0
Hela Posted 21 years ago
Grammar

It is... + since

Dear teachers,

1) Would you please tell me if the following constructions are correct in English ? and if yes, is there a difference between them?

a) It IS a long time since I SAW you.
b) It HAS BEEN a long time since I SAW you.
c) It WAS a long time since I SAW you.
d) It WAS a long time since I HAD SEEN you. (incorrect ?)

2) Would it be possible for you to give me exercises on that point of grammar?

Thanks a lot,
Hela
  

Top answer

' NO. ' OK. ' NO.

  • ' NO.
  • ' OK.
  • ' NO.
  • ' NO.
  • ' (We would expect 'saw', I suppose, but since the seeing predates the long time, I can see no way around this regression) There are a lot of quizzes (google 'grammar quizzes') at various grammar sites, Hela, but I don't have a file of them.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

16 Answers
0
'Since' here indicates duration, so a perfect tense is called for:

a) X 'It IS a long time since I SAW you.' NO.

b) 'It HAS BEEN a long time since I SAW you.' OK.

c) X 'It WAS a long time since I SAW you.' NO.

d) X/b>'It WAS a long time since I HAD SEEN you.' NO. 'It had been a long time since I had seen you, so I didn't recognize yo
0
Thank you Mister Micawber,

I was not sure of b), c) and d) but I have seen a) in textbooks. So are you sure that a) is wrong? And what about e) "It IS a long time since I HAVE SEEN you" ? = correct ?
Are there any other possible combinations?

Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
hela
0
As I hope I have told you, I am not in the business of building paradigms of hypothetical sentences; I am here to tell you which are acceptable and which are 'correct' if you wish to use careful, reasonably formal English. It is not possible for me to know what has been put into textbooks as good English, possible English, or, inadvertantly, as poor English.

(a) is wrong for the reason
0
Thank you Mr Micawber, and I hope you're not cross with meEmotion: sad
(can I say "to be cross with somebody" like "to be angry with somebody"
0
I always get cross when I'm hungry.

Yes, you can say that; it is ameliorative (not as severe as 'to be/get angry with').
0
Hello MrM

I googled the sentences as below. The result is somewhat astonishing.
The erroneous (3) surpasses the grammatical (4) 3 times in frequency.

(1) "It is a long time since I have seen you" 199 [46]
(2) "It is a long time since I saw you" 68 [18]
(3) "It has been a long time since I have seen you" 2871 [141]
(4) "It has been a long time s
0
I am not surprised, but my primary reaction is that none of these numbers are statistically significant. Discard Google hit numbers entirely unless they are in the thousands, and ignore any apparent differences unless they are in the 500% range, e.g. --

I haven't seen it - 220,000
I ain't seen it - 3,350
0
Hi MrM
Discard Google hit numbers entirely unless they are in the thousands, and ignore any apparent differences unless they are in the 500% range, e.g. --

How do you prove this is the criterion?
0
Two postgraduate statistics courses and 50 years of common sense, Paco. How do you disprove it?
0
I am not surprised, but my primary reaction is that none of these numbers are statistically significant. Discard Google hit numbers entirely unless they are in the thousands, and ignore any apparent differences unless they are in the 500% range, e.g. --

I haven't seen it - 220,000
I ain't seen it - 3,350

Two postgraduate statistics courses and 50 years of common sense,

Related Questions