Is it appropriate to say "I've never been" when referring to a place, omitting the adverb "there" from the phrase?

Question

I have been hearing the phrase "I've never been" with increasing frequency lately when referring to places (i.e., "I'd like to go to the Apollo. I've never been" as opposed to "I've never been there").

I recently moved to New York and am noticing this adverb omission among 20-somethings in the city, particularly college-educated women. But is this phrase right? It sounds strange to my ear to omit the adverb "there" from this phrase when referring to a place.

Answer 1

Been is the past participle of Be so I've never been is as grammatical as I'm not. The object is omitted as it is understood from context.

Q: "Are you in France now?" A: "No, I'm not, and I've never been."

Q: "Are you tall?" A: "No, I'm not, and I've never been."

In the most technical sense, I'm not sure whether omitting the object of a to be verb can be considered "grammatical", but it is, in any case, a commonly used and accepted manner of expression.

Answer 2

Omitting “there” from a statement would be grammatically correct, as the adverb would be considered “understood” by the subject.

Answer 3

"They say Spain is pretty, though I've never been"—Elton John's Daniel

I guess my answer is twofold.

1. Except in cases like when asked such things as, "Are you in ...?" and the answer is "I am not. I have never been.";

Or in cases like saying, "I am not in ... . I have never been.";

Because in such cases, "been" is linked to "am [in]", both being forms of "be" (and in turn and similarly, "am" is linked to "are in" in the question and answer scenario):

I think it is not appropriate to say "I've never been" when referring to a place, omitting the adverb "there" from the phrase.

Especially in the song line I cite[d]. [First line of second verse.] Because even though the meaning is clear from the context, the structure surrounding the phrase makes it possible technically to link "never been" to "is pretty".

Even in cases where there is no such problem in the surrounding structure, it is inappropriate to omit "there", making the internal structure of the phrase itself incomplete technically, even though the sense can be gathered from context.

I have long been of the opinion that language should be as simple as possible. Which is not to say it could always be simple. Just that unnecessary innovations, for example, which make people have to keep up with them, should be avoided. Except in such exceptions as I have cited, omitting "there" in "never been there" is, to me, an unnecessary innovation.

Also, the following, to me, are the correct ways of putting it.

Correct: "I'd like to go to the Apollo. I've never been there." (Because "been" and "go" are different verbs.)

Correct: "I'd like to be in/at the Apollo. I've never been." (Because "been" and "be" are the same verb.)

2. My answer is twofold because: precisely because of the song line I quoted and other people omitting "there" in "never been there" — in such cases where I myself would not omit "there" — I defer to them.

Also, omitting "there" in the song line makes for a rhyme :)