It has been / It is (from The Economist)

[Tedwonny]

It is nearly 30 years since Cambodians first began killing each other in earnest. (The Economist)

I was wondering if changing 'is' to 'has been' is grammatically sound/better.

Thanks

 

[tkacka15]

I don't think so. The clause "It is nearly 30 years" marks the point "now" (on the time line) from which we look back at what has happened during that period of time, here "nearly 30 years". (See this)

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't think "has been" is better but it is just as good.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Tedwonny:

You have already received the answer from two teachers. I only wanted to contribute two comments to your thread.

*****

1. It is only my personal choice to use "has been," especially in formal writing.

2. Personally, I would prefer:

"It has been nearly 30 years since _____ began killing one another in earnest."

 

[davefretty]

I think it depends on whether they are still trying to kill one another.

I said in another thread that we use present prefect for something that started in the past and has a connection to the present......so

It has been nearly 30 years since _____ began killing one another in earnest.

means they began 30 years ago and they have continued until the present or you can see the result of the killing in the present


but


It is nearly 30 years since Cambodians first began killing each other in earnest


would be better if the civil war stopped or you cant see the result of the war in the present



Another example

'it rained last night' it began and stopped in the past no connection to the present

'look at the wet pavement it must have rained last night' use present perfect because has connection to the present because we can see the result.

 

[davefretty]

Yes you are right about the modal perfect and now I have thought about it you are right about both being possible.

 

[tkacka15]

it must have rained last night

The verb phrase "must have rained" is used for inferring a conclusion from the fact/facts. The phrase expresses the speaker's opinion about the certainty, probability or likelihood of something what happened before.

 

[Tdol]

Traditionally, each other refers to two people and one another refers to more than two people, but this distinction is disappearing in modern English.

The only people I know that still make the distinction are old. I doubt that many young people are even aware of it.

 

[Matthew Wai]

the civil war stopped or you cant see the result of the war in the present

If so, I would say 'It had been nearly 30 years since Cambodians first began killing each other in earnest', but I am not a teacher.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The time period, 30 years, leads up to the present time, not to some past time.

Could the simple past below refer to some past time?

the civil war stopped

 

[Matthew Wai]

As the civil war stopped at some past time, so I think the time period, 30 years, led up to some past time instead of the present time, and thus the past perfect should be used, but I am not a teacher.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

It is only my opinion, of course, but I think that young people should be made aware of the distinction between "each other" and "one another."

I have no proof, but I suspect that some members and guests want to know about the distinction so that they can observe it.

I think that many foreign students are very eager to speak and write "proper" English.

In my opinion, teachers should keep trying to support "proper" English.

I have read, for example, that in the 19th century, it was very common for native speakers to say something like "He don't like broccoli." Teachers, however, kept insisting that "doesn't" should be used there, and eventually everyone fell into line.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I want to add the following definition, but I am not a teacher.

'each other
used to show that each of two or more people does something to the other or others [──► one another]' (My emphasis.) ── quoted from http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/each-other