0
Mosja Posted 7 years ago
Grammar

Why "been in.." but "not been to...."

Why dont you ask Clare about the tropics? She has been in Thailand.

It is possible that Clare lives in Edinburgh now and "has been to" means that she has gone and come back. But the book said "has been in" was correct.


I think the author thinks that she lives in Thailand while making the sentence and we don't know because there is not enough contexts.

  

Top answer

mosja It is possible that Clare lives in Edinburgh now and "has been to" means that she has gone and come back. But the book said "has been in" was correct. "In" is fine, and it makes it sound more like she spent some time there.

— Anonymous

  • mosja It is possible that Clare lives in Edinburgh now and "has been to" means that she has gone and come back.
  • But the book said "has been in" was correct.
  • "In" is fine, and it makes it sound more like she spent some time there.
  • "To" is also fine, and more usual, and it makes it sound more like her sojourn was brief and superficial.
  • But the distinctions are not fully embodied in the two words, and I think your book overstates the case.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0
mosjaIt is possible that Clare lives in Edinburgh now and "has been to" means that she has gone and come back. But the book said "has been in" was correct.

"In" is fine, and it makes it sound more like she spent some time there. "To" is also fine, and more usual, and it makes it sound more like her sojourn was brief and superficial. But the distinctions are

0
0
mosjaI think the author thinks that she lives in Thailand

I would not draw that conclusion.

Been to X => a short trip

0

Related Questions