tommjames:"Recently it just turned a full 5 years that I've been living here"

Hmm, no, for "recently" I can't see anything else than "lastatempe".

I just added that whimsically. You can remove that word and the meaning stays the same.

Let me re-word it.

"It is now 5 years that I've been living here"
or
"It just turned 5 years that I've been living here".

The point is that "jam" would indicate the change in state from less than 5 years, to 5. There is nothing "already" about this notion. this is the part that really confuses me.

Well, right, you can also use it when saying:i`v been already living here for 5 years.
Mi jam logxas cxi tie dum 5 jaroj.
In this sentence "jam" itself shows that priviously you didn`t live.So what kind of confusion may it rise, i wondore

tommjames:I just added that whimsically. You can remove that word and the meaning stays the same.

Let me re-word it.

"It is now 5 years that I've been living here"
or
"It just turned 5 years that I've been living here".

The point is that "jam" would indicate the change in state from less than 5 years, to 5. There is nothing "already" about this notion. this is the part that really confuses me.

perhaps if you write it this way it will become clearer:

it already turned 5 years that i`v been living here

perhaps if you write it this way it will become clearer: it already turned 5 years that i`v been living here

"already" makes it mean something different. It implies a sense in which the fact of having lived there 5 years happened either earlier, or contrary to expectation or requirement. This is not the sense in which I suggested the sentence could be read.

That said, the sense in which I suggested the sentence can be read, might be wrong. I'm still clinging to the view that "jam" can refer merely to change of state, without implications of contraryness, as seems to me to be suggested by Bertilow (aswell as other esperantists I've encountered).

Till now I would have translated "I have now been living here 5 years" as "Mi nun loĝas ĉi tie 5 jarojn", but the top explanation on the PMEG page appears to suggest 'jam' is the correct word, and not 'nun'.

tommjames:"It is now 5 years that I've been living here"

"Mi ekloĝis ĉi tie antaŭ ĝuste kvin jaroj".

"It just turned 5 years that I've been living here".

I can't find much difference to the previous example.

The point is that "jam" would indicate the change in state from less than 5 years, to 5. There is nothing "already" about this notion. this is the part that really confuses me.

I think "jam" shows that it's been five years already, that is, it adds some element of surprise, it shows that you didn't expect or remember to live for such a long time in that place. This is my interpretation anyway.

yeah,tommjames,it is so.
i myself would write that with "jam" and not with "nun".And there is no need of Betilow`s help for me,cause i just think this way myself.
Well anyway sometimes (rarely), we also use "nun" in such sentences but only with "jam" and never without:
mi nun jam logxas chi tie dum 5 jaroj.

logxas itself means now to me.And "jam" shows that this state was not the same 5 years ago.that`s all.

Yeah sometimes it can add a sense of surprise but it`s shown with intonation it`s not implied grammaticly in the word.

"It is now 5 years that I've been living here"

"Mi ekloĝis ĉi tie antaŭ ĝuste kvin jaroj"

While I like your translation, and it is obviously correct, I cannot help but think it is just another way of saying that which PMEG suggests can be said perfectly adequately with 'jam'.

But I think this is getting away from the point. This really comes down to whether or not jam can refer to a transition of state in which there are no connotations of earlierness, contraryness to expectation etc (things we indicate in english with 'already'), or whether jam always does carry those connotations. Does it or dosn't it?

My reading of PMEG suggests 'jam' does not always carry those connotations. If my interp of PMEG is wrong (as I suspect it probably is) then fine, but nothing anybody has said has confirmed that in my view. The snippet at the top of his page makes no reference whatever to the manner of state change, merely that state change took place. In which case, a phrase like "mi jam loĝas ĉi tie 5 jarojn" might perfectly well be translated into english as "I've been living here 5 years now", since the change of state is all the english phrase is emphasising.

Damn forum why not possible to delete posts?

tommjames:

"It is now 5 years that I've been living here"

"Mi ekloĝis ĉi tie antaŭ ĝuste kvin jaroj"

While I like your translation, and it is obviously correct, I cannot help but think it is just another way of saying that which PMEG suggests can be said perfectly adequately with 'jam'.

But I think this is getting away form the point. This really comes down to whether or not jam can refer to a transition of state in which there are no connotations of earlierness, contraryness to expectation etc (things we indicate in english with 'already'), or whether jam always does carry those connotations. Does it or dosn't it?

My reading of PMEG suggests 'jam' does not always carry those connotations. If my interp of PMEG is wrong (as I suspect it probably is) then fine, but nothing anybody has said has confirmed that in my view. The snippet at the top of his page makes no reference whatever to the manner of state change, merely that state change took place. In which case, a phrase like "mi jam loĝas ĉi tie 5 jarojn" might perfectly well be translated into english as "I've been living here 5 years now", since the change of state is all the english phrase is emphasising.

I feel that i understand now what you mean.
Well,you should use it like in english : i`v been living here 5 years.
As for how express those connotation like in : it already turn .....
I would easily teach you how to express it in russian but don`t know how to do it in Esperanto.