'Been' - past participle of GO?

[bhaisahab]

Isn't it strange that I can say

I've been to London.

and I can't say

I am to London?

I agree with 5jj that this usage is strange and I think it's strange because of the "to". I don't know if that's 5jj's reason too though.

I don't have any reference to hand but I feel sure that structures like "I am to London" can be found in 18th and 19th century literature, it may be a structure which has fallen out of use.

 

[5jj]

I don't have any reference to hand but I feel sure that structures like "I am to London" can be found in 18th and 19th century literature, it may be a structure which has fallen out of use.

I felt sure that I had come across 'I am to France' in Shakespeare, but a search of a concordance disabused me of this idea.

 

[BobK]

...
I accept that I have been to (place) is a strange use of the present perfect of BE ...

'Pussy cat, pussy cat, where have you been?'
'I've been to London to visit the Queen.'
​

There's a lot of odd language fossilized in nursery rhymes, but this feels quite normal to me (apart from the talking cat, that is).

b

 

[BobK]

Isn't it strange that I can say

I've been to London.

and I can't say

I am to London?

...

I think there was a time when you could say 'I am to London' - which could explain a lot...hmmm...

b

 

[bhaisahab]

I felt sure that I had come across 'I am to France' in Shakespeare, but a search of a concordance disabused me of this idea.

The following is from Henry V:

"You boy, Bardolph, no word to your master that I am to London.
- There's for your silence. - I have no tongue, sir."

 

[5jj]

You boy, Bardolph, no word to your master that I am to London.

Now that is encouraging. A couple more like that with, ideally, one "I was to..." and our case rests.

 

[bhaisahab]

Now that is encouraging. A couple more like that with, ideally, one "I was to..." and our case rests.

I haven't come across any other examples of "I am to..." but I'm sure that some exist. As for "I was to..." there are plenty of examples from American sources, "I was to the general store this morning", for example, but I wouldn't like to say how acceptable they are.

 

[birdeen's call]

Now that is encouraging. A couple more like that with, ideally, one "I was to..." and our case rests.

While it's a very interesting thing to know, I wouldn't say that it answers any questions about current usage. No one I believe argues that "been" has it's historical roots the same as "go", so explaining how it came to pass that "been to" is used this way doesn't seem relevant to the discussion (although it was the most interesting part of it to me).

What seems more important to me is that all native speakers here (and now) think "been" is not the past participle of "go".

 

[5jj]

While it's a very interesting thing to know, I wouldn't say that it answers any questions about current usage. No one I believe argues that "been" has it's historical roots the same as "go", so explaining how it came to pass that "been to" is used this way doesn't seem relevant to the discussion (although it was the most interesting part of it to me).
What seems more important to me is that all native speakers here (and now) think "been" is not the past participle of "go".

Unfortunately, with the OALD, CALD, Quirk at al, Leech and Swan all saying that been is the past participle of GO in the constructions we are talking about, some people might assume that this must be true. Such people would overlook the fact that the authorities named have presented no justification for their assertion, while we have presented some arguments for our belief that it is not.

If we could produce evidence of BE + to + place used in the past in other tenses than the present perfect, then it would show beyond any shadow of doubt that the assertions of Quirk and the others are wrong.

It's not vitally important - so long as learners use the forms correctly, it doesn't really matter what they believe. I just happen to object very strongly to incorrect 'facts' being presented in discussions of English. I know that been is not ever the past participle of GO. I would like to be able to convince the unbelievers of this.

 

[BobK]

Them's fightin' words, but I like the cut of your jib! ;-)

b

 

[Soup]

Isn't it strange that I can say

I've been to London.

and I can't say

I am to London?

I agree with 5jj that this usage is strange and I think it's strange because of the "to".

BE + to (meaning situated, a meaning different from that of GO + to) survives in dialects on each side of the pond:


British English (Wiltshire): Where are you to? (meaning, where are you (situated), not where are you going)

Canadian English (Newfoundland): Stay where you are to (meaning, stay where you are (situated)).

 

[BobK]

:up: ... and in quite prestigious/educated dialects too. Giles Coren (Oxford degree in English, etc) in today's Times, wrote (in an informal narrative) "I was to Selfridge's"
[for non-UK people, that's a shop in London's Oxford Street].

b

 

[Soup]

"I was to Selfridge's

Beautiful find, Bob.

 

[5jj]

I decided to try the OED and Websters Third, both of them slightly more authoritative than the OALD and CALD. Here are some things I found (my emphasis added}.:

1. Both of them give gone as the only past participle of GO, been of BE.

2. be.[…] The primary sense appears to have been […] ‘to occupy a place’; (OED)

3. be.[…] Idiomatically, in past, now only with perfect and pluperfect tenses, with to and a substantive, or infinitive of purpose: To have been (at the proper place)in order to, or for, the purpose of. […]
I was yesterday to wait upon Sir Herbert […]
I was to see the new farce.[…
Have you been to the Crystal Palace? I had been to see Irving that night. (OED)

4. to. […] Expressing simple position: At, in (a place) […]Gf. Ger. Zu Berlin, zu Hause. […]
Were you ever to the Botanic Gardens? (OED)

5. be […] 2f(1) : to come or go : JOURNEY <we will ~ on our way shortly><have you been home since Christmas> (2) : to make a stay : show oneself or be present < they will ~ in town all week><was your sister at the party last night> - not used in the present; use of the past tense followed by to <I was to town yesterday> often considered non-standard. G : to come around in due course often in following a schedule or appointd round – used only in perfect forms <has the postman been this morning> (W3rd)

6. to […] c - used as a function word to indicate a place or a thing to which one goes for a temporary stay <has been ~ his uncle’s house once> (W3rd)

Take the information there, stir well, and add a dash of the zest found in posts:#5 #23 #29 #33 #38. #45 #47 #51 and #52 and – I rest my case

As my beloved Jane might have said, had she written about misunderstood been rather than Miss under-valued Bennet: It is a truth universally acknowledged,* that an assertion not in possession of evidence,* must be in want of one good argument.

* Punctuation was not her strong point.


Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition), (1989), Oxford, OUP.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (1961), Springfield: Merriam-Webster.

[...]fivejedjon,[...]from the very beginning, I knew that the battle over this issue between you and me (or between the ones on your side and on mine) would be unfair.

How very true, engee.;-)

 

[ronconi]

As a native Spanish speaker, I might contribute the following considerations:

To be = estar; been = estado
To go= ir; gone = ido

Has she been to Paris? = ¿Ha estado en París? = ¿Ha ido a París?
Has she gone to Paris? = ¿Se ha ido a París?

As you can see, "ha estado en" and "ha ido a" are practically synonymous in Spanish. Nevertheless, I would never, ever think of estado as a participle of ir. In my opinion, it is quite confusing to let idiomatic uses (semantics) alter or supplement the verb paradigms (morphology).

 

[Frank Antonson]

Good point.

I agree.

 

[Frank Antonson]

The situation with Spanish IS, however, a little more complex because of the difference between "estar" and "ser". Both, of course, are translated into English as "to be". I actually think that this supports your point about idiomatic expressions vs verb paradigms.