[Vocabulary] about millions of people

[birdeen's call]

It's a little off-topic, that's true! But we've both made our point!!

Right Thank you for the thought exchange

 

[2006]

We use 'since + a time in the past' and 'three years ago' is a time in the past, so 'since ... ago' might seem logical. It is logical.

But that is not how 'ago' is used - it is used with the past simple to talk about past events, in answer to the question 'When?'. You might have heard 'since ... ago' used by native speakers but it's certainly not common enough What is "common enough" is rather subjective. And even if it is uncommon, that does not mean it's incorrect.

- in fact, I can't recall ever hearing it - to be considered acceptable colloquial usage.

Treat it as sub-standard English and avoid.
That's kind of harsh since you can't show anything wrong with it, except that it is "not common enough". The frequency of its use probably varies from place to place.

A. Since when has that been happening?
B. Since at least six months ago!

2006

 

[bertietheblue]

2006, I had a think about the exchange at the end of your post and it didn't seem so wrong when phrased like that, so I googled and got this from the blog of one of the most eminent experts on the English language in Britain today, David Crystal (David Crystal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

DCblog: On since/ago

A very interesting read and recommended for anyone who thinks 'since ... ago' is poor English. My only conclusion is that I am completely wrong to say that you cannot use 'since ... ago'. But it's worse: I am embarrassed to have fallen for the prescription of certain grammar books, when I regard myself as anything but an old-school prescriptivist. Worse still: I used the 'I've never heard it' argument, which is no argument at all, and also probably not true, which is indefensible.

Lazy, ill thought out and plain wrong - what can I say! You can take it that this is my most fulsome rejection of my earlier comments in any thread since I started on this forum and hopefully I won't be shamed into publicly self-flagellating again.

 

[birdeen's call]

Many thanks to both of you for clearing it up. Please excuse me 2006, but special thanks to Bertietheblue. Most people would argue on just not to lose, making the whole thing very complicated. Kudos.

 

[2006]

Don't be too hard on yourself. We all make mistakes, and we all learn things here.
And thanks for the references.

 

[bertietheblue]

I should add that although I stand corrected and 'since ... ago' is in fact not wrong, I don't like it and it is not a structure I personally would teach to non-native speakers. Clearly, I'm not the only one who has reservations about it: 4 out of the 6 people who commented on its usage on the above-referenced blog had various misgivings: 'I don't think they should be used together'; 'It does sound a little odd .... I really think I'd go out of my way to avoid it, even though your explanation is perfectly rational'; 'Grammatically it makes sense. But it wouldn't be used much by native speakers'.

That doesn't take anything away from my previous post.

 

[rx-f]

Interesting to read the David Crystal post. I hadn't had time to comment on this thread over the last few days; but I'm a native speaker who has no problem with "since... ago": to me, it's perfectly good English. I then checked it with three BE-speaking family members, who all unanimously and immediately said the following sentence was wrong: "I've known him since ten years ago."

One thing I learned on my linguistics degree was that there are often biasing contexts that will make an utterance feel very natural, even if it feels wrong in isolation. 2006 provided a good example of that for "since... ago". The same thing can actually happen with all sorts of utterances a grammar book would call incorrect.

I just want to make a couple quick points from a syntactician's perspective:

1) If you ever do any thorough study into native speaker's perceptions of the grammaticality of certain utterances, you'll find that in many areas, a group of people will be divided in their judgements. Though it doesn't become clear very often, most native speakers actually have slightly different grammars in their heads - and none of them is wrong.

2) Someone wrote that they'd be surprised to see an educated native speaker write "since... ago". Comparing writing and speaking, style is different; grammar is not. Moreover, the English produced by even the most educated native speaker is no more grammatical than that of a completely uneducated individual: both naturally produce completely grammatical utterances, and both sometimes slip up and produce ungrammatical ones.

The grammar native speakers learn in school is not real grammar, though a better education may help you to communicate more effectively and in the appropriate style when writing. Even the grammar we EFL teachers instruct our students to use is only our best imperfect attempt to describe the grammar that exists naturally in our heads.

 

[emsr2d2]

The grammar native speakers learn in school is not real grammar, though a better education may help you to communicate more effectively and in the appropriate style when writing. Even the grammar we EFL teachers instruct our students to use is only our best imperfect attempt to describe the grammar that exists naturally in our heads.

I have taken just one paragraph of your post to comment on. "The grammar native speakers learn in school is not real grammar..."

What grammar would that be? I am aware that people of a certain generation were taught grammar at school (my father, for instance, born in 1936 had grammar lessons). However, once I started school, grammar was not taught in state schools. I learnt all my grammar at home from my father and grandfather who are keen linguists. The first time I was able to take grammar lessons at school was at the age of 12 when I started secondary school. In my first year, we had the option of one extra class - either grammar or Latin. About 90% of the students in my year chose to take Latin - I chose English grammar. We got a year's classes and then it was over. The only way most people in my school learnt any grammar was by learning a foreign language, but since that was optional, it certainly does not apply to the vast majority.

Of my close circle of around 20 friends, all of whom are approximately the same age (40s), I am the only one who had any grammar education at all at school.

I only make this point in order to help learners understand that a lot of native English speakers only learn their native tongue by listening, speaking, reading and writing, but NOT by studying. That may well explain why we get such a difference of opinion as to whether something is right or wrong. Depending on where you were brought up, in what generation and whether you actually studied grammar, the only thing you may have to go on is what you are used to hearing.

 

[Raymott]

I then checked it with three BE-speaking family members, who all unanimously and immediately said the following sentence was wrong: "I've known him since ten years ago."
As they say, you can't choose your family.

Moreover, the English produced by even the most educated native speaker is no more grammatical than that of a completely uneducated individual:
I think that would be difficult to defend. Let's know when you've completed your research paper! ;-) (Unless you're being scandalously descriptive and PC, and assigning any speech production by the most illiterate moron to be grammatical for him).

The grammar native speakers learn in school is not real grammar
There's some truth in that. After all, grammar is only made up after the fact (of how we speak). We can deduce some rules, but compared to say, an artifical computer grammar which is regular and invariable, a "real grammar" of a real language is always going to be a compromise.

R.

 

[Tdol]

The grammar native speakers learn in school is not real grammar, though a better education may help you to communicate more effectively and in the appropriate style when writing. Even the grammar we EFL teachers instruct our students to use is only our best imperfect attempt to describe the grammar that exists naturally in our heads.

I understand what you mean and know the arguments behind 'real' grammar, but I feel that to say that what we teach/are taught is not 'real' grammar is overstating the case a bit. ;-)

 

[philadelphia]

The only way most people in my school learnt any grammar was by learning a foreign language, but since that was optional, it certainly does not apply to the vast majority.


I only make this point in order to help learners understand that a lot of native English speakers only learn their native tongue by listening, speaking, reading and writing, but NOT by studying.

I started mastering the grammar of my native language's when I was learning English at an intermediate level. It's frankly worth comparing both with each other.


I started learning English by the grammar and then have been keeping improving my English by reading, writing, listening and speaking. I hear the sound of a sentence to know whether it is correct.

I agree with you.