Interested in Language
As far as I know, I have to use "was" when something happened in the past but does not affect the present anymore.
"Has was globally banned." means the guy was banned but he is not banned anymore.
So if I would write "He has globally been banned" it would mean the ban happened in the past but the guy is still banned?
Or does this only describe the "ban process"?
I hope you can understand my question.
Okay good, thanks.
Hm I see you prefer the "He has been banned globally" instead of "He has globally been banned".
But I thought it's typical?!
Of course I believe you :)
1. He has been banned globally.
2. He has been globally banned.
3. * He has globally been banned.
Here the adverb belongs to the main verb.
If the adverb applies to the whole sentence, as in:
4. Fortunately, he has been banned you can write:
5. He has fortunately been banned, but not
6. * He has been banned fortunately, or
7. * He has been fortunately banned.
Sometimes it not easy to decide by rules.
I think I have understood it.
Thank you for your answer!
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that "He was banned" means that he is no longer banned. It simply means that the act of banning took place in the past.
Why don't we see [person X] in the forums any more?
He was banned.
Okay but how to say if he is still banned or not?
Yes, I had the same thought if it's about the ban process or not.
Can the sentence be like this:
I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned.
Already shouldn't belong to the mentioned, I guess.
I have another small question.
However, it is not about "has/have been" but about the position of an adverb.
Does this mean the red sentence is wrong and the green is right?
This car should definitely be fast.
This car should be definitely fast.
Definitely and fast belong together, and if it's the same grammar rule, then the 2nd should be right.
And those both are true?
Unfortunately, the car will not be fast. (Standard)
The car will unfortunately not be fast.
The car will be unfortunately not fast.