I never was in France/did you ever go to France

[Rachel Adams]

I read that native AmE speakers often use past simple instead of present perfect. Would native speakers use past simple in my sentences too, and how, if it's correct, would they use "to be"? "I never was in France" and "Did you ever go to France?" I can't use "to be" in the second sentence.

1. "I have never been in France."

2. "Have you ever been in France?"

 

[emsr2d2]

Whilst I can't say that they're ungrammatical, I can't really come up with a natural context for either. We would use "to France" in both.

 

[Rover_KE]

You can say 'My Aunt Hortense was in France when Notre Dame burnt down'.

'Were you in France during the war?'

 

[Rachel Adams]

Whilst I can't say that they're ungrammatical, I can't really come up with a natural context for either. We would use "to France" in both.

Sorry, are you talking about these sentences: "I never was in France" and "Did you ever go to France" that are not ungrammatical?

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes. emsr2d2 can't say they're not ungrammatical.

(I think.)

 

[GoesStation]

I've read that native AmE speakers often use the past simple instead of the present perfect. Could native speakers use the past simple in my sentences too, and how, if it's correct, would they use "to be"? "I never was in France" and "Did you ever go to France?" I can't use "to be" in the second sentence.

1. "I have never been in France."

2. "Have you ever been in France?"

Those sentences are both possible. Some Americans might say "I never was/was never in France." I think you can work out the equivalent question. The present perfect seems much more likely to me.

I changed "would" to could in your text because, while your sample sentences are possible, other variations are also possible

 

[Rachel Adams]

Those sentences are both possible. Some Americans might say "I never was/was never in France." I think you can work out the equivalent question. The present perfect seems much more likely to me.

I changed "would" to could in your text because, while your sample sentences are possible, other variations are also possible

I understand now. If our textbooks say that native speakers can choose to focus on the moment in the past and use the past simple, or the result in the present and use the present perfect, why is it wrong to use "I read" instead of "I have read"?

 

[GoesStation]

If our textbooks say that native speakers can choose to focus on the moment in the past and use the past simple, or the result in the present and use the present perfect, why is it wrong to use "I read" instead of "I have read"?

It's not wrong. It's just not how we would usually say it — though on reflection, I think a lot of Americans would actually prefer the past simple there.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Whilst I can't say that they're ungrammatical, I can't really come up with a natural context for either. We would use "to France" in both.

Why is it wrong to use "in"?

 

[emsr2d2]

Why is it wrong to use "in"?

By saying that I couldn't say they were ungrammatical, I was effectively saying that "in" wasn't wrong as such. What I meant was that both sentences sound extremely unnatural with "in" instead of "to". Here are dialogues I would expect with the two prepositions:

Tom: Have you ever been to France?
Jane: No, I have never been to France.

Bob: Were you in France when Notre Dame burnt down?
Helen: No, I wasn't in France when Notre Dame burnt down.

As you can see, with "to", I would expect the present perfect. With "in", I would expect the past simple.