i have eaten
The difference is under the rules of English grammar, "I have eaten" (the past participle form of the word "eat") makes sense, while "I have ate" (the simple past tense form of the word "eat) does not. "I ate" does make sense, however, and it has the same meaning as "I have eaten".
No, the word 'ate' is the past tense of the verb to eat (eats, eating, eaten, ate).
No. The past tense of 'eat' is 'ate', and the past participle is 'eaten'.
ate. eat. eaten. will eat.It is an auxiliary verb.It is the past participle of eat.eat / ate / eatenI eat rice everydayWe ate rice yesterday.We have eaten rice all this week.Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Is_eaten_a_verb#ixzz1BLbBrrCv
Yes, the verb in the sentence is 'love'.'you' is a pronoun, subject of the sentence;'eating' is a noun (gerund), the direct object of the verb.
The past tense of "eat" would be "ate". "Eaten" could be used as a past tense, too.
Eating is the present participle; eaten is the past participle.
Eaten is the past participle of eat, not the past tense. Ate is the past tense.
ate, eaten
ate or has eaten.
The past participle of "ate" is "eaten."
"Ate" is the past tense; "eaten" is the past participle.
No, the correct form would be "has eaten." The word "ate" is the past tense form of "eat," while "eaten" is the past participle form used with the auxiliary verb "has" in present perfect tense.
The past participle is eaten.
No. Eat is present tense, ate is past tense, and eaten is the past participle.
Eaten is the past participle of "eat" The simple past tense is "ate"
Ate is a past tense verb while eaten is not