English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is the correct version?

They have contacted me and discussed


They have contacted me and have discussed

share|improve this question

I feel that both are correct. It depends on the level of understanding and assertion. If you wish to just make a statement (and be brief), then (1)

They have contacted me and discussed

If you wish to be clear, then (2)

They have contacted me and have discussed

And if you wish to cover all your bases, then

They have both contacted me and have discussed

In any case, all options are grammatically correct.

share|improve this answer
Another alternative would be "They have contacted me and they have discussed". NB: "They have both contacted me and have discussed" sounds like "they" refers to two people (rather than emphasising the two actions, contacting and discussing, which is what I assume was intended :). – psmears Feb 15 '11 at 14:09

In such sentences, where a series of actions is presented (and the subject of the actions is the same), subject and auxiliary verb are normally not repeated after the first action.

She should go to home, take her cell phone, and return at work in 30 minutes. She cannot possibly return in time.
She was having brunch, talking on the phone, and keeping an eye on his son; I am not surprised she didn't notice her son moved away.
They have contacted me and discussed.

I don't see anything wrong with they have contacted me and have discussed, though.

share|improve this answer

Parallelism says that the pattern followed with the first verb should be repeated with the following verbs as well. Hence, the second form of the sentence is correct, i.e., They have contacted me and have discussed [this with me.]

share|improve this answer
Wikipedia is not reliable source. It can be correctm, but it isn't always. Here, even though the page has "grammar" in the title, it isn't about grammar, but rhetoric/style. – Jürgen A. Erhard Feb 15 '11 at 11:18
@jae In case you don't know, my dear friend, Wikipedia is a reliable source of information for the face that all the information cited on the concerned pages is verified and in case of lack of supporting facts the webpage concerned displays the banner saying [citation needed]. It is run by an open source community, doesn't make the content unreliable in any sense. – ikartik90 Feb 15 '11 at 11:24
I do know. And I do also know that "citation needed" isn't automatic. And I'm a huge fan of this so-called "Open Sores" (I prefer the term "FLOSS"). Because of that, I know... well, didn't I say "it can be correct"? – Jürgen A. Erhard Feb 15 '11 at 12:40

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.