Estar is often understood when using "he, ha, han" ado, ido statements?
I saw a thread earlier, Voy a buscar las revistas......... que....... and I came in there to post "han mencionado" which someone else already did, then I thought, isn't it weird how that should say "have been mentioned" but we don't need "han estado mencionado" to be in there? I think it's because he, ha, han..... ado / ido is the equivalent of fue, or were most of the time (ha sido = fue, or is similar in many cases) so that ""han mencionado" means less like "have mentioned" but more like "were mentioned" so that "han estado mencionando" doesn't need "estado = been" because it's not meaning "have been mentioned" as much as meaning "were mentioned" and the he, ha, han, is understood to mean were in that case with ado, ido (ha sido, ha ido). Gracias.
4 Answers
"han mencionado"
Grammatically, "(they) have mentioned". Since the subject (they) is not made explicit, one can assume that who "they" are doesn't really matter much. This gets us very close to the classic passive construction (with no expressed agent). However, it's less of a stretch (grammatically) to interpret as an omitted "ellos"/"algunos" than to assume a (supressed) "sido".
"han estado mencionado" won't work at all because it would require, not only the supression of "estado", but also the plural "mencionados".
You can say "(Ellos) han mencionado.", or, "(Ellos) han estado mencionando". You need to add the letter "n" to mencionado in the second sentence.
This sentences mean:
"They have mentioned." "They have been mentioning."
On the other hand: "They have been mentioned." means - (Ellos) han sido mencionados.
Hmm, if "han estado mencionado" won't work at all, there sure are
Ok so I put estado when I meant sido, but I think "han mencionado" and "han sido mencionados" mean a similar thing there, were mentioned VS have been mentioned, you see?