много раз + imperfective / два раза + perfective

[lisalinguist]

Hello,

I have just read the following rule about the Russian language:

(1) When you do an action often, always, sometimes, never, "many times" or even "1000 times" the verb will be in the imperfective aspect.
(2) When you do an action twice, five times, several times in Russian, the verb will be in the perfective aspect.

Question 1: Am I correct in assuming that this is because:
- In (1) - imperfective, the words in bold represent unlimited numbers of times, except for 1000 although presumably we are talking here about figurative use to mean "many times" - e.g. "I've already told you a thousand times, don't do that!" So the action is seen as continuing indefinitely (or not happening at all).
- In (2) - perfective, the words in bold represent limited numbers of times (I assume that other numbers are also possible, in addition to those stated), so we know that the action does eventually come to an end: despite the multiple iteration here too, it is not repeated indefinitely. So the action will eventually be completed and lead to a "result".

Question 2: What happens if we literally do mean "1000 times" precisely? For example, let's imagine a group of scientists hired by a consumer group to test products, with the aim of detecting planned obsolescence. The scientific report concludes: "We printed the test page exactly 1000 times and the printer then ceased to work."
According to my logic above, this should now be perfective, right?

Question 3: And how about verbs of motion (which have two imperfective forms)?
- I know that (1) would be expressed with the indefinite/multidirectional imperfective form:
E.g. Я е́зжу за грани́цу раз в год. = I travel abroad once per year.
(This is equivalent to "every year" and so the number of times is indefinite/unlimited, because we don't know how many years.)

- As for the definite/unidirectional imperfective, this can only express a one-way journey in progress, or highlight one single segment of what may well be a return journey.
BUT since the journey is unfinished, there I think it cannot be "counted" at all? Except possibly in the future:
E.g. Он бу́дет ехать туда́ то́лько раз в жи́знь. = He will only be (in the process of) going there once in his life.
Hmm... sounds strange....

Edit: The following quote, taken from a different thread here (cf. #34), seems to confirm that you cannot count the times here:

We can always add "...two/three/a number of times" to the multidirectional phrase, but with the unidirectional, we generally can't do that - unless in the form of a loosely shortening of the construction "It happened X times that I (was on my way) and ...[any imperfective phrases here to describe the accompanying actions]"

- As for the perfective, according to the rule at the start, then this should be possible - could somebody please confirm?
E.g. Он поехал туда только раз в жизнь. = He only went (set out to go) there once in his life.
(The subject - possibly now dead? - shows no intention of ever going there again. It is a one-off completed departure (although we don't know for certain whether he did arrive at the destination, nor whether he then stayed there or returned. All that interests us, with this perfective, is his completed departure).

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

 

[Rosett]

- As for the perfective, according to the rule at the start, then this should be possible - could somebody please confirm?
E.g. Он поехал туда только раз в жизни. = He only went (set out to go) there once in his life.
(The subject - possibly now dead? - shows no intention of ever going there again. It is a one-off completed departure (although we don't know for certain whether he did arrive at the destination, nor whether he then stayed there or returned. All that interests us, with this perfective, is his completed departure).

Still, you should say, «Он ездил туда только/всего однажды / раз в жизни».A perfective form meaning departure only, «поехал» is possible, when he’s currently on the trip, but then you should say, «он поехал туда впервые в жизни. / в первый раз (вообще)». The present tense «едет» would indicate either the present event, or the event planned in the nearest future, and would mean the departure only — the same as the future tense in its perfective form «поедет»

 

[nizzebro]

e.g. "I've already told you a thousand times, don't do that!" So the action is seen as continuing indefinitely (or not happening at all).

Yes, if we mean specifically "to tell" as a number of occurrences of that. It is possible to say both "я тебе уже тысячу раз говорил(а)" and "я тебе уже тысячу сказал(а)"; in the first case, the speaker means many occurrences - no matter, during that day or the entire life before; and with the perfective verb, it is "I have said .." as a unified scenario, during which they were repeating one and the same idea "thousand times" during a single and short period of time - and here, they insist on the result, but, since their replica are assumed to have been coming in a row conceptually, the resultiveness appears to be one shared for the whole scenario.

"We printed the test page exactly 1000 times and the printer then ceased to work."

Yes, it should be perfective as we have a single act of "ceased" - and not that because it was related to the whole series of printing actions, but rather just because there was a succession: I did this, then, I did that... - which typically leads to all the verbs perfective, since each action naturally appears as completed when we have such a feed of events. The imperfective печатали for "printed", on the other hand, makes the action spread over the timeline - they could have had intervals of arbitrary length between their print occasions - which is only good for "and every time it ceased to work" (with "ceased" also imperfective).

 

[nizzebro]

E.g. Я е́зжу за грани́цу раз в год. = I travel abroad once per year.
(This is equivalent to "every year" and so the number of times is indefinite/unlimited, because we don't know how many years.)

Yes, being a pure loop, it is incompatible with the perfective aspect, which only can take a finite succession in order to have a result for the entire scenario. Normally, it suggests a small number, so the abovementioned "thousand times' it is not a common number in this regard - basically it is an idiom and relies on that the action of "saying things" cannot be discretized in an unambiguous manner. We normally do not perform something thousand times in row.

 

[nizzebro]

Он бу́дет ехать туда́ то́лько раз в жи́знь. = He will only be (in the process of) going there once in his life.
Hmm... sounds strange....

Yes, it sounds strange and I fail to see what it's supposed to mean, as there is a conflict (a crosslinguistic one, I believe). The unidirectional verb presents an unfinished line and triggers immersion into the process, but "once in his life" is itself a retrospective idea and so it needs something that surrounds the process on the timeline. Or, there should be some prepared frame like "there will come a day, when he will be on his way (driving to).." and the like.

 

[nizzebro]

E.g. Он поехал туда только раз в жизнь. = He only went (set out to go) there once in his life.
(The subject - possibly now dead? - shows no intention of ever going there again. It is a one-off completed departure (although we don't know for certain whether he did arrive at the destination, nor whether he then stayed there or returned. All that interests us, with this perfective, is his completed departure).

You see, поехал conveys inception as an act of departure, "taking a course to somewhere", and, since the perfective establishes a resultant state in the context (in this case, being on the way), поехал cannot be a general statement of fact, and the по- prefixed perfectives derived from unidirectional verbs of motion do not have a secondary imperfective form. As for specifically the perfective form, the course of driving holds in the context and it should be resolved somehow. If we have an immersion kind of narrative like "It was six o'clock. I had a glass of coffee, got in the car and drove to the office", поехал (drove) leaves us with the only idea of the subject driving. Of course, if someone says that John is not here because "он поехал в X...", John may have finished his driving at this moment in reality - but, it is the current state of affairs and not a retrospection. In your particular sentence, the verb should be the imperfective multidirectional ездил: "он ездил туда только один раз в жизни". On the other hand, "One day he went (i.e. drove to)..." is "Однажды он поехал..." (although I'm never sure if English speakers do really mean only the departure here - due to the versatile function of "went").

If the idea is that he only had an intention to go there, you can say "собирался поехать"; however, "only once" breaks the logic. Since we somehow know that that has been only once, it is pragmatically assumed that we also know the outcome of the trip, which prevents from saying about a preparation to anything with using the idea of a past expirience ("He was only going to go there once" - does it mean that in other cases he actually went there?)..

 

[Awwal12]

I have just read the following rule about the Russian language:

(1) When you do an action often, always, sometimes, never, "many times" or even "1000 times" the verb will be in the imperfective aspect.
(2) When you do an action twice, five times, several times in Russian, the verb will be in the perfective aspect.

It's just a generalization, and I don't think it's entirely justified. In particular, "several times" can be easily used with both perfective and imperfective verbs, depending on the context. "Often", "always", "sometimes" unquestionably demand imperfective, that's true. "Never" demands imperfective when speaking in the present tense, but it well may be used with perfective in the future tense, etc. Overall, aspectual semantics is still the definitive factor, while accompanying adverbs just suit or don't suit certain types of semantic relationships.

- In (1) - imperfective, the words in bold represent unlimited numbers of times, except for 1000 although presumably we are talking here about figurative use to mean "many times" - e.g. "I've already told you a thousand times, don't do that!" So the action is seen as continuing indefinitely (or not happening at all).

I'd rather call it the events which for various reasons cannot be specifically numbered (open multitudes, zero events, markedly non-specific numbers).

- In (2) - perfective, the words in bold represent limited numbers of times

...Which makes singling out all the events (one by one) possible. That, however, allows perfective verbs, but doesn't strictly demands them.
Я сделал это несколько раз. - You imagine the chain of individual complete actions - usually in relation to some moment after that sequence (probably the moment of speech); by then the sequence is over.
Я делал это несколько раз. - You merely state the fact that it happens so that you did it several times before.

What happens if we literally do mean "1000 times" precisely? For example, let's imagine a group of scientists hired by a consumer group to test products, with the aim of detecting planned obsolescence. The scientific report concludes: "We printed the test page exactly 1000 times and the printer then ceased to work."

The important part is that we're dealing with results here; the printer ceased to work (once and for good) because 1000 pages were printed (one by one). Perfective would be simply natural.

E.g. Он бу́дет ехать туда́ то́лько раз в жи́знь. = He will only be (in the process of) going there once in his life.
Hmm... sounds strange....

Indeed. "Будет ехать" is, quite literally, "will be going (by a vehicle or a ride)". Is it grammatical? Yes, but it would need some very specific context.
"Раз в жизнь" is actually the most weird part here, as it's, essentially, "once per life" - and, well, you have only one life. Adding "один" ("один раз в жизнь", or even better "один раз за всю жизнь") looks better.

E.g. Он поехал туда только раз в жизнь. = He only went (set out to go) there once in his life.

"Поехал", aside from the literal meaning "started to go", is quite close to "departed"; if not followed by mentioning subsequent events, it strongly suggests that the trip wasn't/isn't finished at the moment in question. "Съездил" (~visited; departed and returned) is all right, though (having in mind the notes about "раз в жизнь" above).

 

[Rosett]

Question 2: What happens if we literally do mean "1000 times" precisely? For example, let's imagine a group of scientists hired by a consumer group to test products, with the aim of detecting planned obsolescence. The scientific report concludes: "We printed the test page exactly 1000 times and the printer then ceased to work."
According to my logic above, this should now be perfective, right?

In the past tense, it could be imperfective, as well: «Мы печатали тестовую страницу ровно 1000 раз, и тогда принтер перестал работать».
Here, the difference between perfective and imperfective forms is imperceptible. Maybe, it’s due to the fact that it resembles a common hyperbole, as if in «я тебе сто раз говорил, а ты (так и) не послушал».

 

[Awwal12]

«Мы печатали тестовую страницу ровно 1000 раз, и тогда принтер перестал работать»

Sounds really weird to me, to be frank. It's ok with переставал, but then it would imply many sequences of 1000 pages being printed and the printer ceasing to work every time 1000 pages have been printed.

 

[Rosett]

(1) When you do an action often, always, sometimes, never, "many times" or even "1000 times" the verb will be in the imperfective aspect.
(2) When you do an action twice, five times, several times in Russian, the verb will be in the perfective aspect.

Question 1: Am I correct in assuming that this is because:
- In (1) - imperfective, the words in bold represent unlimited numbers of times, except for 1000 although presumably we are talking here about figurative use to mean "many times" - e.g. "I've already told you a thousand times, don't do that!" So the action is seen as continuing indefinitely (or not happening at all).
- In (2) - perfective, the words in bold represent limited numbers of times (I assume that other numbers are also possible, in addition to those stated), so we know that the action does eventually come to an end: despite the multiple iteration here too, it is not repeated indefinitely. So the action will eventually be completed and lead to a "result".

The above is true in the future tense, but in the past, retrospectively, both perfective and imperfective forms can be interchangeable beyond any other consideration.
For example, «ему сказали/говорили это два/три/пять/двадцать пять/сто/ровно сто/стопятьсот/ровно тысячу/тысячи раз, но он всё равно не слушал/послушал».

 

[Vovan]

(1) When you do an action often, always, sometimes, never, "many times" or even "1000 times" the verb will be in the imperfective aspect.

I'd rather say that some of these adverbials may not generally agree with a perfective verb in the past; and that's about all (i.e. there's no point #2):

он всегда/иногда сказал (=всегда/иногда + a perfective verb in the past) ​

он никогда не сказал (=никогда + не + a perfective verb in the past; the correct way to convey the idea would be "ни разу не")​

Он всегда скажет (perf.) доброе слово. Он никогда не скажет (perf.), что думает на самом деле. Он иногда будет говорить (imperf.) невпопад, будь готова к этому. В ее присутствии он никогда не будет говорить (imperf.) о личном. И т.д.​

I wonder where you came across those "rules", Lisa.


(For the most part, repeated after the others for clarity of the thread.)

 

[nizzebro]

but in the past, retrospectively, both perfective and imperfective forms can be interchangeable beyond any other consideration.

Except that the pragmatics of the action matter: it is assumed that one can't "сломать ногу два раза" (break their leg twice - a perfective verb), because this particular action has a prolonged effect (unless if one intentionally breaks their leg twice in row). So it is normally "ломать два раза". On the other hand, the action of "выстрелить" (to fire a weapon in the sense of giving a separate shot, a perfective verb) allows a sequence within the single scenario just because the result of each shot doesn't prevent from doing that again.

 

[nizzebro]

Он всегда скажет (perf.) доброе слово. Он никогда не скажет (perf.), что думает на самом деле. Он иногда будет говорить (imperf.) невпопад, будь готова к этому. В ее присутствии он никогда не будет говорить (imperf.) о личном. И т.д.
I wonder where you came across those "rules", Lisa.

However, this case of future perfective is a pretty specific one, with a function of mood/modality injected in it - and in English this "will" is also more like "would (help etc) in a situation of...", I guess - i.e. it is not the "normal future", so to speak, and not the usual kind of "always". So I wouldn't say that the rules Lisa was referring to, are basically unreliable.

 

[Vovan]

nizzebro, consider some other examples where "will" is more appropriate than 'would":

Он никогда не справится с этой задачей.​

Он никогда не будет справляться, если ты продолжишь помогать ему всякий раз.​

​

As for those "rules", I find them totally unreliable.

 

[nizzebro]

consider some other examples where "will" is more appropriate than 'would":
Он никогда не справится с этой задачей.Он никогда не будет справляться, если ты продолжишь помогать ему всякий раз.

Sorry, I have corrected my post a little; but anyway it is a special case - not a pure realis, and only applies to "always" and "never". The whole idea in question was about those adverbials that prevent a finite situation, and as a basic concept, it is totally reliable. "Он всегда сделает/никогда не сделает" is just a special construction that embodies the idea "In a situation X, he ..." - and note that such a phrase always requires some kind of contextual "when(ever) X".

P.S. This, however, is an inadequate assumption: "(2) When you do an action twice, five times, several times in Russian, the verb will be in the perfective aspect." - I have missed it, being focused on the part 1 quoted; sorry.

 

[lisalinguist]

Many thanks for all these detailed replies.

It certainly seems safe to conclude that when the author wrote:

(2) When you do an action twice, five times, several times in Russian, the verb will be in the perfective aspect.

then he was NOT referring to verbs of motion, because this general rule for perfective verbs does NOT apply to perfective verbs of motion.
Even though "several times" can equally be used with the imperfective, depending on context - cf. #7).

I'd rather call it the events which for various reasons cannot be specifically numbered (open multitudes, zero events, markedly non-specific numbers).

Yes, this (cf. #7) is more appropriate than my term "unlimited" (cf. #1).

I wonder where you came across those "rules", Lisa.

They are revision notes for third-year university students, I think! So it is certainly a summary of very complex notions but I find them to be reliable, certainly as general rules. (There are in fact separate revision notes for the verbs of motion, but since the "imperfective/perfective" notes do not seem to explicitly exclude verbs of motion - and go into much greater detail on aspect than the "verbs of motion" notes do - then I am getting a little confused now and then about which aspect rules also apply to verbs of motion and which do not.

"Раз в жизнь" is actually the most weird part here, as it's, essentially, "once per life" - and, well, you have only one life. Adding "один" ("один раз в жизнь", or even better "один раз за всю жизнь") looks better.

Thanks for this! Incidentally, in #1 I wrote раз в жизнь in the accusative case (like раз в год), as did you here @Awwal12 (cf. #7).
But @Rosett and @nizzebro, I notice you've both written раз в жизни (in #2 and #6, respectively): what case is this please and what is the difference in meaning or nuance, if any?

Also, does a sentence such as the following sound better / more natural with or without "один"?
Я е́зжу за грани́цу раз в год. = I travel abroad once per year.

"Поехал", aside from the literal meaning "started to go", is quite close to "departed"; if not followed by mentioning subsequent events, it strongly suggests that the trip wasn't/isn't finished at the moment in question. "Съездил" (~visited; departed and returned) is all right, though

OK that sounds helpful and I will definitely bear this (#7) in mind for future study, along with your comments in the other thread here (#23 & #30):

The idea of ходить "to visit" (by walking, at least prototypically; can be replaced by other, semantically corresponding multidirectional verb if necessary; the perfective counterparts are formed by attaching с- to the multidirectional verb) is based on the idea of going there and back, i.e. in two directions.

Using multidirectional verbs for making a visit [...] won't work with infinitive, imperative, future forms etc. That's where you naturally need to shift to свозить (perf.) or probably отвезти (perf.). The first verb explicitly includes returning; the second doesn't but still may be used in the same meaning (at least if the context removes the ambiguity) - besides, it isn't as colloquial as свозить.

Actually I have not learned anything about this yet but am sure I will get there soon. My current goal is focussing on mastering the most basic forms of verbs of motion! (i.e. without prefixes other than по-).

"One day he went (i.e. drove to)..." is "Однажды он поехал..." (although I'm never sure if English speakers do really mean only the departure here - due to the versatile function of "went").

In English I would definitely assume, if somebody told me, "One day my uncle went to Buckingham," that he had arrived there.
Even in a sentence such as, "My uncle went to Buckingham Palace to see the King," I could well imagine that he may have been refused access because the King was busy (i.e. if he actually did try to arrange a meeting!) or more likely, did not glimpse the King after all (e.g. because it turned out that the King was not taking part personally in whatever parade/event was taking place) but even so, I would still imagine that the uncle did indeed arrive at the palace and perhaps introduce himself to the guards there.
Whereas: "My uncle has gone to Buckingham" implies that he has set out to go there, but the journey is still in progress or we don't know the outcome, so this is much closer in meaning to the Russian perfective.

 

[Rosett]

@Rosett and @nizzebro, I notice you've both written раз в жизни (in #2 and #6, respectively): what case is this please and what is the difference in meaning or nuance, if any?

«Раз в жизнь» is formally correct, but implies the concept of rebirth, reincarnation, or transmigration of souls, as certain cultures believe in it.

But you can say, «раз в год» or «раз в году» mostly interchangeably — depending on the emphasis, as explained below:

Раз в году - акцент на единичности события, на количестве раз в конкретном году: День рожденья только раз в году (а не 2, 3). Раз в год = ежегодно, акцент на обязательной периодичности: Раз в год я бываю на родине.Mar 20, 2017
Русский язык › Раз...
"Раз в год" и "раз в году" - Русский язык - Stack Exchange

 

[nizzebro]

then he was NOT referring to verbs of motion, because this general rule for perfective verbs does NOT apply to perfective verbs of motion.
Even though "several times" can equally be used with the imperfective, depending on context - cf. #7).

Regarding the issue of number of repetitions, there is no principal difference between the perfectives derived from the verbs of motion and any other perfectives. With imperfective verbs, a finite number of times means the number of separate occasions of the process, and with perfectives, a finite number means the number of resultative acts within a single scenario, where these acts go in a row and it is possible to think of the result of each act as contributing to the result of the whole scenario. And an infinite number of repetitions, as a concept, is as such limited to imperfectives, except for specific cases as that pointed by Vovan. The term "verbs of motion" is, strictly speaking, only applicable to those basic imperfectives like бежать/бегать, and not their derivatives. (However, unidirectional imperfectives behave somewhat differently in regard to repetitions, but this is a separate question).

 

[nizzebro]

In English I would definitely assume, if somebody told me, "One day my uncle went to Buckingham," that he had arrived there.
Even in a sentence such as, "My uncle went to Buckingham Palace to see the King," I could well imagine that he may have been refused access because the King was busy (i.e. if he actually did try to arrange a meeting!) or more likely, did not glimpse the King after all (e.g. because it turned out that the King was not taking part personally in whatever parade/event was taking place) but even so, I would still imagine that the uncle did indeed arrive at the palace and perhaps introduce himself to the guards there.
Whereas: "My uncle has gone to Buckingham" implies that he has set out to go there, but the journey is still in progress or we don't know the outcome, so this is much closer in meaning to the Russian perfective.

Thanks, now I see that "went" is in any case a large-scaled processual line along with some kind of its termination implied. Unfortunately, sentences like "[Однажды/Как то раз] он поехал в Москву..." are commonly translated with "went" in practice, but actually the Russian sentence is such that, right on the verb поехал, immersion into the course of events turns on immediately: at this moment, you, as a listener, mentally pass through the act of the departure and stay waiting for its outcome. So yes, поехал is much like уехал - the difference is only that the latter means leaving, and so the perspective is often closer to the original location, while поехал is simply about that the directed motion has started.

 

[lisalinguist]

I should perhaps add the following examples:

My uncle went to Buckingham for three weeks. (His entire journey is now finished: he is no longer in Buckingham. This could have been recent or long ago, depending on context.)

My uncle went to Buckingham three weeks ago. (He arrived there and so finished the outward journey. We don't know if he has returned or not).

My uncle has gone to Buckingham for three weeks. (He has set out/left to go there, but he may not yet have arrived there and he has definitely not yet returned.)

My uncle has gone to Buckingham three weeks ago. (This sounds wrong!! I suppose "three weeks ago" sounds like a finished action, whereas this verb form implies continuation.)

Although English is my native language, I'm afraid I have never paid close attention to how it works, never having "learned" the rules (I've always been more focussed on learning new languages). So I am no expert on explaining the whys and wherefores of English.
But I have double-checked here and it seems that "has gone to" is the present perfect, used for example:
- for something that started in the past and continues in the present:
- for something that happened in the past but is important in the present:
A: Where's Maria? I haven't seen her for weeks.
B: She's gone to Paris for a week. She'll be back tomorrow.

So in my opinion, that is why it cannot always replace "поехал", here for example:
Он поехал туда три недель назад. = He "went" there three weeks ago.
It would be more exact to translate as "He set out to go there three weeks ago"... but if you insist so heavily on the "setting out", then the English-speaking listener will definitely expect some setback to follow, e.g. "but never arrived, because his car broke down."

But yes: it is very probably this widespread use of "went" to translate "поехал" which causes so much confusion among learners of Russian, who are then flummoxed to hear, "Ah, but that doesn't necessarily mean he arrived..."

 

[lisalinguist]

Of course, in English there is also the following verb form:
He has been to Buckingham. (He went there and came back, with focus on the "gap" or destination, rather than the journey.)

The interesting thing is that this only seems possible in the past tense! You would never say:
He is to Buckingham.
He will be to Buckingham.
He loves being to Buckingham.

And in fact, @nizzebro I only realised this myself after rephrasing your statement in this earlier thread (cf. #9).
You wrote: "there is at least one "gap" associated with the being to the theater"
I reformulated: "the "gap(s)" associated with going to/being at the theatre"

Much later, while musing about how rare it is that you make any kind of mistake in English, I suddenly realised just how logical that mistake was. It even struck me as quite "unfair" that it should be wrong!

(And just for the record, in this thread: "theater" and "theatre" are of course both correct, depending on whether you're using American or British English.)

Edit: I've made a small change to my first example of a wrong sentence here.

 

[nizzebro]

Он поехал туда три недели назад. = He "went" there three weeks ago.

This sentence works in Russian, as well as "он поехал в Букингэм на три недели" - but in both cases it is expected that some details will follow as the development of this idea of departure - i.e. it should be either the beginning of some story, or, for example, it could be a soothing answer to "we urgently need some of our representative in Buckingham". "Она поехала в Париж на неделю" is also generally fine in the dialogue mentioned. The same with "уехал", but it is closer to "away", i.e. is focused on the idea of leaving the original point, so "уехал на три недели" would sound as if he was happy to take a break from something for that period of time.

 

[nizzebro]

He is to Buckingham.

I guess, "he is visiting Buckingham at the moment" is effectively the related meaning. And speaking of "visiting" as a process, it has a structure of the same kind as those multidirectionals with a specified destination: there is both reaching a place and staying there, and, some implicit final leaving in it is also assumed only so that the action can be iterative, and not because leaving contributes to some kind of multidirection; "ходить в школу" is about attending the school, not walking in two directions.

 

[Rosett]

I should perhaps add the following examples:

My uncle went to Buckingham for three weeks. (His entire journey is now finished: he is no longer in Buckingham. This could have been recent or long ago, depending on context.)

My uncle went to Buckingham three weeks ago. (He arrived there and so finished the outward journey. We don't know if he has returned or not).

My uncle has gone to Buckingham for three weeks. (He has set out/left to go there, but he may not yet have arrived there and he has definitely not yet returned.)

My uncle has gone to Buckingham three weeks ago. (This sounds wrong!! I suppose "three weeks ago" sounds like a finished action, whereas this verb form implies continuation.)

I guess the most relevant translation of «поехал/пошёл в...» would be “is/was gone to...” in many cases.


The phrase "I'm gone" is also correct, but it has a slightly different meaning. It means "I am leaving" or "I am no longer here." For example, "I'm going to the store. I'll be back soon." "I'm gone" would mean "I have left and am no longer here."

Quora › Is-it-corre...

Is it correct I've gone or I'm gone? - Quora​

 

[lisalinguist]

I guess the most relevant translation of «поехал/пошёл в...» would be “is/was gone to...” in many cases.

Yes.... but not with a first-person subject!

"He is gone" / "He was gone" sound fine.

To me, "I am gone" and "I was gone" sound very strange/wrong... You would expect movement to be away from the speaker (except possibly in present tense slang use, saying "I'm gone!" / " I'm out of here!" to mean you are about to leave now - see Augustus Smith's comment lower down in the Quora discussion you have quoted).

Or possibly in a letter that has been left behind, maybe for posthumous reading: "Do not search/weep for me. I am gone."

 

[lisalinguist]

Although now I think about it, "He is gone to" (e.g. the shop) sounds a very odd way of putting it... A bit old-fashioned/poetical...

Here is a related discussion :
Is gone vs. has gone?

(Edit: This link should work now.)

 

[Rosett]

You would expect movement to be away from the speaker (except possibly in present tense slang use, saying "I'm gone!" / " I'm out of here!" to mean you are about to leave now - see Augustus Smith's comment lower down in the Quora discussion you have quoted).

This expression is ubiquitous in AmE in informal speech, as well as “I’m done/finished...” likewise.

Reddit · r/antiwork
430+ comments · 1 year ago
Quit my job on Black Friday but not before I made sure my coworkers ...
I'm gone. Done. Finished. Consider this your call you unscrupulous fcuk. They even put that pic/gif. Audacity for days lol. Upvote 136

Here is a related discussion :
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/is-gone-vs-has-gone.243172/

The Wordreference link above wouldn’t open.

By the way, Russian «он поехал» (without complement) may express a special meaning in certain contexts, “he has entered a severely worsening mental condition,” implying a noticeable movement of one’s mental state downwards. It would be weird if used in the 1st person, unless premised by «кажется».

 

[nizzebro]

You would expect movement to be away from the speaker (except possibly in present tense slang use, saying "I'm gone!" / " I'm out of here!" to mean you are about to leave now

Same in Russian with поехал, "Всё, я поехал" ("All right, I'm off".), which grabs the upcoming event into the present; I wouldn't call it slangy - it's just a common approach in dialogues. However, it is not "off" but rather "on my way", since we can supply the destination as "Всё, я поехал в магазин/домой/к брату" - which, I suppose, is "...I'm going to...".

And the idea of "он поехал в магазин", ultimately boils down to that he is now on his way to the shop - or, more precisely, it is the resultant state of the transition forming the event of departure - which essentially makes the specificity: it is perfective. What we say is that he is now in the state that came as a result of the departure (and so is not stand-alone but successive to that act on the timeline): basically it is the process of "едет", but generally this state embodies the entire period after the departure in the current context, in connection to the subject of action.

By the way, Russian «он поехал» (without complement) may express a special meaning in certain contexts, “he has entered a severely worsening mental condition,” implying a noticeable movement of one’s mental state downwards. It would be weird if used in the 1st person, unless premised by «кажется».

Actually, it is originally "крыша/голова поехала" (the roof started moving (sliding down)), rephrased to "он поехал крышей/головой" (he started moving with his roof). This поехать is colloquially used for any sliding/slipping effects of things losing stability, such as landslides, shifts in visuals, holes in stockings etc.

(I feel like time is coming when the moderator will split the thread )

 

[lisalinguist]

The Wordreference link above wouldn’t open.

Sorry, I have now edited my entry above (#27) to correct the link and will repost it here too:
Is gone vs. has gone?

Following this link, I especially agree with the comments in #6 ("has gone" reflects leaving, whereas "is gone" simply reflects absence/not being there") and #22 (examples demonstrating this), while the biblical-type sentences show exactly what I meant by an "old-fashioned" feel, linguistically speaking of course.

 

[Rosett]

Sorry, I have now edited my entry above (#27) to correct the link and will repost it here too:
Is gone vs. has gone?

Following this link, I especially agree with the comments in #6 ("has gone" reflects leaving, whereas "is gone" simply reflects absence/not being there") and #22 (examples demonstrating this), while the biblical-type sentences show exactly what I meant by an "old-fashioned" feel, linguistically speaking of course.

There’s another discussion supporting this point of view:

To answer the original question: they are indeed both correct, depending on context. "He is gone" emphasizes the state/location of the person in question (that is, "he is not here"), whereas "he has gone" emphasizes the action ("he went"). Oddly enough, you can't do the same thing with "come" in Modern English.May 12, 2007
Antimoon: How to learn English effectively › forum
He is gone OR he has gone? | Antimoon Forum

In Russian, we have a couple of verbs that correspond to those phrases in English, emphasizing the nuance (the state/location vs the action):
He is gone = он уехал/ушёл (отсюда, с/из этого места).
He has gone = он поехал/пошёл (туда, в другое место).

 

[lisalinguist]

I think we did get quite side-tracked from my question in #16 (I was forgetting it myself!).
Am reposting here:

Also, does a sentence such as the following sound better / more natural with or without "один"?
Я е́зжу за грани́цу раз в год. = I travel abroad once per year.

 

[nizzebro]

Also, does a sentence such as the following sound better / more natural with or without "один"?
Я е́зжу за грани́цу раз в год. = I travel abroad once per year.

Both "... раз в год ..." and "...один раз в год ..." are fine.
The slight difference is that "один раз" tends to be more emphasised, so it can be like shifted to the rheme part, so that the idea will be closer to "my going abroad happens once a year" (not more than that), while "раз" is somewhat cursory, so the focus rather falls on the verb, and the idea of "once a year" can be a kind of addendum, like "I go abroad, once a year".
By the way, if we make it introductory as "Раз в год, я езжу за границу", then, "один раз" will be not so natural at this position.

 

[Rosett]

Есть такая песня :
Тексты Песенок - тексты песен и переводы русских и зарубежных исполнителей › tekst-p...
Текст песни Анна Герман - Один раз в год сады цветут
Один раз в год сады цветут,
Весну любви один раз ждут.
Всего один лишь только раз
Цветут сады в душе у нас.

So that, it’s OK to say, «один раз в год» (not two, not three, etc, but every year.)