Comments on: “went missing/gone missing”?

By: Leslie

Leslie — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:15:09 +0000

I believe both versions - go missing/went missing - are correct. The present, past and past participle of the verb "to go" is as follows: go/went/gone. In English, the participial forms of verbs are usually preceded by a form of the verb "to have". Consider the following: - I go to the market on Mondays. - I went to the market last Monday. - I had gone to the market last week. I would imagine the same applies to the compound verb: - Don't talk to strangers or you could go missing. - The child went missing a few days ago. - The child had gone missing while on a shopping trip with his parents.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Jill

Jill — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:41:02 +0000

My pet peeve about "went missing" is that it seems to imply the person missing had some preference about the circumstances, as though he/she chose to "go missing," just like if "I went fishing" or "Sam went shopping." (The implication is that I or Sam first decided that we would go fishing or shopping, and then we did it.) Except for rare cases, no one wants to "go missing." Why can't reporters simply stick with the present state of being: "At this time, Smith Smith is missing."?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: porsche

porsche — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:08:29 +0000

I'll bet Grammar Girl would have conniptions over "went AWOL."

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: John

John — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:26:37 +0000

The OED has, under "go": 44. To pass into a certain condition. Chiefly implying deterioration. [...] to go missing: to get lost

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Douglas

Douglas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:21:08 +0000

I did a little poking about on the internet. It turns out that Grammar Girl listed “went missing” as her pet peeve for 2008:

“…if any reporters are listening, here’s the deal: “Went [sic] missing” actually isn’t wrong, but it annoys a lot of Americans, so you might want to say “missing” or “disappeared” every once in a while.”

For the record, peevish people should get real pets; it might relax them. But G. G. does note that “Went missing actually isn’t wrong.” That’s because, as she herself notes. “go is quite a versatile verb.” It generally implies movement, but a person may “go crazy” without actually traveling. Much.

Grammar Girl attributes the invasion of America by “went missing” to the press, and she’s probably right. But if a a midwestern sheriff is using it, it’s here to stay.

There is ample antipathy on both sides of the Ocean Sea to usages perceived to be “theirs.” This is not new. Fitzedward Hall (now there’s a name!) in “Modern English” (1873) cites “The London Review” (1864) as saying:

“The nineteenth century has witnessed the introduction of abundant Gallicisms, Germanisms, Americanisms, colonialisms, and provincialisms; nearly all needless, or easily to be supplied by more correct words or phrases.”

They go on to say, “There is no nation, except our own easy-going one, that would tolerate such words as…” Ah, those easy-going Victorians. I think a little cross-pollination time-to-time is a good thing. Keeps the language from the knacker’s yard, as it were.

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: porsche

porsche — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:55:56 +0000

Is it any worse than "go crazy", "go awry", "go nuts", or "go gaga over"?

Current score: 1 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Douglas

Douglas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:43:11 +0000

The phrase is a Britishism, if I may extend the appellation to an entire nation. It rings oddly in American ears, at first. Whether it is grammatical is irrelevant: it is an established idiom. It is a useful phrase, much better then "missing and presumed..." It has hope in it. Embrace it.

Current score: 2 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)