1

John has never tried sushi before, so he goes to a Japanese restaurant with his friends and orders some. Some time after finishing his sushi meal and while still at the restaurant, he posts a story on Instagram, accompanied by the following words:

1. Until recently, I'd never tried sushi, but now I've just had a big sushi set with my friends at the new Japanese restaurant on East Street.

2. Until now, I'd never tried sushi, but now I've just had a big sushi set with my friends at the new Japanese restaurant on East Street.

In this context, can the bolded words be used to indicate a contrast between the past moment, before which John had never tried sushi, and the present moment, when he has just tried it? I know it's possible to omit these bolded words, but I wonder if the sentences sound OK with them included. Thank you.

Improve this question
8
  • 1
    I don't get your point at all. Both those are used accurately. However, the second now is not needed,
    – Lambie
    Commented Jun 27 at 16:54
  • 2
    It's not a contrast between the past moment ... and the present moment. It's a contrast between now (which you could call a "moment") and the entirety of the speaker's past time (a very long "duration", definitely not a "moment").
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jun 27 at 17:06
  • 1
    Note that until recently and until now are effectively synonymous in your context. It wouldn't make sense to say Until last year, I had never tried sushi, but now I'm really enjoying my first taste of it.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jun 27 at 17:08
  • Until now I have never tried sushi but I have just had could be good too?
    – Yves Lefol
    Commented Jun 27 at 17:21
  • 1
    I think it's unlikely many native Anglophones would actually write example #2 with the duplicated now. And the "fronting" of until now is a bit of a "literary device" anyway, so I wouldn't expect such clumsiness to occur often in a conversational context either (people who use poetic / literary constructions in conversation are usually pretty "careful" speakers). Far more natural to my ear would be I'd never tried sushi before, but [now] I've just had..., but at this level it's just "style advice". What purpose does "now" serve? If you don't need it, dump it.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jun 27 at 22:44

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

Both are grammatically valid.

The first is a bit redundant, but most native speakers wouldn't notice the inefficiency of adding "now" if you hadn't drawn attention to the words you did via bold text.

The second version is very redundant to the point of being clunky, but still technically grammatically okay.

Improve this answer
1
  1. See my comment on your last question. "The present" can be a span of reasonable time. A single restaurant dinner is small enough to count as "now." There's no need, in this example, for John to distinguish between the moments in which he was eating and the moments in which he's posting. If a friend called him and asked what he was doing, he might say "I'm having sushi," even if the meal had just been finished. (Other situations might require being more specific about "now": "Waiter, I just ordered 5 minutes ago, but now I want to change my order.")
  1. Here the construction is "Until X time, Y hadn't happened, but at X time Y happened." There is no reason to differentiate between the two Xs. We could perhaps use this construction with a clear difference in time between the Xs, but it would have to be very clear. For instance, "Until last week I'd never had sushi, but today I can't get enough." It is clear that today is not last week. But "now" and "recently" are not a clear enough statements of time to work. "Now" might be this second, this hour, this day, or this year depending on the conversation, and "recently" could be similarly broad.
Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .