# I am gone, I am come ['To be' with past participle]



## Thomas Tompion

I have long thought:

1. that to be + past participle is a passive form.
2. that only transitive verbs can have passive forms.
3. that to go and to come are intransitive verbs.

Yet:
*After he is gone*

May 10th 2007
From _The Economist_ print edition
Life after Tony Blair will have some surprises


'They are come to visit us at Christmas, out of the world where all live to God; and to tell you some of their old fairy tales, which they loved when they were young like you.' 
From Heroes, Charles Kingsley. 

We come across such examples all the time. What form of the verb is it?


----------



## The Scrivener

Thomas Tompion said:


> I have long thought:
> 
> 1. that to be + past participle is a passive form.
> 2. that only transitive verbs can have passive forms.
> 3. that to go and to come are intransitive verbs.
> 
> Yet:
> *After he is gone*
> 
> May 10th 2007
> From _The Economist_ print edition
> Life after Tony Blair will have some surprises
> 
> 
> 'They are come to visit us at Christmas, out of the world where all live to God; and to tell you some of their old fairy tales, which they loved when they were young like you.'
> From Heroes, Charles Kingsley.
> 
> We come across such examples all the time. What form of the verb is it?


 

Hi Thomas,

Your examples are formed by adding the past participle to the present tense and thus are in the present perfect tense.


----------



## Thomas1

Good evening Thomas,


I think that this is about using these forms as adjectives.
These are normally used as past participles to form either perfect tenses or passive voice, but in your examples they are used as adjectives. Past participle is employed in this function quite often.

Let's have a look at _I'm finished_ which is of the kind of the expressions you provided.
I have finished. -- present perfect, nothing strange in it.
I am finished. -- present simple, finished acts as an adjective here, compare _My marriage is finished_.

He has gone. --present perfect
He is gone. -- present simple, _gone_ can have a few meaning here, click.



Tom

PS: go and come are also transitive verbs.


----------



## timpeac

I _believe_ that "to go" and "to come" used to be conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have", so perhaps the occasional use like that is just a throwback to that time.


----------



## The Scrivener

timpeac said:


> I _believe_ that "to go" and "to come" used to be conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have", so perhaps the occasional use like that is just a throwback to that time.


 
I agree with that, timpeac.  I was thinking of the French passé composé for "he is gone", "they are come".


----------



## JamesM

"He is risen" the "the Lord is risen" is also heard in the Easter celebration, so there's another one to add to the throwbacks.


----------



## rafaelgan

I still wonder if it's correct to say"He is gone" or shuld it be "He's gone"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

timpeac said:


> I _believe_ that "to go" and "to come" used to be conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have", so perhaps the occasional use like that is just a throwback to that time.


That's very interesting timpeac.  Do you have any evidence for it?  We find both forms in Shakespeare; for instance, here's the start of sonnet 110:

Alas! 'tis true, *I have gone* here and there,
And made my self a motley to the view,
Gor'd mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear,
Made old offences of affections new;

Here's Cleopatra dragging Antony up to the monument:

But come, come Antony, --
Help me, my women,--we must draw thee up:
Assist, good friends.

ANTONY 

O, quick, or *I am gone*.


----------



## Rivendell

Hi,

I learned that these expressions (i.e., "_I'm gone_", "_I'm finished_"...) are idiomatic. In these examples, the past participle has turned into an adjective, that's why you can use the verb "to be".

Please, tell me if you think I'm talking nonsense...


----------



## timpeac

Thomas Tompion said:


> That's very interesting timpeac. Do you have any evidence for it?


No, I'm afraid not (which is why I was stressing the "believe") - I have just noted the usage now and again, as you have done there in Shakespeare. He was writing at a time of some flux in English, so I suppose the question is whether he is adding a different nuance depending on whether he uses "have gone" or "am gone", or whether it is a purely stylistic choice with little real difference in meaning - and I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## panjandrum

While I have the British National Corpus in mind, here are some counts:
_... have gone - 2659_
... am gone - 13
... are gone - 128
... is gone - 184
_
... have come - 2797_
... am come - 5
... are come - 18
... is come - 35

There is a generally dusty feel about the examples given.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> There is a generally dusty feel about the examples given.


 
Even the Economist one from May 10th, 2007, Panj?

Do you think it's a deliberate archeism?


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:


> Even the Economist one from May 10th, 2007, Panj?
> 
> Do you think it's a deliberate archeism?


Now that I stare fixedly at the Economist example, I worry about it - not a lot, you know, just a little.

It's the use of *after *that bothers me.  *When he is gone* wouldn't bother me, but for some reason I cringe slightly (now) at *after he is gone*.  I think it's because gone in he is gone feels very like an adjective, and after he goes he will always be gone, so after he is gone doesn't make sense (and this sentence might not either).

_(Thought provoked by posts above from Thomas1 and Rivendell.)_


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:


> Now that I stare fixedly at the Economist example, I worry about it - not a lot, you know, just a little.
> 
> It's the use of *after *that bothers me. *When he is gone* wouldn't bother me, but for some reason I cringe slightly (now) at *after he is gone*. I think it's because gone in he is gone feels very like an adjective, and after he goes he will always be gone, so after he is gone doesn't make sense (and this sentence might not either).
> 
> _(Thought provoked by posts above from Thomas1 and Rivendell.)_


I think I see what you are saying. To draw another example, you would prefer "after he has died" to "after he is dead", but would see little to pick between "when he is dead" and "when he has died"?


----------



## Thomas1

I have been pondering over this phenomenon and come up with some questions:

Are the following aceptable to you:
_The sun was not yet risen._
_When he got up the sun was well risen._
_Kim is gone for five months_
_I'm so done?=I'm so tired???_
_He was come a few minutes ago._
_They were finished yesterday._
I am also thinking whether _be_ is an auxiliary here and am wondering if you would use any other copula than _be_ with the mentioned so far forms.

***
Would you say: 
_He is gone to the store_?
_They are done the homework._ (Personally, I wouldn't use this one, and am unsure about the first one)

***
I think that there can be a grain of truth in what timepac and The Scrivener have written. IMHO it is very much probable that a few centuries ago have and be were/could be used as auxiliaries of perfect tense. It can also be the case that it is both a relict of perfect and an indicator of a copula (since how to interpret I'm so done?).



Tom


----------



## timpeac

Ok, my feelings on the various sentences in colour below (sorry can't be bothered to cut and paste all the quotes otherwise!)



Thomas1 said:


> I have been pondering over this phenomenon and come up with some questions:
> 
> Are the following aceptable to you:
> _The sun was not yet risen.Ok, but rather poetic for "the sun had not yet risen"._
> _When he got up the sun was well risen.Fine, you could not replace this by the perfect since it is a state._
> _Kim is gone for five monthsI find this strange and would say "has gone" usually. Is the confusion due to the fact that in speech we would normally say "Kim's gone..." which is potentially ambiguous?_
> _I'm so done?=I'm so tired???For me for it to equal "so tired" it would have to be "done in", "I'm so done" for me means "I can't be dealing with you gits any more". All that aside it sounds fine._
> _He was come a few minutes ago.Very strange._
> _They were finished yesterday.Absolutely fine - the passive. The pictures were finished last August._
> I am also thinking whether _be_ is an auxiliary here and am wondering if you would use any other copula than _be_ with the mentioned so far forms.
> 
> ***
> Would you say:
> _He is gone to the store_?Never.
> _They are done the homework._ (Personally, I wouldn't use this one, and am unsure about the first one)Absolutely not - I'm not sure where you're going with this - why do you think this is ok?
> 
> ***
> I think that there can be a grain of truth in what timepac and The Scrivener have written. IMHO it is very much probable that a few centuries ago have and be were/could be used as auxiliaries of perfect tense. It can also be the case that it is both a relict of perfect and an indicator of a copula (since how to interpret I'm so done?).
> 
> 
> 
> Tom


 
I'm so done with all these questions!


----------



## sdgraham

And, since I'm sitting in Atlanta, Georgia, at the moment, I can only think of the American classic novel: _Gone with the Wind_


----------



## timpeac

sdgraham said:


> And, since I'm sitting in Atlanta, Georgia, at the moment, I can only think of the American classic novel: _Gone with the Wind_


And for us poor Brits, or at least this poor Brit, what do you mean??


----------



## sdgraham

timpeac said:


> And for us poor Brits, or at least this poor Brit, what do you mean??



Sorry. _Gone with the wind_ is an American classic novel of by Margaret Mitchell who wrote the novel in Atlanta and it is set in Atlanta, Georgia, the heart of the American South.

The pertinence here is that the subject of the sentence is understood (way of life or the character, Tara) is gone (with the wind.)


----------



## Packard

She has a new boyfriend; I am afraid* I'm history*.

Effectively "I'm history" is the same as "I am gone".

"I'm history" sounds entirely natural to me.

I think "I am gone" sounds a bit strange; but "I'm gone" does not.


----------



## timpeac

sdgraham said:


> Sorry. _Gone with the wind_ is an American classic novel of by Margaret Mitchell who wrote the novel in Atlanta and it is set in Atlanta, Georgia, the heart of the American South.
> 
> The pertinence here is that the subject of the sentence is understood (way of life or the character, Tara) is gone (with the wind.)


Oh thanks, yes I know the book (although I do admit I haven't read it), but how do you know from the phrase "gone with the wind" that it is "is" that is understood and not "has" - "Tara has gone with the wind"?


----------



## sdgraham

timpeac said:


> Oh thanks, yes I know the book (although I do admit I haven't read it), but how do you know from the phrase "gone with the wind" that it is "is" that is understood and not "has" - "Tara has gone with the wind"?


Check that Wikipedia reference. It might be a bit thin, I admit.


----------



## cheshire

I remember Elizabeth saying "Jane *is *come!" in BBC's _Pride and Prejudice_ by Jane Austen.  The frequency of the use of  "have -p.p." exceded "be -p.p." at the end of 18th century. I learned that the former form is "newer" that appeared in Middle English. 
For some reason, "be -p.p." for motion verbs has almost disappeared, except for some idiomatic expressions (I'm finished. He's gone.)


----------



## timpeac

sdgraham said:


> Check that Wikipedia reference. It might be a bit thin, I admit.


Ok read it, but sorry I still don't see why "gone with the wind" is necessarily short for "is gone with the wind" has opposed to "has gone with the wind".


----------



## liliput

I agree with those who have said that these are adjective forms, and are not being used as verbs at all.
This being the case, I also agree with panj's comment that "After he is gone" is not very correct, it should be "After he has gone" or "When he is gone". "After he is gone" is presumably when he has come back (or is come back!?).


----------



## timpeac

liliput said:


> I agree with those who have said that these are adjective forms, and are not being used as verbs at all.
> This being the case, I also agree with panj's comment that "After he is gone" is not very correct, it should be "After he has gone" or "When he is gone". "After he is gone" is presumably when he has come back (or is come back!?).


Yes, it's interesting that semantically "I'm back!" and "I have returned" are very similar, and yet you could not swap the auxiliaries over and still be correct.


----------



## liliput

timpeac said:


> Yes, it's interesting that semantically "I'm back!" and "I have returned" are very similar, and yet you could not swap the auxiliaries over and still be correct.


 
Hmm. "I'm returned" sounds OK to me (well, a little odd but similar to "when you're gone"), but yes, "I have back" is nonsense.


----------



## timpeac

liliput said:


> Hmm. "I'm returned" sounds OK to me


Really? Goes to show how subjective all this is because it sounds like nonsense to my ear!! I would find it hard to imagine someone saying "he is returned" without adding something like "my liege"!


----------



## AWordLover

liliput said:


> I agree with those who have said that these are adjective forms, and are not being used as verbs at all.
> This being the case, I also agree with panj's comment that "After he is gone" is not very correct, it should be "After he has gone" or "When he is gone". "After he is gone" is presumably when he has come back (or is come back!?).


 
Hi All,

1) After he has gone. [After he has left. Maybe this could mean died.]
2) After he is gone. [After he has left, possibly forever. After he has died.]

1) After he has gone to sleep, we need to party more quietly.

2) You're all treating him miserably. You'll be sorry after *he's* gone. You'll regret that you never told him how much you loved him.

I think the contraction here is more likely to be *he is gone* [ie, dead], than *he has gone.*


----------



## liliput

timpeac said:


> Really? Goes to show how subjective all this is because it sounds like nonsense to my ear!! I would find it hard to imagine someone saying "he is returned" without adding something like "my liege"!


That's exactly the kind of context I was thinking of, I didn't mean to suggest I'd use it in everyday conversation.


----------



## Packard

I'm gone!

I'm here!

I'm home! (My Dad used to say this when he came home from work.)



This sounds slightly conversational.


----------



## LV4-26

My 0,02 $ (or £ or €, whichever you like), in the form of a conclusion.

1. In some instances, _be_ is a verb in its own right, i.e. not an auxiliary and the following word functions as an adjective, not a past participle.
Example
_Those days are gone_
(they're no longer here)

2. In some others, _be_ is an auxiliary all right, a survival of an old form, as in....
_They are come to visit us at Christmas._


----------



## Cagey

timpeac said:


> I _believe_ that "to go" and "to come" used to be conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have", so perhaps the occasional use like that is just a throwback to that time.



In response to the request for a reference in an earlier post (#8?), the following is taken from the OED entries on *have* and *be*:

From OED online:

_*have*_ as an auxiliary verb:
"As in the other Germanic (and Romanic) languages, the various moods and tenses of _have_ are used with the past participle of another verb, to form a series of compound or ‘perfect’ tenses of the latter.....  [The entry explains how the use of have as an auxiliary developed from its meaning: to possess] .... Verbs of motion and position long retained the earlier use of the auxiliary _be_; and he is gone is still used to express resulting state, while he has gone expresses action. See BE 14b".

*be*  as an auxiliary verb:
"[*Be* is used as an auxiliary verb] in intransitive verbs, forming perfect tenses, in which use it is now largely displaced by _have_ after the pattern of transitive verbs: _be_ being retained only with _come, go, rise, set, fall, arrive, depart, grow,_ and the like, when we express the condition or state now attained, rather than the action of reaching it, as ‘the sun is set,’ ‘our guests are gone,’ ‘Babylon is fallen,’ ‘the children are all grown up'."

(The final comment on usage seems to agree with WordLover a few posts back.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Cagey said:


> In response to the request for a reference in a earlier post (#8?), the is taken from the OED entries on *have* and *be*:
> 
> From OED online:
> 
> _*have*_ as an auxiliary verb:
> "As in the other Germanic (and Romanic) languages, the various moods and tenses of _have_ are used with the past participle of another verb, to form a series of compound or ‘perfect’ tenses of the latter..... [The entry explains how the use of have as an auxiliary developed from its meaning: to possess] .... Verbs of motion and position long retained the earlier use of the auxiliary _be_; and he is gone is still used to express resulting state, while he has gone expresses action. See BE 14b".
> 
> *be* as an auxiliary verb:
> "[*Be* is used as an auxiliary verb] in intransitive verbs, forming perfect tenses, in which use it is now largely displaced by _have_ after the pattern of transitive verbs: _be_ being retained only with _come, go, rise, set, fall, arrive, depart, grow,_ and the like, when we express the condition or state now attained, rather than the action of reaching it, as ‘the sun is set,’ ‘our guests are gone,’ ‘Babylon is fallen,’ ‘the children are all grown up'."
> 
> (The final comment on usage seems to agree with WordLover a few posts back.)


 
Thank you very much for this, Cagey.  Very interesting.


----------



## Packard

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you very much for this, Cagey. Very interesting.


 
I recall a dialogue from Shakespeare that was either

"I am killed."

or 

"I am murdered"

I cannot remember the play or who said it however.


----------



## dottorT

hi!
is it right to write:
Frederic is come back.

I thought the right form was: Frederic is back
or 
Frederic is come.

thanks!
bye!


----------



## timpeac

dottorT said:


> hi!
> is it right to write:
> Frederic is come back.
> 
> I thought the right form was: Frederic is back
> or
> Frederic is come.
> 
> thanks!
> bye!


 Hi - no it's not. English only uses the verb "to have" with a past participle no matter what the verb is.

Frederic has come back.
Frederic has come.

"Frederic is back" is fine, but here "back" is an adjective describing Frederic, not a verb (or perhaps short for "Frederic has come back").


----------



## Thomas Tompion

timpeac said:


> Hi - no it's not. English only uses the verb "to have" with a past participle no matter what the verb is.
> 
> Frederic has come back.
> Frederic has come.
> 
> "Frederic is back" is fine, but here "back" is an adjective describing Frederic, not a verb (or perhaps short for "Frederic has come back").


Hi Tim,

This directly contradicts what Cagey says in post 34.  I must admit to being with Cagey on this.


----------



## pismo

Great discussion!

When I see "is gone,"  I think of it as short for "is gone away," or "not here."

"He is gone" answers the question "Where is he?"

"He has gone"  answers the question "What did he do?"


----------



## Thomas1

dottorT said:


> hi!
> is it right to write:
> Frederic is come back.
> 
> I thought the right form was: Frederic is back
> or
> Frederic is come.
> 
> thanks!
> bye!


If you are asking whether it is correct then the answer is yes, it is. However, I have some misgivings about whether many Engish speakers would use it in modern English in a casual conversation. EDIT: I would like to see some comments by native speakers on this. You may find many similar examples in literature, though.


----------



## timpeac

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi Tim,
> 
> This directly contradicts what Cagey says in post 34. I must admit to being with Cagey on this.


Oh - I must admit that I missed that (or forgot - I hadn't noticed how old this thread is). However, having read it now I don't agree. Seriously, if I said "where is John?" would you say "he is gone to the shops?" (here we are not interested in the process but in the result as required). Have you ever said "Oh great! Jack and Mary are arrived!"

By the way - Cagey didn't say anthing, it was just a quote of a dictionary so I'm not sure of the conclusion we're meant to draw from it. I don't disagree with any of the examples in themselves just with the grammatical analysis which ultimately is human opinion superimposed on what we see language does. Most of the time past participles and adjectives are identical (and perhaps the former had their origin in the later and thus the comment from the OED) but I would argue that in "the guests are gone" "gone" is effectively an adjective by analogy with "all the windows are open". Here we have a rare example of a past participle and adjective having different form and "all the windows are opened" suggests that we are talking about someone walking round opening them rather than commenting on their on-going state. Another example is the fact that I find "the guest are gone" fine but "the guests are gone back to their hotel" strange.


----------



## mrxkms

Please, I want to know the simple meaning of I am gone
is it the instant after when I go? or does mean that when I die?
I really got confused.


----------



## panjandrum

mrxkms said:


> Please, I want to know the simple meaning of I am gone
> is it the instant after when I go? or does mean that when I die?
> I really got confused.


You need to give us the context and a full sentence.  The comments above should illustrate some of the possible variations in meaning of such an apparently simple statement


----------



## mrxkms

What if someone tells me that he he is gone? How shall I understand what he wants to convey?

Here is a poem by Christina Rossetti

REMEMBER me when I am gone away,
Gone far away into the silent land;
When you can no more hold me by the hand,
Nor I half turn to go, yet turning stay.

_[...... excess quotation deleted by moderator]_


----------



## Loob

Hello, mrxkms

In the poem, "when I am gone away, Gone far away into the silent land" means "when I am dead".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

And the sad truth is that in everyday circumstances - the poem is wonderful! - we say _I have gone_, and_ I have gone away_, and don't talk much of _silent lands_.


----------



## sunyaer

timpeac said:


> Really? Goes to show how subjective all this is because it sounds like nonsense to my ear!! I would find it hard to imagine someone saying "he is returned" without adding something like "my liege"!






liliput said:


> That's exactly the kind of context I was thinking of, I didn't mean to suggest I'd use it in everyday conversation.



How would "_my liege_" be added to "_he is returned_" to form a complete sentence? And what would it mean? (the context?)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> How would "_my liege_" be added to "_he is returned_" to form a complete sentence? And what would it mean? (the context?)


I think Tim's point was that the form of words is archaic - not used at all today.  Nobody calls anyone else 'my liege' either.


----------



## PaulQ

The question of the verb to be forming the perfect is addressed in “A General Critical Grammar of the Inglish Language” by Samuel Oliver Jnr. (London 1825)1 at pages 113-114 (I have kept the spelling.) 

Oliver, whose English is antiquated even by the writing of the time, seems to take German grammar as his guide.  

It is a little long but well out of copyright. 





> Sect. 13.—Of _the Subdivisions of Verbs Neuter. _
> 
> The subdivisions of verbs neuter are verbs active-intransitive and verbs neuter- intransitive: these are conjugated like verbs active, but having somewhat of a passive nature, they admit in many instances the form by which in all modern languages a passive verbal sense is obtained; that is, they are used in _the _past Participle with the verb _be _antecedent.
> 
> Verbs active-intransitive are used in the past participle with the verb _be _antecedent when they signify motion, change of place, or change in state of being, and can be thus used without obtaining a passive sense; as; _I am come; Thou wast gone; He will be risen; We are grown; You were fallen. _
> 
> Verbs neuter-intransitive are used in the past participle with the verb be antecedent when they signify a state abode in which is implied some indirect allusion to motion, and can be thus used without obtaining a passive sense; as; _I am returned; Thou wast arrived; He will be settled._
> 
> Observe: verbs active-intransitive, and neuter-intransitive can not be used in the past participle with the verb be antecedent to obtain an active sense on many occasions in which they must obtain a passive sense, though not a perspicuous one: _we _can not say; _I was walkt out; I was riden out; I was driven out, _to express, _I had walkt out; I had _&c. _I was walkt out, _implies, _I was led out; I __was riden out, _implies that some one _rode me out, _that is, _rode upon me; I __was driven out, _implies _by some person. I was sitten down, _for _I had sitten down, _is incorrect because the neuter-intransitive verb _sit, _not signifying a state of abode in which _is _implied indirect allusion to motion, can not be used in the past participle with the verb be antecedent.


 
1 An interesting book, not least for its use of ‘propreantepenultimate’.


----------



## sunyaer

timpeac said:


> ... Seriously, if I said "where is John?" would you say "he is gone to the shops?" (here we are not interested in the process but in the result as required). Have you ever said "Oh great! Jack and Mary are arrived!"



Would you say "he is gone to the shops" and "Oh great! Jack and Mary are arrived!" ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> Would you say "he is gone to the shops" and "Oh great! Jack and Mary are arrived!" ?


No, you wouldn't.  At least, I never would.


----------



## sunyaer

sunyaer said:


> Would you say "he is gone to the shops" and "Oh great! Jack and Mary are arrived!" ?





Thomas Tompion said:


> No, you wouldn't.  At least, I never would.



What would you say?

"He is gone and went to the shops"?  (Is it wordy to say "is gone" and "went to" afterwards?)

And 

"Oh great! Jack and Mary have arrived"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> What would you say?
> 
> "He is gone and went to the shops"?  (Is it wordy to say "is gone" and "went to" afterwards?)
> 
> And
> 
> "Oh great! Jack and Mary have arrived"?


This really is simple.  You say *He has gone to the shops.*

And your suggestion, *Jack and Mary have arrived*, is fine.


----------

