+0
Hello:

Using "Since a long time ago"
was considered incorrect some years ago, as far as I know. Is it now acceptable?
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
Hello Anon

"Here were gold pencil-cases, little ruby hearts with golden arrows through them, bosom-pins, pieces of coin, and small articles of every description, comprising nearly all that have been lost since a long time ago." This is a sentence used in "Mosses from an Old Manse" by Nathaniel Hawthorn.

OED uses "since a long time ago" in the definition of "way-back" as below.
way-back adverb, adjective and noun
(definition) a long time ago; from way back ; since a long time ago ; through and through

[url=http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/since_a_long_time_ago]An online dictionary[/url] gives a definition to "since a long time ago" as follows.
adverb "since a long time ago"
(defintion) since long ago; "she knows him from way back" (synonyms) from way back

As told by CJ, there are some grammarians who take "since X years ago" as non-standard. But actually the expression is frequently used as you see above. But it is said the construction like below is grammatically wrong even as informal English.
(x) It is four years ago since they attacked New York.
It should be:
(o) It has been four years since they attacked New York.

paco
(deleted as redundant)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Pine, the phrasal verb is irrelivant. 'Tomorrow' is the adverb in the first example and the object of the preposition ‘for’ in the second and therefore debunks your claim.

We don’t need the particle ‘out’ even:

Take the bins tomorrow.


Take the bins for tomorrow.
Pine, please make sure you come back to this thread - thanks!
JussivePine, the phrasal verb is irrelivant. 'Tomorrow' is the adverb in the first example and the object of the preposition ‘for’ in the second and therefore debunks your claim.

We don’t need the particle ‘out’ even:

Take the bins tomorrow.


Take the bins for tomorrow.
You are wrong again. You made your argument look stupid because you used the sentences in question to prove your point. That is you can use a preposition before an adverbial phrase.

Whether you need out or not is your problem, and not mine.
You had come up with the sentence and I accepted it on its face value.

for tomorrow = preposition + noun

Obviously you don't know a word can be used as an adverb as well as a noun.

I am home. [home = adverb] I am in the home. [home = noun]

I think you need to study grammar.

pine
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Pinenut
JussivePine, the phrasal verb is irrelivant. 'Tomorrow' is the adverb in the first example and the object of the preposition ‘for’ in the second and therefore debunks your claim.

We don’t need the particle ‘out’ even:

Take the bins tomorrow.


Take the bins for tomorrow.

You are wrong again.

Whether you need out or not is your problem, and not mine.
You had come up with the sentence and I accepted it on its face value.

for tomorrow = preposition + noun

Obviously you don't know a word can be used as an adverb as well as a noun.

I am home. [home = adverb] I am in the home. [home = noun]

I think you need to study grammar.

pine

You are hard work! The whole point was that some adverbials can also be used as nouns and become the object of prepositions. You made the claim that a certain phrase cannot be used as the object of a preposition because it was an adverbial. What exactly was the point of that statement when some adverbials can also be used as the objects of prepositions (obviously in their noun form as a preposition can only take a noun, for heaven's sake!)? That was what another user and me were trying to point out to you.

I never came here to argue like this. If you don't like being corrected then you are in the wrong place! Have a better one!

Hi Pinenut,

"You made your argument look stupid.. "

"Obviously you don't know..."

"I think you need to study grammar. "

I believe these sentences are impolite and would infuriate the recipient of the message. It is better we argue using our knowledge rather than using our emotions.
Hello everyone:

Thank you very much for your really interesting answers. Well, it's rather exciting to see people getting so carried away discussing grammatical points!!

Thanks again for your help.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I believe these sentences are impolite and would infuriate the recipient of the message. It is better we argue using our knowledge rather than using our emotions.

Thank you, Rishonly. Yes, please contain yourselves if you wish this thread to be preserved. Time to move on to another thread.
Show more