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 participle of "ate" is "eaten."
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.
No. Eat is present tense, ate is past tense, and eaten is the past participle.
No! The present perfect is formed with the past participle, not the past indicative; therefore, "has eaten" would be correct.
ate, eaten
ate or has eaten.
Ate is the past tense of the word eat. Its a past tense word
"Ate" is the past tense; "eaten" is the past participle.
The simple past tense of "eat" is "ate" The past participel of "eat" is "eaten" The present tense of "eat" is I/you/we/they eat. He/she/it eats. The present participle is "eating"
The past participle is eaten.