since two months ago

[Steven D]

It is correct. Mind you, it's a transformation.

He started living in this flat two months ago.
Question: Since when did you start living in this flat?
Answer: Since two months ago.

=> 'two months ago' functions as an adverbial phrase. 'since' tells us it's connected in time to 'started living'.

We are looking at the architecture of the langauge, its mathematical code. Without the connection, though, the "context" 'started living', the sentence 'He started living in this flat *since two months ago', on it's own like that, is indeed semantically awkward. "for" is required in that enviornment, unless, that is, there is additional context to work from, which there was in this case, but was omitted.

Context is important. ;-)

I understand the logic of "since two months ago". "Two months ago" means the specific time. Whether this exam says it's right or wrong, it still sounds rather odd and unusual to me. I don't suspect I would hear it. It would not occur to me to say it. Maybe if I ask someone here, he/she will say "sure, why not", but I would have my doubts about it still. I don't think it's really the best way of expressing "since when".

If anyone really thinks it's "okay", then I have to ask: Why didn't anyone rewrite the sentence with "since...ago" as an answer to the original question? mm.... ?

I feel that the writers at this site would have included a "since...ago" example if it were really a possibility to them. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html

Here is an example at a site. I still don't feel comfortable with it. Maybe it's just me? Who knows?

I've been sick since three days ago

• specific past time: three days ago = Sunday (if this is Wednesday)
  period of time: since three days ago = three days ago (Sunday) -> now http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html

• I agree with Paco and Pieanne: http://www.englishforums.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=99693

I agree with Paco's dictionary as well.

 

[Steven D]

I have answered your question.

It is correct. You can argue that it sounds funny all day long but like I have said and Marylin has said since a few hours ago it is technically correct. Again you can argue that this is just a technicality but we will turn around and say, "So...." To the question "Is it correct? Can I say this?" the answer is YES.

To the question "Should I say this?" the answer is NO

We have all agreed that it isn't natural or it isn't something we would say or should teach, but it is technically correct.

In response to that, I can only say this:

Would you then advise against using it? In other words: If I were you, I wouldn't say it.

We have all agreed that it isn't natural or it isn't something we would say or should teach, but it is technically correct.

What would you say to those learning how to speak English?

1. Use it if the context permits it - no problem. It's correct.
2. No, don't use it. It's not good.
3. No, don't use it. It's not good. However, it's technically correct.

Here it is, but why doesn't it sound good to me?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22have+*+since+a+year+ago%22

I like this better: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22have+*+since+last+year%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22have+*+since+2004%22

 

[Tdol]

I would expand Indian English to include British English too. I don't think I've ever taught it as a form, but it doesn't strike me as in any way odd. :-D

 

[Steven D]

I would expand Indian English to include British English too. I don't think I've ever taught it as a form, but it doesn't strike me as in any way odd. :-D

mm..... You've got me wondering then. If it doesn't sound odd in any way, then why not teach it as a form? Here it is:

"They've been thinking about getting a new copy machine since 4 months ago."

I wouldn't teach it as a form.

 

[Tdol]

If it came up, I wouldn't class it as an error, though. :-D

 

[Steven D]

If it came up, I wouldn't class it as an error, though. :-D

While I can understand why, I would find it difficult to reckon "it's not advisable to use it" with "it's not an error", which seems to be the consensus.

We have all agreed that it isn't natural or it isn't something we would say or should teach, but it is technically correct.

I would also find it of interest that no one seems to go out of their way to present it. Let's wait for it to happen. I couldn't find it in a grammar book.

Here it is at the bottom of this page: http://www.english-zone.com/teach/sincefora.html

NOTE: Therefore, it's possible to have both in the same phrase (Although this may seem strange to some native speakers).

http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/time.html#sa

It seems strange to me. :-D

By the way, I misread the Wikipedia article. It's not really Indian English. I missed "instead of". :-|

 

[Casiopea]

We're dealing with a "transformation". It's a linguistic process known as replacement strategy:

Max: He lived here two months ago.
Pat: Since when?
Max: Since two months ago. (grammatical given the context)

"when" is replaced by the phrase "two months ago". The reason being, they both fit into the slot as adverbs. That's what the 'transformation' is about. As for traditional grammar, it doesn't fit the pattern, you're right, but why argue that when that is neither here nor there? The PET question is about the function and distribution of "since". It takes an adverb as its object, and more importantly, according to usage, if an adverb has already been stated in context, it's adopted, no matter if it goes against the traditional rule.

"transformation": to change a form

 

[Mister Micawber]

.
I hate to weigh in late, especially since I am so lightweight here, but I find the expression reasonably common and unexceptional (aside from the lack of efficiency compared to the terse 'for'), so that I can't quite understand the length of discussion. Perhaps you live in totally different milieux, but to me expressions such as

'I haven't seen her since three days ago, at the fraternity party'

Seem common enough not to raise an eyebrow. 'X time ago' is clearly a point in time, no more nor less than 'last Tuesday' or 'Christmas', and I can see no reason why it would not naturally fall into place as the object of the same preposition of duration.

You seem to admit the grammar; the concordancer brings up a number of examples of its written use-- albeit in a variety of structures which you have not yet discussed here:

/ ed much about interstellar drives since a hundred years ago; that is all I /
/ ked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, O /
/ the safe where they had been ever since our return so long ago. We were s /
/ Why? Ah, if I only knew. When? Since I was here an hour ago. As to the /
/ "But as it's only two hours ago since he was here, it might look prematu /
/ following him out. | Ever since he'd lost his job two weeks ago, th /
/ {0D.Sc.}> IT is some years ago since I first became interested in the p /
/ ing things that has happened to me since my shop opened nine years ago." /
/ g up in Paris all over the place. Since six months ago, when I calculated t /

Perhaps the awkwardness appears only in isolation?

.

 

[Steven D]

We're dealing with a "transformation". It's a linguistic process known as replacement strategy:

Max: He lived here two months ago.
Pat: Since when?
Max: Since two months ago. (grammatical given the context)

"when" is replaced by the phrase "two months ago". The reason being, they both fit into the slot as adverbs. That's what the 'transformation' is about. As for traditional grammar, it doesn't fit the pattern, you're right, but why argue that when that is neither here nor there? The PET question is about the function and distribution of "since". It takes an adverb as its object, and more importantly, according to usage, if an adverb has already been stated in context, it's adopted, no matter if it goes against the traditional rule.

"transformation": to change a form

Yes, that's what transformation means. :-D

About "since..ago", - yes, I get the point. No problem. However, the form "since...ago" seems to be something that we can say is not commonplace at all, and one might only have to ask why that's so. :?:

 

[Steven D]

Here are some more viewpoints:

http://forum.onestopenglish.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1356&KW=since+ago

 

[Tdol]

They seem to be split on the issue too. :-D

 

[Steven D]

They seem to be split on the issue too. :-D

Yes, and a couple of the posters have explained it very well. They took the words right off my keyboard.

:-D

 

[blacknomi]

Hi, all

Sabine: Have you learned cooking before?
Fleur :Yes, I've learned it before.

Is that fine?

 

[Steven D]

Hi, all

Quote:

Sabine: Have you learned cooking before?
Fleur :Yes, I've learned it before.

Is that fine?

Yes, if "before" means "before now", it's fine.

I would say "learned how to cook" instead of "learned cooking".

Have you ever learned how to cook before?

Have you ever learned how to cook?

Have you ever done that before?

 

[Steven D]

Here are some more viewpoints:

http://forum.onestopenglish.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1356&KW=since+ago

"Since" refers to the exact date or time that the period started, so you could say "I´ve lived here since 1995, or I´ve lived here since10 years ago" without any meaning change.

Oh, come on. Just say "since 1995". Is it really necessary to ever have to say something like "since ten years ago"? Is it?

If ten years ago is 1995, then just say "since 1995". So that's 10 years. You've lived here for ten years? Yes, that's right. I've lived here since 1995.

What is the point of Cambridge's sentence transformation? Why should there be an exercise to tranform a sentence in such a manner? What is really gained from it when so many seem to agree that it's not advisable to use and that it sounds awkward? It's technically correct.


:?: :roll: :-D

 

[Steven D]

It is correct. Mind you, it's a transformation.

He started living in this flat two months ago.
Question: Since when did you start living in this flat?
Answer: Since two months ago.

=> 'two months ago' functions as an adverbial phrase. 'since' tells us it's connected in time to 'started living'.

We are looking at the architecture of the langauge, its mathematical code. Without the connection, though, the "context" 'started living', the sentence 'He started living in this flat *since two months ago', on it's own like that, is indeed semantically awkward. "for" is required in that enviornment, unless, that is, there is additional context to work from, which there was in this case, but was omitted.

Context is important. ;-)

Can we presume that in the context the speaker and the listener know what "two months ago" refers to? I would say so. In that case, I would simply recommend to anyone learning English that they use the name of a month or a specific time instead of "since + length of time + ago".

I think we can presume that in any context the speaker and the listener would know specifically what "since + length of time + ago" refers to.

Why should an exam go to the trouble to show how the architecture of the language works if the result is going to be a type of sentence that is hardly ever used and sounds very awkward?

It's technically correct, and I understand why it is. I also understand that "they" in one of my sentences above would be considered technically wrong.


:-D

 

[Steven D]

Of course, I understand. But with the exception of my post, has anyone said "It is wrong. Don't say it. Don't write."? This is "ask a teacher" at an ESL/EFL forum.

Exactly. This indeed was "Ask a teacher" question at ESL forum, X. Nothing to do with you X. I was just thinking out loud.
I agree with Mesmerk, I would stay away from using it but technically it does make some sense. :-D

Okay, it makes sense technically. :-D

 

[Casiopea]

Try something less presumptuous, like,

Have you learned to cook before?
Yes, I have. / No, I haven't

Note, -ing expresses a realized event. Using "cooking", even as a gerund, expresses a presupposition: it has been learned before, so why ask?

Do you know how to cook?
Yes, I do. / No, I don't.

 

[Steven D]

Try something less presumptuous, like,

Have you learned to cook before?
Yes, I have. / No, I haven't

Note, -ing expresses a realized event. Using "cooking", even as a gerund, expresses a presupposition: it has been learned before, so why ask?

Do you know how to cook?
Yes, I do. / No, I don't.

Hi,

I don't quite get what you mean by "ing" expresses a realized event.

Is this a realized event: Have you ever gone bowling?

Also, are you saying that "Have you learned cooking?" is something that sounds usual to you? How can we assume the listener has learned it before just because a gerund is used? Apart from that, "have you learned cooking" doesn't sound usual to me. I just know "how to cook" is usual and what people say. "have you learned cooking" ?

"Have you ever learned how to cook?" "Have you learned how to cook?"

Do you know how to cook?

or: Have you taken cooking lessons? Have you ever taken cooking lessons?

Those sound usual to me. Do you mean such questions might not sound polite?

Using "ever" sounds presumptuous to you in those sentences?

What do you think of, "Haven't you ever learned how to cook?"

 

[Casiopea]

What is the point of Cambridge's sentence transformation? Why should there be an exercise to tranform a sentence in such a manner? What is really gained from it when so many seem to agree that it's not advisable to use and that it sounds awkward? It's technically correct. :?: :roll: :-D

He has lived there since when?
=> exact date/time questioned

Since two months ago.
=> exact date/time mentioned is given and expounded on using "ago" to make it more exact.

Consider:

Pat: He's lived there for two months. (non-exact date/time)
Max:Sorry? Since when, did you say? (exact date/time questioned)
Pat: Since two months ago. (exact date/time previously mentioned)

'two months ago' isn't what we would consider an exact date/time, but given the context, the pragmatics, it's as exact as it's going to get for that particular context. ;-) It's exactly what Pat said.