> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
Not standard CanE. The word "since" refers to a past event, and "have lived" refers to something ongoing. If said to me this sentence would lead me to ask: "Do they still live there?"
> 2) It's a long time since they LIVED in London.
Standard CanE for people who lived in London a long time ago but no longer do.
> Also, for each, does it say anything about the person currenly living (or > not) in London?
The first sentence is confusing. The second sentence appears to state by implication that they no longer live in London.
On Jul 25, 6:05 am, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Hello:
> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> 2) It's a long time since they LIVED in London.
> Also, for each, does it say anything about the person currenly living > (or not) in London?
> Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
> Thanks. > Marius Hancu
The first usage works well only with 'be' as the principal verb and when the noun is in the first person. With anything else, it is uncomfortable at best. 'It is a long time since I've been to London' works. 'It's a long time since I've killed my brother' is uncomfortable. So is 'It's a long time since she has smoked' The second usage, corrected as 'It's a long time since they'd lived in London' suggests that the couple had formerly lived in London, had gone away to another place for a long time and are now returning to London (and finding it changed and difficult to adjust to) The second usage does not carry that suggestion.
> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> 2) It's a long time since they LIVED in London.
> Also, for each, does it say anything about the person currenly living > (or not) in London?
1) suggests they have lived in London several times, all of them a long time ago. Almost equivalent to "It's a long time since they last lived in London".
2) suggests they lived there only once.
In neither case do they live there now.
> Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
None of the above.
-- Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> 2) It's a long time since they LIVED in London.
> Also, for each, does it say anything about the person currenly living > (or not) in London?
> Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
I would be OK with 1 if spoken in London. If it were in the first person, it would be fine. It seems a bit odd otherwise, but might be OK in context. The second is pedestrian. I wouldn't expect them to be living in London currently in either case. AmE.
--Jeff
-- The struggle with evil by means of violence is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud, in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
>> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
>> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> Not standard CanE. The word "since" refers to a past event, and "have lived" > refers to something ongoing. If said to me this sentence would lead me to > ask: "Do they still live there?"
In my Br/AustrE, this sentence means that at one or more times in the past they lived there, but no longer do so. I can't quite put into words the difference between this and the pain "lived" version, but this one seems to be more "present" to me, ie a conversation happening now, while the other is more narrative. -- Rob Bannister
On Jul 24, 9:05 pm, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote (and I edited):
> Are you comfortable with both of these sentences?
> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> 2) It's a long time since they LIVED in London. > Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
Marius.
First of all, AmE.
This is a classis US/UK ESL problem turned on its head.
Generally, the question is goes like this:
Can we use "it HAS BEEN a long time since.." + past simple? The answer is, yes, you can in UK English and you usually do so in US English.
---------------------------
Your first sentence, "It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London." breaks one of what R.A. Close called many years ago "a solid- core rule" in English.
The reason is that the use of the present perfect in English, in one form or another, always indicates a connection with a present time.
By stating, "It's a long time..." you are indicating a split between the present and the past, one that puts the fact that "they lived in London" most definitely in the past.
-----------------------------
There would be no need to use the past perfect in this sentence unless you needed to contrast this sentence to others in the past simple. Since I don't have that set out on my site yet, I'll refrain from further comment.
On Jul 25, 9:42 pm, Jim Karatassos <jim.karatas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your first sentence, "It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in > London." breaks one of what R.A. Close called many years ago "a solid- > core rule" in English. > The reason is that the use of the present perfect in English, in one > form or another, always indicates a connection with a present time.
Interesting. I felt this break myself, but I needed to ask.
>There would be no need to use the past perfect in this sentence unless >you needed to contrast this sentence to others in the past simple.
Very reasonable.
Thank you all for your latest comments. Marius Hancu
On Jul 25, 4:08 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> I would be OK with 1 if spoken in London. If it were in the first > person, it would be fine. It seems a bit odd otherwise, but might be OK > in context.
Could you point out why do you feel it would be a bit odd in other persons except the first?
