Job Discussion Forums

carnac

So: We know that "He has gone to Paris" means he's in Paris NOW, not here. And that "He has been to Paris" means that at an indeterminate time in the past, he went there but is not there now and has (probably) returned.
But, please look at this:
"His parents are very worried - he's (gone/been) missing for a week".
For me, "has gone missing" is, I believe, correct Britspeak, not usually used in AmE. He is gone and is missing, away somewhere, has not returned. (My keys have gone missing.) But "has been missing" , action over time in the past continuing into the present with implications for the present, also seems correct.
What am I "missing" here? There must be something simple I'm not seeing. Or are both correct in this instance? Your thoughts?
Thanks!

stillnosheep · Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: eslcafe

He has been to hell and back.
Aye. He has gone nuts

fluffyhamster · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject:

Spotted this in my Eastwood Oxford Guide to English Grammar a few days ago, which is kind of why this thread caught my eye:

carnac · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject:

Thanks, Fluffy! But in the stated example, including the phrase "for over a week", which and why, or either? (I have to be able to say "why".) I get tough questions from great students - I love it! (My own classroom protocol: if they can ask me a question about English that I have to answer by saying "I don't know but I'll find out", they get one point added to their session average for each successful question. Helps make them think about the language.
Before flamers add their two cents, I will tell you that very few students get extra points for this type of exercise, thank you very much!
Anyway, this is one of those "Why, teacher?" questions. And I don't have an answer.
Stephen?

Stephen Jones · Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124

Not quite sure what the question is.

I tnink 'to go missing' is semantically different from 'to be missing'.

He's gone missing suggests to me a voluntary activity. That he's upped and gone somewhere. On the other hand if we say he's missing it is quite possible he has been kidnapped, or simply that we have been too imcompetent to find him.

That is to say the relationship between 'been missing' and 'been to Paris' is deceptive.

'He's been missing' is the same kind of phrase as 'he's been a nusance'.

valley_girl · Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject:

I agree with Stephen Jones. Semantically, they are different.

'To go missing' seems to imply that this is the first time we have either noticed or acknowledged that someone or something is missing. 'To be missing' seems to imply that we already know or have known in the past that the person or thing in question is missing and has been missing for some period of time.

Deconstructor · Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 775 Location: Montreal

You're simply dealing with idiomatic English. For example: He's come undone.

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:45 am Post subject:

So, 'He has gone/been to Paris' - both "voluntarily" (thanks for that keyword, SJ!).

'He has gone missing' (very recently) and 'He has been missing for a week' (duration necessarily stated, which in this case points back to a not-too-distant time when it was first noticed) - both likely to be involuntarily due to the nature of MISSING*, the main difference between them (''gone' vs 'been + for a week') obviously being the one that valley girl has helped explain rather nicely.

*How can we know that the speaker of 'He has gone missing' knows that he just needed to get away from it all for a while and wasn't e.g. kidnapped or abducted by aliens - I mean, if he really has gone off just to get away then that's what the speaker would say, surely? (What SJ wrote obviously got me thinking: 'He's gone missing suggests to me a voluntary activity. That he's upped and gone somewhere. On the other hand if we say he's missing it is quite possible he has been kidnapped, or simply that we have been too imcompetent to find him.').

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject:

Same thing here as on the reported speech thread, SJ - no response. Could that possibly be because what you've said here is even sillier? Twisted Evil

guty · Joined: 10 Apr 2003 Posts: 365 Location: on holiday

"The entire Norwich defence went missing for 20 minutes in the second half"
A cunning AlQuaeda plot, or proof of aliens at Premiership Matches?

carnac · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:20 pm Post subject:

Someone else privately opined that "to go missing" is a colloquialism and that the present perfect "has been missing" would be preferable. Also that the added phrase "for a week" is the decider. "Has been missing for a week" is ok, but that "has gone missing for a week" is not possible., in that "to go missing" is akin to a past simple in that "to go missing" is an event in the past and is a finished action.
Stephen, don't understand why you don't understand the question. Confused

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject:

Hmm, interesting, carnac. Could we say, 'He went/was missing for a week (but turned up the other day, safe and sound, if a bit worse for wear)'. My hamster used to do that, until it got hungry and I could tempt it out with a bit of cheese from wherever it was hiding.

I'm now thinking about "non-serious" uses of 'to go missing', similar perhaps to 'go AWOL' or 'do a vanishing act'. 'He's gone missing/gone AWOL/done a vanishing act/done a runner (but I have a good idea of where he might have gone)'. Then there's MIA, which might have a humorous use...I must admit I was only thinking of a "serious" context before (kidnap etc).

Stephen Jones · Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124

Stephen Jones · Joined: 21 Feb 2003 Posts: 4124