till I've had (some of/all of) my coffee.

[Marika33]

• Don't talk to me till I've had my coffee.

Does it mean "Don't talk to me until I take a sip of my coffee" or "... until I drink all of my coffee"?

 

[jutfrank]

It probably means 'Don't talk to me until the caffeine in my coffee has kicked in and the linguistic part of my brain is properly awake and ready for effective communication'.

 

[emsr2d2]

• Don't talk to me till I've had my coffee.

Does it mean "Don't talk to me until I take a sip of my coffee" or "... until I drink all of my coffee"?

Is there honestly a real-life situation in which you would need to know which one the speaker means? The sentence is usually not meant to be taken absolutely literally anyway.

 

[Marika33]

Is there honestly a real-life situation in which you would need to know which one the speaker means?

Probably not, but I was still wondering what the literal meaning of that sentence was.

The sentence is usually not meant to be taken absolutely literally anyway.

OK, what is it anyway?

 

[emsr2d2]

Probably not, but I was still wondering what the literal meaning of that sentence was.

The literal meaning is exactly what it says. I suppose there might be some people in the world who insist that not a single person speak to them until they've had coffee.

OK, what is it anyway?

I'm not sure what this question means. Are you trying to find out what the meaning is if it's not taken absolutely literally? If so, it's usually just a way of saying "I'm not great in the mornings. I need coffee/caffeine before I'm really able to take part in any sort of meaningful conversation", exactly as jutfrank suggested in post #2.

 

[Marika33]

Is there honestly a real-life situation in which you would need to know which one the speaker means?

I'm amazed you even asked that question as if it didn't matter what exactly "till I've had my coffee" means. It could make a huge difference. Either the person is asking you not to talk to him until he drinks some of his coffee (in other words, starts drinking it), or he's asking you to wait because he wants to have some quiet time until he finishes it. See?

The literal meaning is exactly what it says.

 

[Piscean]

I'm amazed you even asked that question as if it didn't matter what exactly "till I've had my coffee" means,

You are easily amazed.

. It could make a huge difference. Either the person is asking you not to talk to him until he drinks some of his coffee (in other words, starts drinking it), or he's asking you to wait because he wants to have some quiet time until he finishes it. See?

No.

I can't imagine a situation in which that difference would be 'huge'. And, if it were, the speaker would not say Don't talk to me till I've had my coffee.

 

[Marika33]

You are easily amazed.

Thanks.

It's amazing that people consider unimportant exactly what their language shows weakness in.
I, for one, can't imagine a situation in which the difference between "I've said it for years" and "I've been saying it for years" would have any real significance, but some native speakers still try to claim that there is a difference.

I can't imagine a situation in which that difference would be 'huge'.

Imagine you have arrived at your friend's house and she is in a terrible mood because of something that has just happened in her life. She's really upset. She says, "Please, don't say anything until I've had my coffee". If you take this sentence wrong, you might start talking as soon as she takes a few sips, or conversely, you might think you should wait until she finishes it. A person with a healthy imagination can come up with hundreds more contexts where the difference would matter.

 

[Marika33]

I would suggest not going off topic into extraneous ones. I think I should ask this again.

• Don't do it until he's had his coffee.

Which does "until he's had his coffee" in the sentence above mean?
1) "until he has any of his coffee"
2) "until he finishes his coffee"

 

[SoothingDave]

It means "until I have had a sufficient amount of coffee."

There's no way to objectively define what they mean. The gist of the utterance is "proceed with caution."

 

[Piscean]

Sorry, @marilka, but I am not going to respond to your questions any more. it seems to me that you are fixated on on attempting to ascribe precise meaning to tenses, aspects, words, etc. I wish you luck.

 

[jutfrank]

@Marika, you're making up sentences and then asking us what they mean. That's the wrong way round.

Get the meaning (the thought) first and only then get the language to express that thought. In other words, describe to us the situation and what you want to say and we'll tell you how to say it best.

If you come across an example of a particular bit of language use uttered by a native speaker, we can usually tell you what it means, so long as you give us appropriate context. But if you make up your own sentences without knowing what you yourself mean, how do you think we could know? Making up sentences and then asking us what possible interpretation there could be for such an utterance is not a good approach. Can you see why?

 

[Skrej]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiM-4aR6J6CAxUHITQIHcLyCDoQFnoECA0QAw&url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000456328402100307&usg=AOvVaw1UXpTZXYyjTJEaXIOaSQ1_&opi=89978449Thanks.

It's amazing that people consider unimportant exactly what their language shows weakness in.

Or what nonnative speakers perceive as a weakness, perhaps. If native speakers considered it a weakness, they'd have a "fix" for it. For example, it drives me nuts that Spanish (or at least Latin America Spanish) simply uses 'calabaza' for any squash from a zucchini to a pumpkin. To me, there are so many delicious varieties of squash with many being better suited (in my opinion) to one particular dish, than I just don't understand how they get by with one word.

However, my Mexican friends just roll their eyes and laugh at me when I try to distinguish between zucchini, crookneck, pattipan, butternut, and acorn squash. The differences don't matter to them and they see no need for so many different terms for squash. They're just going to toss it in a soup where it'll melt down and be so heavily seasoned by other spices the flavor nuances of are hidden.

Imagine you have arrived at your friend's house and she is in a terrible mood because of something that has just happened in her life. She's really upset. She says, "Please, don't say anything until I've had my coffee". If you take this sentence wrong, you might start talking as soon as she takes a few sips, or conversely, you might think you should wait until she finishes it. A person with a healthy imagination can come up with hundreds more contexts where the difference would matter.

This is being ludicrously exacting. If she isn't ready to talk, she'll ignore you or snap at you to leave her alone. Try again later.

As Dave said, there's no objective measurement of the term, which is what you want. If it's really that critical, then your friend needs to specify not to engage with her until a minimum of 350 milligrams of caffeine has reached a blood saturation (or whatever her talking point is).

Otherwise, she had better specify not to talk to her until she has ingested 350 milligrams of caffeine that's had a minimum of 20 minutes to diffuse into the bloodstream. Try using one of these methods to determine if you've reached a safe talking point.

Of course, you'll need to take into account multiple other factors such as the brew strength, dilution with milk, coffee acidity, soil ph the beans were grown in, etc.

Of just wait until it looks like she's coherent and approachable.

 

[jutfrank]

Imagine you have arrived at your friend's house and she is in a terrible mood because of something that has just happened in her life. She's really upset. She says, "Please, don't say anything until I've had my coffee".

I can't make sense of this. You've made up a situation in which your friend says something that you don't know how to interpret. Why? How is it useful to make up a situation that you don't understand?

Get the thought first and then find the language to express the thought.

 

[Marika33]

Get the meaning (the thought) first and only then get the language to express that thought. In other words, describe to us the situation and what you want to say and we'll tell you how to say it best.

If you come across an example of a particular bit of language use uttered by a native speaker, we can usually tell you what it means, so long as you give us appropriate context. But if you make up your own sentences without knowing what you yourself mean, how do you think we could know? Making up sentences and then asking us what possible interpretation there could be for such an utterance is not a good approach. Can you see why?

Okay, I see what you're saying. But I want you to see my point of view, too. Already in #4, I explained that I'd like to know (at least) the literal meaning of that part of the sentence. To my mind, it can't be that these words put together mean nothing in English. They must have some meaning, at least a literal one. Even though you answered me pretty well in #2, a question from emsr2d2 confused me and I had to reply the way I did in #4 and #6.

 

[jutfrank]

Don't talk to me until I've had my coffee.

Are you asking what the literal meaning of had is? Or about what counts as my coffee?

I presume that at heart this is another question about the present perfect being used to imply the full and successful completion of an activity, such as with 'read a book' or 'repair a clock'. If that's the case, I say that there's no 'literal meaning' to speak of. The telicity of the verb phrase in such cases is still ultimately a matter of interpretation, not fact. (Haven't we discussed this before?) The speaker here is asking you to wait until something has been done. You have to interpret what that thing is. It may be drinking just one sip, it may be drinking half a cup, one full cup, or two or three cups.

Don't talk to me until I've completely imbibed one full cup of coffee.

In this case, even if the speaker doesn't actually mean what she says, you can say that there's a literal meaning, in the sense that you're asking about.

Have I understood/answered your question?

 

[Marika33]

The speaker here is asking you to wait until something has been done. You have to interpret what that thing is. It may be drinking just one sip, it may be drinking half a cup, one full cup, or two or three cups.

I didn't know that I had to interpret it. I thought it was in the meaning of the sentence, and I should just know what that is.

Have I understood/answered your question?

Yes. Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

I didn't know that I had to interpret it. I thought it was in the meaning of the sentence, and I should just know what that is.

No, you have to interpret everything that you hear or see. That's what language in use is. There's a thought that appears in a speaker's mind, which is then converted into sound waves by way of physical articulation, which in turn enters the ears and then brain of the hearer, and then finally ends in the hearer's mind. How this happens exactly is still a profound mystery. Really, the only people who don't always need to make interpretations are academics—semanticists, logicians, and such like, but these people are not concerned with language in use as much as with language as a system to be studied.