0

Immanuel Kant has been born in Europe.

I heard that the following sentence is wrong, but why can't we use Present Perfect for a dead person?

  • 1
    You can use present perfect for a dead person: "Immanuel Kant has been dead for a long time." You just can't use it in the way you did, to describe a non-continuous timeframe. Use simple past there: "Immanuel Kant was born in Europe." – Robusto Feb 9 '19 at 23:21
  • 1
    to be born, was born, it only happens once. – Lambie Feb 9 '19 at 23:30
  • Why is it supposed to be in a continuous timeframe if it doesn't have a participle component (-ing verb)? – repomonster Feb 9 '19 at 23:41
  • 1
    I does have a participle component, but it is the past participle, "been". (present participle is the one with "-ing"). The past participle is the one you use to make the present perfect tense (for the continuing time frame). Sounds crazy, I know. – Lorel C. Feb 9 '19 at 23:55
  • 2
    It's nothing to do with "continuous" in the sense of the "be x-ing" form of a verb. It's an event that happened in the past and still has present relevance: exactly what that present relevance is depends on the verb. But most things that happen to a person, or that a person does (except dying, as Rubosto says) are no longer relevant once they are dead. Even somebody as influential as Kant. – Colin Fine Feb 9 '19 at 23:55
0

It would be very unusual to use the singular past participle of "to be born" about an individual, a specific individual. Many men have been born, but I was born. I generally think that "has been born" mostly only works in the 'carry' sense of to bear, rather than as a form of to be born with its meaning related to birth.

There's lots of arguments that people might make as to why, but really, I'm not sure that it isn't just a special case for that one set phrase verb.

| improve this answer | |

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