since two months ago

[Steven D]

He has lived there since when?
=> exact date/time questioned

Since two months ago.
=> exact date/time mentioned is given and expounded on using "ago" to make it more exact.

Consider:

Pat: He's lived there for two months. (non-exact date/time)
Max:Sorry? Since when, did you say? (exact date/time questioned)
Pat: Since two months ago. (exact date/time previously mentioned)

'two months ago' isn't what we would consider an exact date/time, but given the context, the pragmatics, it's as exact as it's going to get for that particular context. ;-) It's exactly what Pat said.

I still have to say that in any context the speaker and the listener will know what "two months ago" means. It's now May. Can we consider March an exact date or an exact time? No, we can't. I think a speaker is more likely to say the name of a month. If March means two months ago, then I think it's best to say "March". "Since two months ago" sounds a bit iffy to me. I think Cambridge University came up with a rather clumsy sentence transformation. They should remove it.

Why would Max necessarily say "since when" while Pat said "for" as in "for how long - for two months"? I don't think that's really predictable. I think Pat would more likely say "Sorry? For how long?" or "How long did you say he's lived there for?" "How long did you say he's lived there?"

I think Pat would most likely give the name of a month. I wouldn't rule out "since two months ago" as a possibility, but I wouldn't actively promote it - at all.

 

[Steven D]

I still have to say that in any context the speaker and the listener will know what "two months ago" means. It's now May. Can we consider March an exact date or an exact time? No, we can't. I think a speaker is more likely to say the name of a month. If March means two months ago, then I think it's best to say "March". "Since two months ago" sounds a bit iffy to me. I think Cambridge University came up with a rather clumsy sentence transformation. They should remove it.

Why would Max necessarily say "since when" while Pat said "for" as in "for how long - for two months"? I don't think that's really predictable. I think Pat would more likely say "Sorry? For how long?" or "How long did you say he's lived there for?" "How long did you say he's lived there?"

I think Pat would most likely give the name of a month. I wouldn't rule out "since two months ago" as a possibility, but I wouldn't actively promote it - at all.

No one's posted anything here since a couple days ago.

Nothin' else to say?

:roll:

 

[Casiopea]

It's just a transformation. 'two months', a noun phrase is replaced, transformed into another noun phrase, 'when', which in return is replaced, transformed into another noun phrase, 'two months ago', wherein 'two months' no longer functions as a noun. It's now an adjective modifying the noun 'ago'.

Pat: He's lived there for two months.
Max:Sorry? Since when, did you say?
Pat: Since two months ago.

The PET wasn't about 'acceptable' 'correct usage'. It was about transformations. How the blocks of language move and the circles they move in.

 

[Steven D]

It's just a transformation. 'two months', a noun phrase is replaced, transformed into another noun phrase, 'when', which in return is replaced, transformed into another noun phrase, 'two months ago', wherein 'two months' no longer functions as a noun. It's now an adjective modifying the noun 'ago'.

Pat: He's lived there for two months.
Max:Sorry? Since when, did you say?
Pat: Since two months ago.

The PET wasn't about 'acceptable' 'correct usage'. It was about transformations. How the blocks of language move and the circles they move in.

That leaves me with another question:

What's the point of this transformation? How is it practical? Are people learning how to use language or how to do transformations? I can't see the practicality in this particular exercise if it results in a sentence that is unlikely to be used and that sounds awkward.

Pat: He's lived there for two months.
Max:Sorry? Since when, did you say?
Pat: Since two months ago.

The PET wasn't about 'acceptable' 'correct usage'. It was about transformations. How the blocks of language move and the circles they move in.

But it is acceptable and correct, isn't it? If a language exercise doesn't result in acceptable and correct usage, what is the point of it?

I'm not sure, but you seem to be indicating that "he's lived here since two years ago" is not acceptable and correct usage.

 

[blacknomi]

I believe there are 3 floors of audience watching this. ;-)

 

[Steven D]

I believe there are 3 floors of audience watching this. ;-)

:-D :lol: :shock: :-o ;-)

 

[Francois]

There you are, I've not come here since a couple of months ago and I find you guys fighting with each others! Way to go!

FRC

 

[Marylin]

There you are, I've not come here since a couple of months ago and I find you guys fighting with each others! Way to go!

FRC

Welcome back Francois? Where have thou been, Sir? :hi:

 

[Steven D]

There you are, I've not come here since a couple of months ago and I find you guys fighting with each others! Way to go!

FRC

I wouldn't call this fighting. We're having a rather friendly discussion.



It's a friendly discussion - very friendly.

 

[Francois]

I mean fighting as much as gentlemen would fight -- excluding fencing and boxing that is ;-)
:hi:

FRC

 

[Casiopea]

What's the point of this transformation?

EXAMPLE
He has lived there for two months.
Since when?
Since two months ago.

The prepositional phrase 'for two months' and its replacement, the pronoun 'when', both belong to the same category: Nominal. Structurally, the two are compatible. That is, one can replace the other. As for Meaning, or Semantics, 'when', although it doesn't espress an exact date/time, which "since" requires, it's compatible because it questions specific time.

Since when?
Since two months ago.

Both the pronoun 'when' and the noun phrase 'two months ago' belong to the class Nominal. 'two months' is also a nominal, but it's not specific enough for 'since', so 'ago' is added to make 'two months' more specific, so as to anchor it to the Past.

How is it practical?

Transformations show us how words and phrases function in a language and how they are distributed within a sentence.

Are people learning how to use language or how to do transformations?

Transformations are tools. They show us how language works, that language has architecture. If we know the system, how that architecture is structured, we can generate novel forms, like "Since two months ago'.

I can't see the practicality in this particular exercise if it results in a sentence that is unlikely to be used and that sounds awkward.

Not the sentence. The transformation was about part of the sentence, specifically the phrase 'since two months ago'.

But it is acceptable and correct, isn't it? If a language exercise doesn't result in acceptable and correct usage, what is the point of it?

For North America English, the phrase "Since two months ago" is acceptable, common, and, as a transformation of "Since when?" correct.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be indicating that "he's lived here since two years ago" is not acceptable and correct usage.

Again, it's the category of the preposition's object that's in focus, not the entire sentence. 'two months ago' fits, both syntactically and semantically. What were the other choices?

 

[blacknomi]

I've missed our posts! Where have you been, Monsier?

Comment ca va? Je apprends francais a l'universite. C'est ne pas facile! :-( Mais c'est interessant et fun. Vous parlez chinois ou japanais?

Excusez-moi, je cherche le "Francois de UE.com" sil vous plait? :-D

 

[blacknomi]

I've not come here since a couple of months ago

FRC

Have you got the chance to read through this thread? :-D

 

[Steven D]

EXAMPLE
He has lived there for two months.
Since when?
Since two months ago.

The prepositional phrase 'for two months' and its replacement, the pronoun 'when', both belong to the same category: Nominal. Structurally, the two are compatible. That is, one can replace the other. As for Meaning, or Semantics, 'when', although it doesn't espress an exact date/time, which "since" requires, it's compatible because it questions specific time.

Since when?
Since two months ago.

Both the pronoun 'when' and the noun phrase 'two months ago' belong to the class Nominal. 'two months' is also a nominal, but it's not specific enough for 'since', so 'ago' is added to make 'two months' more specific, so as to anchor it to the Past.


Transformations show us how words and phrases function in a language and how they are distributed within a sentence.


Transformations are tools. They show us how language works, that language has architecture. If we know the system, how that architecture is structured, we can generate novel forms, like "Since two months ago'.


Not the sentence. The transformation was about part of the sentence, specifically the phrase 'since two months ago'.


For North America English, the phrase "Since two months ago" is acceptable, common, and, as a transformation of "Since when?" correct.


Again, it's the category of the preposition's object that's in focus, not the entire sentence. 'two months ago' fits, both syntactically and semantically. What were the other choices?

I understand. It's just that I happen to be of mind that says, "This form is avoidable. I don't see the point in making an exercise out of it."

It doesn't sound good. It's not wrong, but neither it is necessary. It sounds rather odd. I mostly agree with the posters at the One Stop forum who are against it.

 

[Steven D]

Even if it's part of the object of "since", it still sounds strange with the present perfect. I think it's apt to confuse learners of English.

"since two months ago"

 

[blacknomi]

Can I quote you?

Francois

I just learned that your screen name, c'est un prenom masculin!

 

[blacknomi]

My French is horrible since I haven't studied it ___ 7 years.

a) in
b) for

in- from 1998 to 2005
for- from 1998 to 2005

How can I take my pick?

 

[Steven D]

My French is horrible since I haven't studied it ___ 7 years.

a) in
b) for

in- from 1998 to 2005
for- from 1998 to 2005

How can I take my pick?

I have a question first. Do you mean you haven't studied it "for 7 years" as opposed to studying it for a longer time or a shorter time? It's possible to interpret the meaning that way without any context.

T - You've studied French for seven years. You should be able to speak it.

P - No, I didn't say for seven years. I said for seven months. I've studied French for 7 months now. (been studying)

If you simply mean that 7 years have passed since the last time you studied French, then "in 7 years" or "for 7 seven years" are both correct. I can't think of any real difference in meaning. In terms of practical understanding, they're the same.

 

[Steven D]

Again, it's the category of the preposition's object that's in focus, not the entire sentence. 'two months ago' fits, both syntactically and semantically. What were the other choices?

Here are two more choices. Why should the choice be limited to one object?

He's been living here for two months.

It's been two months since he moved here.

Here's another choice.

He's been living here since March. - The speaker and the listener will clearly understand what 2 months ago means within the context of their conversation.

I'm suspect of any language exercise that would accept only one answer. This attempts to portray language as something based on mathematical choices. I don't see language that way. Sometimes only one answer is possible. I don't think that's the case here.

 

[Steven D]

I think the entire sentence should be the focus.