I saw the following sentence by a contributor at alt.usage.english. I am puzzled by his usage of 'have gone to'. Why didn't he say 'have been to'? I always think 'have been to' is about experience, whereas 'have gone to a place' means someone is in that place and hasn't returned. But he seems to use 'have gone to' to indicate experience.
The only place I've ever gone to and had no choice on what I was eating without advanced warning was a family-style Italian restaurant in San Francisco
'Have been to' is probably the best usage here, but people would understand 'have gone to' equally well seeing as how the person is no longer in that Italian restaurant in San Francisco. It's probably a colloquialism more than anything else, but an acceptable and understandable one.
Have gone to works well here. Gone is serving as the past participle of go. You can go to a restaurant. You can say, I went to the restaurant. Therefore, why would it be incorrect to say I have gone to the restaurant?
Have been also works well here, although it is a bit interesting why.
Been is the past participle of be. When combined with to, it carries a sense that is identical to gone or went (a verb of motion) But you wouldn't use the other forms of be here.
You would not typically say I am to the restaurant. Nor would you say, I was to the restaurant. (Certainly not in modern English. Maybe Shakespeare?…) You might make a case for them as implying off to, but it comes off as highly contrived.
I cannot say if this is a remnant of an archaic usage or just the flexibility of certain verbs (like to be) in English.
