# EN: He has gone to Africa for two weeks



## katzaiiz

Hello,

I learnt the difference between "have been" and "have gone" and the difference of meaning of "for" if I use the preterit or the present perfect.
But the sentence "he has gone to Africa for two weeks" means that he left for Africa 2 weeks ago or that he has gone to Africa for a 2-weeks trip?? and if it is the first or to express the second? 
I hope I made myself understandable.

Thanks for your help.

Karine


----------



## sound shift

Hello,

 Yes, you have made yourself understandable. It means the second: he has gone to Africa for a two-week visit.


----------



## katzaiiz

Thanks. I didn't expect an answer so fast.
But then, how do you say that he left for Africa two weeks ago? I learnt :" he has gone to Africa since Tuesday". And I thought it was the same with "for", only that for was used with a duration.  So: he has gone to Africa for 2 weeks (since the 25th of March, in our case). But now, I'm lost!

Bonsoir

Karine


----------



## The Prof

-_He went to Africa two weeks ago.
-He has (he's) been in Africa for two weeks._

Both of these mean that he went to Africa two weeks ago.  The first sentence does not make it clear if he is still in Africa or not - he might only have stayed there for one day.
The second sentence tells us that he is still in Africa, or has just left there.

The sentence "_he has gone to Africa since Tuesday_" is different.  Imagine that today is Saturday.  All the sentence tells us is that he went to Africa on either Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It does not mean that he went on Tuesday.


----------



## timboleicester

> The sentence "_he has gone to Africa since Tuesday_" is different.  Imagine that today is Saturday.  All the sentence tells us is that he went to Africa on either Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. It does not mean that he went on Tuesday.



This sentence is not correct I am afraid maybe you mean <he has been in Africa since Tuesday>


----------



## CapnPrep

I agree that _He has gone to Africa since Tuesday_ sounds odd, but the syntax is correct. If we replace "Africa" with the name of place that's closer, or a figurative destination, the sentence sounds much better:

He has gone to the supermarket since Tuesday (i.e. at least once).
He has gone to great lengths since Tuesday.
His life has gone to the dogs / to hell in a handbasket since Tuesday.

For katzaiiz: _He has gone to Africa since Tuesday _means "He has gone to Africa one or more times since Tuesday". So in most contexts it would be a strange sentence, and it does not mean what you wanted it to mean. If you want to say exactly when he left for Africa, you should use _*went* to Africa two weeks ago _/_ on Tuesday_ and not _*has gone* to Africa two weeks ago _/_ on Tuesday_.


----------



## katzaiiz

Thanks to everybody. I had never heard of the idea "one or more times" meant by present perfect + since. Interesting. 
But what I'm trying to translate is the French sentence: "il est parti en Afrique depuis 2 semaines". For those who speak French....


----------



## sound shift

"Il est parti en Afrique depuis 2 semaines": "He's been in Africa for the last two weeks".


----------



## katzaiiz

THAT's what I meant. Thanks sound shift. So "he's gone to Africa for 2 weeks" means for a 2-weeks trip and "he's been in Africa for the last 2 weeks" means since the 27th of March (if we count from now). 
Thanks again to eveybody. This forum is great. I often look at it but it was the first time I posted a tread.


----------



## sound shift

That's it!
 But note: "a two-weeks trip"  "a two-week trip"  (because "two-week" functions here as an adjective, and English adjectives are invariable).


----------



## katzaiiz

like a 2-year old boy,  no? I forgot about it. A last question if I may: Sound shift wrote "been IN Africa". And I learnt be IN or AT / go TO. But my teacher wrote the other day: I've never been TO Africa. Is it correct? 
Have a nice week-end


----------



## sound shift

"I've never been *to *Africa" _is _correct.


----------



## eaucourante

While technically one could say "He has gone to the supermarket since Tuesday (i.e. at least once)," I think most native American English speakers would put the adverbial phrase at the beginning of the sentence to prepare the mind of the receiver.  As in: "Since Tuesday, he has gone to the supermarket (i.e. at least once)."  The syntax that you propose causes the listener to reformulate the sentence in his/her head, in my opinion, since the "has gone" would -- prior to the information "since Tuesday" -- would make it seem as if he were still at the supermarket.  Since most persons do not spend days at the supermarket, discovering that he has gone since another day is jarring to the ear.  Again, not incorrect, just a surprising location for the adverbial phrase that would indicate an event possibly spanning multiple days.  When used with physical locations, especially everyday locations, to go is frequently understood to be an iterative verb rather than a continuous verb.  Also, the second and third sentences are idiomatic expressions (to go to great lengths and to go to the dogs) the meaning of which is not naturally limited by time and place.  I appreciate your posts, however, and I am just sharing my different understanding.  Respectfully yours.


----------



## Chimel

Thanks, eaucourante, very interesting as well !

What I would like to ask: how would you say "Il est parti en Afrique pour deux semaines", in the meaning: (normally) for a two-week trip, starting now or some time ago.

Would it be: "He's gone to Africa for two weeks"? But then, how do you make the difference with the meaning "for the last two weeks?"
Or would it be: "He went to Africa for two weeks"? But we all learned not to use "since" and "for" with the preterit! (agreed, this is another meaning of "for", but still...)


----------



## eaucourante

Chimel,

Pour exprimer en anglais (américain) "Il est parti en Afrique pour deux semaines", je dirais "He left for Africa for two weeks," ce qui implique que l'action d'y aller (son départ) a fini, mais le mot "for" implique que l'événement sera dans le futur ou est en train de se dérouler.  D'habitude on va comprendre en entendant dire cette phrase que le type est toujours là.  L'autre cas où vous pourriez utilizer cette phrase serait dans un récit situé dans le passé, et que vous voudriez dire qu'il est déjà parti pour l'Afrique (action finie) et qu'il y sera pour 2 semaines (action en train de se dérouler) mais qu'il y a encore de l'histore que vous avez à partager, donc toute l'histoire est située dans le passé.  Mais dans les 99% des cas, "He left for Africa for 2 weeks" signifie qu'il est toujours là et qu'il y sera pour 2 semaines encore. 

"He's gone to Africa for two weeks" = "He's left for Africa for two weeks" plus ou moins.  D'habitude les deux phrases ont la même signification.  Le départ s'est fait, et être en Afrique continue.
"He's been in Africa for two weeks", pourtant, veut dire qu'il est là déjà pendant deux semaines (action dans le passé récent).
"He went to Africa for two weeks" signifie que l'action est terminée et que l'action n'a vraiment pas de lien avec le présent.  C'est qqch qui s'est passé, c'est tout.  

For usually designates the immediate present or the future.  So your understanding is correct.


----------



## Chimel

Ok, fine, thanks again !


----------

