"IS" INTEAD OF "HAS" IN PERFECT TENSE

[loui]

Can someone clarify me if something

Every time that I hear an American talking about an action in the PAST PERFECT form, well I don;t know if It's just me not hearing it right, but it seems like they never use has, instead they use is

e.g. instead of saying He has gone there many times.
they will probably say, He is gone there many times.


Can someone please shed some light on that, why and how do you usually do that, and also If it is considered "Ghetto Talking" or it is really a common thing to do for Americas. Can I talk like that to my Boss for example ????

Do you have any specific situatins in wich you cna say that and other in which you don't

[Ann1977]

Can someone clarify me if something

Every time that I hear an American talking about an action in the PAST PERFECT form, well I don;t know if It's just me not hearing it right, but it seems like they never use has, instead they use is

e.g. instead of saying He has gone there many times.
they will probably say, He is gone there many times.


Can someone please shed some light on that, why and how do you usually do that, and also If it is considered "Ghetto Talking" or it is really a common thing to do for Americas. Can I talk like that to my Boss for example ????

Do you have any specific situatins in wich you cna say that and other in which you don't

We're not saying "is."

We're saying "He's gone there many times."

"He's" could be (except for context) either "he is" or "he has," but if the speaker draws it out, it will come out as "he has.'"

At the very MOST, the speaker may downplay the initial "h" (which often gets somewhat lost in rapid speech anyway) and say
"He 'as gone there many times."

There's no appropriate occasion for you to say "He is" when you mean "he has" -- even if you know DOZENS of the speakers I have just claimed do not exist!

[loui]

We're not saying "is."

We're saying "He's gone there many times."

"He's" could be (except for context) either "he is" or "he has," but if the speaker draws it out, it will come out as "he has.'"

At the very MOST, the speaker may downplay the initial "h" (which often gets somewhat lost in rapid speech anyway) and say
"He 'as gone there many times."

There's no appropriate occasion for you to say "He is" when you mean "he has" -- even if you know DOZENS of the speakers I have just claimed do not exist!

ok, forget about the pronoun "he" then,

what about when using a name of an object plus the past perfect

like, The Car is broken down a lot, lately.

[Ann1977]

ok, forget about the pronoun "he" then,

what about when using a name of an object plus the past perfect

like, The Car is broken down a lot, lately.

Okay -- that's a good point.

"The car IS broken" is not the same as "the car HAS broken"

And now the grammarians logged on will take it from here.

If they don't click on this thread on their own, call it to their attention.
Start with PROESL.

[2006]

[QUOTE=Ann1977;523146]Okay -- that's a good point.

"The car is broken down." emphasizes the present condition of the car
"The car has broken down." emphasizes what happened to the car
But if you are talking about "now", they both have the same meaning.

But if you say 'The car (is)(has) broken down a lot lately.' the meanings are different.

with "is"...The car (is broken down)(can't be used) much of the time.
with "has"...The car breaks down often, but maybe it is always quickly fixed and can still be driven most of the time.

And now the grammarians logged on will take it from here.
not a grammarian
[QUOTE]
2006

[Ann1977]

not a grammarian

2006

Good enough for me!

[philo2009]

'He is gone' is a relic of a now obsolete present perfect form that, with regard to a special group of verbs mainly denoting locomotion (go, come, etc.), was once formed with the verb 'be' instead of 'have' as auxiliary (cf. mod. Ger. er ist gegangen, 'he went / has gone'). It remains in modern English only with the verb 'go', and is used exclusively to denote a state (= he is absent) but never an action, so that we can no longer say e.g.

*He is gone to London.

Note, however, that, since both 'is' and 'has' are abbreviated to 's, the simple statement he's gone in isolation can represent either. The full form can therefore be deduced only from sense/context. Thus, whereas in answer to the question Is he here? it would, or at least could, be taken as representing he is gone, in response to What has he done?, it could only mean 'he has gone'.

If in doubt, simply substitute the (less natural, but still possible) 1st person singular equivalent to see which makes sense (I am gone vs. I have gone).

I trust that these notes help to clarify the matter for you.

[Ann1977]

'He is gone' is a relic of a now obsolete present perfect form that, with regard to a special group of verbs mainly denoting locomotion (go, come, etc.), was once formed with the verb 'be' instead of 'have' as auxiliary (cf. mod. Ger. er ist gegangen, 'he went / has gone'). It remains in modern English only with the verb 'go', and is used exclusively to denote a state (= he is absent) but never an action, so that we can no longer say e.g.

*He is gone to London.

Note, however, that, since both 'is' and 'has' are abbreviated to 's, the simple statement he's gone in isolation can represent either. The full form can therefore be deduced only from sense/context. Thus, whereas in answer to the question Is he here? it would, or at least could, be taken as representing he is gone, in response to What has he done?, it could only mean 'he has gone'.

If in doubt, simply substitute the (less natural, but still possible) 1st person singular equivalent to see which makes sense (I am gone vs. I have gone).

I trust that these notes help to clarify the matter for you.

"He is gone" is like "He is dead," it seems to me -- so it's used like an adjective.

I didn't know that cool stuff about verbs of locomotion. That must be where you can hear "I am come!" and similar Biblical-sounding phrases.
-------------------------------------

"The car is broken" uses "broken" as an adjective, like "broken leg." It is a broken car.
But "The car has broken" uses "broken" as a verb. "The car broke."


"This camera is sold out" would mean "this is a sold-out item; not available, sorry."
But "This camera has sold out" uses the word as a verb.


"The child is lost" uses "lost" as an adjective: A lost child
But "The child has lost" uses "lost" as a verb: He lost the game.

"The chicken has eaten" is not the same as "The chicken is eaten."

[philo2009]

"He is gone" is like "He is dead," it seems to me -- so it's used like an adjective.

I didn't know that cool stuff about verbs of locomotion. That must be where you can hear "I am come!" and similar Biblical-sounding phrases.

Indeed it is!


"The car is broken" uses "broken" as an adjective, like "broken leg." It is a broken car.
But "The car has broken" uses "broken" as a verb. "The car broke."


"This camera is sold out" would mean "this is a sold-out item; not available, sorry."
But "This camera has sold out" uses the word as a verb.


"The child is lost" uses "lost" as an adjective: A lost child
But "The child has lost" uses "lost" as a verb: He lost the game.

"The chicken has eaten" is not the same as "The chicken is eaten."

You have essentially understood the issue well. Virtually any transitive past participle has the potential to function adjectivally, i.e. to describe a state/condition rather than to denote an action.

Beware, however, of automatically interpreting any past participle complementing a copula as being adjectival. In some cases - depending on a variety of factors such as sense/context - you may simply be dealing with a passive construction, in which the participle retains its naturally verbal aspect.

The chicken is eaten.

would certainly fall into this category, denoting an event, not 'describing' a chicken!

[Ann1977]

You have essentially understood the issue well. Virtually any transitive past participle has the potential to function adjectivally, i.e. to describe a state/condition rather than to denote an action.

Beware, however, of automatically interpreting any past participle complementing a copula as being adjectival. In some cases - depending on a variety of factors such as sense/context - you may simply be dealing with a passive construction, in which the participle retains its naturally verbal aspect.

The chicken is eaten.

would certainly fall into this category, denoting an event, not 'describing' a chicken!

Yes, I see your point.

- At the end of the buffet, the caterers found that the chicken was eaten, but the fish had been ignored.

Still, there is a sense in which "The chicken is eaten" signifies "an eaten-up chicken" -- not "The chicken was eaten by the dog."