Since 2007, we issue / have issued only electronic passports.

[Marika33]

Which way of saying this is correct?

• Since 2007, we have issued only electronic passports.
• Since 2007, we issue only electronic passports.

 

[Piscean]

Have you a source for these sentences?

 

[Piscean]

Please always tell us if you create the sentences yourself.

The first of those is correct and natural.

I would not use the second, though it would not surprise me to see/hear it.

 

[jutfrank]

I think the second is okay, but I think it's much better to say:

As of 2007, we issue electronic passports only.

(Note the position of only.)

 

[Marika33]

Please always tell us if you create the sentences yourself.

My idea is that "we" started issuing only electronic passports in 2007. "We" issued only electronic passports in 2008, 2009 and so on until now and "we" still issue only electronic passports.

I think the second is okay, but I think it's much better to say:

As of 2007, we issue electronic passports only.

Does this sentence mean that we have done so since 2007 and still issue only electronic passports?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes. It also means that prior to 2007 we did not issue electronic passports only.

 

[Marika33]

Yes. It also means that prior to 2007 we did not issue electronic passports only.

I haven't heard of this structure before. Thank you!

May I clarify this for myself once and for all, which of these are possible to convey my idea from #6? Which are better (if there are)? Which are unnatural? Is there any possible difference between them?

• Since 2007, we issue only electronic passports.
• As of 2007, we issue electronic passports only.
• Since 2007, we have issued only electronic passports.
• Since 2007, we have been issuing only electronic passports.

 

[jutfrank]

Only the first two say clearly what you mean, which is that we still issue electronic passports only.

The other two, since they use the present perfect, could suggest that the period of issuing electronic passports only has ended. They don't say anything about what kind of passports we issue now.

 

[Marika33]

The other two, since they use the present perfect, could suggest that the period of issuing electronic passports only has ended. They don't say anything about what kind of passports we issue now.

The forth uses the present perfect continuous. Could it also suggest that "we" don't issue electronic passports any longer?

 

[jutfrank]

The forth uses the present perfect continuous.

Yes, I did see that. The present perfect continuous is of course a kind of present perfect.

Could it also suggest that "we" don't issue electronic passports any longer?

You mean only electronic passports? Yes, it could easily be imagined as a preamble to succeeding information, as if there's a 'but' coming:

Since 2007, we have issued electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

 

[Marika33]

Yes, it could easily be imagined as a preamble to succeeding information, as if there's a 'but' coming:

Since 2007, we have issued electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

Can you imagine the same sentence but with the perfect continuous?

Since 2007, we have been issuing electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

 

[jutfrank]

I can imagine it, yes.

 

[Marika33]

I can imagine it, yes.

Sorry, I meant would it sound as natural as the one with the perfect (simple)?

• Since 2007, we have issued electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.
• Since 2007, we have been issuing electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

 

[jutfrank]

Could you clarify what you mean by the word 'natural'?

In linguistics, 'natural language' is the kind of language that could be produced by a proficient native speaker, or ChatGPT, for example. In that sense, yes, the sentence is undoubtedly perfectly natural.

Confusingly, however, several of the members of this forum use the word 'natural' in the sense of 'appropriate to the situation' or 'a likely thing for someone to say', which is very different. If that's what you mean, I think I would probably say no.

When learners ask questions about naturalness, I usually struggle to interpret what they mean.

 

[Marika33]

Could you clarify what you mean by the word 'natural'?

By "unnatural" I mean something that might be misinterpreted by the listener or might sound like you are illiterate.
By "natural" I mean the opposite.

In linguistics, 'natural language' is the kind of language that could be produced by a proficient native speaker, or ChatGPT, for example. In that sense, yes, the sentence is undoubtedly perfectly natural.

So if that sentence in the perfect continuous could be produced by a proficient native speaker, then it is natural for me.

Could I ask you about the difference between the two (if there's any)? In what situation would you want to choose one over the other?

• Since 2007, we have issued electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.
• Since 2007, we have been issuing electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

 

[jutfrank]

By "unnatural" I mean something that might be misinterpreted by the listener

That's not a good use of the word 'natural'. You're talking about the language being clearly expressed, not about naturalness in any sense.

or might sound like you are illiterate.

Okay, yes, that's the first sense of the word I mentioned above.

So if that sentence in the perfect continuous could be produced by a proficient native speaker, then it is natural for me.

Okay, I understand. But that's not what you need to know. You shouldn't be primarily interested in whether something is natural or grammatical. You should be interested in whether something is well-expressed (says what you mean) and appropriate for your specific purposes (does what you want).

Could I ask you about the difference between the two (if there's any)? In what situation would you want to choose one over the other?

• Since 2007, we have issued electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.
• Since 2007, we have been issuing electronic passports only, but following recent changes in the law, we are now required also to issue traditional passports.

That's not a good question. I wouldn't choose either.

 

[Marika33]

That's not a good question. I wouldn't choose either.

Ok, I see. At least, I've figured out that in many cases, there's no actual difference in meaning between the perfect (simple) and the perfect continuous as long as we add a duration phrase (for [an amount of time]) or (since [a point in time]).

First I found this,


(source)

Then I found this,

(source)

Two different tenses, the present perfect (simple) and the present perfect continuous expressing the same idea with no actual difference in meaning.

 

[jutfrank]

Of course there's some difference in meaning. The difference is in the aspect.

Note carefully that the first example you provided above is not written by the passport office. It's a sentence about what the passport office have been doing. The second sentence is written by the passport office. That's quite important to consider when thinking about the appropriate language form to use.

 

[Marika33]

Of course there's some difference in meaning. The difference is in the aspect.

I believe this is a very (very) confusing line for learners to see. Yes, the aspect differs in the two, but is there any difference in meaning?
If there is, what is it?

 

[jutfrank]

You don't consider aspect to be part of meaning?