I would like to know the difference between "to be in a country/state/city/place" and "to be around a country/state/city/place."
- Jim had been in Washington for years, and knew all the right people.
- Jim had been around Washington for years, and knew all the right people.
I wonder if sentence 2 means Jim had been in "each part of" or "a lot of parts of" or "more than one part of" Washington.
My confusion is because of the combination of to be + around. It is true that dictionaries say that around can mean "here and there", "moving to different parts or areas", etc. In my mind, I just think that is okay and I understand when it comes to motion/movement verbs. But what about when that's not the case? As with the verb to be. Because as far as I know, to be doesn't express movement. For that reason, I chose the meaning "in or to many parts of or all directions" and used it in my interpretation of the meaning of sentence 2.
As to the form "to be in a place" as in I had been in Washington, I would understand it as I had been located in Washington. That was my location. Now when the form to be around a place shows up, since around means in many parts of, I would think I had been around Washington could mean I had been in many parts of Washington. Besides around can mean "to be present in a place", so according to that, sentence 2 could also mean something like I had been in Washington.
The dictionaries I consulted were MacMillan and Cambridge.
What do you think each sentence expresses/conveys?
I guess "to be in country/state/city" implies a greater knowleadge and a greater presence of time than "to be around country/state/city". It would be very helpful if someone could clarify what the form "to be around a country/state/city" really expresses in that specific context.