The strange connection between "be" and "go"
English is a rather irregular language, mainly due to its history. I've heard many non-native speakers of English, those who have Latin and/ or Germanic languages as their mother tongues, say that English is easy or much easier than their L1. Is it, really?
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree on that. For starters, as opposed to a good number of other languages, English has never undergone a spelling reform, inasmuch as Modern English spelling continues to be a product of its 1300 or so years of history. Its vocabulary is composed of a mix of French, Latin and Greek, with a Germanic core. The original spellings and pronunciations were absorbed in some way, and that's why English is so irregular when it comes to both. Not only that, but the collocations are also a hindrance even to native speakers of the language, who are in many cases unable to tell apart verb+preposition constructions from the phrasal verbs with which our beloved Vikings left us. On the whole, it's easy to use the language naturally as a means of communication; however, when put on the spot and asked why or why not a different construction cannot be used, a native speaker of English who is not a linguist or an expert in the subject will freeze, that is, when they won't just give a lame answer.
So, there you are, memorizing irregular collocations, phrasal verbs, and preposition patterns. Yet, you keep saying English is a piece of cake. I'll say that that's because either you obliviously make a lot of mistakes and, therefore, think you're doing it right and know it all, or you're so exposed to it (movies, TV shows, songs, academic papers, etc.) that your learning through osmosis leads to such flawed judgment, preventing you from seeing the truth that lies beneath the real learning process, which goes far beyond the time you spend actually studying the language.
Nonetheless, being irregular doesn't mean being inexplicable. In fact, almost everything in English can be explained. So, here's something that has an explanation, although not only native but also non-native speakers or users of English all learned by heart just because it is how it is: the use of to after been.
John Whitlam, a linguist who I highly regard and, by the way, was my professor at the time, very naturally explained that we use to after been sometimes because been is both the past participle of be and go. He also explained that that's why both of the following are correct:
I have been to Toronto for a month. (past participle of go)
I have been in Toronto for a month. (past participle of be)
In short, the past participle of be is been, whereas the past participle of go is gone and been, depending on the meaning to be conveyed.
While John Whitlam, as a shareholder, certainly had a big stake in the English language, there seems to be no consensus about this issue. It's still a matter of debate, and you're entitled to disagree. However, before you do so, let's change the sentences above a little bit, and put them into the past simple tense.
I went to Toronto last month. (not I was to Toronto last month.)
I was in Toronto last month.
The first sentence states that I went to Toronto and came back to the starting point or went somewhere else afterward. Clearly, if I were still there, I would've used came instead of went. Conversely, the second sentence speaks for itself: I was in Toronto last month, and I'm probably somewhere else now.
Anyway, the bottom line is, while English doesn't have a formal regulator, we won't have a definitive rule about whether been can also be considered the past participle of go. In practice, though, it is used as such, and I'm not the only one who says so.
This blog post was originally published on 05/30/2020 and is the original work of Drew Anne Oliver. All rights to this content are reserved, and any use or reproduction of this material must be credited to drewanneoliver.com.
Credits: featured image by Gianni Crestani
Comments