has been vs is

no, has been is correct...

"Has been" is better, but note

"It is three years today since I last had a drink" is okay, most would say that is not wrong.

"It is ten years since my mother died", likewise okay.

note again.

It's been three full ....

That just means "has been", no?

If that's wrong, you can assume other stuff is wrong too. -- Roberta

What does 'better' mean, McTag? How is that helpful to someone trying to sort out the complexities of language?

As you went on to note, there are situations where it isn't better.

It is coming up to/on three full years since ...

??It has been coming up to/on three full years since ...

It is better because there is no ambiguity in it. You know immediately what is meant.
So I would say that although both forms are common in spoken English, in writing one would always be better to use the "has been" version.

I would say that "has been" conveys a regretful tone and especially if the man is named. "Is" is much more neutral.

Once again it is the context that a writer is concerned about. If a writer is more concerned about grammatical exactitude than conveying the emotions of a situation the characters will tend towards a likeness and it will probably be to him or herself. And being naturally clustered around the grey area, which is nice and safe, the conceit will be pretty tiresome to read.

I prefer "has been" in most circumstances. With the "full" included "has been" seems mandatory.

Okay, so the question of style and nuance comes in, which widens the subject right out.

Yet you want ambiguity in the example I gave. Again, context context context and then context.



I wouldn't say both forms are common in spoken English, though I may be wrong. I think ''it has been ..." is much more common.

As for writing, I still believe that, as you have shown, the best one is the one that best fits the situation.

An exact phrase search of the Guardian produced some surprising results. I'll have to do them again.