The sentence, from from a student:
"I've been to Italy for three months."
My viewpoint is that:
-I've been to Italy. -- is fine. talking about an experience. No specific time.
-I was in Italy for three months. -- She's no longer in Italy, she's referring to a specific time period that's finished (those three months), so that is why the past simple should be used.
-She COULD have said, "I've been in Italy for three months." if she means to communicate that she's still in Italy.
I fear my mind is playing tricks on me though...Does "I've been to Italy for three months" sound wrong to you, too?
OR maybe it could work because of the "past event has present result" or the use for something that happened very recently....help I'm getting dizzy!
