Guest  +  85694 Fri, 01 Apr 05 02:35 PM Hi, Which of the following sentences is correct: 1) He is gone out of the house 2) He has gone out of the house Thank you. Guest

	MrPedantic  +  85872 Sat, 02 Apr 05 02:34 AM Hello Guest Both are correct. Some intransitive verbs (especially go, come, become, change) can use the auxiliary BE instead of HAVE in the present perfect and past perfect. They don't mean exactly the same thing: sentence #1 puts more stress on the state of 'going out of the house', and sentence #2, on the time of going; e.g. 1. He was gone before I got there. [indicates state of 'being gone'] 2. He had gone before I got there [indicates relative time of 'being gone'] MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 12,592 ...opella forensis / adducit febris... Verbs, Auxiliaries, Past Perfect, Present Perfect

	CalifJim  +  85898 Sat, 02 Apr 05 07:16 AM Hello, Mr. P., Is that a British thing? "BE gone" with a prepositional phrase of location doesn't seem to be grammatical in AmE. ?*Father is gone onto the roof to repair it. ?*Jane was gone to the supermarket for two hours. ?*Peter is gone away from the house just now. They sound almost Biblical to me ("Christ is risen"). CJ CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,403 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

	MrPedantic  +  85971 Sat, 02 Apr 05 12:12 PM Hello CJ Yes, I think you're right. I spoke too soon. I find I can say e.g. 1. 'Have you taken my car keys?' 'No, why?' 'Well, I thought I'd left them in the kitchen. But I just looked there, and they're gone. But, as you say, if you modify it with a locative phrase, it does begin to sound a little strange: 2. 'Where's MissQ?' 'She must still be in the bathroom.' 'No, I've just looked there.' 'Well, in that case, maybe she is gone to the hypermarket, for a fresh keg of vodka.' (It seems to cry out for 'gone unto the hypermarket'.) So perhaps it only works when it expresses a state, rather than an action. How does this one sound to you, for instance? It seems ok to me; but maybe my ears need sluicing: 3. He was gone for two weeks. MrP MrPedantic

	MrPedantic  +  85972 Sat, 02 Apr 05 12:14 PM Hello Guest After reading CJ's post, I'd like to change my previous answer: 1) He is gone out of the house. 2) He has gone out of the house. Both are grammatically correct; but the first sentence is archaic. MrP MrPedantic

	pieanne  +  85976 Sat, 02 Apr 05 12:20 PM Hello! Well I had found the "is gone out of the house" pretty strange... I wanted to advise to leave the "out of the house" out. My ears (but then they're only Belgian) are not offended by she is gone, she was gone, will be gone but only if there's no mention of the place she's gone to. "she will be gone by the time you arrive" sounds OK (no mention of where) "she has gone to the hypermarket" too (HAS gone + place) If I may add, I hope she'll be back soon with the vodka. pieanne Joined on Thu, Jan 20 2005 South of France ...But I'm Belgian! Veteran Member 7,517 I'm glad to help, but I'm not a native! And please excuse my typos...

	MrPedantic  +  85980 Sat, 02 Apr 05 12:34 PM If I know MissQ, there won't be much left for us, when she gets back. Not that I'm saying I know MissQ that well (he added hastily). MrP MrPedantic

	pieanne  +  86038 Sat, 02 Apr 05 04:15 PM Too bad... pieanne

	CalifJim  +  86050 Sat, 02 Apr 05 05:52 PM Yes, I agree, Mr. P. "He was gone for two weeks" is fine, while "He was gone for butter and eggs (and that perennial favorite, vodka)" and "He was gone into hiding for two weeks" are both exceedingly infelicitous to my ear, (which is only American, of course, pace Pieanne)! Jim CalifJim