Qut  +  618948 Tue, 23 Dec 08 09:37 AM Hi I have been / have reviewing the incident.  What's the difference between have been and have only. Thanks Qut Joined on Tue, Jul 26 2005 hk Full Member 126 Difference Between

	Avangi  +  618950 Tue, 23 Dec 08 09:42 AM The second is ungrammatical.  You need to use the "other" participle, "I have reviewed the incident." (Have been reviewing is present perfect progressive tense; Have reviewed is present perfect tense.) In the first case, the action is continuing; in the second case, the action has been (recently) completed. (Reviewing is called the present participle of the verb to review.  Reviewed is called the past participle.) Avangi Joined on Mon, Nov 19 2007 Veteran Member 8,172 ". . . le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile." - Henri de Regnier Tenses, Present Tenses, Present Perfect, Perfect Progressive

	CalifJim  +  618961 Tue, 23 Dec 08 09:53 AM The auxiliary verb have (and all its forms) can only be followed by a past participle: have seen; have done; has reviewed; have wanted; have thrown; has been; had known The auxiliary verb be (and all its forms) can be followed by a present or a past participle: is seeing; was doing; am going; were throwing; are jumping is seen; was done; were thrown; are reviewed So the only form of be that can go after have is been (the past participle of be).  have been; has been; had been have/has/had been counts as a form of be and, like other forms of be, can be followed by a present or past participle: have been seeing; had been going; had been jumping; has been watching have been seen; had been found; has been done; have been reviewed ___ So have reviewing is not correct. CJ CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,389 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche Auxiliaries