N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Come off it, Gary - you found one ridiculously lenient site out of many that go against you:
Since you like citing internet experts,
Gone or Went?
englishplus.com/grammar/00000217.htm
| Quote | | Gone is the past participle of to go. Used as the verb of a sentence, it must always be preceded by an auxiliary verb such as has, have, had, is, am, are, was, were, be, or one of their contractions. Went is the past tense of to go. It never takes an auxiliary verb. |
Also see
http://www.grammarly.com/blog.......-minute
https://www.englishforums.com/English....ost.htm
http://www.simplifylivelove.com/should-....ve-went
| Quote | | The nitty gritty for this particular grammar rule involves irregular verbs and past participles. If you really care, read this. Otherwise, please trust me. I teach College Composition. I have a Master’s Degree in English. Never, ever, ever, ever say “I SHOULD HAVE WENT.” Or, for that matter, never put have and went together in any construction. Have and Went never go next to each other in educated English. And that’s your 5 Minute Grammar Lesson! Enjoy! |
From http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog.......es.html
| Quote | Q: Have you noticed that many people no longer use participles with perfect tenses? I’ve heard things like “We’ve already ate” and “He’d went by then.” What do you make of this? Is it as inevitable as the change in the meaning of “momentarily?”
A: We too have noticed this failure to use a participle with the present perfect and past perfect tenses. It’s nothing new, though. We recently came across a discussion of it in a textbook published in 1918.
The problem involves the perfect tenses of irregular verbs (like “eat,” “go,” “give,” “break,” “take,” “write,” etc.).
The present perfect ends up as “have ate” (instead of “have eaten”), “have went” (instead of “have gone”), and so on. The error is the same in the past perfect: “had gave” (instead of “had given”), “had broke” (instead of “had broken”), etc.
What the speaker does is substitute a simple past tense form (like “took” or “wrote”) for the participle (“taken,” “written”). This is widely considered nonstandard English.
The textbook we mentioned, Vocational English: A Textbook for Commercial and Technical Schools, illustrates this “confusion of past tense and past participle” with the following anecdote:
“There is a story of a small boy who, as a punishment for having written I have went, was told by his teacher to remain after school and write "I have gone" fifty times. When the teacher returned to her room after ten minutes’ absence, she found the phrase written the required fifty times, followed by the note:
“Dear Teacher: I have wrote I have gone fifty times and I have went home.”
We’re pretty certain this use of the simple past for the participle won’t become standard English in our lifetimes, or even our children’s lifetimes. It’s just too big a grammatical shift. The change in meaning of “momentarily” is a mere alteration in usage. |
Note the reference to uneducated English. (You wouldn't be insulted about your writing if you wrote even halfway decently.)
You could have just said "seemingly went well", "apparently went well", "went well", or any number of other things to avoid a phrase that was at minimum awkward and problematic.
Regardless, the rest of that is equally incompetent English, or worse:
| Quote | | A question even led to me having to go into the genetic level intelligence being a billions of year's old entity that could be conscious or otherwise expressed into ours in a way the thinking of sex all day is expected by having of babies being what keeps it alive, literally. |
a billions of year's old !!
or otherwise expressed into ours !!
in a way the thinking of sex all day is expected !
is expected by !!
by having of babies !!
by having of babies being what keeps it alive !!
All of which stands apart from the greater issues that you have not demonstrated that there is such a thing as a genetic level of intelligence, nor that it constitutes an entity.
|
