Is this construction correct?

I lost my passport since I left London.
I saw her since I left London.

Some natives say it should be:

I have lost my passport since I left London.
I have seen her since I left London.

On 26/12/22 17:53, Ivy Fad wrote:
> Is this construction correct?
>
> I lost my passport since I left London.
> I saw her since I left London.

No. "Since" effectively means "between then and now", so it needs a
perfect tense. To fix these sentences without using a perfect tense, you
need to find a way of not using "since". For example,

I lost my passport after leaving London.
I saw her after I left London.

> Some natives say it should be:
>
> I have lost my passport since I left London.
> I have seen her since I left London.

Yes, those are correct.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

What's the difference in meaning?

I lost my passport after leaving London.
I lost my passport when I left London.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 11:35:07 AM UTC, Ivy Fad wrote:
> What's the difference in meaning?
> I lost my passport after leaving London.
> I lost my passport when I left London.

The difference is between the time you were doing something
and the time after you did it. Not even an overlap.

On 26/12/22 22:35, Ivy Fad wrote:

> What's the difference in meaning?
>
> I lost my passport after leaving London.
> I lost my passport when I left London.

Suppose you travelled from London to Paris, and then to Berlin, and then
to Moscow, on three separate flights. (And you might or might not have
stayed for a while in each city.)

"I lost my passport when I left London" means that the loss happened
while leaving London. Perhaps in the airport, perhaps while getting to
the airport, perhaps while boarding the plane. Some of these are
unlikely if you had to show your passport while getting a boarding pass,
but perhaps you dropped it on boarding.

"I lost my passport after leaving London" means that you didn't lose it
in London, but in one of the later places.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:53:27 AM UTC-5, Ivy Fad wrote:
> Is this construction correct?
>
> I lost my passport since I left London.
> I saw her since I left London.

No.

> Some natives say it should be:

All natives

> I have lost my passport since I left London.
> I have seen her since I left London.

Possible, but incomplete.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 7:04:59 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 26/12/22 22:35, Ivy Fad wrote:
>
> > What's the difference in meaning?
> >
> > I lost my passport after leaving London.
> > I lost my passport when I left London.
> Suppose you travelled from London to Paris, and then to Berlin, and then
> to Moscow, on three separate flights. (And you might or might not have
> stayed for a while in each city.)
>
> "I lost my passport when I left London" means that the loss happened
> while leaving London. Perhaps in the airport, perhaps while getting to
> the airport, perhaps while boarding the plane. Some of these are
> unlikely if you had to show your passport while getting a boarding pass,
> but perhaps you dropped it on boarding.
>
> "I lost my passport after leaving London" means that you didn't lose it
> in London, but in one of the later places.

And she never noticed because she didn't need a passport while
traveling within the Schengen Zone?

The bureaucracy in the Russian consulate or embassy in Berlin
is going to be a nightmare to get a replacement.

> All natives

Some.

Sun, 25 Dec 2022 22:53:24 -0800 (PST): Ivy Fad <helpincrim@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>Is this construction correct?
>
>I lost my passport since I left London.
>I saw her since I left London.
>
>Some natives say it should be:
>
>I have lost my passport since I left London.
>I have seen her since I left London.

Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
situation, not an action at a single point it time.

Should "since" be 'after'?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 12/27/2022 3:17 PM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Ivy Fad <helpincrim@gmail.com> scribeva:

>> Is this construction correct?

>> I lost my passport since I left London. I saw her since I left
>> London.

>> Some natives say it should be:

>> I have lost my passport since I left London. I have seen her since
>> I left London.

> Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
> situation, not an action at a single point it time.

> Should "since" be 'after'?

It might be a little more idiomatic. The verb would have to be in the
simple past.

I don't have any problem with the original version, though. I haven't
seen her since Tuesday/my departure/the Russian mass murders in Ukraine.

Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:46:42 -0500: CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On 12/27/2022 3:17 PM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Ivy Fad <helpincrim@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
>>> Is this construction correct?
>
>>> I lost my passport since I left London. I saw her since I left
>>> London.
>
>>> Some natives say it should be:
>
>>> I have lost my passport since I left London. I have seen her since
>>> I left London.
>
>> Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
>> situation, not an action at a single point it time.
>
>> Should "since" be 'after'?
>
>It might be a little more idiomatic. The verb would have to be in the
>simple past.
>
>I don't have any problem with the original version, though. I haven't
>seen her since Tuesday/my departure/the Russian mass murders in Ukraine.

That's in the negative. That's different because it doesn't refer to a
point in time, but to a longer period.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 9:56:24 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:46:42 -0500: CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >On 12/27/2022 3:17 PM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Ivy Fad <helpi...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>> Is this construction correct?
> >>> I lost my passport since I left London. I saw her since I left
> >>> London.
> >>> Some natives say it should be:
> >>> I have lost my passport since I left London. I have seen her since
> >>> I left London.
> >> Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
> >> situation, not an action at a single point it time.
> >> Should "since" be 'after'?
> >It might be a little more idiomatic. The verb would have to be in the
> >simple past.
> >I don't have any problem with the original version, though. I haven't
> >seen her since Tuesday/my departure/the Russian mass murders in Ukraine.
>
> That's in the negative. That's different because it doesn't refer to a
> point in time, but to a longer period.

"I have seen her three times since Sunday."
(and maybe there will be more times)

*I saw her three times since Sunday

"I saw her three times this week."

Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:17:02 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 9:56:24 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:46:42 -0500: CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >On 12/27/2022 3:17 PM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Ivy Fad <helpi...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
>> >>> Is this construction correct?
>> >>> I lost my passport since I left London. I saw her since I left
>> >>> London.
>> >>> Some natives say it should be:
>> >>> I have lost my passport since I left London. I have seen her since
>> >>> I left London.
>> >> Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
>> >> situation, not an action at a single point it time.
>> >> Should "since" be 'after'?
>> >It might be a little more idiomatic. The verb would have to be in the
>> >simple past.
>> >I don't have any problem with the original version, though. I haven't
>> >seen her since Tuesday/my departure/the Russian mass murders in Ukraine.
>>
>> That's in the negative. That's different because it doesn't refer to a
>> point in time, but to a longer period.
>
>"I have seen her three times since Sunday."
>(and maybe there will be more times)
>
>*I saw her three times since Sunday
>
>"I saw her three times this week."

Yes.
I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday afternoon.
Correct?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:31:52 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:17:02 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 9:56:24 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Wed, 28 Dec 2022 09:46:42 -0500: CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >On 12/27/2022 3:17 PM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Ivy Fad <helpi...@gmail.com> scribeva:

> >> >>> Is this construction correct?
> >> >>> I lost my passport since I left London. I saw her since I left
> >> >>> London.
> >> >>> Some natives say it should be:
> >> >>> I have lost my passport since I left London. I have seen her since
> >> >>> I left London.
> >> >> Somehow the word "since" doesn't fit here. After 'since' I expect a
> >> >> situation, not an action at a single point it time.
> >> >> Should "since" be 'after'?
> >> >It might be a little more idiomatic. The verb would have to be in the
> >> >simple past.
> >> >I don't have any problem with the original version, though. I haven't
> >> >seen her since Tuesday/my departure/the Russian mass murders in Ukraine.
> >> That's in the negative. That's different because it doesn't refer to a
> >> point in time, but to a longer period.
> >"I have seen her three times since Sunday."
> >(and maybe there will be more times)
> >*I saw her three times since Sunday
> >"I saw her three times this week."
>
> Yes.
> I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday afternoon.
> Correct?

No. "I have seen her just once since Sunday, namely ..."

"I saw her just once after Sunday, namely ..."

(Maybe you overlooked the asterisk.)

Sat, 31 Dec 2022 12:17:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>> Yes.
>> I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday afternoon.
>> Correct?
>
>No. "I have seen her just once since Sunday, namely ..."

To me "once" is a time clause, which determines a fixed point in time.
One hard rule I thought to have learnt, is that this can NEVER be
combined with a "have done" tense, only with a "did" tense.
(I won't use the word "perfect", because perfect tense denotes
imperfect aspect in English, to make it even less clear.)

An important rules, because in Dutch there is no such restriction at
all. So now I learn this doesn't always apply in English either.

This aspect of English grammar is, and will always be,
incomprehensible and unmanageable to me. What's worse
is that someone made the unholy decision to supplant this
mess to interlingua, with the rules in paragraph 106 of its
grammar: https://rudhar.com/iagr#P106 .

However, it is loosened by this remark "The perfect is not as
restricted as in English and is synonymous with the simple past."

So in Interlingua I just mix the two and use whatever sounds best
metrically, or which best suits my mood.

>"I saw her just once after Sunday, namely ..."
>
>(Maybe you overlooked the asterisk.)

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:20:05 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 31 Dec 2022 12:17:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> Yes.
> >> I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday afternoon.
> >> Correct?
> >
> >No. "I have seen her just once since Sunday, namely ..."

> To me "once" is a time clause, which determines a fixed point in time.
> One hard rule I thought to have learnt, is that this can NEVER be

Not to me. In this sense it determines the number of times--I've
seen her once, I've seen her twice--not a fixed point.

There's another sense of "once", as in (STS warning) "Once I was
happy, but now I'm forlorn", that does go with the past tense.

> combined with a "have done" tense, only with a "did" tense.
> (I won't use the word "perfect", because perfect tense denotes
> imperfect aspect in English, to make it even less clear.)
>
> An important rules, because in Dutch there is no such restriction at
> all. So now I learn this doesn't always apply in English either.
>
> This aspect of English grammar is, and will always be,
> incomprehensible and unmanageable to me.

I'm not going to tell you that it's easy or that I've mastered tenses
and aspects in any other language.

> What's worse
> is that someone made the unholy decision to supplant

Transplant. To supplant someone is to take their place.

> this
> mess to interlingua, with the rules in paragraph 106 of its
> grammar: https://rudhar.com/iagr#P106 .
>
> However, it is loosened by this remark "The perfect is not as
> restricted as in English and is synonymous with the simple past."
....

--
Jerry Friedman

On Sun, 1 Jan 2023, at 06:43:56, Jerry Friedman posted:
>On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:20:05 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 31 Dec 2022 12:17:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >> Yes.
>> >> I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday afternoon.
>> >> Correct?
>> >
>> >No. "I have seen her just once since Sunday, namely ..."
>
>> To me "once" is a time clause, which determines a fixed point in time.
>> One hard rule I thought to have learnt, is that this can NEVER be
>
>Not to me. In this sense it determines the number of times--I've
>seen her once, I've seen her twice--not a fixed point.

Or looking at it differently, there can be no fixed point (fixed period,
really) because "since Sunday" gives only the start of a length of time,
not the end of it - the time interval has not yet closed. So one says "I
have...", with the words "... so far" implicit.
--
Paul W

On 02/01/23 01:43, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 6:20:05 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Sat, 31 Dec 2022 12:17:00 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>> Yes. I saw her just once since Sunday, namely on Monday
>>>> afternoon. Correct?
>>>
>>> No. "I have seen her just once since Sunday, namely ..."
>
>> To me "once" is a time clause, which determines a fixed point in
>> time. One hard rule I thought to have learnt, is that this can
>> NEVER be
>
> Not to me. In this sense it determines the number of times--I've
> seen her once, I've seen her twice--not a fixed point.

Agreed. But in any case the word that most affects the choice of tense
in that sentence is "since". Compare:

(a) I saw her twice on Sunday.
(b) I have seen her twice since Sunday.

Sentence (a) uses the simple past because it refers to two events in the
past. That is, two points in time. In sentence (b), "since Sunday"
describes a time interval that stretches from Sunday until now, with an
ending point that is now. The present perfect is appropriate whenever a
time interval "from then until now" is specified or implied.

That also works for the open interval "since the beginning of time".
(OK, the big bang makes it a closed interval, but subjectively it's
open.) In all such cases, the present perfect makes a statement that is
true /right now/: "At the present time, the count of the times I have
seen her is ...".

> There's another sense of "once", as in (STS warning) "Once I was
> happy, but now I'm forlorn", that does go with the past tense.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org