.
_
So are you saying if "now that" comes before the main clause, that "now" acts as a conjunction and that it cannot act as an adverb?


----------



## Forero

_Now_ is never a conjunction. _That_ is a subordinating conjunction, but it can be omitted.

_Now that_ does not mean "as a consequence of the fact that" in any of the examples so far mentioned in this thread, and I doubt it ever means that.

If you try to understand _now that_ using poor translations such as "as a consequence of the fact that", negative and interrogative structures may seem to change the meaning of _now that_ because of different interpretations of the scope of the negativity, but in reality the meaning stays the same since, despite the nondefining nature of the subordinate clause, _now that_ is not separable. (I hope I said that right.)


----------



## Glenfarclas

The whole phrase acts as a conjunction; you cannot analyze the words separately.  "Because" used to be written "because that" (e.g., "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified," Jn 7:39), and the same applies.  This explains why you cannot replace "now" with another adverb (*"Then that I need you") or "then" with another conjunction (*"Now but").  The OED notes one archaic sense of "that" as a conjunction:  "†II.6.b _That_ alone had formerly the force of ‘when that’, ‘when’, after _hardly_, _scarcely_, or some equivalent. So †_*just that*_ (quot. 1648) = just when, just as. _*now that*_: see *now* 12 b."  This explains why the phrase goes together and cannot be split or analyzed separately, and it also explains why the British are more comfortable saying things like "... now I need you," without the obsolescent "that."

Edit:  cross-posted with Forero, with whom I agree entirely.  Dictionary definitions are not something you can just mindlessly plug into a sentence in place of the word.  Dictionaries give various senses of words that may be less or more appropriate in certain contexts.


----------



## Forero

Some dictionaries do a good job of defining so that most substitutions do make sense. However, some things require an explanation of usage beyond what is evident in a substitution.

And illustrative examples speak volumes.


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> _Now_ is never a conjunction. _That_ is a subordinating conjunction, but it can be omitted.





Glenfarclas said:


> The whole phrase acts as a conjunction; you cannot analyze the words separately.
> ...
> Edit:  cross-posted with Forero, with whom I agree entirely.



So both you guys agree that "now" is not a conjunction not only in the OP's example but in other examples as shown in many dictionaries showing "now (that)" as a set phrase.

Now that it's really indispensable in our discussion to determine whether "now" is indeed a conjunction or merely an adverb and that you guys are so adamantly opposed to the idea that "now" can function as a conjunction, I'd like you to take a look at what some grammars have to say about this.

[1] A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Quirk lists "now" under 14.12 "Subordinators for finite clauses" (p 998):


> Most subordinators may introduce finite clauses. Here is a list of those subordinators. They are divided into simple, complex, and correlative subordinators.
> ...
> ending with optional _that_:
> (b) others:
> except, for all, now, so + (that)



[2] Cambridge Grammar of English by Carter lists "now (that)" in page 112.


> Now is most commonly used as an adverb of time. It can also take on nominal functions such as subject in a clause and as complement of a preposition:
> [examples of now as an adverb omitted]
> ...
> _Now (that)_ can also be used as a conjunction. In spoken and informal uses _that_ is often omitted.
> [examples of now as a conjunction omitted]



[3] Practical English Usage by Swan, 3rd Edition, lists "now (that)" in 387.


> 387 now (that)
> _Now (that)_ can be used as a conjunction. In an informal style, _that _is often dropped (see 584)
> _*Now (that)* Andrew is married, he has become much more responsible.
> *Now* the exams are over I can enjoy myself._



All the grammars that I've consulted lists "now" in "now (that)" as a conjunction/subordinator but never as an adverb, which is clearly reflected in _all_ the dictionaries I've consulted. I have looked at more grammar books than the three shown above, but I have not been able to find one grammar book that says that "now" in "now that" is an adverb.

Perhaps the only exception is the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston, which classifies "now" in "now (that)" as a preposition. That's because CGEL adopts some new idea about viewing some traditional conjunctions as prepositions.

In conclusion, if you'd like to argue that "now" in "now (that)" is indeed an adverb, please provide even a single reference that supports your claim, be it a dictionary or a grammar book. Otherwise, this thread is going nowhere.


----------



## Jandersonu

Let's reverse it and see that it is very ok: Now that I need you, where are you?


----------



## Glenfarclas

1.  I didn't say that "now" _can't_ be a conjunction; it just isn't one in "now that."  None of your examples says so, either:  they say that "now" can be used as a conjunction, and that "now that" can be used as a conjunction.  Please note that they don't say that the now _in_ "now that" is a conjunction.  This is because the entire phrase functions as a conjunction, and, as I have been trying to say, the words cannot be analyzed separately beyond that point.  If you insisted on doing so, though, you would probably find that it was most natural to consider "now" as an adverb, which is, etymologically, its core function.  (Compare Latin _nunc_.)

You cannot take the sentence "It rains every time I go on vacation," realize that "every time" is acting as a conjunction, and then demand to know whether it is "every" or "time" that is actually the conjunction.  It is neither of them, but the entire phrase together.  That's the same thing that's happening here.  I understand that, for whatever reason, you don't like it or don't approve, but it remains true.

2.  Why didn't you do all of this research into your Bieber lyrics _before_ asking your questions?  Don't you think that would have been more productive?



JungKim said:


> Otherwise, this thread is going nowhere.



3.  That's been true for the last thirty posts.  I think you have the answer you wanted about Justin Bieber, yes?


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> All the grammars that I've consulted lists "now" in "now (that)" as a conjunction/subordinator but never as an adverb, which is clearly reflected in _all_ the dictionaries I've consulted. I have looked at more grammar books than the three shown above, but I have not been able to find one grammar book that says that "now" in "now that" is an adverb.


The grammars you are talking about are not claiming that _now that_ is two conjunctions, nor are they claiming that _now_ within the phrase _now that _is a conjunction. They are just saying that the whole phrase, with optional _that_, functions as a conjunction. This does not contradict my analysis of _now_ as an adverb within the phrase _now that_, though it does make _now_ a conjunction when by itself it means "now that". I neglected the latter fact when I said "never" because where I live, "now that" is unusual without the _that_.

Consider, as another example, the phrase _the way_ when it means "how". The whole phrase "the way that" or "the way in which" acts as a conjunction though _way_ in both phrases is a noun, and when either phrase is abbreviated to _the way_, because the relative pronoun (and preposition) can be omitted, _the way_ becomes a conjunction but this does not mean that "the way that" or "the way in which" contains a conjunction followed by a relative clause.

So I will not argue with a dictionary's statement that _now _(_that_) is a conjunction. My disagreement is with the phrase "as a consequence" being used to "define" _now that_. I hope you can see that "as a consequence" just does not work in your examples though they are prime examples of _now that_ as it is actually used by native speakers and expert writers.

"As a consequence" is a phrase with adverbial meaning, but the only adverbial part of _now that_ is _now_, which, within the whole phrase, means "at this time (in contradistinction to the former situation)", not anything about a consequence.

EDIT: Cross posted with Glenfarclas. (We seem to be saying the same thing for the same reasons.)


----------



## Forero

Jandersonu said:


> Let's reverse it and see that it is very ok: Now that I need you, where are you?


What doesn't work is:

_That I need you, where are you now?_

"Now where are you, that I need you?" works but sounds decidedly old fashioned and has another possible meaning with "that" = "for".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> [...]All the grammars that I've consulted lists "now" in "now (that)" as a conjunction/subordinator but never as an adverb, which is clearly reflected in _all_ the dictionaries I've consulted. I have looked at more grammar books than the three shown above, but I have not been able to find one grammar book that says that "now" in "now that" is an adverb.
> 
> Perhaps the only exception is the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston, which classifies "now" in "now (that)" as a preposition. That's because CGEL adopts some new idea about viewing some traditional conjunctions as prepositions.
> 
> In conclusion, if you'd like to argue that "now" in "now (that)" is indeed an adverb, please provide even a single reference that supports your claim, be it a dictionary or a grammar book. Otherwise, this thread is going nowhere.


Hello JK,

I'm sure you have considered these two issues:

1. _ Now _is so commonly an adverb, that the dictionaries may not consider the point worth making.
2.  We know that the_ that _is often dropped in _now that_; this doesn't turn the_ now _into a conjunction.

Take a sentence like _I'm going to see more of her now she's divorced.  _It may look as though_ now _is a conjunction here, but, for me, it's the elided _that _which is performing this function.


----------



## panjandrum

The OED:
*As a consequence of or simultaneously with the fact that; since, seeing that.*

If you look at usage of 'now that', examples where 'now that' appears at the beginning of a sentence are generally 'as a consequence of'.
But in the topic example there is no element of consequence.  It is much closer to 'Where are you, seeing that I need you.'


----------



## Forero

panjandrum said:


> The OED:
> *As a consequence of or simultaneously with the fact that; since, seeing that.*
> 
> If you look at usage of 'now that', examples where 'not that' appears at the beginning of a sentence are generally 'as a consequence of'.
> But in the topic example there is no element of consequence.  It is much closer to 'Where are you, seeing that I need you.'


It looks to me that "as a consequence of the fact that" and "seeing that" can sometimes make sense where "now that" appears in a sentence, but neither "as a consequence of the fact that" nor "seeing that" quite matches the meaning of "now that" in such a sentence. "Since" is a closer match, with all its ambiguity, but leaving the definition at that, I think, is not helpful.

The key to understanding "now that" is in #34. _That_ in _now that _does not mean "the fact that", the most common meaning of the conjunction _that_ (and it is not a relative pronoun here, the most common other function of optional _that_). Neither does it have the old fashioned but unusual meaning "so that". It means something more like "when (that)" = "(at) the time(s) (at/during which)", "(under) the circumstances or condition (that)". The 1648 meaning of "just that" is, to me, a perfect fit: "now that" = "now just that" = "now just when"/"now just as".


----------



## JungKim

Glenfarclas said:


> 1.  I didn't say that "now" _can't_ be a conjunction; it just isn't one in "now that."  None of your examples says so, either:  they say that "now" can be used as a conjunction, and that "now that" can be used as a conjunction.  Please note that they don't say that the now _in_ "now that" is a conjunction.  This is because the entire phrase functions as a conjunction, and, as I have been trying to say, the words cannot be analyzed separately beyond that point.  If you insisted on doing so, though, you would probably find that it was most natural to consider "now" as an adverb, which is, etymologically, its core function.  (Compare Latin _nunc_.)
> 
> You cannot take the sentence "It rains every time I go on vacation," realize that "every time" is acting as a conjunction, and then demand to know whether it is "every" or "time" that is actually the conjunction.  It is neither of them, but the entire phrase together.  That's the same thing that's happening here.  I understand that, for whatever reason, you don't like it or don't approve, but it remains true.


Actually, I myself am not a big fan of dissecting every little word and labeling them individually. And the more I think about it, the more sense your approach makes. Problem is, just because it makes more sense to me doesn't mean it's the way to go, especially when I'm no expert at these things but just a mere learner and when all the dictionary and all the grammars say otherwise.



Glenfarclas said:


> 2.  Why didn't you do all of this research into your Bieber lyrics _before_ asking your questions?  Don't you think that would have been more productive?



That's a good question. At the very least, that's a fair question. Come to think of it, what started me on this research was the attempt on the part of Forero and others to parse the "now that" phrase clearly differently from the dictionary definitions, an attempt to re-analyze the phrase from the ground up. Of course, that attempt was made in an effort to show me how the OP's example sentence is natural English. And in that attempt, it was argued that "now" functions as an adverb and "that" a conjunction.

I thought that such an attempt was at least successful at explaining how the OP's example worked. But I began to wonder whether you can re-analyze "now" as an adverb like that when all the dictionaries clearly classify them as a conjunction. So I raised that issue only to be confronted by claims like "_Now_ is never a conjunction."

Only then did I feel the need to look at some grammar books to see how grammarians classify things in "now that". The more I looked at the books, the more clearly I could see that all the grammars (except perhaps CGEL) view "now" as a conjunction. There's no denying it. Hence, post #36.



Glenfarclas said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, this thread is going nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  That's been true for the last thirty posts.  I think you have the answer you wanted about Justin Bieber, yes?
Click to expand...


I don't think that the last thirty posts were not worth it.

And no, I still don't have the answer. I still don't understand how no dictionary definitions simply don't work and it's still natural English. Perhaps the only possible explanation is that the OP's "now that" is something slightly different from the normal set phrase "now (that)" listed in dictionaries, which notion, however, was rejected by Forero. So, no, I still don't have the answer.


----------



## panjandrum

Most of the dictionary entries put 'now that' in a sentence where the 'now that' introduces a new context, a new situation. The rest of the sentence introduces something that occurs as a result of that new situation.  'I can see over the wall, now that I am more than 100cm tall.'

In our topic example 'now that' also introduces a new context, or rather, it introduces something that arises from some new context. Now, in this new context, 'I need you.'  But the rest of the sentence doesn't introduce something that occurs as a result of the new context, it poses a question that arises specifically in this new context.  It poses a question that is only relevant now, in the new context.  You could, perhaps, say that the question is a consequence of the new context - perhaps 
_'As a consequence of the fact that I need you now, I want to know where you are.'_

But that, alone, doesn't carry all the nuances of the original question.
To do that, I have to expand on both parts of the sentence.  
The first part needs to reflect a dawning of understanding of the need, and a sense of the immediacy and urgency of now.
The second part needs to reflect that the question is largely rhetorical and is a lot more than something that could be answered by 'I'm in Bangor.'
_'As a consequence of the fact that I realise that I need you right now, I want to know why you, who were probably here a lot when I didn't need you, or perhaps didn't think I needed you, are not here for me.'_

Taking that sense back to Justin Bieber.  
He goes on and on about how how much he has done for someone - let's call this someone Felix.
But when circumstances change and he now feels in need of something like the things he did for Felix, Felix has wandered off elsewhere.

'Now that' introduces something new.  The other part of the sentence is often a consequence of the something new, but may also be a question provoked by the something new.


----------

