+0
Hi there, people. This has been going through my mind for quite a while, so here I go.

"We've walked into the middle of a war that is/has already started."

In the film, they say "has", which sounds naturally to me. But "is" sounds naturally to me, too. I mean, the war was started at some point in the past and therefore it really is in a state we can call "started", so it "is started". So my question is, are both "has" and "is" correct or does "is" have a different meaning here?

Thank you very much for any replies.

- Zajoman
+0
I see no difference in meaning, if in fact "is started" is correct. I would definitely say "has started", keeping in mind that "that's started" could be a contraction with either 'is' or 'has'.
+0
Zajoman it really is in a state we can call "started"
I see nothing wrong with it. The past participle can serve as an adjective, or as part of a verb tense. You can even use transitive passive, instead of intransitive: "The war has been started." But we wouldn't say, "This is a started war." You also hear "is begun" and "is become," though they're not as common as they used to be.

As a "state," we may think of the internal combustion engine in a car. "The car is started." That is, it's "running." There's a greater sense of immediacy (because of the state) than with "has started," at least to my ear. I suppose once it stops, we must then say "it had started."

- A.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Comments  
Thank you, Philip.

Okay, so "is" is correct or not?
 Avangi's reply was promoted to an answer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thank you, Avangi.

The hint with immediacy makes sense to me.