# I've been to London vs I was in London



## tigerduck

Hello

One of my students has asked why it is _I have been *to* London _and _I was *in *London._

It is not possible to say _I have been *in *London, _is it?

Thanks


----------



## timpeac

tigerduck said:


> Hello
> 
> One of my students has asked why it is _I have been *to* London _and _I was *in *London._
> 
> It is not possible to say _I have been *in *London, _is it?
> 
> Thanks


Yes - it is!

Since "I have been" is the perfect tense of both "to be" and "to go" it simply depends if "I have been in London" is a reflex of "to go to London" or "to be in London".


----------



## Sharivan

timpeac said:


> Yes - it is!
> 
> Since "I have been" is the perfect tense of both "to be" and "to go" it simply depends if "I have been in London" is a reflex of "to go to London" or "to be in London".




As far as I know, the answer lies in the difference in use between 'Present Perfect' and 'Simple Past'.

There's no problem in saying "I was in London (yesterday/last year/on July 18th, 1981/some hours ago,etc)" if you do mention when, the time or date when it took place. On the other hand, if you want just to state that you were in London, not informing when, you can certainly say "I've been to London". A small dialogue as a sample would be:

- "Have you ever been to London?"
- "Yes, I have. I went to London at the beginning of last year and returned 5 months later"

Particular attention has to be paid to:

- "They've been to London": it means they were in London and now they're back.
- "They've gone to London": it means they went to London and they are still over there.

That's my view on the question. Comments, suggestions, feelings, let us know, please  .


----------



## timpeac

Rereading what I wrote above it's probably a bit confusing. The perfect of "to go" is "to have gone", of course. What I meant was that "I have been" can be used with the meaning of "to go" or "to be", and the preposition will follow the meaning. So

I've been in London for 3 years and love it (= "to be" as can be seen by the fact that in the past you would say "I was in London for 3 years and loved it")
I've been to London for my holidays (= "to go", you could also say "I went to London for my holidays). Here, as Sharivan says, you wouldn't say "I've gone to London for my holidays" unless you were still there (and speaking to someone back home by telephone perhaps).


----------



## loladamore

You can say *I have been in London* in certain contexts, but I don't think it can stand on its own.
I have been swimming in London would be fine or a phrase expressing time, such as I have been in London for some time now. In most other cases it would be I have been to or I was in London.

EDIT: I have just seen Tim's post - I agree.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:


> I've been to London for my holidays (= "to go", you could also say "I went to London for my holidays). Here, as Sharivan says, you wouldn't say "I've gone to London for my holidays" unless you were still there (and speaking to someone back home by telephone perhaps).


 I just want to clarify that the above applies to British English.  It does not reflect American English usage.

In American English, "I've been to London" is simply a statement of whether I have ever set foot in London.

"I've been to London three times."  There have been three such occasions.

For the scenarios described by Tim, you would say "I went to London for the holidays," and "I am in London for the holidays," respectively.


----------



## tigerduck

Thank you very much for all your answers. They are much appreciated and I have learnt a lot.


----------



## waterman

Hi, Timpeac

I have been to London means that Iwent to London but now I'm back at home. is that Ok?

I have been in London is not correct. OK?

And finally, what about: I have been in London for 3 years?

Thank you,

Waterman


----------



## Einstein

waterman said:


> Hi, Timpeac
> 
> I have been to London means that Iwent to London but now I'm back at home. is that Ok?
> 
> I have been in London is not correct. OK?
> 
> And finally, what about: I have been in London for 3 years?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Waterman


----------



## Brioche

waterman said:


> Hi, Timpeac
> 
> I have been to London means that Iwent to London but now I'm back at home. is that Ok?
> 
> I have been in London is not correct. OK?
> 
> And finally, what about: I have been in London for 3 years?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Waterman



As Ioladamore said, you can say "I have been in London" in certain contexts.
_
Refer to her post._


----------



## effeundici

*NEW QUESTION*

There's something very unusual to me in the form "I've been to". Usually the perfect tense conveys actions which are still in progress.

So I perfectly accept : *I've been in London for 3 years* meaning that you are still there. But *I've been to London* and you are in Rome, for example, surely describes an action which is over. That sounds strange to me.

What's your view?


----------



## JulianStuart

Your examples use different beens!  The first one is from be and the second one is from go. I've been to Rome and I've been to London.  Those describe times when I went to vist. Indeed, those are in the past, completed actions?

I've been in California for over 30 years. This means my being has happened here for that time.


----------



## effeundici

Hi Julian, thanks for answering.

Your answer is very useful because it conveys a lot about what you natives "feel" when you utter those "beens". But grammatically, does it make any sense?? 



JulianStuart said:


> Your examples use different beens!  The first one is from be and the second one is from go. I've been to Rome and I've been to London.  Those describe times when I went to vist. Indeed, those are in the past, completed actions?
> 
> I've been in California for over 30 years. This means my being has happened here for that time.


----------



## JulianStuart

effeundici said:


> Hi Julian, thanks for answering.
> 
> Your answer is very useful because it conveys a lot about what you natives "feel" when you utter those "beens". But grammatically, does it make any sense??


You mean "does it make sense that the same 4 letters can mean two different things?". It makes as much sense as the fact that mean can mean different things too


----------



## PaulQ

It may help if you image

I *was* in London = I *stayed *in London
I *have been to* London = I *have visited* London
I *went *to London = I *travelled *to London
I *have gone* to London = I *have travelled *to London (and I'm still there)


----------



## wolfbm1

effeundici said:


> Hi Julian, thanks for answering.
> 
> Your answer is very useful because it conveys a lot about what you natives "feel" when you utter those "beens". But grammatically, does it make any sense??


One could always say: I have gone to London. (From "go to") But then this sentence means either that you are on the way to London or you are already in London. Your trip to London has not finished yet.
I have been to London. Your trip is over. You are back.
Remember that:
"Be" as a 'position' verb takes the preposition "in."
"Go" as a 'movement' verb takes the preposition "to." 
So "I've been in California for 30 years" means that I am still there.


----------



## effeundici

wolfbm1 said:


> One could always say: I have gone to London. (From "go to") But then this sentence means either that you are on the way to London or you are already in London. Your trip to London has not finished yet.
> I have been to London. Your trip is over. You are back.



This is exactly what seems strange to me. *I've been to* is the only perfect tense I m familiar with which describes so clearly an action which is finished.

I even foud someone in the Internet who wrote : _I've been to London when I was like 3_


----------



## P|O

Hello, *effeundici*!


effeundici said:


> *I've been to* is the only perfect tense I m familiar with which describes so clearly an action which is finished.


"I've watched that movie" (and now I speak like a man from the moon), "You've eaten my apples" (and now there are none).

I think, the usage of the Present Perfect perfectly makes sense here ("I've been to London, but now I live in Rome"). I mean, the Present Perfect tense describes a situation that now results from actions that took place before (for example, the person now knows what London is like). At least, it clearly does so when we use verbs expressing actions. When we use verbs expressing passive situations, states ("to be" and other ones, I'm sorry I can't think of many), the result of the fact, that the situation was taking place, is that the situation still holds ("He has been in London for 30 years" — and now he lives there).

P|O


----------



## JulianStuart

effeundici said:


> This is exactly what seems strange to me. *I've been to* is the only perfect tense I m familiar with which describes so clearly an action which is finished.
> 
> I even foud someone in the Internet who wrote : _I've been to London when I was like 3_



You can find pretty much anything on the Internet - that's why you come here to get help 

I am still unclear as to what specifically you find strange.  There are many anomalies in English if your expectations are for a "logical", "one that makes complete sense" language.  Is there something about this issue that is even stranger than the other "anomalies"?


----------



## Uncle Bob

effeundici said:


> I even foud someone in the Internet who wrote : _I've been to London when I was like 3_


One can find a lot of things on the internet which should be ignored. A (BE) pedant like myself would ask "When you were like 3 whats?".
("I went to London when I was 3". "I was in London when I was 3" or, with some sort of punctuation to show a break, "I've been to London, when I was 3").


----------



## BillyDinPVD

Agree with Uncle Bob. It reminds me of a similar tense substitution among some younger Spaniards, and wonder if it might mean the original writer isn't a native English speaker.


----------



## wolfbm1

effeundici said:


> This is exactly what seems strange to me. *I've been to* is the only perfect tense I m familiar with which describes so clearly an action which is finished.



That's right, it *is* finished. It *has* taken place in your life. You *have* already stayed in London. You *have* already been there. I *have* no idea of when you went to London or how long you were/stayed there. Actually it *is* not important.

The word "been" has the same meaning in these two sentences:
1. I've been to London.
AND
2. I've been there.


----------



## wolfbm1

JulianStuart said:


> Your examples use different *beens*!  The first one is from *be* and the second one is from *go*. ...


I wonder where *come* belongs.  Besides *gone*, *been* can mean *come* (PP) e.g. The postman has already been to your house (has come, been and gone).


> ... I've *been* *in* California for over 30 years. This means my *being* has happened here for that time.


Then: I've *been* to London in my life. This means what?  
A. My *being **to* London has happened in my life.
B. My *being* *in* London has happened in my life.
C. My *coming* *to* London, *being* *in* London and *going *away *from* London has happened in my life.

I think that means C. Come + be + go = visit.


----------



## JulianStuart

I only use come when I am speaking at the destination of the coming.  "My coming to London ... " is a phrase I would only use if I were actually in London.  Otherwise "My going to London ..." if I am not in London.



> The postman has already been to your house (has come, been and gone).


  This only works if the speaker is in the house where the postman delivered the post.  This is because of the word "come".  "The postman has come (to my house) delivered the parcels and gone away again."  That could easily be communicated to my wife "The postman's been - and he delivered your ebay purchases  "


----------



## wolfbm1

JulianStuart said:


> I only use come when I am speaking at the destination of the coming.  "My coming to London ... " is a phrase I would only use if I were actually in London.  Otherwise "My going to London ..." if I am not in London.


So "I've *been* *to* London in my life" means:
D. My *going* *to* London has happened in my life.  I *am* not in London when I say it.

And when you still *were in* London could you have said, e.g.:
1. This is the first time I've ever *been* *to* London. 
2.  I've never *been* *to* London before.

While reading this thread I noticed that one can say this:
3a. I *am* in London. I *was* in London. Full stop. *Am *and *was* are forms of *be* which is a 'position verb.'
But one cannot say:
3b. I've *been* in London. Full stop. 
One has to say:
3c. I've *been* in London for over 30 years or since year XXXX.
Other 'position verbs', like: *live, stay, stop, work*, behave in the same way. 

What is interesting these sentences can stand on their own:
4a. I *went* to London. I *came* to London. Full stop.
4b. I've *been* to London. Full stop.
4c. I've *come* to London. Full stop.
This is because *been* and *went* are forms of *go*.
*Go* and *come* belong to 'movement verbs' along with other verbs of this type like *drive, fly, get, move, run *and *walk*.

Isn't this interesting?

Edit: I forgot to mention that sometimes it is more appropriate to use the preposition 'at', which I think is sort of in-between 'to' and 'in' or 'out' and 'in.' (Although more often then not the preposition 'at' belongs to 'position' family together with 'in.' It makes me think of a chameleon. A truer in-between preposition is 'into.')
Instead of saying: 
5. "I've never been to your place" it sounds better when we say "I've never been at your place."
Although it is OK to say either:
6. "I've never been to this restaurant. OR I've never been at this restaurant. OR I've never been in this restaurant.
Compare: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=694022


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> Isn't this interesting?



It may well be, for someone to whom it is "new" but for a native speaker, it is simply normal and natural.  _To_ means direction, _in_ means position.  What seems to be interesting to you is the dual life of "_been_"


----------



## wolfbm1

JulianStuart said:


> It may well be, for someone to whom it is "new" but for a native speaker, it is simply normal and natural.  _To_ means direction, _in_ means position.  What seems to be interesting to you is the dual life of "_been_"



I think it is triple (if you count "come") if not quadruple.
Have a look at this:
1a. I haven't been to this school.
1b. I haven't been at this school today.
1c. I haven't been in this school since XXXX.

And this:
2a. I haven't gone to school today.
2b. My English teacher hasn't come to school today.
2c. I haven't been to school today. 
2d. My English teacher hasn't been to school today. 



> _To_ means direction, _in_ means position.


I think that this is the key to this puzzle.


----------



## Uncle Bob

JulianStuart said:


> I only use come when I am speaking at the destination of the coming.  "My coming to London ... " is a phrase I would only use if I were actually in London.  Otherwise "My going to London ..." if I am not in London.


That rather depends on the context. If your correspondent is independent of the journey then sobeit. However, if they are somehow connected with the destination then one uses "coming" for the future visit:
"Dear Auntie Mavis (who lives in London*), I am coming to London next week".

It is a matter of seeing the journey from the other's point of view and it is, I agree, debatable whether "coming" here is an abbreviation for "coming in your direction" or suchlike.

* If you are setting out from California then it would be the same if Auntie Mavis lived anywhere in Europe.


----------



## wolfbm1

Uncle Bob said:


> That rather depends on the context. If your correspondent is independent of the journey then sobeit. However, if they are somehow connected with the destination then one uses "coming" for the future visit:
> "Dear Auntie Mavis (who lives in London*), I am coming to London next week". ...
> 
> * If you are setting out from California then it would be the same if Auntie Mavis lived anywhere in Europe.


Thank you for bringing this up, Uncle Bob. 
In other words: 
"I who live *here* in California, am coming *to *you, Auntie Mavis who live *there* in London. I'm coming (*to* you)/arriving next week."
Talking about coming and going may pose a logical problem. However it is necessary because the chameleon can change its colour to match the surroundings ( in *here* or  out *there*). 


> It is a matter of seeing the journey from the other's point of view <*Antie Mavis's point of view>* and it is, I agree, debatable whether "coming" here <*to London where she lives*> is an abbreviation for "coming in your direction" or suchlike <e.g.* arriving*>.





> Originally Posted by *JulianStuart*
> I only use come when I am speaking at the destination of the coming. "My coming to London ... " is a phrase I would only use if I were actually in London.


When you are physically in London you can say:
I have come to London. OR This is the first time I have come to London. OR This is the first time I have been to London*. OR This is the first time I have been in London. OR  I have never come to London before.


> Originally Posted by *JulianStuart* Otherwise "My going to London ..." if I am not in London.


Therefore you cannot say while in London:
I have gone to London (=I have left for London). OR I have been to London (I have left and come back again). 

*And here is an interesting situation. The preposition 'to' tells me that been = gone. But, because 'to' is also used by 'come',  been must mean come. "This is ... " tells me the situation is in London, not in California.
Compare: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/4597.htm


----------



## JulianStuart

Uncle Bob said:


> That rather depends on the context. If your correspondent is independent of the journey then sobeit. However, if they are somehow connected with the destination then one uses "coming" for the future visit:
> "Dear Auntie Mavis (who lives in London*), I am coming to London next week".
> 
> It is a matter of seeing the journey from the other's point of view and it is, I agree, debatable whether "coming" here is an abbreviation for "coming in your direction" or suchlike.
> 
> * If you are setting out from California then it would be the same if Auntie Mavis lived anywhere in Europe.


You are, of course, correct.  I was simplifying the generalization for the discussion at hand.  A conversation can consider "here" either from the speaker's or listener's viewpoint, as you have illlustrated (leading to all kinds of confusion around bring and take, as an off-topic aside!).

If I were planning to go back to meet Auntie Mavis in London, and i were speaking on the phone from California, I would still say "I have not been to London for a while" rather than "I have not come to London for a while".  In fact, it might go something like this "I have not been to London for a while, but if my plans work out, I'll be coming on the 18th".


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> Edit: .....
> Instead of saying:
> 5. "I've never been to your place" it sounds better when we say "I've never been at your place."
> Although it is OK to say either:
> 6. "I've never been to this restaurant. OR I've never been at this restaurant. OR I've never been in this restaurant.
> Compare: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=694022


I disagree with some of the posts in that thread you refer to.  "i've never been at place X" is not somehing I would say nor would I expect it from a native English speaker (although apparently there are some who do!).  So in 5 I would only ever use to.  In 6, to is fine, and in expresses the though "I've walked past many times but never been in this reataurant." while at would be acceptable to me.


----------



## wolfbm1

JulianStuart said:


> In 6, *to* is fine, and *in* expresses the though <thought ?> "I've walked past many times but never been *in* this restaurant." while *at* would be acceptable to me.


So it all depends on context.
A. How about the Paradise? It's an Italian restaurant. (Making suggestions.)
B. O.K. Let's go to the Paradise. I've never been *to* this restaurant.

AA. The Paradise is well decorated and has beautiful interiors.
BB. I've walked past many times but never been *in* this restaurant.  

(I'm not sure what to do with *at*. I know it is used with points, e.g. meeting points.)




> I disagree with some of the posts in that thread you refer to. "i've never been at place X" is not somehing I would say nor would I expect it from a native English speaker (although apparently there are some who do!). So in 5 I would only ever use to.



Option 5. was based on the sentence "We had a great party. You should have been at my place." = "You should have been there" = "You should have come to my place" = "You should have come there." (http://I've been VS come and gone there )
"You should have been to my place" doesn't fit in this situation because the inviting person can only say: "(I'm inviting you over.) Come to my place" and not "Go to my place." 
I think I again confused "going to somebody's place" with "coming to somebody's place". 

Yesterday as I was listening to "Practice and Progress: Drills" by L.G. Alexander I heard an interesting exchange:

A：Weren't you there a month ago? 
 B：Yes, I was there a month ago, but I had never been there before.
...
A：Wasn't he *in* Vienna a month ago?
 B：Yes, he was *in* Vienna a month ago, but he had never been *in* Vienna before.

So one can say "I have never been* in* London before" if they mean "being *in* London."
And if one means "visiting London = going *to *London and coming back" then they should say "I have never been *to* London before."

I think I got it.


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> So it all depends on context.
> 
> ...A：Wasn't he *in* Vienna a month ago?
> B：Yes, he was *in* Vienna a month ago, but *he had never been in Vienna before.*
> 
> So one can say "I have never been* in* London before" if they mean "being *in* London."
> And if one means "visiting London = going *to *London and coming back" then they should say "I have never been *to* London before."
> 
> I think I got it.



_I_ would still use "to" in that example.  However, I _might_ conceivably say, in parallel with the restaurant example above, "He had visited the suburbs frequently but had never been *in* Vienna proper before" -  emphasis of the contrast between just outside city limits and inside city limits could warrant the use of "in".  However, I would still likely say : "He had visited the suburbs frequently but had never been *into* Vienna proper before"


----------



## Einstein

Have you ever been in Rio de Janeiro at Carnival time? = Have you ever been present in Rio during Carnival time?

I find this a reasonable sentence. If I say "been to" it suggests the entire visit took place during the carnival. But the person may have been there for months before. It corresponds with:
Did you see the Carnival?
No, I wasn't in Rio at the time.


----------



## Lecword

wolfbm1 said:


> So one can say "I have never been* in* London before" if they mean "being *in* London."
> And if one means "visiting London = going *to *London and coming back" then they should say "I have never been *to* London before."
> 
> I think I got it.




So I could say...

a) I have never been in London.

b) I have never been to London.


In a) I mean that it is the first time I am in London and I am still there.
In b) I mean that I am in other city.

Is this correct? 

And if I am asking a question? Would it be...

Have you ever been to London? OR
Have you ever been in London? ?

Thank you very much


----------



## WordsWordWords

Hi Lecword,

I use the preposition "to" with verbs indicating movement. In the case of "been", though it is the past participle of "to be", it is used your example sentence to indicate going to a place and then returning. 

I would use "in" to indicate more of a state, such as "I have lived/worked in London for 3 years."

Hope that helps!


----------



## wolfbm1

Lecword said:


> So I could say...
> 
> a) I have never been in London.
> 
> b) I have never been to London.
> 
> In a) I mean that it is the first time I am in London and I am still there.


If it is your first time in London (which means you are still in London), you cannot say 'I have never been in London.'
But you can say 'I have never been in London before (this visit).' and someone can ask you 'Have you ever been in London before?'


----------



## RM1(SS)

wolfbm1 said:


> One could always say: I have gone to London. (From "go to") But then this sentence means either that you are on the way to London or you are already in London. Your trip to London has not finished yet.


I disagree.  I've never gone to London, but I've gone to Glasgow quite a few times, and I am neither still there (I'm in Connecticut) nor am I on my way there or back (the last time I was in Glasgow was in 1992).


----------



## wolfbm1

I think my explanation suits this dialogue:

A: Is Anna in?
B: No, she isn't. 
A: Where is she?
B: She's gone to London again. She loves shopping in Harrods.

We don't know if Anna has already arrived in London.


----------



## timpeac

I agree with wolfbm1.

"Where is Anna? She's gone to London." This seems fine to me.

"I've gone to London 3 times in my life" seems completely unidiomatic to me (I'm not necessarily saying it is ungrammatical, but I can't imagine it being said).

For the "I've never been in London" question - again this seems completely unidiomatic to me. Even in answering the question "Where are you right now? Are you in London?" I would answer "No, I'm in New York, I've never even been to London" not "I've never even gone to London" and also not "I've never even been in London".


----------



## Peter_Gabriel

timpeac said:


> I agree with wolfbm1.
> 
> "Where is Anna? She's gone to London." This seems fine to me.
> 
> "I've gone to London 3 times in my life" seems completely unidiomatic to me (I'm not necessarily saying it is ungrammatical, but I can't imagine it being said).
> 
> For the "I've never been in London" question - again this seems completely unidiomatic to me. Even in answering the question "Where are you right now? Are you in London?" I would answer "No, I'm in New York, I've never even been to London" not "I've never even gone to London" and also not "I've never even been in London".


Is my sentence correct and natural?:

"I have always been in New York City when they organized breakdance events"


----------



## Alturlie

To vs On

Really the issue is one of emphasis. Using "to" lays the emphasis on the journey; "in" lays the emphasis on the being there.

The problem arises from the (albeit entirely correct) use of the generic verb "be". Trying reworking what you want to say without the use of this. Thus "I have been to London" implies "I have traveled to London (and probably done something while I was there - but it could have been a day trip). "I have been in London" implies  either "I was living in London when...." or it is possible that you are recounting an event which was only a short part of your stay there. [But here you might be better with "I went to London to......(do/see/buy/visit something)".] Despite this, "I was in London for the conference." is perfectly OK.

"I've gone to London 3 times in my life": well you certainly would NOT say "I've gone in London...." Again your problem is the use of a generic verb like "go". Do you mean "visited"? "Escaped to"? "Been invited to"?

I agree that "I've never been in London." does not sit well on its own - but if it is followed by "...when...." and then something else it would be fine. Or it would work as a response to someone recounting what they have done while in London. You do not share that experience, you have not had the opportunity to do these things "while (I was) in London...."


----------



## timpeac

Peter_Gabriel said:


> Is my sentence correct and natural?:
> 
> "I have always been in New York City when they organized breakdance events"


Not really, as it stands. However, I think the trouble is not the in/to issue it's that the sentence seems unfinished. Do you mean something like "(it so happens that) I have always been in NYC when(ever) they organized breakdance events there"? If so, then that's fine but you do need the "there" at the end in my opinion. Your sentence could even be the start of a contrast "I have always been in NYC when(ever) they organized breakdance events in London".


----------



## timpeac

Alturlie said:


> I agree that "I've never been in London." does not sit well on its own - but if it is followed by "...when...." and then something else it would be fine.


Yes indeed. "I've never been in London when the Notting Hill carnival is on unfortunately" is fine. The implication being that if it had so happened that you were in London when the carnival was on you probably would have gone along to see it while you were there.


----------

