How long has it been since you've had sex?

[it-is-niaz]

Daughter: Hey, I saw you both flirting at the wake. You're obviously into each other. Now that you know he's single, you can ask him out.
Mother: Julie, I like Mr. Delfino, I do. I just, uh, I don't even know if I'm ready to start dating yet.
Daughter: Oh, you need to get back out there. Come on. How long has it been since you've had sex? Are you mad that I asked you that?
Mother: No, I'm just trying to remember.


Movie: Desperate Housewives

Shouldn't it be "How long has it been since you had sex?"

 

[GoesStation]

The present perfect is more natural to me.

 

[it-is-niaz]

I used to think that since should be follow by a certain point of time in the past, as in "I have been a teacher since 1990" or "He has been single since his wife left him."
This was the first time I saw "since" was used with "present perfect".

 

[jutfrank]

For me what she said was incorrect, though it's a common enough mistake. There's no reason to use the present perfect in the since clause. You shouldn't do it.

It should be, as you said, ... since you (last) had sex.

 

[yi-ing]

How about?
Since I've known her, she's always worn the same dress
It has been years since I’ve ridden a bike.
They haven’t received any junk mail since they’ve moved house.

 

[jutfrank]

They haven’t received any junk mail since they’ve moved house.

I say this is incorrect in the same way as the sentence in the OP. There's no need for a perfect aspect so why use one? Past simple moved is correct and is ideal for the job. The idea is that there was a point in time since which they haven't received any junk mail. However natural it may sound, it doesn't actually make sense analytically to use a perfect aspect.

It has been years since I’ve ridden a bike.

This is also incorrect for similar reasons as above. Again, the speaker means to locate a point in past time. The thought is perfectly expressed with the sentence It's been years since I last rode a bike. The word last is quite important for what the speaker really means. There is a length of time between two points—the last time and now. Furthermore, without last we could think that the speaker has only ridden a bike once, which is highly unlikely.

Since I've known her, she's always worn the same dress.

The past point in time here is the point when I first became acquainted with her. It's tricky because you can't use past simple knew here, which would suggest you no longer know her. It is very natural and very common to use present perfect in 'since' clauses with stative verbs like this. I think it's okay.

I anticipate that some members here are going to disagree with me when I say the first two are incorrect, just because they exemplify a very common kind of mistake. Personally, I don't generally think that just because something is common, that makes it okay.

 

[emsr2d2]

How about the following?
Since I've known her, she's always worn the same dress. Grammatically correct but unlikely. No one wears the same dress all the time!
It has been years since I’ve ridden a bike. :tick: but I would use "since I rode a bike" at the end.
They haven’t received any junk mail since [STRIKE]they’ve[/STRIKE] they moved house.

See above.

 

[Phaedrus]

For me what she said was incorrect, though it's a common enough mistake. There's no reason to use the present perfect in the since clause. You shouldn't do it.

It should be, as you said, ... since you (last) had sex.

The addition of last is telling, I think, because it can't be done in the present-perfect version: *[strike]How long has it been since you've last had sex?[/strike] Arguably, however, that is because the present perfect has the same semantic effect as last has in the since-clause with the simple past. Like GoesStation, I find the present perfect since-clause here to be more natural (How long has it been since you've had sex?), and I believe that it has to do with the potential repeatability of the situation. I did not come to this view on my own, though. It was Renaat Declerck who helped me to realize, a few years ago, my implicit native AmE-speaking understanding of this use of the present perfect:

"It is interesting to note that a condition for the use of the present perfect in the since-clause is that the situation referred to is potentially repeatable: the sentence implies both that the situation referred to in the since-clause actualized a certain time ago and that it could have actualized again at any time (or at various times) in the pre-present period following its actualization . . . . Compare:

It's five years since I've had an accident. (This is another way of saying I haven't had an accident for five years, which implies both that I had an accident five years ago and that I might have had one or more accidents since then but have not had any.)

It's five years since I {had / *[strike]have had[/strike]} that accident. (With the present perfect this would be another way of saying *[strike]I haven't had that (particular) accident for five years[/strike], with a similar implication of repeatability: 'I might have had that accident at any time in the period since I had it.' However, this implication is unacceptable because one specific accident cannot happen more than once.) [. . .]

Similarly: [. . .]

It's (been) five years since {I last saw him / *I've last seen him}. (Last blocks the idea of repeatability.)"

-- Declerk, Renaat. (2006). The Grammar of the English Verb Phrase (Volume 1): The Grammar of the English Tense System: A Comprehensive Analysis, pp. 263-264). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

I find this issue interesting. That is why I have taken the trouble to quote that passage. I'm curious to see what other members' responses will be here. I think Declerck hits the nail on the head, though I have encountered the view that the present perfect just shouldn't be used in such since-clauses. Do you still feel that way, Jutfrank, after having read this other perspective on it? If you do, then you surely won't go along with a grammatical joke I posted on an unmoderated language site on Christmas day. It occurred to me while I was out for a morning run and reflecting on my health:

(1a) It's been four years since I quit smoking.
(1b) It's been four years since I've quit smoking.

Anyone who has smoked knows that quitting smoking isn't easy. Often one and the same smoker makes more than one effort to quit. I think I had made at least ten attempts, over the years, before enjoying long-term success. The joke, then, is that in (1b) "quit smoking" is really short for "attempted to quit smoking." If Declerck is right, as I believe he is, that the present perfect in such since-clauses evokes the idea of repeatability, then (1b) conveys that the speaker could have quit smoking at other times during that four-year period but didn't -- from which it obviously follows that he didn't quit permanently.

 

[probus]

Further to jutfrank's thorough analysis, I would say "It's been years since I've ridden a bike" but only while I was in the act of resuming my riding, actually mounting the bike or sitting on the saddle.

 

[jutfrank]

The addition of last is telling, I think, because it can't be done in the present-perfect version: *[strike]How long has it been since you've last had sex?[/strike]Arguably, however, that is because the present perfect has the same semantic effect as last has in the since-clause with the simple past.

Yes, agreed. At least, it is meant in the same way. I.e., it is intended to express the same thought.

It is interesting to note that a condition for the use of the present perfect in the since-clause is that the situation referred to is potentially repeatable.

It's five years since I've had an accident. (This is another way of saying I haven't had an accident for five years, which implies both that I had an accident five years ago and that I might have had one or more accidents since then but have not had any.)

Okay. Well, I have no doubt that I haven't had an accident for five years contains a notion of potential repeatability. And there's no doubt that when a speaker utters It's been five years since I've had an accident, he has this notion of potential repeatability in mind.

I guess my objections are:

1) I don't like the use of since coupled with present perfect, because for me since must connect to a point in time. To use it with aspect in this way breaks the normal rules of use of since, losing its core meaning, for no good reason.

2) If you say I haven't had an accident for five years, you are using aspect correctly. The present perfect sets the timeframe as stretching from a past time point five years ago to the present time point. The negation n’t marks what has not happened within that timeframe. To try to express the thought of an accident not happening with the phrase I've had an accident does not make sense. (Analytically, I mean. Of course, people will understand the speaker's meaning.)

To rephrase the same thought, you could properly say It's been five years that I haven't smoked, which a) uses aspect correctly; b) does not violate the normal rule of use of since; c) does not include a positive verb phrase to say what doesn’t happen; d) includes the notion of potential repeatability.

It's (been) five years since {I last saw him / *I've last seen him}. (Last blocks the idea of repeatability.)

I disagree here. In fact, I don’t really follow why Declerck thinks last ‘blocks’ the idea of repeatability. If anything, what last blocks is the permissibility of using present perfect because last goes together only with past points in time.

Am I missing something here? If he’s saying that using last and the past simple serves to focus on the time point rather than on the span of time since, and that it’s this focus that does not work to carry the idea of repeatability, then okay I get it, but I’m not convinced.

Do you still feel that way, Jutfrank, after having read this other perspective on it?

I do, yes, although it was enlightening. It’s also interesting that this may be an AmE thing. I wonder if that's really so.

If you do, then you surely won't go along with a grammatical joke I posted on an unmoderated language site on Christmas day. It occurred to me while I was out for a morning run and reflecting on my health:

(1a) It's been four years since I quit smoking.
(1b) It's been four years since I've quit smoking.

To be honest with you, I don’t get it. But I’ll take your word for it that it’s a cracker! :lol:

 

[Phaedrus]

I guess my objections are:

1) I don't like the use of since coupled with present perfect, because for me since must connect to a point in time. To use it with aspect in this way breaks the normal rules of use of since, losing its core meaning, for no good reason.

In post #6, you made a special exception for stative verbs like know, placing your blessing on the sentence Since I've known her, she's always worn the same dress, which means that referent of she has worn the same dress throughout the period of time (not the point of time) during which the speaker has known her. Similarly, I assume that you would not think I had gone astray from the straight and narrow if I uttered this:

I have not smoked since I have lived in Sacramento.

It would actually be untrue for me to say I have not smoked since I lived in Sacramento instead, since that would falsely imply that I no longer live in Sacramento. The present perfect is thus grammatically necessary there. The since-clause refers implicitly to the point of time at which I started living in Sacramento and conveys that I still live here and have never smoked between the starting point and now.

Quirk et al. state:

"Both since-and for-adjuncts specify a span of time but since marks in addition the starting point. [. . .]

Within the adjunct too it is possible to be specifying a continuous activity through the time span, as in:

[1] Since they have lived in London, they have been increasingly happy. [= 'during that time'] [. . .]

It is ages since she was (last) here. [NB '. . . since she's been here', '. . . *[strike]since she's been last here'[/strike]]."

-- Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), pp. 537-539.

Note that the authorized variation they give, It is ages since she's been here, is not exactly a stative verb phrase, insofar as been here refers to her visiting the place referred to by here, something which she could have done more than once (repetitively) in the period of time between when she was last here and now. But if the verb phrase is not stative, your rule forbids that authorized variation. You must also think Quirk et al. are wrong here:

"The present perfective may also be used in the pattern It + BE + time expression when there is no explicit indication of point of time, such as last: It's been a long time since I've seen Gerald (cf: I haven't seen Gerald for a long time). The present perfective is similarly used occasionally for other since-clauses that refer to a point of time, eg: I've been lonely since you've left."

-- ibid., p. 1018

However, if the renowned grammarians Renaat Declerck, Randolf Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik are one and all wrong about the correctness of using the present perfect in since-clauses in certain contexts, including ones in which the since-clause has a non-stative VP, the question arises how you could be convinced. Shall I also take the time to check Huddleston and Pullum, Jespersen, Poutsma, etc.? It's very time-consuming.

Personally, I don't generally think that just because something is common, that makes it okay.

Suppose all revered grammars and all the greatest English authors used and accepted it. Would you think they were all wrong?

To try to express the thought of an accident not happening with the phrase I've had an accident does not make sense.

That's one of the reasons why since makes a big semantic contribution to the clause it heads! The sentence It's been five years since I've had an accident is very different from the sentence I've had an accident.

It’s also interesting that this may be an AmE thing.

There is no indication in Declerck or in Quirk et al. that it is a regional thing, let alone an American thing. The only reason I mentioned American English is that, when I disagree with positions taken at this site, I like to be up front about the fact that I am a native speaker of American English.

To be honest with you, I don’t get it.

It's been four years since I've quit smoking means that the last time the speaker attempted to quit smoking was 4 years ago.

 

[jutfrank]

In post #6, you made a special exception for stative verbs like know, placing your blessing on the sentence Since I've known her, she's always worn the same dress, which means that referent of she has worn the same dress throughout the period of time (not the point of time) during which the speaker has known her.

I reluctantly said it was okay but I didn't mean to place my 'blessing' on it. Analytically speaking, it doesn't make any more sense than the other example, partly because, as we're both saying, since is used here to mean in the period of time, not from the point in time. A better way to phrase the idea could be In the time that I've known her, she's always worn the same dress. Do you think that this is in any way or to the slightest degree more or less preferable than Since I've known her?

I don't want to make this discussion about what is acceptable and what is not, or about how descriptive/prescriptive teachers should be (although I'm very happy to do that another time). I really just wanted to explain the reasons why I don't like it analytically. The fact is that if you think the sentence above is valid, then you have to admit that this is a very different use of the word since.

[Similarly, I assume that you would not think I had gone astray from the straight and narrow if I uttered this:

I have not smoked since I have lived in Sacramento.

It would actually be untrue for me to say I have not smoked since I lived in Sacramento instead, since that would falsely imply that I no longer live in Sacramento.

Yes, so you could use a different verb to reflect what you really mean, which could be I have not smoked since I moved to Sacramento or maybe I have not smoked in the time that I've lived in Sacramento.

The present perfect is thus grammatically necessary there. The since-clause refers implicitly to the point of time at which I started living in Sacramento and conveys that I still live here and have never smoked between the starting point and now.

Again, of course I don't doubt that that is what the speaker means.

The present perfect is not (I think you mean semantically?) necessary. It is the core sense of since to mean from a point of time in the past until now which conveys that you moved to Sacramento and still live there now, it's nothing to do with the present perfect.

Quirk et al. state:

Note that the authorized variation they give, It is ages since she's been here, is not exactly a stative verb phrase, insofar as been here refers to her visiting the place referred to by here, something which she could have done more than once (repetitively) in the period of time between when she was last here and now. But if the verb phrase is not stative, your rule forbids that authorized variation. You must also think Quirk et al. are wrong here:

However, if the renowned grammarians Renaat Declerck, Randolf Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik are one and all wrong about the correctness of using the present perfect in since-clauses in certain contexts, including ones in which the since-clause has a non-stative VP, the question arises how you could be convinced.

Look, in no way do I think that they are 'wrong' but all of these people are grammarians and their job pretty much requires that they take a fully descriptive approach. They analyse what people say. The way that these people generally think is that if there is significant evidence of use of a particular form, then it can be considered acceptable, and as such open to analysis. Even if secretly they held exactly the same thoughts as I do, they still wouldn't say that using present perfect in since-clauses is 'wrong' because that is not what they do. Similarly, if I was doing their job, I would adopt the same descriptivism as they have.

There is no indication in Declerck or in Quirk et al. that it is a regional thing, let alone an American thing. The only reason I mentioned American English is that, when I disagree with positions taken at this site, I like to be up front about the fact that I am a native speaker of American English.

Oh, right. Okay. No, I don't think it's anything particularly to do with variant, either.

 

[Phaedrus]

Analytically speaking, it doesn't make any more sense than the other example, partly because, as we're both saying, since is used here to mean in the period of time, not from the point in time. [. . .]

I really just wanted to explain the reasons why I don't like it analytically. The fact is that if you think the sentence above is valid, then you have to admit that this is a very different use of the word since. [. . .]

It is the core sense of since to mean from a point of time in the past until now which conveys that you moved to Sacramento and still live there now, it's nothing to do with the present perfect.

I have found some very interesting and pertinent information in Poutsma's grammar:

"Since may have two different values, viz.: a) from the moment that; thus before the preterite of a momentaneous predicate; b) during (or all) the time that; thus before the perfect or present of a durative or iterative predicate. In its second value since differs but slightly from while, from which it is distinguished only in insisting on the presence of a distinct starting-point." (Part II, Section II, Chapter L, § 131)

[. . .]

"The tense is usually the present in the introductory phrase It is + word-(group) stating a length of time. In the following clauses with since the tense is mostly the preterite, sometimes the perfect." (Part II, Section II, Chapter L, § 132)

[. . .]

"The twofold notion which attaches to these combinations, viz. the initiation of a state and its subsequent continuation may be responsible for the variability of the tense in adverbial clauses of time introduced by the conjunction since. Sometimes (mostly) we find the preterite, sometimes the perfect, occasionally varying with the present. When the perfect is used, since is often convertible into all the time that." (Part II, Section II, Chapter LI, § 9)

-- Poutsma, Hendrik. (1926). A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.

Here are some noteworthy (BIG name) examples he cites containing the perfect in the since-clause:

"There have not been any (sc. rooks) since we have lived here." -- Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, Chapter I

"The disagreement subsisting between yourself and my late honoured father always gave me much uneasiness and since I have had the misfortune to lose him, I have frequently wished to heal the breach." -- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Chapter XIII

"It's a long while since I have been at home." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility, 142

"Are you afraid of walking by yourself since you have been frightened by the conjuror?" -- George Eliot, Romola, I, Chapter X

"Considerable time has elapsed since we have seen our respectable friend." -- Thackeray, Vanity Fair, II, Chapter VII

"My brain has been at fault, Tressilian, almost ever since thou hast been away." -- Sir Walter Scott, Kenilworth, Chapter XII

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, Phaedrus, I understand your point. Thanks as always for the discussion. :up:

 

[lagoo]

"It's a long while since I have been at home." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility, 142

We don't know whether "I" am still at home from that sentence. Right?
A previous post is attached here for your reference https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/264846-It-s-been-ten-years-since-she-has-been-home.

 

[lagoo]

A. It's 15 years since he lived here.
Suppose he lived here from January 1st, 2001 to March 1st, 2002, so from which date shall we cover/calculate to be the "15 years"?

B. I have known him since I was a child.
Suppose the time of a childhood is from 8-14 years old, if example A means that "It's 15 years since he moved out of here, i.e, from March 1st, 2002", why can we not think of example B as "I have known him since I was older than 14"?

 

[emsr2d2]

A. It's 15 years since he lived here.
Suppose he lived here from January 1st, 2001 to March 1st, 2002, so from which date shall we cover/calculate to be the "15 years"?

B. I have known him since I was a child.
Suppose the time of a childhood is from 8-14 years old, if example A means that "It's 15 years since he moved out of here, i.e, from March 1st, 2002", why can we not think of example B as "I have known him since I was older than 14"?

The 15 years would start, for me, on March 2nd 2002, the first day that he didn't live there.
"I have known him since I was a child" is so unspecific that it's impossible to say how old the speaker was. They would need to be more specific - "I've known him since I was 5".

 

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus
"It's a long while since I have been at home." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility, 142

We don't know whether "I" am still at home from that sentence. Right?

Right you are, Lagoo. Nice observation. In a contextual vacuum, we would not be able to tell whether the speaker was at home at the time the sentence was uttered. Fortunately, however, the sentence appears in a novel with plenty of context. Indeed, as it appears in the novel, the sentence is a great deal longer and clearly indicates that the speaker is at home at the time of utterance:

"'Oh! Colonel!' said she, with her usual noisy cheerfulness, 'I am monstrous glad to see you—sorry I could not come before—beg your pardon, but I have been forced to look about me a little, and settle my matters; for it is a long while since I have been at home, and you know one has always a world of little odd things to do after one has been away for any time; and then I have had Cartwright to settle with—Lord, I have been as busy as a bee ever since dinner!'"

— Jane Austen

Sometime I'm going to have to tell someone that I am "monstrous glad" to see them. ("them" = "him or her")