# EN: I haven't been to visit you



## okgoogle

Bonjour,

Est-ce que cette formulation est correcte :

"I know I haven't been to visit you."

Il s'agit d'une personne gênée de ne pas être venue voir quelqu'un depuis un bon moment.

C'est un dialogue de film (Wiener Dog) d'une jeune femme qui se reproche de ne pas être venue voir une connaissance plus âgée depuis plusieurs années.
Mais est-ce que cette formulation en anglais


> "I know I haven't been to visit you."


 est grammaticalement acceptable et est-ce qu'elle a bien le sens que j'ai donné ?
Merci.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

It's fine.
That sentence is grammatically correct and perfectly natural. You've also understood it correctly.
Why did you think it might not be OK?


----------



## okgoogle

Wordy McWordface said:


> Why did you think it might not be OK?


L'infinitif après "have been".


----------



## Wordy McWordface

I see. So, you thought that 'been' was an auxiliary verb and you were expecting it to be followed by a participle e.g. 'been visiting'. In fact, 'been' is the main verb - not an auxiliary verb - and here it used as a the past participle of the verb 'go'. 

The phrase here is 'go to visit':

_I go to visit you _ - present
_I went to visit you _  -        past simple
_I've been to visit you_ -       present perfect
_I haven't been to visit you_ -present perfect (negative) 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Maître Capello

I think the confusion comes from the main verb: to go or to be. If the phrase in the present is _I *go* to visit you_, the corresponding phrase in the present perfect should be _I*'ve gone* to visit you_, not _I*'ve been* to visit you_.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

What exactly do you mean by _should be_?

Are you suggesting that the person should have said "I know I haven't gone to visit you?"


----------



## Maître Capello

I was not saying the right phrase should have been _I know I haven't gone to visit you_, because it indeed doesn't make much sense.

I'm just saying that the verb *to go* conjugated in the present perfect is _I have *gone*_, not _I have *been*_. The latter is actually the verb *to be* conjugated in the present perfect. I was therefore merely pointing out the inconsistency in your post since you mixed both verbs: *to go* for the present and simple past, but *to be* for the present perfect.



Wordy McWordface said:


> _I go to visit you _ - present
> _I went to visit you _ - past simple
> _I've been to visit you_ - present perfect
> _I haven't been to visit you_ -present perfect (negative)


----------



## Wordy McWordface

I wasn't 'mixing verbs'!

The verb 'go' has two alternative past participles : _gone_ and _been_.

I can assure you that there was nothing at all 'inconsistent' about my post. The present perfect of "I know I didn't go to visit you" *is *"I know that I haven't been to visit you".


----------



## Maître Capello

I beg to disagree with your conjugation of _to go_. Its past participle is certainly _gone_, not _been_, as you can read in all good English dictionaries or grammars. However, the verb _to be_ is sometimes definitely used in English* to mean _to go_, usually in the present perfect, which is the case in the original sentence. 

* also in French by the way, see FR: j'ai été / je suis allé - avoir été / être allé


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Fair enough.

I wonder at what point the _maîtres _of bygone days stopped complaining that people were "mixing" the verbs 'go' and 'wend'_. _


----------



## okgoogle

Voilà c'est ça mais je pensais que pour le sens de go, been ne pouvait être suivi d'un verbe mais d'une place.

I have been to Paris. Ok
I have been to visit you. Non ok (je pensais).

Mais apparemment, on peut mettre une place ou un verbe, à vous lire.

Merci.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Yes, I see what you mean.

I think that there might be a place implied in this construction. If you imagine that there's a location _sous-entendu - _i.e. "I haven't been [here] to visit you" - then it makes more sense. The 'been' refers to the implied place, while the 'to visit' is an infinitive of purpose: your reason for going to that place.

For example, you might say:

I've been to have my hair cut.
I've been to see the head teacher.

In those cases, there's clearly a place implied: the hair salon and the school.  I think that "I haven't been to see you" follows the same pattern.


----------



## okgoogle

Wordy McWordface said:


> I think that there might be a place implied in this construction. If you imagine that there's a location _sous-entendu - _i.e. "I haven't been [here] to visit you" - then it makes more sense. The 'been' refers to the implied place, while the 'to visit' is an infinitive of purpose: your reason for going to that place.



Ok merci, et avec l'ensemble des posts précédents, je vois qu'il n'y a pas de maladresse à mettre un verbe.


----------



## M. Parker

"I know I haven't been to visit you." is perfectly correct, but a lot of people would say "I know I haven't been to see you."
"Visit" is a bit more formal (at least in my view - I'm a northerner!)


----------



## Le Gallois bilingue

M. Parker said:


> "I know I haven't been to visit you." is perfectly correct, but a lot of people would say "I know I haven't been to see you."
> "Visit" is a bit more formal (at least in my view - I'm a northerner!)


Totally agree with you; I was just about to make the same point(a “Gog”=North Walian).


----------



## Hans in Texas

To be + infinitive used to indicate purpose or obligation:
I am to be in court on the 15th (I must appear or be arrested).
They were to arrive at 3 o’clock (it’s 5 now, so where are they?).
We’ve been to visit the museum, and they have a new Van Gogh (we went there for a purpose: seeing the new painting).


----------

