0
Anonymous Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
Has gone / went
I quite often hear police (but many others also) talking to the effect of "the offender has gone into the bush".
It sounds horrible to me; and I'm not sure why "the offender went into the bush" could not be used.
Common variations often heard can be "The offender has run down the street" instead of "the offender ran down the street" or "the suspect has come through the front door" instead of "the suspect came through the front door", etc.
What I don't understand is how are these two sentence structures different technically? If one is correct over the other, why?
It sounds horrible to me; and I'm not sure why "the offender went into the bush" could not be used.
Common variations often heard can be "The offender has run down the street" instead of "the offender ran down the street" or "the suspect has come through the front door" instead of "the suspect came through the front door", etc.
What I don't understand is how are these two sentence structures different technically? If one is correct over the other, why?
Top answer
This is the standard difference between the present perfect and the past simple. The former is used if there is some present connection with the past action, the latter if the speaker is simply noting the past action itself. Both are frequently possible - the choice depends on the way the speaker views the action.
- This is the standard difference between the present perfect and the past simple.
- The former is used if there is some present connection with the past action, the latter if the speaker is simply noting the past action itself.
- Both are frequently possible - the choice depends on the way the speaker views the action.
- The speaker has gone into the bush - he is still in the bush.
- The speaker went into the bush - I don't know where he is now.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
This is the standard difference between the present perfect and the past simple. The former is used if there is some present connection with the past action, the latter if the speaker is simply noting the past action itself. Both are frequently possible - the choice depends on the way the speaker views the action.
The speaker has gone into the bush - he is still in the bush.
The speaker has gone into the bush - he is still in the bush.
00
"...has gone into the bush" indicates that the offender is still in the bush, as the present perfect is used linking past to present. Whereas "...went into the bush" is past tense so doesn't say what has happened since, so the offender may have come out of the bush and escaped, or even been caught, who knows..
00
0
I'm not a native speaker, but what we learned during the English classes was: when you use present perfect, you put stress on the fact, that the past action you are mentioning has a consequence in the present.
It makes sense to be often used by police, since the past actions they describe often have a quite majoire conseqence of a dead body or so.
"The offender has gone to the
It makes sense to be often used by police, since the past actions they describe often have a quite majoire conseqence of a dead body or so.
"The offender has gone to the
00
Anonymous"The offender has gone to the bush", I think, doesn't mean "and he is still in the bush" (obviously he isn't, the offenders don't just wait around in bushes so that police can find them there), but more like means "has gone to the bush to kill the victim, and now she is dead".No. If they think the offender is longer there, they will not use the prese
0
Related Questions