has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

.....

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

Yes, it should be "He was adopted and has been raised since he was ten by ...".

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thank you susan.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

"since" means "from a specified point in the past up to another specified point"- ie the time fram covers two specified points. So its meaning precludes it being used with any verb which specifies one specified point only - eg present/past simple. it can only be used with perfect verbs which express a time frame encompassing two points. Eg :

I have lived here since 2002 (time point 1 2002, time point 2 = now)
In 2008, I had already lived there 6 years. (time point 1 = 2002, time point 2 = 2008)

When the present perfect is used, the second time point is always "now" and doesn't need to be overtly stated. When the past perfect is used, both time points are stated or retrievable from the context.

So, in your example, neither am nor was is possible, as they each express one time point only ( am = now, was =a past point) . Only have been can be used, as it combines both past and present.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thanks susan.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

The Orwell example is interesting - because it's not logical grammatically, and officially a "mistake". As you say, had been should be used. I think here there's the tension between the fact that he's writing about the past, but uses "at present" (meaning "at that time") to give the narrative a sense of dramatic immediacy. That leads to confusion between the adverbials and the verb forms.
But sorry, what your teacher said is definitely not possible.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thank you susan.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thanks.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

Hazlitt lived 200 years ago. As have said before, it is pointless trying to understand language that far ago in terms of contemporary English. The grammar was different and of little relevance to us as language teachers today. As long as you understand the meaning, just accept that there will be differences. Here Hazlitt is clearly using a be + adjective construction while today we would use a verb : The contemporary version would be "whether he has died since then". If something has been written in the last fifty years, then it's probably of interest. Later than that and differences will slowly start to creep in, both of grammar and lexis. Go back a hundred years and you'll certainly find things that wouldn't be said nowadays. So it's pointless saying of such texts "I don't understand why..." 99.9% of the time the answer will be the same : because it's not contemporary English and the lexis and grammar used were different then.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thanks

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thanks.

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

No. because the form is still wrong. It must be : He was adopted, and has been raised since he was 3 ... etc

Re: has been adopted and raised since he was three.
 

thanks.