chatnappers

[slender mason]

Please be patient

Our volunteers look into many questions every day; sometimes it takes them a little while to answer.

Pro tip: you can rename the thread title with `.tr <thread name>`

Make it descriptive, including relevant context, but also to the point. This way you improve your chances of getting a more relevant and specific answer.

[brazen cedar]

I'm confused.
You're saying you can use present, even give an example, then say that you can't.

[digital pond]

You can use the present but only with the ne...plus negation, not the ne...pas negation

[brazen cedar]

oh it's pas vs plus
this is because it indicates a transition. Before that, the action was happening. After that, it wasn't, and still continues in the present.

you are conveying both in one sentence using plus

you can use pas in present tense, but in natural speech it would probably either turn into passé composé or use plus instead

[digital pond]

Okay let me write an example

• Mon ancienne petite amie ne m'a pas parlé depuis trois ans
• Mon ancienne petite amie ne me parle plus depuis trois ans
• Mon ancienne petite amie ne me parle pas depuis trois ans

Do all three mean the same thing ?

[brazen cedar]

with minimal differences in message but yes
1 - this has not happened once in 3 years
2 - this is something that stopped happening 3 years ago (conveys least chance of talking again)
3 - the action of not talking has been going on for 3 years (least common)

[digital pond]

The reason I was asking was because of this note

So I would imagine the third sentence (le présent with ne…pas) wouldn’t make sense

[brazen cedar]

it does actually, and you can hear it.
it's just not the most natural thing to use

[digital pond]

But I guess for simplicity sake I should probably use the other two formulas instead of the least common and least natural one

[brazen cedar]

yeah

[digital pond]

Alright, merci beaucoup Flynn 🫰

[frail blade]

I think it's vaguely comparable to "she hasn't talked to me in three years" (common) vs "she hasn't been talking to me for three years" (uncommon, but possible)

[vapid fog]

@digital pond I think that it would be better understood if, instead of focusing on the last thing done before that time, we focused on what was happening during that time. This is a sticking point among Anglophones about « présent + depuis » and 'present perfect + for'.
In English, if I were to say, 'I've been living in London for five years', I would be saying two things:
(1) I moved to London five years ago
(2) I'm still in London now
English treats this as a past event whose consequences are still true to now.
In French, if I were to say « J'habite à Londres depuis cinq ans », I would be saying two things:
(1) From the moment I spoke until five years before, I was in London
(2) I'm still in London now
It's subtle, but the difference is that where English focuses on the last thing done, French instead focuses on what was happening within that timeframe. For French, what matters is that it's still happening so it's in the present.

When we move it into the negative, this subtle difference results in two separate translations.
If I put the English text in the negative, I'll have these two statements:
(1) I moved out of London five years ago
(2) I'm not in London now
Because there's an implied past event, it's still an understandable sentence.

However, if I do the same thing with the French, it doesn't make sense:
(1) From the moment I spoke until five years before, I was not in London
(2) I'm not in London now
For me, (1) doesn't make sense: How can nothing happen within a time period? Nothing was happening within that time period of five years up until now. Because of that, French instead uses the passé composé to imply a change of state: Five years ago, something happened that resulted in me not being in London within those five years, and that consequence is felt until the moment of speaking. French can also use the adverb « ne … plus (no longer) » to convey this change of state because « ne … plus » implies that you used to do something but not anymore; something caused you to stop.

[digital pond]

I’m not exactly sure if I’m understanding this nuance correctly.
I don’t see how the statement, ‘From the moment I spoke until five years before, I was not in London’ doesn’t make sense. If anything this is a better description of the meaning of the English sentence ‘I have not been living in London for five years’.
The resulting point you gave ‘I moved out of London five years ago’ may not necessarily be true since it’s possible for the subject to have never stepped foot on English soil while keeping the original statement ‘I haven’t been living in London for five years’ be true.

With the ne...plus negation however, it does assert at some point in the past, you DID in fact lived in London, you DID in fact put your soles on English soil, but something happened such that you no longer live there and it's been five years since then

Another way of saying this is that the implied past event isn't a given necessarily in the negative sentence

It's also possible for the subject to have been living in London for less than five years, so the implication 'I'm not in London now' isn't necessarily true either

[vapid fog]

I definitely worded that incorrectly so let me try again

The English logic is that there was something that happened five years ago that caused a change of state, and that change of state applies to that time period

I've been living in London for five years
=> Before those five years, I wasn't living in London but then something happened – I moved to London, I got assigned to London, whatever – that caused me to start living in London. Five years later, I'm still in London.

I've not been living in London for five years
=> Before those five years, I was living in London but then something happened – I moved out of London, I got assigned to outside of London, whatever – that caused me to no longer be in London. Five years later, I'm still not in London.

The focus here is that change.

J'habite à Londres depuis cinq ans
=> During a period of five years (as in five years in the past to now), I'm living in London. Something made me start living in London, yes, but the point is that within those five years, I continually made the decision over and over again that I would be living in London. I am, at present, living in London.

Je n'ai pas habité à Londres depuis cinq ans
=> During a period of five years, I was not living in London. Something made me not live in London, but the point is that within those five years, I was not living at London. I am, at present, not living in London.

Je n'habite plus à Londres depuis cinq ans
=> During a period of five years, I was not living in London. Something happened which made me stop living in London, and that's stayed the case for five years. I am, at present, not living in London.

Je n'habite pas à Londres depuis cinq ans
=> During a period of five years, I'm not living in London. Something made me stop living in London, yes, but the point is that within those five years, I didn't continually make the decision over and over again that I would be living in London. I am, at present, not living in London.
This part doesn't make sense (or rather makes the least sense) than the others because doing something is a positive or negative thing whereas this implies nothing. If you're doing nothing within those five years and you're still doing nothing now, why describe it?

The focus is whatever I was doing within those five years: living or not living in London.

[digital pond]

I’m sorry for playing the devil’s advocate here but I don’t see why the English premise of ‘I haven’t been living in London for five years’ necessarily implies that you were living in London before that five year period or that something happened that caused you to move or that you no longer live in London

Counter-examples:

• I haven’t been living in London for five years (well that’s true because I never entered the UK at all)
• I haven’t been living in London for five years (because I’ve only been there for three)

The counter-examples that I have given shows that these implications are not necessarily true while at the same time keeping the original premise ‘I haven’t been living in London for five years’ true.

After reading your description of the French equivalents, it feels like the passé composé version ‘Je n’ai pas habité à Londres depuis cinq ans’ is a more accurate representation of ‘I have not been living in London for five years’, except for whether or not the subject is still living there in the present.

[frail blade]

I haven't been living ≈ je n'habite pas
I didn't live ≈ je n'ai pas habité

Usually the present perfect maps to the present & the simple past maps to passé composé, and I think it's overall a pretty decent match for how both languages handle these situations

"I haven't been living" generally implies that at some other point you did, but I certainly wouldn't say it's 100% the case