"He's been in Paris for months?"
Hi All
Can you tell me why I can't use the sentence below to say that the person once spent some months in Paris?
"He's been in Paris for months?"
What's the grammar rule that says I can't?
The reason you can't is because that sentence means he's still in Paris.
<The reason you can't is because that sentence means he's still in Paris. >
??
He's been/lived in Paris for months, Dubai for half-a-year, Ireland for two years... . In fact, he's spent long periods in many places.
That sentence is wrong. You have to say "He lived in Paris for months, Dubai for half a year, Ireland for two years..."
>>He's been in Paris for months?"<<
>>He's been/[He's] lived in Paris for months, Dubai for half-a-year, Ireland for two years... . <<
>>"He lived in Paris for months, Dubai for half a year, Ireland for two years..." <<
He's is short for "he has" so all of the above sentences are correct.
The second sentence doesn't make sense because he can't be living in all those places at the same time.
Why not, if he's been overseas for say, three years? Let's say in the last three years, he's lived in Paris (6 months), Dubai (half a year) and Ireland (2 years).
Then it is not possible to use "He's been in Paris, NY, Tokyo, Milan and many other cities. He loves travelling."? I have to use "to", right?
I think, if you say "in the last three years" or "once", you can't use the present time (he's been or he's lived), whatever it's Simple Present or Present Perfect. So saying about all his locations for the last three years you should use Past (he spent, he lived, he was), but saying about the current one - Simple Present or Present Perfect .
Guest was right. If you say "He's been in Paris for months", that implies that he is still there.
Then it is not possible to use "He's been in Paris, NY, Tokyo, Milan and many other cities. He loves travelling."? I have to use "to", right?
No, you can technically use "in", although "to" would be more common. It was the "in Paris" coupled with the "for months" that causes the first sentence to denote an ongoing action.
<No, you can technically use "in", although "to" would be more common.>
Google:
195,000,000 - "been in".
90,100,000 - "been to".
Taking about "been to <place>" or "been in <place>" we are tought to speak "I've been to Paris" instead of "I've been in Paris" bacause it sounds just more correct. But these are of course only "school-english rules".
Google:
195,000,000 - "been in".
90,100,000 - "been to".
Not necessarily valid for this discussion. You may be comparing apples to oranges.
"I've been to France/I've been in France" may be interchangeable, but other concepts like "I've been in debt" and "she's never been in love" and "he's been in and out of consciousness" cannot use "to" instead of "in".