As you are probably aware, our contemporary English content is now available through Lexico.com (https://www.lexico.com/en), and our old English dictionary site no longer exists.

As a result of this, this forum is now closed.

The English dictionary community team would like the opportunity to say a huge thanks to all of you who participated by posting questions and helping other community members.
We hope this forum was useful, and that you enjoyed being a part of it.

If you would like to get in touch with any OED-related queries, please write to
[email protected]

And if you would like to contribute suggestions to the OED, please do so by visiting: https://public.oed.com/contribute-to-the-oed/

Thank you very much indeed, and good bye!
The community team

have been to/have gone to

Could you please see if I have the correct solution for this task: "Write the sentence, using 'have (has) been'/'have (has) gone'. Don't forget about full stops.
Example 0. I haven't seen Kate for ages. (She/Paris/for a year)
Answer 0. She has gone to Paris for a year.

I have already come home. (I/Poland/for a year)

P.S. My try is: 1. I have been to Poland. I was there for a year.

(Can we incorporate the period "for a year" into the sentence "I have been to Poland."?) So what's the right solution? Thank you in advance!

Comments

  • @Rappard73, I think the test expects the answer

    I have been to Poland for a year.

    Yes, this is an unusual way to express the information.
    But the awkwardness is a matter or style rather than grammar. We're more likely to say

    I've been in Poland for a year
    or
    I've been in Poland this past year

    Your version with two sentences is OK, though I'd prefer

    I've just come back from Poland. I was there for a year.

    However, the item says

    Write the sentence

    so they don't expect two sentences.

    And the prompt includes

    for a year

    so they expect you to include those exact words.

    The problem is that expression like I've been to Poland are deliberately unspecific.
    The only facts that the speaker chooses to impart are that at some point in the INDEFINITE PAST he or she was

    • not at the current place of speaking speaking
    • in Poland

    The phrase for a year confuses matters because it implies DEFINITE times of starting and finishing. Although these times are not specified, the hearer tries to calculate them from the details that are are specified.

    This works with

    She has gone to Paris for a year.

    The hearer understands a DEFINITE starting time — Kate's recent arrival in Paris.

    But with

    I have been to Poland for a year.

    the hearer is confused.

    • Is the speaker implying DEFINITE starting and ending points of his/her stay?
    • If not, then why is he/she placing so much emphasis on the duration?
  • Rappard73Rappard73
    edited March 18

    @DavidCrosbie, Yes, I know that the test expects it. But is it grammatical?

  • I repeat

    But the awkwardness is a matter or style rather than grammar.

Sign In or Register to comment.