May I know are the following two sentences grammatical and idiomatic?
I just went to Venice last September
I've just gone to Venice last September
-
1The present perfect ("have gone") must have some relationship to the present, which "last September" vitiates. Thus the second sentence is unacceptable.– user105719Commented Feb 11, 2020 at 4:41
-
@user105719, it doesn’t need to relate to the present because you’re thinking of have gone as a completed action (like went: I went to school), but it also has a continuous function (have gone: I have gone to high school since I was 11 years old). Therefore, I have just gone to Venice last September, suggest the person went to Venice but hasn’t returned yet in the present. The usage of went vs gone is discussed here.– aeskingCommented Feb 11, 2020 at 6:27
-
1@aesking It's called the present perfect for a reason. The tense depicts completed action that could take place any time up to the present moment or has some relationship to the present moment. "Last September" short circuits that.– user105719Commented Feb 11, 2020 at 7:01
-
@user105719, the present moment can still not be very far from “last September”, if say, it was October of the same year and it was referring to prior month of the same year. Note, this is not the only tense to exhibits this behaviour, for example the present continuous tense as you call it can refer to future as well as present behaviour: I am living with my parents and the simple past I go to the university (I am going to the university = I attend university)– aeskingCommented Feb 11, 2020 at 7:08
-
2If it's October, the the present perfect must cover time up to the present date in October. I tend to call the present continuous the present progressive, but if your point is that English tenses have a complicated relationship to time, then that is not in dispute.– user105719Commented Feb 11, 2020 at 7:16
|
Show 3 more comments
2 Answers
I just went to Venice last September. (STANDARD ENGLISH)
The sentence above is grammatical. The speaker visited Venice in September, and has since returned home. In this instance, the adverb just could signify "only", "simply", or "very recently".
I've just gone to Venice last September (NON-STANDARD)
The sentence above is non-standard English; clearly “last September” is firmly rooted in the past, and in English the simple past tense is preferred. A native speaker in a similar situation would most likely say
- I went to Venice last September (YES)
“last September" is equivalent to [number]+[days/weeks/months]+ ago, e.g.
- I visited Venice five months ago (YES)
Sentences 1 and 2 are grammatical and in standard English, exactly the type of English which examiners expect students and candidates to produce in speech and in writing.
- "I've just gone to Venice" (YES)
Sentence 3 is written in the PRESENT PERFECT, and it is grammatical. It suggests that the action of going to a place occurred very recently in the past, there is no need to add a specific time reference as the adverb "just" confirms when the action happened.
just
2. Very recently; in the immediate past.
- ‘I've just seen the local paper’
Evidently, the speaker is currently in Venice. If a similar statement were made months later, and the speaker was still in Venice, then it would be illogical to insist that the act of arrival is persistently recent. The act of going has finished, the speaker is no longer going they are staying, therefore, it is more natural (and logical) to say:
“I've been in Venice since September.” (YES)
“I've been in Venice for five months.” (YES)
For further reference, see StoneyB's Canonical Post #2: What is the perfect, and how should I use it? and his answer here: 3. What does the perfect mean? (part 2)
answered Feb 11, 2020 at 8:29
-
I will infer that you mean that other sentence (sentence 2) is ungrammatical then? Seeing as you said one sentence was grammatical but didn’t include the other. I would like to note to is not a grammatical violation, but marked as ‘semantically ambiguous’ and therefore no “right” answer should be enforced as interpretation to meaning is less objective than say interpretation of grammatical theories.– aeskingCommented Feb 12, 2020 at 12:18
-
-
“non-standard” and “non-idiomatic” breaks a rule of Standard English. What has it broken? That’s why I said sentence (2) was grammatical and idiomatic.– aeskingCommented Feb 12, 2020 at 12:28
-
@aesking to me "nonstandard" means that it is heard in some dialects or in idiolects but it would be considered incorrect in formal speaking and writing. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English Commented Feb 12, 2020 at 12:33
-
1@brennn it means at some point during September or later, the speaker returned home from Venice. "He has been home since the day he came back [from Venice] . Commented Feb 18, 2020 at 10:29
Both are grammatical and idiomatic, what you’re asking is a common question: What is the difference between have gone and went?
Quite simply, the difference is to do with semantics:
I have (just) gone to Venice last September - (one direction) - it suggests that a person has gone to Venice but has not returned yet to where they originally departed from.
I (just) went to Venice last September - (both directions) - it suggests that a person has been to Venice and has returned to where they originally departed from.
The OED’s earliest citation for been to in the sense ‘to have gone to the appropriate place in order to do something (with the implication that one has returned, or begun to do so)’ is dated 1482. The earliest citation for gone to in the sense ‘[having moved, taken one's way, passed, or proceeded] to or towards a place, into the presence of a person, or in a specified direction’ is dated a little over a hundred years later.
I don’t think there’s anything mysterious about the use of the two different verbs to mean two different things. Gone to does not entail come back, but been to does. Go suggests movement, while be suggests stasis. - Barrie England
Source: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55711/the-origin-of-been-to-and-gone-to
Someone has said no. 2 is unacceptable because “have gone” and “last September” conflict - they do not, because as seen above “have gone” has a continuous function as opposed to “went” a completed action. Therefore, I have just gone to Venice last September, suggest the person went to Venice but hasn’t returned yet in the present. “have gone” does not vitiate “last September” because no reference to the present need be made (it is not a completed action). I will demonstrate this continuous action in another sentence:
I go to X High School. I have gone to X High School since I was fifteen years old.
So you could have:
I have just gone to Venice (since) last September
or, keep it the same
I have just gone to Venice last September [Context-dependent]*
[*] If it's October (i.e the date of going to Venice and the statement at which the above is written or said is within the present realm), the present perfect must cover time up to the present date in October. - @user105719
-
1Hi
have just wentis it grammatical? ashaveneeds to follow by past participle, andwentis past tense Commented Feb 11, 2020 at 7:30 -
1The OP's sentence has the adverb just, a person cannot be “just gone” for five months or longer. Once the person has gone, and days have lapsed by they are staying, albeit temporarily, IN a place. Commented Feb 12, 2020 at 11:43
-
1OK "just be gone for a few months" but it's not the same as “I'll just be gone last November” which I would consider to be slightly perplexing. Commented Feb 12, 2020 at 11:58
-
1If the action of departure were recent it would be "I've just gone to Venice" without the "last September". If the speaker were still in Venice they would tell their friends on the phone: “I'm still in Venice” or “I'm in Venice now“ or “I've been in Venice for...“ Commented Feb 12, 2020 at 12:07
-
2"I have just gone to Venice last September." is not doable.– LambieCommented Feb 17, 2020 at 19:10