1
  1. He came to New York for two weeks.
  1. He has come to New York for two weeks.

Can they express the idea that he has come to New York and he plans to stay for two weeks， without mentioning how much of the two weeks has elapsed？

From a grammar standpoint，the punctual verb "come" seems incompatible with duration expression "for two weeks." I want to know if it is acceptable in everyday conversation.

For example,

  1. I borrowed the book for a week.

This is acceptable even the verb is punctual. It says how long I will keep the book.

ForOU
  • 1,673
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    Your version #2 (Present Perfect) very strongly implies that those two weeks are currently ongoing. The first version could still be used in that situation, but note that #1 would also be perfectly okay if his two-week visit happened ten years ago. That "long in the past" interpretation could only really apply with #2 if speaker placed heavy stress on *has* (because he was refuting someone who'd just claimed that the subject had never been to NY, for example). – FumbleFingers Aug 01 '22 at 12:23
  • 1
    "He came to New York for two weeks and ended up staying two years." – Kate Bunting Aug 01 '22 at 12:26

1 Answers1

0

Yes, you can use a construction like this to suggest that someone has planned to stay for the stated length of time without mentioning how much time has elapsed:

He has come to New York for two weeks.

However, if you use the past participle of the verb it would suggest that the entire period is in the past, and that the visit is over:

He came to New York for two weeks.

Astralbee
  • 100,700
  • 2
  • 111
  • 222