Return to Answer

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones".

There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to look closely at the usage of the present perfect to mean "my accumulated experience includes". The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect):

I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add.

There are more actions and time intervals in what the person on YouTube was talking about, though, leading to the greater complexity and apparent clash of tenses.

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones".

There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to look closely at the usage of the present perfect to mean "my accumulated experience includes". The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "within the span of time up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect):

I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add.

There are more actions and time intervals in what the person on YouTube was talking about, though, leading to the greater complexity and apparent clash of tenses.

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones".

There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to look closely at the usage of the present perfect to mean "my accumulated experience includes". The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect):

I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add.

There are more actions and time intervals in what the person on YouTube was talking about, though, leading to the greater complexity and apparent clash of tenses.

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones".

There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to look closely at the usage of the present perfect to mean "my accumulated experience includes". The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect):

I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add.

There are more actions and time intervals in what the person on YouTube was talking about, though, leading to the greater complexity and apparent clash of tenses.

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones". There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to understand the "my accumulated experience includes" meaning of the present perfect. The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect): "I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add."

The original utterance

In the YouTube comment that inspired this:

ive been listening to bones before he collabed with the klan and ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones and i know that the klan didnt use vhs style videos until they meet or where in contact with bones? lol

the point is to establish the speaker's authority for an earlier claim about "bones". 

There are two ways to understand the first part: (1) "bones before he collabed with the klan" is a noun phrase meaning "the music that bones made before he collaborated with the klan", and the speaker has been listening to it recently. (2) The speaker means "When I started listening (extensively) to bones (perhaps years ago), bones hadn't yet collaborated with the klan". If (2), the speaker is using the perfect tense to emphasize that his total experience includes that long-ago experience, to establish his credibility for saying that bones, not the klan, originated VHS-style videos. If the speaker intended meaning (2), normally one would include the word "since": "ive been listening to bones since before he collabed with the klan". Now that I know the whole context, I think (2) is the intended meaning, and the speaker omitted "since" out of carelessness.

Now for the second part. "ive listened to the klan before i listened to bones" reflects the conflicts described (confusingly) in my other answer: the speaker is using the present perfect in order to say "my accumulated experience includes such-and-such, so I know what I'm talking about", but the present perfect means "continuing up to the present time", which conflicts with "before i listened to bones" (the endpoint of the time interval being described). The intended sequence of events is: "I listened (extensively) to the klan before the bones-klan collaboration started, and then I started listening to bones, and I continued listening when they started collaborating, and the klan only started making VHS-style videos after they started collaborating with bones".

Probably the best way to understand the second part is to treat "listened to the klan before i listened to bones" as a huge verb which is the object of "ive". The speaker means "listening to the klan before I listened to bones is in my experience, so I know which one was first to make VHS-style videos".

A comparison

It might help to look closely at the usage of the present perfect to mean "my accumulated experience includes". The speaker's grammar works by analogy with this kind of statement:

I've been making mashed potatoes since before you were born, so don't you tell me how much milk to add!

The present perfect means "up to the present" and the continuous aspect means "without a break", so this sentence means (without using the present perfect):

I started making mashed potatoes before you were born, and I continued making mashed potatoes all these decades up until now without a break, therefore my total experience making mashed potatoes far exceeds yours, therefore I have more authority than you do about how much milk to add.

There are more actions and time intervals in what the person on YouTube was talking about, though, leading to the greater complexity and apparent clash of tenses.