has been

[kohyoongliat]

The books have been taken off the shelves and have been put on the table.
Is the second "have been" (in bold) necessary?

[hector51]

no,it is not,since this is parallel structure

hope it helps

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by kohyoongliat

The books have been taken off the shelves and have been put on the table.
Is the second "have been" (in bold) necessary?

Hi Yong,

No. It sounds more natural with passive simple past tense in the second independent clause.
I guess it is because of the widespread practice of clause simplification.
If the tense is clear from the sentence, you can simplify the "second" clause.

Incho

[svartnik]

Originally Posted by hector51

no,it is not,since this is parallel structure
hope it helps

Without simplification would the sentence remain balanced (parallel)

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by kohyoongliat

The books have been taken off the shelves and have been put on the table.
Is the second "have been" (in bold) necessary?

It is not necessary, but it isn't wrong. If you leave out the second "have been" the first use will be understood to apply to both participles.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by svartnik

Hi Yong,

No. It sounds more natural with passive simple past tense in the second independent clause.
I guess it is because of the widespread practice of clause simplification.
If the tense is clear from the sentence, you can simplify the "second" clause.

Incho

Removing the second "have been" does not put the second verb in the passive simple past. The first "have been" would then apply to both "removed" and "put". The passive simple past of "put" would be was/were put.

Also, the second "clause" is not a clause. It has no separate subject. This sentence has a compound verb with the two verbs connected by "and'.