has gone to Paris for a week

Hi, Mohamed Emara,

@Mohamed Emara posted:

Is the sentence below incorrect because “has gone” has no duration?

B: She's gone to Paris for a week.

The sentence comes from The British Council website:
https://learnenglish.britishco...ence/present-perfect
We usehave/has been when someone has gone to a place and returned:
A: Where have you been?
B: I've just been out to the supermarket.
But when someone has not returned, we use have/has gone:
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.

I don’t think the sentence is correct because she can’t keep going to Paris for a week. She went to Paris a week ago and she is still there. She has been in Paris for a week. Am I right?

Yes, it is grammatically correct. From A Comprehensive Grammar Of The English Language, page 212:

"Because of its resultative meaning, the simple perfective cannot be used with the accomplishment verbs when the clause contains an adverbial of duration:

- They have been repairing the road for months.

× They have repaired the road for months.

An exception to this, however, occurs where the duration adverbial applies to the resultant state itself or where the clause is negative.

- They have gone to Spain for two weeks.

- They haven't repaired the road for years.

So, your example simply means 'She has gone to Paris for a one-week holiday/vacation'.

For related discussions, see:

https://thegrammarexchange.inf...cc/topic/question-11

https://thegrammarexchange.inf...gone-to-london-since

Thank you, ahmed_btm for your helpful reply.