[Grammar] I haven't been stressed out since...

[zuotengdazuo]

Let's start with such a sentence.
It's been feeling fresher since it rained.
This above sentence is natural. But it's ambiguous.
It can mean it started feeling fresher the instant the rain began. Or it can mean it started feeling fresher 10 minutes after the rain started. Or it can mean it started feeling fresher as soon as it stopped raining.
Do you agree? If you do, then we can move on.


The sentence 'I haven't been stressed out since I worked in that factory' is natural. A native speaker told me so.
To me this sentence is almost the same as 'She hasn't had a day of sickness since she worked at that company'. But this one is unnatural.
To me, both these two sentences are as ambiguous as 'It's been feeling fresher since it rained.' But the former one works well while the latter doesn't.
Would you please tell me why?


Here I provide a diagram showing the time frame of since-clause.
This is the timeframe of 'since + simple past(durative verbs)':
Something(A) started at time X in the past. Then it stopped at time Y. Some condition(B) has prevailed between X or Y and now. (B) may have prevailed between X and now, or between Y and now, or something in between.

PS: I already knew B4 is not possible.

Please tell me the nuances.


Thank you dear teachers.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Dear, Mr Piscean.
I am really sorry for posting so many threads on this topic there. I don't intend to do it again here. I just have some remaining questions unsolved. I believe native speakers can use this structure well to convey their intended meaning, although the structure itself is ambiguous. I just want to use it as well as native speakers.

Zordon

 

[Rover_KE]

Please give us a link to the replies you received from EF so that our members don't need to repeat what you have already been told.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

This is the link:
https://www.englishforums.com/English/SincePresentPerfect/3/blcbgg/post.htm

 

[Tdol]

It can mean it started feeling fresher the instant the rain began. Or it can mean it started feeling fresher 10 minutes after the rain started. Or it can mean it started feeling fresher as soon as it stopped raining.
Do you agree?

I don't. What do you think since means? The first would be better expressed by since it started raining. Your interpretations are wide of the mark.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you very much, Mr. Piscean.

You'll get more enthusiastic responses if you ask about one sentence at a time.It isn't particularly natural. I'd be more likely to say It's been fresher since it rained.

I'd like to restrict the number to only one sentence in the OP. But I just have so many sentences to ask about unless I can figure out a rule for this...

No. The natural interpretation is that the rainfall, now over, made the air fresher. The past simple of a verb normally suggests a completed situation. It rained this morning tells us that it began to rain at some time this morning, and the rain stopped at a later time. It's been fresher since it rained therefore suggests that the freshness began after the rainfall.

Ok. I get you. Please look at my diagram. I drew this according to what Mr. GPY(one member at EF) told me. So for the structure 'since + durative verbs(in simple past)', do you think B1 is not possible while only B2 and B3 are possible?

 

[zuotengdazuo]

I don't. What do you think since means? The first would be better expressed by since it started raining. Your interpretations are wide of the mark.

Thank you, Mr. Tdol. I get you. So if a sentence using the structure 'since + simple past(durative verb)' is natural, it can't be ambiguous, right?

 

[zuotengdazuo]

It seems to me that It's been fresher since it rained fits your A and B4 patterns:

X(Rain starts)..........Y(Rain stops; freshness starts)........(freshness continues)...........Now​ (freshness continues)

Thank you. But do you misunderstand my diagram? I thought the sentence in question fits B2... A refers to rain while B refers to freshness.
X(Rain starts)....................Y(Rain stops)............................Now
|...............rain..................|
_______________________|.................freshness..................

Beside, could you please analyze the other two sentences in the OP? And what time period applies to them each? And I really hope to know why one is natural and the other is not?

 

[Tdol]

Thank you, Mr. Tdol. I get you. So if a sentence using the structure 'since + simple past(durative verb)' is natural, it can't be ambiguous, right?

We don't search for ambiguity in language- we search for meaning. Head for the most obvious meaning. Searching for theoretical ambiguities is largely a waste of time. If something is 99% likely, then it is almost certainly what the person intended. We do make mistakes and say ambiguous things, but when these are interpreted as such, the listener can always ask for clarification. What do you honestly think a speaker means by since it rained? I don't see any natural interpretation that implies this refers to the beginning of the rain, but I am not willing to synthesise a rule from a single sentence that suggests this is true for 100% of sentences that have since +simple past. Look into meaning before grammar- that's what native speakers do. We try to understand people well before we try to formulate rules. Before you ask a question about grammar, ask a question about meaning, and avoid using a single sentence to extrapolate a rule for all usage.

 

[GoesStation]

Look into meaning before grammar- that's what native speakers do.

We try to understand people well before we try to formulate rules.

Before you ask a question about grammar, ask a question about meaning, and avoid using a single sentence to extrapolate a rule for all usage.

UE doesn't provide a "double-like" button so I'm quoting and highlighting Tdol's Laws of Language above.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

We don't search for ambiguity in language- we search for meaning. Head for the most obvious meaning. Searching for theoretical ambiguities is largely a waste of time.

Thank you for your teaching. You taught me the right attitude towards how to understand a sentence if it's ambiguous. I am not looking for theoretical ambiguities. I am looking for naturalness as well as meaning. I want to produce natural sentence using durative verbs in simple past after "since". But I don't understand why sometimes they are natural, sometimes they are not, as are shown in the OP. I think they convey my intended meaning when they don't.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

That last sentence, for example, I haven't been stressed out since I worked in that factory, would probably be produced by a native speaker as either I haven't been stressed out since I started working in that factory or I haven't been stressed out since I stopped working in that factory. ​There is no ambiguity in those two versions, because the speaker has put into words the message they wish to convey.

Thank you for your guidance. So you mean to try to convey the message I want to convey with the sentences in the OP, native speakers wouldn't say, for example, 'I haven't been stressed out since I worked in that factory'. It's more likely they say the two alternatives you suggest. Right?
Originally, I asked these questions because I read a grammar book by a Chinese professor, in which he says it's natural to use the structure in question. He argues that the structure 'since sb did(durative verbs)' can mean nothing but 'since sb stopped doing sth', while 'since sb has/have done' can mean nothing but 'Some situation described in main clause and that in since-clause are concurrent, and sb is still doing that thing now'. From the very beginning, I thought he might have been wrong. So I asked some native speakers about his sentences using these structures in book. And they said my professor is right and I should believe him and move on.
Thus I followed my professor's teaching and wrote some sentences using these structures. But it turned out that my sentences are all unnatural. Then I tried to use more words to come up with a context, in the hope that my sentences may fit in the context. But I was still told they are not natural. That's when I began delving into details to explore why my sentences are unnatural. I discussed this with many teachers at EF, but it didn't work out.
Do you think my professor is wrong?
Do you seldom hear native speakers use this structure in question?
Is there almost no context where they might use the structure?

Yours,
Zordon

 

[zuotengdazuo]

I'm afraid I'm no longer sure which structure you are talking about. If you mean the one in I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China, then I might well use it.

I still think you would do better to put into words a message you wish to convey rather than try to make up sentences using a particular structure.

Mr. Piscean,
Thank you for your teachings.
1. I check that grammar book again and find it says 'usually' not 'nothing but'. My mistake.
2. I am very surprised to hear you say 'since sb has/have done' is ok. Many native speakers told me there is some wrong with this structure and they would avoid using it because it is even more ambiguous than 'since sb did(durative verbs)'.
But this structure is not a topic we are supposed to talk about in this thread.
3. So native speakers do use this structure 'since sb did(durative verbs)' occasionally. But I'd like to know when native speakers might use this structure to put into a message they wish to convey?
4. I was told when using the structure 'since sb did(durative verbs)', you'd better use a follow-up phrase to clarify it a little. So I am not sure what you mean by 'I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China'. Maybe you want to say 'I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I left China?
5. I am wondering if I don't make up sentences using a particular structure first, how can I put into words a message I wish to convey in English? I am no native speaker so I can't naturally express whatever I wish to convey.

Zordon

 

[GoesStation]

I am not sure what you mean by 'I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China'. Maybe you want to say 'I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I left China?

Piscean could have written that but chose to write another natural phrase, since I lived in China. "Since I left China" suggests smoked chicken claws may have been on the menu for Piscean's last meal there. "Since I lived in China" leaves the timing of the repast completely uncertain -- it could have been at any time during Piscean's residence there.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you again.

Are you sure that many native speakers have told you that there is something wrong with this structure?

Yes. At least three native speakers told me so.

I might say any of the following to talk about this situation:

I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China.
The last time I ate smoked chicken claws was when I lived in China.
I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I left China.
I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since my girlfriend gave me some for my birthday when we worked in China.
I was living in China the last time I ate smoked chicken claws.

There is no obvious reason for choosing one of these ways of expressing the thought rather than any of the others.

By this you seem to say these similar versions are interchangeable. But you don't suggest so. Because you said "No. If I had wanted to say that, I would have said it." So let me guess what your thought is by "I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China."
Please look at the following dialogue:
A: Let's go to eat smoked chicken claws in that Chinese restaurant! You haven't eaten them for a while, have you?
You: No, I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China. Let's go for some!
I think by this sentence, you are not establishing a start point of "haven't eaten...". You have just conveyed the only message that you haven't eat them for a period of time. It's because as is shown in this dialogue, no one cares about the concrete time span of your not eating smoked chicken claws. Just as GoesStation said, "Since I lived in China" leaves the timing of the repast completely uncertain -- it could have been at any time during your residence there. You might mean "I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws during my residence in China". Or it can mean "I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I left China". But, who cares? I think this is the situation you are referring to.

Another possible context is like this, although it seems unlikely:
Enquirer: For how long haven't you eaten smoked chicken claws?
You: I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China.

In this dialogue, you don't give the enquirer a clear time span of how long you haven't eaten them for. Perhaps you try to be evasive because you don't want him to know how long you haven't eaten the claws for. But why do you do so? Maybe you are in no mood or you find him annoying. Or it maybe the government passed a law that orders every citizen to eat some smoked chicken claws on regular basis. And if you don't follow the law, you will be fined or put into jail. You don't want to take the risk so you are evasive. Because the enquirer might be an informant working for the government...

Is this what you are trying to tell me? Please tell me know.

Put into words the message that you wish to convey, and post your attempt here for our comments.

I will if needs be. I'd be much appreciated for your comments.

Zordon

 

[zuotengdazuo]

I think that I have said all that I have to say on this. There is a limit to the number of ways I can say similar things in different ways.

Thank you. I know you have said enough versions to express your thought by "I haven't eaten smoked chicken claws since I lived in China". I don't wish you to say more similar versions. But please let me know if my understanding in #24 is correct? I just want to make sure I understand your thought.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

I have said all that I have to say on this.

I knew that. But since you are reluctant to yes to my understanding, I think you might disagree some part of my understanding. But I have no way to know which part is wrong. So I can only assume I get your idea and all my understanding in #24 is correct. Thank you again.