# he could have went!



## James Styczinski

Is this the correct translation of the phrase: "he could have went."
"él podía haber ido."

thanks
james


----------



## Learning

WENT??? Wouldn't it better to say GONE??
Saludos


----------



## James Styczinski

yes, that also is possible. But my question is in regards to the spanish translation: "él podía haber ido!" Es correcta esa frase?
james


----------



## Learning

Yes, without more contexto PODÍA HABER IDO. I think it depends on the contexto.

But now I'm puzzled! Why went and not GONE??:S:S
Thanks


----------



## Learning

Podía haber ido O Él podía haber ido. ÉL can be ommited


----------



## James Styczinski

It could be a "American English" thing. Quite often we say "he could have went if he wanted," o "he could have gone if he wanted..."
They both mean the same thing. 

saludos
james


----------



## jamafrind

Hello James, in my estimation, it is reliant upon the context. The construction could be either *podia* or *podria*, depending upon whether the sentence connotes imperfect past or conditional future. Does anyone else have view on this? Am I way off target here?


----------



## Learning

You're right jamafrind: it could also be PODRÍA.


----------



## James Styczinski

muchas gracias!
james


----------



## Fernita

*Pudo haber ido* is also possible.
*Podría haber ido *is correct too.

But I wouldn´t say *él podía haber ido.*


----------



## suso26

ohh si nos referimos al verbo ir en participio.. definitivamente es Gone.. La verdad me he encontrado varias veces con ese raro enunciado..
I have went.. 
No soy nativo.. pero que mal lo veo.


----------



## Kevin R

"he could have went"  is absolutely grammatically WRONG!!!

"he could have gone" is the only correct phrase.


----------



## suso26

Oh! just when I was thinking  "I have been learning a bad English!"..an English saviour had to rise!!!  Of course that that Sentence is WRONG!!

Thanks! Kevin R


----------



## Txiri

It's appallingly bad grammar, not a question of "American English", please ...


----------



## James Styczinski

No!!!! Sorry, there is a big difference in British and American English. And here it is grammatically correct to say: He could have went, o, He could have gone. Perhaps in Britain, it is not like that.

james


----------



## James Styczinski

For example...in spelling

Color--american
colour--british

Just to explain that there is a difference. 
james


----------



## suso26

We are here to learn together.. not to feed our ignorance. The end.


----------



## suso26

It is not the same thing to compare Colour and Color with Gone and went.. it's like if I said in Spanish "Esta morido.. " instead of "Está muerto.. " but i want to stress again that I although am not a Native English speaker.. I prefer to say GONE..


----------



## Txiri

James Styczinski said:
			
		

> No!!!! Sorry, there is a big difference in British and American English. And here it is grammatically correct to say: He could have went, o, He could have gone. Perhaps in Britain, it is not like that.
> 
> james


 
"Went" is the simple past of the verb "to go".  It is NOT a past participle.  EVER.  PERIOD.  IT IS NOT!  REPEAT, NOT! CORRECT AMERICAN ENGLISH.


----------



## Eugin

James Styczinski said:
			
		

> For example...in spelling
> 
> Color--american
> colour--british
> 
> Just to explain that there is a difference.
> james


You are talking about spelling differences here, which are well-known by everyone who studies English, but please, please, don`t be so stubborn so as to not accepting that "could have WENT" is gramatically *INCORRECT*.

So far, in this thread, nobody has told you that you were right, so please, be a little bit humble and accept that it IS not possible that that form be correct....


----------



## cubaMania

"He could have gone." is grammatically correct English.
"He could have went." is grammatically incorrect everywhere, even in USA.

You can look this up in the conjugation of the verb *to go. *


----------



## James Styczinski

I guess when we hear such a phrase over and over and over, although incorrect, one can think it to be correct. 
my appologies!
james


----------



## cubaMania

We are all here to learn, James. You have gotten a little something extra out of this thread besides the Spanish translation for which you asked. You are right, many of use have some linguistic blind-spots (and non-linguistic ones, come to think of it) because we happen to have been in an environment which exposed us to repetitions of something incorrect. The key is to be open to the learning experience, as you have just shown.


----------



## Eugin

James Styczinski said:
			
		

> I guess when we hear such a phrase over and over and over, although incorrect, one can think it to be correct.
> my appologies!
> james


 
Thank you for (finally ) understanding!!!  I was just about to throw you a Grammar book over your head, but you were saved by the bell...


----------



## M.mac

Let’s not be grammar Nazi’s here guys!  

I think it is important for all of us to understand the distinction between *English usage *as it is spoken by *native speakers in the real world* and *standard English* as it is taught in English classes, in grammar books and used internationally.

Of course, it is important for us to use *standard English *on this website as we are language learners, teachers and translators. We need to be understood internationally and to communicate in a way that is accepted at work and in our classes. However, it is also important that we recognise that there is *variation in the way our language is used* (be it English or Spanish). 

The way we speak is part of our identity and tells people something about the social groups we belong to. I for one have learned something interesting today about how *one variation of American usage*.

Personally, I find it intolerant when someone gives *perfectly accurate information* about how native speakers of one variety of English use their *own language* and they are told in capital letters that they are WRONG to speak the way that they do.

Of course we need to make a distinction for the benefit of those who are trying to speak and write standard English in a way that is widely recognised as accurate. However, I would personally prefer that, we used the words *non-standard usage* (which is used by native speakers but not widely accepted) and *standard usage*. It is not only more accurate to use these terms it is more tolerant and less confrontational.

Just to lift the tone of my contribution, I would like to say that this is a fabulous website and I always find people to be friendly and helpful. Hope you all have a good day/night depending on which part of the world you find yourselves in.


----------



## cubaMania

M.mac said:
			
		

> Let’s not be grammar Nazi’s here guys!
> ...
> Personally, I find it intolerant when someone gives *perfectly accurate information* about how native speakers of one variety of English use their *own language* and they are told in capital letters that they are WRONG to speak the way that they do...


 
M.mac I disagree with your assessment. The poster did NOT give "perfectly accurate information." The poster said "here it is grammatically correct to say: He could have went." That is perfectly inaccurate and is misinformation. So your entire premise is false.


----------



## M.mac

OK I take your point. I was refering to this post.



> *Quite often we say* "he could have went if he wanted," o "he could have gone if he wanted..." They both mean the same thing.


 
It was perfectly accurate for him to say that people use the language in this way and with this meaning.


----------



## RVC

hello, let me add my humble opinion to this very controversial thread, I completely agree with the opinion that "he could have went" is gramatically wrong and I've never heard (not even in the States) anybody use it that way...BUT what some people might have heard is the use of the phrasal verb "go on", as in:

"he could have went on saying that..."

don't you think? or is that also wrong?


----------



## M.mac

> I've never heard (not even in the States) anybody use it that way


Hi RVC, 

Perhaps you have heard something similar and didn't realise, because...



> "he could have went on saying that..."


 
... the *standard* way of saying this would be: _He could have gone on saying that..._



> don't you think? or is that also wrong?


 
Probably most people who have contributed to this thread would say so. I would say you have provided us with another example of a *non-standard* *usage* of English, which is *not usually considered acceptable*, but nevertheless does exist!

Isn't language interesting! I think it would be boring if we all spoke the same way.


----------



## cubaMania

RVC, "he could have went on saying that" is just as grammatically incorrect as the original phrase we are discussing.

M.mac,
Two points:

1. The posters whom you labeled as "grammar Nazis" were correctly, accurately, and helpfully reponding to:
A. the original poster's declaration that "They could have went." was grammatically correct.
and
B. the puzzled requests for clarification from Spanish speakers asking if they had learned this wrong because they thought it should be "gone."

2. The isolated phrase you quote "Quite often we say 'he could have went if he wanted,' o 'he could have gone if he wanted...' They both mean the same thing." was in fact the original poster's direct response to a Spanish speaker who was expressing confusion, asking whether the word shouldn't be "gone" instead of "went." As such, the response was misleading. If he had added "but it is not grammatically correct" or "it is not used in educated environments" or some such, it would have been fine. But as it stands it was at least implying misinformation in response to a valid question posed by someone learning English.

I find that generally in these forums posters are quite reasonable in distinguishing between grammatical rules, standard English, and language as it is actually spoken in various environments. But when misinformation is clearly being disseminated in a thread it is desirable that others step in and fix it. That is what happened in this thread.

It is possible, even likely, that you could dig up a thread in which someone could legitimately be accused of being a "grammar Nazi" but this thread is not one of them.


----------



## Txiri

"Grammar Nazis", not "Grammar Nazi´s"-- that is another *incorrect* usage. The apostrophe *´s* is reserved for the possessive (except with "its") and to indicate the absence of a letter, as in contracted auxiliaries.

I personally don´t have a problem with language errors--everyone makes them, even in his-her native language (see above). The egregious issue is asserting that one´s error is the norm in one´s country. You can express a preference to have that error termed "non-standard", and there are many types of errors that could fit under such a category, but confusing one form of a conjugated verb with another is a *grammatical error*. American speakers and writers typically make many spelling-related errors, they confuse "would of" for "would have", and blissfully ignore the subjunctive (just to name a few ...) Save the spelling matters, these are *grammatical errors*.

I also don´t care how people speak in their subcultures among their peers. When they step into a classroom, however, their use of language, their ability to use it correctly, comes under a spotlight. And this forum IS a classroom. 

The inability to express oneself in writing in one´s native language, according to standards of education, is a handicap. On a very basic level, when one applies for a job or mails a resumé seeking employment, and the cover letter, job application, or resumé contains spelling or serious grammatical errors, that aspirant starts the whole process with sometimes insurmountable strikes against him (or her). You can call employers and college admissions committees intolerant as well, but these are basic facts of life. It´s also not an "intolerant" attitude limited to United States´perspectives. I had a student in Spain who took _oposiciones _and was graded off for his failure to include written accents where they belonged, and was "dismayed" at that, since, as he put it, he wasn´t taking the examinations in order to become a teacher of Spanish-- his area was something completely different -- but the exam grading philosophy took advantage of a simple measuring stick to *weed out, get rid of, *candidates starting the competition for the job with educational deficiencies. It may be intolerant, but it is a fact of life.


----------



## M.mac

Point taken. I apologise for using the words 'grammar Nazi', and agree it is important not to confuse people who are learning. I did mention this in my first post. I hope I did not piss everyone off so much with the first sentence that they did not read that far!


----------



## M.mac

> "Grammar Nazis", not "Grammar Nazi´s"-- that is another *incorrect* usage.


Oh my god... now I really am embarrassed. I guess when we get into a heated discussion about something we forget to proof read our posts before hitting the send button!


----------



## Moritzchen

M.mac you brilliantly made some interesting points which brought to this thread great insights from other participants. No one is wrong, no one should feel embarrassed. Just another heated day in the office.


----------



## Edwin

It is interesting that Google gives over a million  hits for "have went"  and  about 52,000 of those are concerned with the question of its grammatical incorrectness: "have went" grammar


----------



## Askaks

I think I know what James tried to explain.
"He could have went" is of course a NOT grammatically correct sentence.
But it's used.

It's like in Spanish, when some people say:

"Muchas gentes aparecieron en la escena del crimen"

Todos sabemos que decir "gentes" es gramaticalmente incorrecto, pero lo utilizamos. "Gente" ya es una palabra en plural, es innecesario agregar la "s".
Como siempre, es aconsejable utilizar la forma "correcta" la cual, en la mayoría de los casos, no siempre es la más utilizada.


----------



## M.mac

I guess this post makes 52,001!  

Not sure whether or not to say this because it's bound to start us off again... but we could be looking at an example of language change happening before our very eyes in one variety of English.


----------



## Moritzchen

Bring it on! I'm game.


----------



## Edwin

M.mac said:
			
		

> ...but we could be looking at an example of language change happening before our very eyes in one variety of English.



Of course, it is a continuous process. If languages didn't change and evolve we would all still be grunting and there would be no need for WordReference.com.  There is probably a thread in the Culture Forum on this theme. 
"evolution of language": 470,000 hits


----------



## Echándolosperros

In the three decades that I have lived in the United Sates, I have heard many time people say things like "he could have went", but I have never ever heard it from the mouth of reasonably educated people. This type of usage will automatically qualify you as some kind of hill-billy or redneck who is not to be taken seriously. It is a lingual atrocity that makes you shudder.

Greetings to all.


----------



## Moritzchen

Echand, it trascends race lines.


----------



## M.mac

> This type of usage will automatically qualify you as some kind of hill-billy or redneck


The way we use language does reflect the social and cultural groups we belong to.



> who is not to be taken seriously. It is a lingual atrocity that makes you shudder


This is a value judgement. I am not saying it is wrong to make value judgements we are all human and do it every day. However, in case you haven't all noticed, I would place myself in the _descriptive _camp of language study and not in the _prescriptive _camp (although I freely acknowledge both are necessary). 

If we were to look at this language phenomena from a descriptive perspective we could say that:
1. The use of "could have went" etc. appears to be widespread (see Edwin's google research).
2. It seems to be used in the US.
3. It qualifies people as belonging to a certain social group (or one of several social groups)
4. There is a perception (from the outside of those groups) that this is an uneducated or lower-class usage.
5. From the inside of those group(s), however, the usage may show solidarity (or belonging) to that particular group or identity.


----------



## Edwin

Echándolosperros said:
			
		

> This type of usage will automatically qualify you as some kind of hill-billy or redneck who is not to be taken seriously. It is a lingual atrocity that makes you shudder.



Echándolosperros, this comes close to an ad hominen attack. You should cool the excessive use of verbal ornamentation.  

And to be more accurate perhaps you should say: 





> It is a lingual atrocity that makes you *me* shudder.


----------



## M.mac

For those of you who, like me, don't understand Latin, I just looked this up: 

*ad hominen *fallacy (Latin for to the man) a fallacy of logic in which a person's character or motive is attacked instead of that person's argument.

(BTW Txiri, I had to add the apostrophes  )


----------



## cubaMania

Echándo, you have come along and provided an example of exactly the kind of elitist attitude that M.mac was referring to, and rightly deplores.  But this is a rare event on this forum, and I say again, that this was NOT the case in the thread before the entrance of M.mac.  A question was put by a Spanish speaker, the question was answered incorrectly.  That incorrect answer was subsequently corrected by other posters--exactly as it should have been.


			
				Echándolosperros said:
			
		

> In the three decades that I have lived in the United Sates, I have heard many time people say things like "he could have went", but I have never ever heard it from the mouth of reasonably educated people. This type of usage will automatically qualify you as some kind of hill-billy or redneck who is not to be taken seriously. It is a lingual atrocity that makes you shudder.
> 
> Greetings to all.


 
"grammatical nazism" might be an appropriate topic for a new thread in the cultural discussions forum, but it never belonged in this thread.  There was none of that happening in this thread before M.mac's post.


----------



## M.mac

cubaMania, I have already admitted I was out of line and apologised for offence given. However, at the end of the day, we have discussed some interesting ideas and no harm done. I have now aquainted myself with the cultural forum, which, I agree, is a more appropriate venue for this type of discussion. Saludos a todos y que tengan muy buenas noches.


----------



## lforestier

M.Mac's post was an attempt to calm everybody down. So I believe it unfair to single him out since he simply  expressed a preference for using words like *Non-Standard* instead of *Wrong and ignorant*. Let's all get back to translating, ok?


----------



## M.mac

Umm, "her" actually (Mac is from my surname) and thank you for the support.


----------



## Chaucer

James Styczinski said:
			
		

> It could be a "American English" thing. Quite often we say "he could have went if he wanted," o "he could have gone if he wanted..."
> They both mean the same thing.
> 
> saludos
> james



To make this as clear as possible, Spanish speakers around the world,
"could have went" isn't an "American English thing". It's simply an "American being sloppy thing": it's the sloppiness that is the "thing". It isn't slang. It isn't colloquial. It's a mistake, a blunder. But in this case, it's like a deliberate fart: some guy can be one those deliberate uncouth people who will fart on purpose for everyone to hear, and think it's cool; and he'll describe it as "a guy thing", thus somehow transferring some of that acceptableness of the "guy thing" to the fart; but the smell of the fart remains and we just have to say "Phew!". When you  try to fool people into believing that "he could have went" is "an American English thing" and accepted, the "went" is a fart. No matter how much "an American English thing" is claimed as the reason to say it is correct, it still sounds/smells really really bad. 

We all make mistakes, but to actually have it already defended in one's mind and attributing it to "American English" is self-deceptive. The reason for this clear clear blunder is not "American English", its the "American" in this case. It simply means, Spanish speakers of the world, that this grammatical fart, that is being touted as as acceptable, is a result of never having paid attention in English courses, starting in the 4th grade. I haven't read any posts after this one that I am responding to (I may after I post this), because it is one of the truly worst statements I have ever seen in this forum and I halted immediately; and as for doozies of statements, you know some really bad one's are posted now and then.


----------



## danielfranco

Is you be fightin'? Or is you be ain't? 'Cuz am-a gointer hafta tell on yo sorry bee-hind, ya hear? 
[Are you fighting, or not? Because I am going to have to tell on your sorry behind, do you hear me?]

Often, one may hear such things in many different places in the USA. Many people would speak so, but however many speak in such manner will not make that specific use of those words and sentences the standard for the country, or for the language, at this moment in time.

Now, in Mexican Spanish I would have said: "Podría haberse ido".

Long days and pleasant nights.


----------



## cubaMania

Chaucer said:
			
		

> ...this grammatical fart, that is being touted as as acceptable, is a result of never having paid attention in English courses, starting in the 4th grade. I haven't read any posts after this one that I am responding to (I may after I post this), because it is one of the truly worst statements I have ever seen in this forum and I halted immediately; and as for doozies of statements, you know some really bad one's are posted now and then.


 
Chaucer,
The original poster, after being corrected by several different forum members did in fact recognize that he had given out misinformation and gracefully and sincerely apologized for doing so. As you say, everyone makes mistakes. But the original poster righted his mistake. He is off the hook.


----------



## PSIONMAN

M.mac said:
			
		

> Let’s not be grammar Nazi’s here guys!
> 
> I think it is important for all of us to understand the distinction between *English usage *as it is spoken by *native speakers in the real world* and *standard English* as it is taught in English classes, in grammar books and used internationally.


I am totally behind M.mac here (ok Nazi is a bit strong), but what people usually mean by bad grammar is no such thing. Bad grammar would be

"I to hospital the am"

This is incomprehensible

We all understand "he could have went" - this is just a different variety of English and can be heard in some locations/groups/cultures. To stigmatise people for this is as offensive as to stigmatise people for the colour of their skin. 

I would also defend M.mac's use of the apostrophe:

"The apostophe [as a mark of plurals] was common in the 18th C because this mark of punctuation was still coming into English at the time. The rules governing its chief use as a marker of possession were not established for another century, so that in the 1700s it was quite often used to mark a plural. Indeed, we still have this option today, as when we write 1700's. So to condemn someone for using such forms as potato's is actually to display linguistic ignorance - an ignorance of the logic behind such forms which modern users are unconciously manifesting" - David Crystal, How language works, Penguin Books, 2005


----------



## Smac

PSIONMAN said:
			
		

> We all understand "he could have went" - this is just a different variety of English and can be heard in some locations/groups/cultures. To stigmatise people for this is as offensive as to stigmatise people for the colour of their skin.


I fully agree. On the other hand, in a forum devoted to improving linguistic skills in people from diverse backgrounds it is appropriate to point out, for the benefit of others, if a construction is likely to be interpreted as evidence of poor language skills, even if it is in common use.

It is always appropriate to warn others that a phrase can be (or is likely to be) viewed with disfavour, whether because it is offensive in itself (obscene, for instance, or indicating hostility) or because many people will interpret it as evidence of poor education. If someone tries to insist that such a phrase is perfectly acceptable, our duty to the forum is to argue otherwise as convincingly as we can. 

Naturally, this does not imply that it is ever appropriate to be offensive ourselves!


----------



## sound shift

"Could have went" is common in Scotland. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. All I'm saying is that it does occur.


----------



## PSIONMAN

Smac said:
			
		

> I fully agree. On the other hand, in a forum devoted to improving linguistic skills in people from diverse backgrounds it is appropriate to point out, for the benefit of others, if a construction is likely to be interpreted as evidence of poor language skills, even if it is in common use.


I agree and I thought that point had been made in the thread

It's not often that I get a chance to show my liberal side and so I couldn't resist it


----------



## epovo

This kind of thing always brings about heated debates. That's because most people do not realize the difference between the 'descriptive' approach to language and the 'prescriptive' approach. But they do not need to disagree. The descriptive linguist will tell you that 'he could have went' is used in some parts by certain social groups. (S)he will know (as a good observer of language usage) that if someone utters that sentence in certain circumstances or circles, a certain reaction or assumption about the cultural level of that person will be provoked. As a sociologist, (s)he does not attach any moral judgement to those reactions, (s)he just notes that they exist. Language is a sociological phenomenon, and in every society there are ruling elites, prejudices, etc. 
Everyone should know the FACT that 'he could have went' will provoke reactions of a certain nature. Not knowing this fact _is_ ignorance.


----------



## Texas Heat Wave

Sorry James, but the others are absolutely right on this one.  "Gone" is the  past participle, and the only form of this verb to  use  in the perfect tenses.  The  problem is that "went" is used so often in casual comversation that unfortunately, it has begun to sound correct to many American ears.


----------



## maestralola

Many native speakers of English use grammatically incorrect forms, as I am sure happens in Spanish. (I had a friend from Sevilla who always said Uds. vais...)
My husband sometimes says I would have went... and it drives him crazy when I say "would have gone!!!!"  Sorry James, although many Americans say it, could have "went" is not grammatically correct!


----------

