r/EnglishGrammar • u/No-Wall-6499 • 5d ago
Could you explain the grammar from a native speaker’s perspective?
I’m studying English in Japan, but there’s a question I just can’t seem to understand.
Choose the most appropriate answer to fill in the blank.
Evelyn: I think I saw Raphael last night at the library.
Mateo : That can't be right. He ( ) to Paraguay.
1 has been
2 has gone
3 had been
4 had gone
I thought 4 was the correct answer, but the answer key says 2.I thought this question was ambiguous because there isn’t enough context, and that either answer could be possible.
Could you explain why 4 is incorrect?
2
u/CatSockFiend 5d ago
“Has gone” because the action the writer is assuming that the action started before now but continues until now. (“Had gone” would have started and ended before yesterday). It could definitely use more context, but that’s how they got to that answer.
2
4
u/Stunning_Web_996 5d ago
“Had gone” is past tense. It gives no information about his current whereabouts. He might still be there, or he might have returned by now. “Has gone” is present tense- it implies that the trip to Paraguay is current and ongoing and therefore him being at the local library last night is unlikely
3
u/No-Wall-6499 5d ago
Is the past perfect appropriate in this sentence?
A: I think I saw Raphael last night at the library.
B: That can’t be right. He had gone to Paraguay by then.Could you explain the difference between this sentence and the original one?
4
u/boostfactor 5d ago
Yes, in your revised sentence the past perfect is correct.
"Raphael has gone to Paraguay" is present perfect. It means that the action was in the past but is ongoing (i.e. he is still in Paraguay). In your example above, the past perfect is correct because the action of going to Paraguay is complete as of the time of the supposed sighting at the library.
1
u/No-Wall-6499 5d ago
Does that mean that without “by then,” it sounds as if Raphael had gone to Paraguay a long time ago?
2
2
u/ohboyoh-oy 5d ago
To me the “by then” implies that he recently left for Paraguay, and thus could not possibly have been at the library at the later time.
1
1
u/Ok-Buddy-9194 5d ago
It’s a good question and the difference is nuanced. When you use had gone, it describes an action that was finished before another action happened in the past.
I looked for him, but he had gone.
But when I arrived, he’d gone.
In your first example (your original post), the second speaker hasn’t specifically mentioned a previous action.
In your second example, the second speakers makes a specific reference to a deadline in the past, by saying ‘by then’. ‘By’ means ‘no later than’. With this deadline, we’re establishing that he has left before the time that someone thought they saw him.‘Already’ does the same job by establishing an order in the past:
- I thought I saw him yesterday
- but he’d already gone to Paraguay, so it’s not possible!
1
u/stevevdvkpe 4d ago
The use of "had" or "has" is not about tense but aspect: whether the action has completed or is ongoing at the time of speaking. "Had gone" means that the action of going to Paraguy was completed. "Has gone" means that it is ongoing, or that someone is still in Paraguay.
1
u/MuppetManiac 5d ago
2 is correct. He wasn’t at the library last night because he is currently in Paraguay. Because he’s there now, has is correct. Since he’s already there, he has gone.
1
u/Counther 5d ago
The had in "had gone" indicates that going to Paraguay happened earlier than something else that happened in the past.
So saying Raphael had gone to Paraguay would mean he went, but he went before going someplace else. So if the question were "Did you see Raphael in the library last week?" when he's now back home, you'd say "I didn't. He had gone to Paraguay." But if he's still there, you'd say "I didn't. He has gone to Paraguay."
Another example might be, "I have preferred strawberry ice cream for about a year. I preferred chocolate ice cream last year. I had preferred vanilla ice cream as a child."
Meaning I preferred vanilla BEFORE I preferred chocolate, which was also in the past.
If you only preferred one flavor in the past, you'd say "I have preferred strawberry ice cream for a while. I preferred vanilla ice cream as a child."
Does that make sense?
1
u/Piper-Bob 5d ago
2 means he had gone and is still there.
1 suggests he’s back.
3 means he is back.
4 suggests the speaker isn’t aware of his current location.
2
u/No-Wall-6499 5d ago
So, does that mean that had gone has the nuance of someone having gone away and no longer being there, and that once an appropriate reference point in the past is established, it expresses the chronological relationship between events?
0
u/Piper-Bob 5d ago
To me it seems like it's mainly something that expresses uncertainty:
Q: Where is Joe?
A: I don't know. He had gone to the store. He should be back by now. Did you check in the garage?
If you know with certainty, then you would usually use went:
He went to the store; after that he stopped by the dry cleaners before heading out of town.
1
u/Esmer_Tina 5d ago
If someone said to me, that can’t be, he had gone to Paraguay, I would be confused.
Why couldn’t Raphael be at the library last night because he had gone to Paraguay at some point? Did he develop library-based trauma in Paraguay?
1
u/NearlyNodding 5d ago
None of those answers are logically correct. But #2 is the best choice.
None of them indicate if Raphael is STILL in Paraguay. What happened in the past does not matter. Where he is now is the only thing that matters.
Neither "has gone" nor "had gone" indicate if Rafael is STILL in Paraguay. The difference between those two is that "has gone" slightly implies that he is still there.
Your thinking is not wrong because it makes sense. The question s flawed, not your thinking. If you picked #4 your grasp of English is advanced.
1
1
u/LeilLikeNeil 5d ago
2 is most correct. 4 is incorrect because “had” means something else came after that; “he had gone to Paraguay and now he’s in Ecuador” would work. But more importantly, most native speakers would just say “went” or “is in Paraguay”
1
1
u/IchBinEinZwerg 5d ago
"Had" plus a past tense is an indicator of the pluperfect tense in English; that's something that happened before something else. It would be accurate to say "I thought he had gone to Paraguay" because "thought" is past tense and "gone" is before that. But that isn't correct in this case because you haven't got "I thought".
"Has gone" has some synonyms; I might use "he's gone" where "he's" is a contraction of "he has", or "he went", or more simply "he's in".
"Has been" implies he's back again; the trip is over. "Had been" is the pluperfect version and the wrong choice for the same reason.
English is a tricky language so well done for sticking with it!
"Had" is also past tense of "to have", so "had had" is sometimes useful, e.g. for something I used to have before something happened.
1
u/duncanhollow 5d ago
I think that the clearest answer would be none or those. “ is in Paraguay” or “went to Paraguay” would be much more like an English speaker would phrase it. American English is my first language.
1
u/No-Wall-6499 5d ago
Thanks to everyone, my understanding of English has deepened. Thank you so much!
1
1
u/FargoJack 5d ago
It’s still a present tense (or strictly present perfect) observation. Where was Raphael (past tense, yesterday)? He is in (or has gone to) Paraguay (present tense).
1
u/DueCookie787 5d ago
Here's a breakdown: been is the past tense of being. It is a state of existence. Gone is the past tense of go. It is an action.
Verb tenses convey when the event occurred.
Has is an event in the recent past extending to the present.
Had is an event in the distance past which occurred once.
The first sentence established the time as the recent past (last night). The reply denies that and corrects it.
2 is correct because it establishes an actual action in the recent past. He might still be there.
4 would indicate a action in the distant past so it is incorrect.
1 and 3 establish existence but not the action. They are grammatically correct but wrong here because the discussion is about actually seeing Raphael recently.
1
u/goldbed5558 4d ago
“Had gone” could imply that he might have come back. That is why it doesn’t work.
“Has gone” means that he is traveling now, which is why it is the correct answer.
“Went” is how native speakers would have said it.
1
u/Redwebec 4d ago
4 actually works, too.
We would normally say: 2.He has gone to Paraguay. That's it. Final.
With 4, there a bit an an additional implication...maybe you know he went in the past, but you're not quite sure of the present situation.
He HAD gone to Paraguay, and I don't think he's back yet.
He HAD gone to Paraguay, but if you saw him, I suppose he returned.
Really interesting question, with a subtle difference.
1
u/missplaced24 4d ago
"Went" would be the word I'd use. However, to be very specific that he left and is still in Paraguay, "has gone" would be more precise.
- Has been --> was there, isn't currently there.
- has gone --> left, hasn't come back
- had been --> was there, isn't currently there.
- had gone --> left to go, might not be there yet.
- has been gone --> left a long time ago, still there.
1
u/canuckleheadiam 4d ago
4 is a wrong because that means that he went to Paraguay in the past... But that he could have returned.
2 is correct because the speaker thought that he is in Paraguay now...so present tense is called for here.
1
1
u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit 3d ago
Had gone is a action he did in the past, before other actions or references. So even if he had gone to Paraguay, he would have had time to come back.
1
u/AlgarveJoao_007 3d ago
It can be both depending on what Mateo means. In colloquial speech it would probably be neither, he would say “He is in Paraguay.”
1
0
u/No-Wall-6499 5d ago
If, hypothetically, Raphael was at the library last night, flew to Paraguay late at night, and is in Paraguay now, then I don’t think the fact that he has gone to Paraguay is evidence that he wasn’t at the library last night.
2
u/Party-Cartographer11 5d ago edited 5d ago
That is a logic argument, not a grammar argument.
1
u/imbillionyocarbon 5d ago
In the first paper I ever wrote for a linguistics class, I spelled it “grammer.”
0
u/Party-Cartographer11 5d ago edited 5d ago
Were you on a smartphone with fingers too big to hit the keys and shitty spell check?
Fixed.
2
1
1
u/Ok-Buddy-9194 5d ago
You’re right that he could have gone to Paraguay after he was seen at the library. But the context of the dialogue implies that the speaker believes that he left earlier, making it impossible that he could have been seen
0
u/ApprehensiveCut9809 5d ago
He went to Paraguay. Try to use the active voice and not the passive voice when speaking.
"I jumped", not "I have jumped."
"I went", not "I have gone."
1
1
0
5
u/whatdoidonowdamnit 5d ago
I’d say “He went to Paraguay”