There is no "was been" in English
There is a type of puzzle named spot the difference
The main difference between the two products is their ingredients.
been there focus on destination. gone there focus on the trip.
The difference between the two options refers to the distinctions or variations between the choices being compared.
"Have not been" is used with plural subjects (e.g., they, we) or with the pronoun "I," while "has not been" is used with singular subjects (e.g., he, she, it). For example, "They have not been to the store" versus "She has not been to the store."
Much the same as the difference between to and in.
one has been on the end
had been is before and was is just there
The difference between the 1938, 1959 and 1952 is that it has been progressively modernized.
The difference is that "has been" is grammatically correct. "Is been" does not work because "been" refers to the past while "is" refers to the present. "Has been" works because both "has" and "been" agree in tense.
You have been walking is present tense and you walked is past
"could" asumes it may have, "would" asumes it was.
"TO" means to go to, to see. "IN" means to take part in, be part of
The grease
There is no difference. Both have been ordained. However, there is a difference between a priest or monk who has been sanctioned to teach and one who hasn't. It's possible to call those who have been sanctioned to teach "priests" and those who haven't "monks." .
No difference. They both have not been fined by fish scales or dairy products.
There is structural difference between xylem and phloem. This is because their function is also different. Had there been no difference in structure, how these could have performed different function?