Search results for 'tag:Predicates tag:Present progressive' matching tags 'Predicates' and 'Present progressive'

Re: holding

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:25 GMT

Semantically it seems to mean the same. But grammatically, the sentence has changed. Blanket was a noun in the first, and now it is a verb. This seems to be an equivalent phrasing, (with American English verb/subject agreement):

Holding outgoing radiation for a while and warming the surface, an array of molecules blankets the globe. (Participial adjectival phrases)

An array of molecules is blanketing the globe. It is holding outgoing radiation for a while and warming the surface. (Predicate adjective phrases, or present progressive tenses)

or a complete re-write (global warming)

The thickening layer of greenhouse gas molecules is causing the earth to warm by holding in the outgoing radiation for a while.

Re: subject of subordinate clause

Avangi — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:03:44 GMT

#1 John who took my pen is here.

#2 John who is wearing my jacket is here.

How firm a grasp would you like to obtain? (I know I shouldn't have written that, but I couldn't resist.)

The thing that works for me is to take out the the subject and the "verb" and see if it still makes sense. (That may even be the "rule.")

The reason it works in #2 and not in #1 is the difference in tenses and in verb forms. In "who took my pen" vs "who is wearing my jacket" "who" is the subject in each case, so that's not the difference. (If you took out "who," what would you propose for the subject? Without a subject you have no clause. You might think to claim "John" as the subject, but it can't be the subject of both clauses. You could use a compound predicate: "John is wearing my jacket and is here." )

Notice that in #2 both clauses are present tense. The verb is actually "is wearing," present progressive of "to wear." So you don't actually take out the verb - only the helping verb "is," which leaves you with the present participle, "wearing." You now have a participial phrase, "wearing my jacket," which is just fine. He's wearing it now and he's here now.

In #1, there's no helping verb to take out. You could take out the "who," leaving you with a compound predicate, but you'd need to add a conjunction. "John took my pen and is here." (The two different tenses work, but "is here" is no longer the dominant idea.)

If the original were, "John, who is taking my pulse, is Russian," then it works like #2. "John, taking my pulse, is Russian."

If you use two different tenses, as in the original #1, you'd have, "John, who was taking my pulse, is Russian." That leads to, "John, taking my pulse, is Russian." What happened to your past tense?

So try it, and ask yourself if the meaning is still the same.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: Will win / are winning

CalifJim — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:21:06 GMT

Avangi
Do we acknowledge the use of present progressive where it means future?

Yes, for verbs other than achievement verbs (and even for some achievement verbs in the right contexts, involving how plannable the event is, I'm guessing), the present progressive can express future time.

Strictly speaking, according to some grammarians, it's not the verb, but the entire predicate that's involved. But that's a theoretical argument, and I don't know if it's ever been completely resolved.

In any case to take someone to the doctor is not an achievement (The technical term is accomplishment), because at all points during the taking of someone to a doctor, it can truly be said that the taking is in progress. Thus, to take someone to a doctor is not in the same category grammatically as to win a match.

These categories of 'event types' were first set up by Vendler, a name you might Google if you want to know more about it.

Re: relating to/ related to

Avangi — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:06:01 GMT

Hi Christanford,

present participle vs past participle - The past participle by itself (related) functions like an adjective and fits your definition, "connected in some way." "the heart and its related organs."

I can't immediately think how the present participle (relating) would work by itself, but together with "to" it acts like the preposition "about." "Do you have any information relating to the role of the Vatican in World War II? You could substitute "related to" in this example, but I think it's less common.

"Is the CIA related to the FBI?" / "The CIA is related to the FBI." I don't believe you could substitute "relating" in this example. I'd say "related" is a predicate adjective and the "to" is a preposition. If you say "The CIA is relating to the FBI," you probably mean they're having an ongoing "relationship." (present progressive tense)

Of course both words function as parts of the verb "to relate" in forming various tenses. (meaning: to tell a story) She was relating her life's story while we were driving to London. I have related my alibi to three different detectives.

Sorry, a bit too tired, - A.

Re: Verbs v. Infinitives - Part II

pemmican — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:39:25 GMT

Yes, whl you're right!

>>"Learning may be easy, if you are learning from a good teacher, but teaching is work."

Verbs in this sentence are:
may, be;
are, learning;
is

may & be; are & learning belong together - they build the predicate of each part of the sentence - in this sentence, "may" and "are" are helping verbs, the first used to express a modus (may= in this sentence equal to can, could) (modal helping verbs are always followed by the infinitive of the full verb); the latter used to form the present progressive tense (followed by the full verb in its present participle form):

Learning may (modal helping verb) be (full verb - infinitive) easy, if you are ('be' as a helping verb to form a progressive tense) learning (full verb - present participle) from a good teacher, but teaching is ('be' as a full verb) work.

Hope I could help you