I'd even say the adverb is to be placed Behind the auxiliary and Before the main verb.

1. Use of present perfect tense and simple past tense Speakers of American English generally use the present perfect tense (have/has + past participle) far less than speakers of British English. In spoken American English it is very common to

I have a few American students in one of my courses I am studying. Once, one of them asked me ... "Have you bought that book?". That seems "more correct" to me. So, could I reply him with "Yes, I have.". Yes, you

Hello Sextus Here you go: 1) “The past few years have witnessed the publication of a considerable number of books and papers on the influence that ancient scepticism (broadly defined) exerted upon early modern philosophy.” You suggest here

Hello Hanuman (1) She has been reading. has: auxiliary verb ("helping" verb in your term) been : main verb reading : present participle. (2) She is reading. Change the tense (2) to present perfect tense, then you'll get (1). paco

TO QUOTE CALIFORNIA JIM: 'There is more than one difference between the simple past and the present perfect. The simplest difference is the grammatical difference that the simple past can be used with expressions which signify a definite,

Here's a start: When using the present tense (with 'to have' as the main verb), or the present perfect tense (with 'to have' as the auxiliary verb), 'has' is used only in the third person singular-- that is, when the subject is a single entity

Hello CJ In ‘has the cat been done’, I was reading ‘has been’ as a tense of the auxiliary ‘to be’, not of ‘to have’. (It is done, it was done, it has been done, etc.) The passive/pseudo-passive distinction is interesting. I wonder

I don't think any of them is incorrect, although in the U.S., tomcats are "fixed", not "done"! (By the way, on that one you switched to the auxiliary "have".) And I don't think "finished" or "done" after "to be" necessarily form passives,

An interesting question. There's a school of thought in the ... in reply to it(this is characteristic of the present simple). What I miss in your discussion here is any acknowledgement of historical change. It seems very likely to me that ...