'is gone' Vs 'has gone'

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

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

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.

Too bad...