Since they have lived ...
Marius Hancu
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
Raymond O'Hara
"Marius Hancu" <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:0yaik.35$Nf2....@wagner.videotron.net...
Had lived or just live.
It says they are no longer there.
> Marius Hancu
The UnInmate
>
> 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.
>
> Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
CanE.
>
> Thanks.
> Marius Hancu
Marius Hancu
[Snip]
I'm getting contradictory advice, esp on the first, that I'd
appreciate more responses, in order to have a more correct view of the
usage spread.
Thank you all.
Marius Hancu
jinhyun
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.
John Holmes
> 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?
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
Jeffrey Turner
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
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> 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.
I'm pretty comfortable with 2, but I'd say, "It's been a long time
since they lived in London."
> Also, for each, does it say anything about the person currenly living
> (or not) in London?
They don't.
> Pls indicate BrE/AmE.
AmE.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
> "Marius Hancu" <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:0yaik.35$Nf2....@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Hello:
>>
>> 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
Jim Karatassos
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.
My diagram at http://jim.karatassos.googlepages.com/presentperfect
should help illustrate this.
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.
I hope this helps.
Marius Hancu
> 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
Marius Hancu
> > 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?
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Marius Hancu
> >> 1) It's a long time since they HAVE LIVED in London.
> 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.
Thanks, interesting "feeling."
Marius Hancu
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Have lived. AmE.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Jeffrey Turner
I can't say definitively, it just strikes me as you should have a direct
connection to either the people or the place when you use the "have
lived" construction. But I'm not as sure about this today as I was
yesterday.
Barbara Bailey
> The UnInmate wrote:
>>> 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.
To my AmE ear, it implies that they move about with some degree of
frequency, as a diplomatic service or military family (couple) might; and
that at some time in the past, but not recently, they lived in London; and
they may live in London again sometime in the future.
Or that they have multiple residences, including one in London, but haven't
used that one in some time ("Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney have
homes in London, East Sussex, New York City, Long Island, Rye, and Los
Angeles. It's a long time since they have lived in London.")
Marius Hancu
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > The UnInmate wrote:
> >> "Marius Hancu" wrote:
> >>> 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.
>
> To my AmE ear, it implies that they move about with some degree of
> frequency, as a diplomatic service or military family (couple) might; and
> that at some time in the past, but not recently, they lived in London; and
> they may live in London again sometime in the future.
I believe you, but it's a bit strange:-)
Alan Jones
"Marius Hancu" <Marius...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60470d19-cd46-4af0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
FWIW, I (BrE) interpret "have lived" in exactly the same was as Barbara,
though I couldn't have explained it so lucidly. I would quite naturally use
"have lived" in the circumstances she describes.
Alan Jones