This is an interesting question, because although it looks as if the two alternative sentences are very similar, they are, in actual fact, completely different constructions. First let's consider:
The discovery has excited scientists.
This has the clause structure:
Subject, Predicator, Object (where predicator is the function carried out by the verb)
We can use 'could have' to talk about something somebody was capable of doing in PAST but didn't do. (Possible in Past)
I could have gone to Oxford University but I preferred Harvard.
She could have married him but she didn't want to.
They could have bought a house here 20 years ago but chose not to.
We can use 'could have been' to talk about possible ...
Gotten is not slang in the US.
Gotten is the normal past participle of get, for certain uses of get; and got is the normal past participle, for other uses of get. There are an awful lot of idioms and constructions with get.
This post on the difference between the grammar of got and gotten in American English dates
from about 1995 or so. It's one of the ...
"He would have had to have been there" means that, in order for him to have accomplished whatever he accomplished, it would have been necessary for him both to be there and then to leave. In other words, whatever he was supposed to have done could not have been accomplished only by him being there.
Most commonly, however, the action done at the place is ...
Let's look at a little more context:
When the night has come and the land is dark
And the moon is the only light we see
No, I won't be afraid, oh, I won't be afraid
Just as long as you stand, stand by me
A perfect construction marks a past action as having brought about a state which is relevant at some later point: the utterance’s ‘Reference ...
This is a very rare usage and cannot be regarded as idiomatic today.
Dare is an odd word—it wanders back and forth between performing as an ordinary lexical verb and as a sort of modal. For instance, it is used with both marked and unmarked infinitives, and it may be used with or without DO-support:
I dare tell you so. ... I dare to tell you so.
Speaking as a non-linguist with no education in the theory, but a native speaker with a lifetime of exposure to practice, my ear would expect you to say "The most important news is that my parents opened a new restaurant a few weeks ago."
If you said "have opened a restaurant a few weeks ago", it would sound really off. Additionally, "opened" implies "new"...
Context is king. I have lived in Paris for two weeks could mean that the speaker is no longer living there, but will not normally do so. I have lived in Paris, without further elaboration, will almost certainly mean that the speaker is now living elsewhere.
I usually put it in the form "the speaker is choosing to present the past event as relevant to the present".
But either way, the particular relevance (or connection) can vary. Some examples are:
a state which continues to the present ("has lived");
an action which has a continuing effect in the present ("has written");
an action which is so recent that ...
The present perfect continuous is, in most cases, used to describe an action that is ongoing:
I have been pumping
means: "I have pumped, but I'm not done yet; I'm still pumping."
By contrast, the present perfect is used to describe an action that has ended:
I have pulled up dandelions all day
means: "I've spent all day pulling up dandelions, but now ...
There is a difference in principle. I would like to have come describes the speaker’s feelings at the time of speaking, whereas I would have liked to come describes the speaker’s feelings at a certain time in the past. In practice, however, many speakers will use one or the other without making any such distinction.
Based on my own feeling:
"has scientists excited" sounds more like they have been and still are excited
"has excited scientists" sounds like they were excited and might not be anymore.
Neither are incorrect though.
Saying I/we are finished implies that the person in question is in a state of being finished with some task. It is referring to the person and not specifically the task.
I/we have finished refers to the task itself being finished or complete, and perhaps the person has moved on to another task or is waiting for something to occur.
There are several possible problems, but most of them are matters of style rather than grammar.
Get rather than become could be considered unimaginative or ugly, but I suspect those who think it so are haunted by the ghost of an English teacher inculcating rules rather than commonsense: personally I get older every day, and would never say become older.
In relation to your question:
Is Miriam an Irish speaker?
The Miriam in question is Miriam O'Callaghan, a current affairs and chat show presenter on TV and radio. She may be able to speak Irish but she doesn't speak it on on TV or radio and she is definitely not a native Irish speaker.
please tell me if that statement is grammatical.
This has been ...
This house has been being built for years
is horribly clumsy and inelegant.
If I google the expression "has been being built", at my time/space coordinates it currently achieves 24,400 hits.
That figure seems to place this particular "has been being [X]" construction towards the upper end of the prevalence scale: if I substitute almost any other common ...
We might think about a bit of logic. If we memorize phrases, we may fail to comprehend what meaning there is for grammar to bring. :)
Have can be a head verb.
I HAVE a book. (I own a book.)
I HAVE fresh strawberries at least once a week. (I eat strawberries.)
Have can be an auxiliary.
I have HAD this book for twenty years. I keep returning to it.
Both are grammatical. Both are perfectly normal (though the form with have is probably less common).
They have different meanings: not in the sense that they describe different sets of circumstances, but that they look at them in different ways.
I will finish my money by the end of the week is not focussing on a time, or if it is, it is focussing on a ...
Past perfect forms, continuous and non-continuous, are appropriate only if there is some implied or explicit reference to one action starting before a past time.
Do you really expect me to believe that you were running for twenty minutes flat yesterday?
Do you really expect me to believe that you had been running for twenty minutes flat when you passed me ...
Because you’ve specified last Wednesday, you need a completed action:
My test result should have been done by last Wednesday.
If we’re talking about a future event, you need the other version:
My test result should be done by next Wednesday.
I don't see anything wrong with (1) or (2).
To start out with, I'm not sure that it's correct to analyze this construction as involving an omitted having (or any omitted auxiliary). I'm also not sure about whether escaped in your example sentences is a verb inflected into its past participle form, or a departicipial adjective.1
I think that the difference ...
Those now all sound wrong to the modern ear. In contemporary English, that should just be one of:
I never dared to tell you.
I never dared tell you.
I dared never tell you.
Of those, the second may be preferable. Notice how dare can be used without a to-infinitive but just a bare infinitive, where it acts more like a modal verb.
The OED gives only one ...
Both expressions are correct and the difference in meaning between them is minimal. They both inform us when the action, to work, began and that it is ongoing.
Work is a verb which we can use in the present and present progressive tense.
"She works in this company" describes a habitual action.
"She is working at the moment" describes an action in progress ...
A 'compound' tense is one which employs an auxiliary word, such as have. The Present is a simple tense 'I go', the past is also simple 'I went', but the Perfect is compound 'I have gone'. 'Have' is the auxiliary. Some compound tenses have two-word auxiliaries such as the Future Perfect 'I shall have gone'.
The answer is B.
If a person is not at home or at work it is because he or she is somewhere else.
Bill: Where's Mum? I'm hungry.
Dad: She's gone shopping, she'll be back soon.
If a person has returned from a specific location we use the past simple tense, went, to express this idea.
Bill: Mum where were you? I was really hungry
Mum: I ...
It's wrong because has happened, as the perfect tense, indicates an action that is momentary, or at least completed; whereas for a while now indicates something continuing and requires the imperfect tense. So It happened a while ago or It has been happening for a while now, but not ?It has happened for a while now.
(Many native speakers would not even ...
Because the present perfect refers to past time with present relevance, it is not usually used with a specific time reference that does not include the present (such as last year), but it is usually used with a specific time reference that does include the present (such as in the past year).
If you said I went to Australia in the past year it would imply ...
First point is correct when she is still at it, i.e., still trying to quit that habit.
Second point is correct when she has quit smoking and now her trying part is in the past.
Both are used interchangeably in everyday speech.
It really seems to me that "running away" is describing the way in which he ran. We can add some clarifying punctuation:
He should have gone, running away, instead of helping the lion.
(Most people prefer commas, I think, although I'd prefer em-dashes. Either seems acceptable here.)
The way it is given, with "should have gone running away", definitely ...
I'd use the Present Continuous tense in the first clause, this tells your readers that you are presently occupied. For the second clause, the Simple Past seems the most appropriate, the action—starting a project—is fixed at a specified point in time.
I'm currently working on a project which I began several years ago.
Both forms, Present Perfect and PP ...