I understand "have gone" means "having gone" but not yet back or not yet left the destination.What about the following? Are the trips over? ●I have gone on a trip with my wife on the weekend. ●I would have gone on a trip with my wife on the weekend.
healerI understand "have gone" means "having gone" but not yet back or not yet left the destination.
No. I've gone to London, but here I am, back in California.
healerI have gone on a trip with my wife on the weekend.
The sentence is faulty because you have used the present perfect tense (have gone) with a time (on the weekend).
healerI would have gone on a trip with my wife on the weekend.
'would have gone' is counterfactual, so you didn't go on a trip. You can't be back from a trip you never took.
'Gone on' is a phrasal verb, slightly different from 'gone', but I believe the same rules apply. I can't think of an exception
- I have gone on a trip with my wife
(= at the time of writing, I am still on the trip)
- I went on a trip with my wife
(at the time of writing, I am now home)
Hope this helps, Dave
Thank you for your answer.
This is one of the questions that I had been in my mind for a long time. I must thank Healer for this.
I went through Dave anon's answer as well.
You say "I have gone on a trip" means I was on a trip and now I am back.
So, is it as good as saying "I have been on a trip"?
And, can we use "I have gone on a trip" while we are on a trip?
Please give your views.
Correct. The key word is "I". If I'm still at my destination, I don't say that I've gone on a trip, although I might leave that as a greeting message on my home phone for when I don't answer. "I'm not here. I've gone on a trip." So in the usual situation when I say I've gone on a trip, it's after I've already returned from the trip.
But if it's someone else, and not "I", I might say, "Bill is not here this week. He has gone on a trip". I'm here, but Bill is somewhere else.
"I" can never be at the place where I have gone, as in "I have gone here". It makes no sense. In that case, it's "I have come here"; however, we don't use the exact expression "I have come on a trip". We use some variant like
I have come here on a trip. / I have come here on business. / I have come here to enjoy the sun. / ...
Yes, I'd say it's almost as good, but 'been' is more common, so we usually teach learners that idiom first. Besides, 'gone' just focuses on the action of traveling and arriving somewhere, but 'been' implies a stay at that place, most likely enough time to look at all the points of interest there. Thus, if you're talking about a sort of exploratory visit to a city or country that you made as a tourist, 'been' is always the better choice. 'gone' is OK, but it's not as descriptive.
No, except as the kind of greeting message on your home answering machine that I described above.
I understand. Thank you very much for the comprehensive explanation, CJ.
I always took it that the present perfect tense always refers to actions that just done. And I had supposed "have gone" is the same except they might still be on their way or they have arrived but haven't left the destination because "go" by definition has no implication of returning. Please comment!
Sorry I should have known better. I was creating the sentence on the fly in relation to the counterfactual one.
I wasn't sure if this type of sentence could specify a time. I was thinking even it was hypothetical it could also indicate whether we were supposed to be back if we had gone. Is this sentence part of the third conditional?
No, it doesn't have to be that way. You can use an "experiential present perfect" to talk about something you've done at any time in your life, for example.
— I've seen the Louvre in Paris.
— Really? When was that?
— About 30 years ago. Have you ever seen it?
— Yes. I've seen it. That was also quite a long time ago.
Yes, you can use "have gone" like that also. Context often tells us exactly how to interpret these expressions.
You have just arrived home.
— Where have you been?
— I've gone shopping.
(Here the action is very recent, and the return has already happened.)
Only the present perfect can't specify a time. It's OK with a counterfactual.
Yes, would have gone is counterfactual, that is, "third conditional". Specifying a time is OK here. Again, depending on context, a return after going may or may not be implied.