8

Assume the following situation: Person A meets person B in the winter of 2009. Then he/she meets the same person in 2010 and 2011.

which sentence is true?

Since winter 2009 person A has met person B 3 times.

or

Since winter 2009 person A has met person B 2 times.

So, the main question is, if since includes the meeting in winter 2009 or not?

Improve this question
2
  • False dichotomy. Yes, it clearly does. Also no, it clearly does not. The best proof that both are true is the existence of this very question.
    – RegDwigнt
    Commented Jul 23, 2015 at 12:40
  • Normally we name or cite something in order to include it. "From Soup to Nuts" would include soup, and nuts. "From A to Z" includes A and Z. I can't think of a reasonable example that is exclusive. How could "From A to B" meaningfully imply that an empty set is the desired result? How would your first example "know" to skip the time they met in the winter? Did winter begin after they met? No? So it is included. Winter is a bigger time span than a meeting. 2009 is probably longer than any normal events that people usually talk about.
    – user126158
    Commented Mar 23, 2016 at 2:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

Consider the sentence

Since earning a gold medal in the 2010 games, she has only earned silver medals and below.

This sentence exhibits behavior supporting the "exclusive" definition of "since". If it was the "inclusive" definition, her "gold medal in the 2010 games" would be included in her "only [earning] silver medals and below" which is logically impossible.

However, when referring to time alone there is evidence that the "inclusive" sense of "since" is more correct. Consider the sentence

Steve had been working since noon, and was famished.

Here it makes more sense to use the "inclusive" definition of "since", because using the "exclusive" definition directly implies that Steve began work after noon. Conventionally, the sentence means that Steve began work at noon.

Having provided both an exclusive and inclusive example, we can conclusively prove it ambiguous.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.