0

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

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
william007
  • 1,945
  • 14
  • 36
  • 52
  • 1
    The present perfect ("have gone") must have some relationship to the present, which "last September" vitiates. Thus the second sentence is unacceptable. – user105719 Feb 11 '20 at 04:41
  • @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. – aesking Feb 11 '20 at 06:27
  • 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. – user105719 Feb 11 '20 at 07:01
  • @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) – aesking Feb 11 '20 at 07:08
  • 2
    If 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. – user105719 Feb 11 '20 at 07:16
  • Proof, if proof were needed, that bounties on ELL are a waste of reputation and time. A pity because the question itself and the answers ought to be really helpful to learners and future visitors alike. – Mari-Lou A Feb 17 '20 at 11:35
  • @Mari-LouA Seven users have voted on your answer, and this question has been viewed 140 times. The bounty did what it promised to do, it attracted views. You can't force people to answer a question, particularly not if there's an existing satisfactory answer. You can sort of attract views to a question using the bounty system, however. That's all the bounty system is for. The answer to this question can be found here, anyway. –  Feb 20 '20 at 18:13
  • @userr2684291 bounties, on ELL, are a waste of rep and time. It's an old gripe of mine, the relatively small number of views it attracted are insignificant. And, furthermore, I am bemused as to why two users downvoted this answer. C'est la vie! – Mari-Lou A Feb 20 '20 at 18:18

2 Answers2

3

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

  1. I went to Venice last September (YES)

“last September" is equivalent to [number]+[days/weeks/months]+ ago, e.g.

  1. 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.

  1. "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)

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
  • 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. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:18
  • I said it was nonstandard. – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:24
  • “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. – aesking Feb 12 '20 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:33
  • that is sugar-coating it to say the least, the page you linked says under definition: “Furthermore, the usage codes of nonstandard dialects (vernacular language) are less stabilized than the codifications of Standard English, and thus more readily accept and integrate new vocabulary and grammatical forms”. I offered a more technical definition. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:43
  • Also: “ Functionally, the national varieties of SE are characterized by generally accepted rules, often grammars established by linguistic prescription in the 18th century.[6]” – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:44
  • “Furthermore, the usage codes of nonstandard dialects … and thus more readily accept and integrate new vocabulary and grammatical forms nonstandard, exactly. Glad you agree with me :) @aesking I'm happy to place a bounty on this question once it is eligible. – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:44
  • I don’t agree, you seem to have simplified the definition of “non-standard”.... so I don’t know whether you’re changing your stance on what you originally said and suddenly agreeing with me or what :) – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:51
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:51
  • I just want to say that I agree with this answer. last week, last September, an hour ago, ten minutes ago are simple past markers. That's indisputable. Also, please note: I just went to Venice is okay when it means: only. I just went to Venice last week not to the moon. Sentence 2) is non-standard. The present perfect does not take simple past markers. recently or lately are present perfect markets. ELLers don't need academic explanations. – Lambie Feb 17 '20 at 19:14
  • Would you please explain a little bit, what does "since" in "has since returned home" mean? – brennn Feb 18 '20 at 03:25
  • 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] . – Mari-Lou A Feb 18 '20 at 10:29
-2

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.

Source: https://painintheenglish.com/case/5140

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

aesking
  • 278
  • 2
  • 11
  • 1
    Hi have just went is it grammatical? as have needs to follow by past participle, and went is past tense – william007 Feb 11 '20 at 07:30
  • @william007 +1 for your comment, well spotted. It is grammatical in *certain dialects. However, I would caution you from using it in writing as it is non-standard. Also I noticed you omitted “have” from your original post (my mistake, I will fix it) but yes it is grammatical* in dialects that warrant it and it’s gaining traction in everyday English. – aesking Feb 11 '20 at 07:37
  • 1
    The 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. – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 11:43
  • @Mari-Lou A I see “just” as an intensifier or a filler: “Why do you have to leave?” “It’s okay, I will just be gone for a few months” (“just” in this context is not emphasising that “a few months” is long but down-playing it, as if it is a short period. I’m sure there is a special term for it in linguistics. But I forgot) – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 11:54
  • 1
    OK "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. – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 11:58
  • @Mari-LouA you’re right because it’s not the actual sentence the OP used. Imagine someone saying “I’ve just gone to Venice last September” (while they are still in Venice) as they relate this to a co-worker, friend or family member. For example if they were on the phone to a family member and they didn’t tell them they had moved. Is this use then implausible? – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:01
  • 1
    If 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...“ – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:07
  • Not my downvote – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:11
  • @Mari-LouA but speech or utterances aren’t governed or enforced by any grammatical law, sure it may appear as awkward in writing. But when speaking, and with my experiences as a native speaker, it will not come across weird. Is there any reason why the OP’s sentence would be unacceptable considering I just gave a use for it? Note that, (2) has no grammatical problem but ‘semantically ambiguous’ - in writing. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:16
  • In casual speech, many errors are made, even by native speakers but we gloss over them because the meaning is clear and we don't have the time to reflect and point out inconsistencies. But this is a website dedicated to learners of English, people who might have to sit exams in the future, people who are living in English speaking countries and want to improve their fluency and grammar, people who want to study abroad or apply for a better job. I think, first and foremost, these users are looking for the basic rules or guidelines on this site. – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 12:22
  • @Mari-LouA but these learners will be taught the wrong “rules” then: what rules are you referring to that sentence (2) breaks. If the OP’s question was an exam question - fair enough. I will not enlighten an approach that enforces traditional, prescriptivist rules which can be wrong, in this stage of their learning, as it will cause problems later on. It’s better to provide a descriptivist approach and that’s what I did. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:26
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 12:29
  • I'm not disputing the different meanings of "just", I'm disputing the fact that we do not normally say "We have been gone last week/month/year" – Mari-Lou A Feb 12 '20 at 13:14
  • @ Mari-LouA “I had been gone last* week* and you didn’t notice”! and "We have been gone (for) almost a week* but did you pay attention?*" – aesking Feb 12 '20 at 13:16
  • 2
    "I have just gone to Venice last September." is not doable. – Lambie Feb 17 '20 at 19:10