[Grammar] I have graduated from college since then/2011.

[Raymott]

No, you would be correct in understanding that at least one person is asserting that it could mean that.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I am the second person to assert that.

 

[Matthew Wai]

c. is not wrong. It means that the graduation happened some time between 2011 and now.

Would you say "He has died since 2011" to mean the death happened some time between 2011 and now?

 

[jutfrank]

Would you say "He has died since 2011" to mean the death happened some time between 2011 and now?

I really want to stress that meaning comes from context. But the sentence could be used to say that, yes. The use of the time phrase since 2011 is to frame a period of time starting at 2011 and finishing at the implied point of reference, which is almost always the moment of speaking (i.e. now).

 

[Phaedrus]

Some people, including me, can come up with (not ridiculously unlikely) contexts, in which that sentence is possible. Therefore, to say simply that it is incorrect is misleading.

I can come up with at least one context which that sentence would make sense. On a questionnaire, instead of the question "If you have graduated from college since 2011, check this box," there might be the question "True or False: I have graduated from college since 2011."

I have been criticizing the sentence only from what I find to be (non-subjectively) its default, unmarked interpretation. As an olive-branch offering, I will say that I thought of one verb phrase for which I can only get what has so far been the popular interpretation in this thread: "be to [place]."

I have been to India since 2011.

I think the natural interpretation of that sentence is "at least one time." I can't get a repetitive reading of it. With "visit" however, I think it can go both ways: "I have visited India since 2011" can mean either that I've been there at least once since then or that I've been in the habit of visiting India since then.

For those who take what has so far been the popular reading of "I have graduated from college since 2011," how would you interpret it with sentential negation?

I haven't graduated from college since 2011.

Doesn't that mean "The last time I graduated from college was in 2011"? Consider the following similar sentence, spoken by a soldier or police officer:

I haven't been shot since 2011.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would find "I haven't graduated from college since 2011" completely unlikely. Like being born and dying, graduating from college is something you do once. If you said that you had graduated from college in 2011, no one would think you had done it again in the intervening period. In contrast, the chances of a police officer being shot are the same every day he/she is in the job so it is entirely possible for it to be a recurring event. The following two dialogues follow similar patterns but I'm sure you'll agree only one of them is likely.

John: I've been shot six times since 2013.
Sarah: Wow. That's unlucky! I haven't been shot since 2007.

John: I've graduated from college since 2011.
Sarah: What? Just once? Wow. I've graduated from college twelve times since 2002.

 

[jutfrank]

For those who take what has so far been the popular reading of "I have graduated from college since 2011," how would you interpret it with sentential negation?

I haven't graduated from college since 2011.

I would only interpret it within the context of its use. I believe it is senseless to do otherwise.

Doesn't that mean "The last time I graduated from college was in 2011"?

There is no definitive answer to this last question. The best we can do is just try to imagine possible situations of use, so it could mean that I last graduated from college in 2011, or before 2011, or it could mean that I've never graduated from college at all.

I understand your focus is on word meaning, not speaker meaning but I don't see what the point of that is, especially on a forum about the practical use of English.

 

[Phaedrus]

I would find "I haven't graduated from college since 2011" completely unlikely. Like being born and dying, graduating from college is something you do once. If you said that you had graduated from college in 2011, no one would think you had done it again in the intervening period. . . .

JohUn: I've graduated from college since 2011.
Sarah: What? Just once? Wow. I've graduated from college twelve times since 2002.

I totally agree with you that the sentence "I haven't graduated from college since 2011" is unlikely to occur. Indeed, I should think that it would be even less likely to occur than "I have graduated from college since 2011."

But can't someone be said to graduate from college more than once if he or she is graduated by different colleges at different times and receives a different degree each time? If not, I shall have to forfeit my position on the sentence in question.

Is it really impossible (i.e., grammatically illegitimate) for John to answer, "No, when I said 'I have graduated from college since 2011,' I meant that I have graduated from college PERIODICALLY, starting in 2011; come over sometime and I'll show you my many diplomas"?

 

[Phaedrus]

I believe I just played by your rules, Piscean, even though I think they're unreasonable. (To study grammar is to study patterns.) My last post addresses itself in the main to the interpretation of the exact sentence Kadioguy asked about, without changing, deleting, or adding so much as a single word.

The clarity of the sentence is at issue. The fact that native speakers can come up with unusual contexts in which a certain sentence would make sense on a very particular interpretation of it does not mean that textbooks should tell learners that such a sentence is correct and thereby encourage learners to use such sentences.

But can't someone be said to graduate from college more than once if he or she is graduated by different colleges at different times and receives a different degree each time? If not, I shall have to forfeit my position on the sentence in question.

Is it really impossible (i.e., grammatically illegitimate) for John to answer, "No, when I said 'I have graduated from college since 2011,' I meant that I have graduated from college PERIODICALLY, starting in 2011; come over sometime and I'll show you my many diplomas"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

the graduation happened some time between 2011 and now.

This learner would say the following instead of using the present perfect to express the above.
"I graduated from college in a certain year after 2011."

 

[tedmc]

This learner would say the following instead of using the present perfect to express the above.
"I graduated from college in a certain year after 2011."

I think it is more natural to say:
I graduated from college somewhere after 2011.

 

[Raymott]

I graduated from college somewhere after 2011.

"I graduated from college sometime after 2011."

I think this thread is getting silly.

A: Hi, John. Long time no see.
B: Hi Tom. How are you? You're looking good."
A: Thanks, you too. So, are you working now?
B: Yes, I've got a great job in IT.
A: But you told me, oh, back in 2011 I think, that you had no job prospects.
B: Ah, but I've graduated from college since 2011.
A: You've been graduating continuously since 2011?
B: Huh?

 

[kadioguy]

"I graduated from college sometime after 2011."

I think this thread is getting silly.

A: Hi, John. Long time no see.
B: Hi Tom. How are you? You're looking good."
A: Thanks, you too. So, are you working now?
B: Yes, I've got a great job in IT.
A: But you told me, oh, back in 2011 I think, that you had no job prospects.
B: Ah, but I've graduated from college since 2011.
A: You've been graduating continuously since 2011?
B: Huh?

But what about (a) and (b)?

[FONT=Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]

[/FONT]a. The city has changed greatly since 2012. ［O］
b. I have changed my address since last year.［O］

Does (a) mean (a1) or (a2)?

(a1) The city has been changing greatly continuously since 2012.
(a2) The city changed greatly after 2012.

Does (b) mean (b1) or (b2)?

(b1) I have been changing my address continuously since last year.
(b2) I changed my address after last year.

 

[Phaedrus]

I think this thread is getting silly.

A: Hi, John. Long time no see.
B: Hi Tom. How are you? You're looking good."
A: Thanks, you too. So, are you working now?
B: Yes, I've got a great job in IT.
A: But you told me, oh, back in 2011 I think, that you had no job prospects.
B: Ah, but I've graduated from college since 2011.
A: You've been graduating continuously since 2011?
B: Huh?

C: Hi, Steve.
D: Hi, Ron. Nice gown.
C: Thanks. Why aren't you wearing one? Aren't you going to walk?
D: No. I'm not in the mood this time round. I came to watch my younger sister graduate.
C: Do you mean that you've graduated from college before?
D: More than once before, actually.
C: Wow. I always thought you looked older and more experienced than the rest of us.
D: I've graduated from college since 2011. The first time was then. Then I picked up another B.A. in 2013. In 2015, I got an M.A. Now I'm finally getting my Ph.D.
C: Amazing. I probably wouldn't want to walk, either, if I had graduated from college so many times. Congratulations, though!

 

[Raymott]

But what about (a) and (b)?

Your original post correctly indicated that a and b were unproblematic.

 

[Raymott]

D: I've graduated from college since 2011. The first time was then. Then I picked up another B.A. in 2013. In 2015, I got an M.A. Now I'm finally getting my Ph.D.

I guess it's possible. It's not how anyone I know would phrase it. That's all I can say.

 

[Matthew Wai]

(a1) The city has been changing greatly continuously since 2012.
(a2) The city changed greatly after 2012.

Having read the teachers' opinions, I think both are possible.

 

[Phaedrus]

I guess it's possible.

Thanks. I had to work hard for that admission! It's too bad for you guys that the example wasn't "I've graduated from high school since 2011." (I don't know whether British speakers know what "high school" is. It's what Americans call grades 9 through 12 of secondary school.) Then the one-time interpretation would be as forced as it is in

i) He has learned to swim since 2011.
ii) Each of them has turned 21 since 2011.

and I probably wouldn't have even taken part in this thread. When the so-called "up-to-now interpretation" of the present perfect is possible in these types of sentences (a present-perfect main clause is modified by a "since"-phrase or "since"-clause), the existential or indefinite reading of the present perfect will be in contest with it.

In this case, general world knowledge lay in favor of your interpretation. But what about when general world knowledge can't adjudicate? I think you'll agree with me that there is a bias toward the up-to-now interpretation. If Piscean will permit me, I'd like to share the following two examples, which I made up last night. I'm very fond of them.

(iii) He has eaten meat since he was a little boy. So he would probably find it very hard to be a vegetarian.
(iv) He has eaten meat since he was a little boy. But he has basically been a vegetarian all his life.

Those examples illustrate the RADICAL AMBIGUITY of the sentence "He has eaten meat since he was a little boy" and any sentence like it. And "since he was a little boy" can be substituted with "since 2011." There would be the same ambiguity.

I've tested those specimens on some fellow native speakers at an unmoderated language forum. A couple of them found (iv) to be contradictory at first. Then they saw the light. But they were predisposed to hear the meaning associated with (iii), which is grammatically related to the type of interpretation I've argued for here.

 

[Raymott]

Thanks. I had to work hard for that admission!

No, I understood that this was your claim:
"I think (c) suggests that the speaker's graduating from college happened again and again between 2011 and now."

I'm conceding that it could, at a stretch, mean that - not that that meaning would strike most people as being the most plausible in the absence of a context.

 

[Phaedrus]

No, I understood that this was your claim:
"I think (c) suggests that the speaker's graduating from college happened again and again between 2011 and now."

I'm conceding that it could, at a stretch, mean that - not that that meaning would strike most people as being the most plausible in the absence of a context.

And that is what I was thanking you for. We can call it a concession rather than an admission if you like. I see that it is important to you that I and everybody else know that by saying that that meaning is possible you are not by any means saying, as I did, that the sentence suggests it, and I want to honor that.

However -- and this is really central to the thread, bringing everything full circle -- when I said that I thought the sentence suggested the interpretation I have argued for and gotten you to concede to be possible, my point was not to celebrate that interpretation, but rather to celebrate kadioguy's textbook's disapproval of the sentence!