Search results for 'tag:Present perfect tag:Nouns' matching tags 'Present perfect' and 'Nouns'

Confusing Grammar question

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:13:57 GMT

Dear Readers ,
I have a confusion regarding the following sentences
1.) The person at the door was he/The person at the door was him.
The person at the door was I/ The person at the door was me.

In such sentences what is the subject and what is the object? The problem is that if you flip the sentences meaning doesn't seem to change but subjects and objects do. The confusion is whether to use object pronoun "him/me" or subject pronoun "I".

To me, it just sounds better with "him/me" but textbooks seem to use "he/I" instead. For eg. "No one knew that the Thief was I".
I asked a professional editor and native english speaker. She was not confident but preferred "him/me".

2) It has changed/It has been changed.
Do these sentences mean the same thing? Is one of them grammatically awkward/incorrect? both of them seem to be "present perfect". is that true?

Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks
Zia

Re: transitive or intransitive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:30:57 GMT

Anonymous

Here, "is vanished", are we taking it as an intransitive?

If yes, then, are all intransitives be able to form present perfect sentences?

I'm not an expert on grammar or linguistics, but here are my thoughts as an ordinary native user of English. I hope I got all the grammatical terminology correct!

I think that all verbs -- transitive or intransitive -- are able to form present perfect sentences: "He has died", "It has vanished", "They've eaten all the pies". At least, I can't think of any verbs that can't, or any reason why they should exist.

"Is" (or, analogously, "are", "was" or "were") followed by the past participle of a transitive verb can range from a pure passive use ("I'd be astonished if that record is broken by an American") to an adjectival use ("This watch is broken."). In the latter case, the idea that the watch has been broken by something or someone, though in theory implied by the word "broken", is weak or non-existent, and "broken" behaves as an adjective that just describes the present state of the watch (just like "The watch is heavy"). Moreover it can be placed before the noun: "A broken watch".

"Is" followed by the past participle of an intransitive verb can't form an passive sentence in the usual sense: "He is/was died by a heart attack" is wrong. So, if the sentence "The watch is vanished" is interpreted as an ordinary passive then it must be the case that "vanished" is used transitively. (There is, however, something called the "impersonal passive". The usual examples are things like "it is believed", where we are not saying that the thing believed is "it" (ordinary passive), but just that there is a general sense of people believing. I'm not very clear if and how "is vanished" might fit this sense.)

The remaining possibility is that the past participles of intransitive verbs (such as, perhaps, "vanish") can, by analogy with the adjectival use of transitive past participles, be used adjectivally -- even though the "background" meaning that I mentioned earlier can't exist even in theory. Let's look at some examples. "It is existed" and "It is behaved" are completely wrong. "He is died" is not quite completely wrong but could (to me) only be used in certain special situations, such as jokey use or attempts at recreating or preserving archaic language. In most contexts it would sound unnatural. Are there any intransitive past participles that are natural adjectives in everyday language? One candidate that comes to mind is "fallen", in the sense of "fallen from a state of respectability". For example, "a fallen woman" is perfectly good English to me (though "she is fallen" still has a slight sense to me that it is an archaic form of "she has fallen").

Re: adjective or part of a passive

CalifJim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:26:44 GMT

Believer
I have difficulty distinguishing between situations where a participle is used but ambiguous as to whether it is acting as an adjective or part of a passive. Do you have some guideline I can go by?

One wonders whether anything about your ability to use English in either its spoken or written form hinges on the ability to make such distinctions. Recognize that some cases are inherently ambiguous.

Nevertheless there are some guidelines if you wish to 'get into the weeds' of the various types of passive.

Believer
... things get confused when and where the 'by' seems to be almost impossible ... [as in] this case:
The work is finished.

Yes. I think I understand what you are getting at -- although for non-native speakers some of the guidelines may appear to be circular in nature.

According to Palmer (The English Verb), besides the plain vanilla 'passive' with an agent introduced by by (The man was killed by his wife.), which we may call the 'true passive', and the passive without an agent, or 'agentless passive' (The man was killed.), also a 'true passive', there are three other categories of passive -- the pseudo-passive, the semi-passive, and the statal passive. None of these three is a 'true passive'.

To understand the three types of 'false passive' (if you'd like to call them that!), it is first necessary to understand the tests for being an adjective, as enumerated by Palmer. These tests are as follows. An adjective generally can be used before a noun, after a linking verb, with the adverbs very, rather, more, or most, (sometimes with already), and coordinated with another adjective with and. Not all of these are possible for every adjective, but they are generally possible for most adjectives. The following examples show, with these tests, how finished is an adjective.

a finished product (use before a noun)

The work is finished. (use after a linking verb)

*very finished (not really possible, since finished is not gradable)

already finished (use with already)

It is finished and ready. (with and and another adjective)

________

Now for the categories.

The pseudo-passive has no corresponding active form and the past participle is completely adjectival.

The room seems very crowded. (Note the linking verb and very.)

The problem is complicated. (You could say very complicated or rather complicated. You could say difficult and complicated. You could say a complicated problem. These tests show that complicated is an adjective here.)

The semi-passive may appear to have a corresponding active form but is adjectival. Optionally, it may introduce the apparent agent with a preposition other than by, e.g., with or in. It may relate to emotional conditions. It may have negative forms with un-.

Jake was shocked by her behavior.

Roberta was worried about the exam.

Everyone was satisfied with the results.

We were quite uninterested in the presentation.

The statal passive is adjectival. The simple tense is very similar in meaning to the corresponding perfect tense, which (at least approximately) represents the corresponding agentless passive. Some examples can occur with already.

The glass is broken. (The glass has been broken.)

They were married for many years. ( They had been married for many years. Note married and happy, married couple, already married, unmarried -- signs of being an adjective.)

The exams are finished. (See the adjective tests for finished above.)

None of the three types discussed above are 'true passives'. It is often difficult to place a given usage exactly in one of the categories, so in spite of these guidelines, there are still ambiguous cases. Even some of the examples given above might be placed in a different category. Only context can resolve them.

Re: ing as verb or noun

Clive — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:07:06 GMT

Hi,

Sorry, Iâve got one of those horrible grammar terminology questions to ask you. In the following sentence, Iâm supposed to decide whether the underlined part is a noun phrase or a clause:
With two white grandfathers, and having been brought up as a Methodist in a Roman Catholic community, Walcott is ideally placed to express the Caribbeanâs confusions of cultural identity.
Apparently, itâs a noun phrase, but I canât really see why, as the verb is declined as a present perfect passive, and so, to my understanding, is working as a verb. Could someone help me with this one, please?

It's an adjectival phrase describing Walcott.

You might see this more easily if you consider a simpler example, eg

Having been shot, Walcott died. present perfect passive participle. This means that Walcott had been shot before he walked down the street.

Best wishes, Clive

ing as verb or noun

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:23:11 GMT

Hello! Sorry, Iâve got one of those horrible grammar terminology questions to ask you. In the following sentence, Iâm supposed to decide whether the underlined part is a noun phrase or a clause:
With two white grandfathers, and having been brought up as a Methodist in a Roman Catholic community, Walcott is ideally placed to express the Caribbeanâs confusions of cultural identity.
Apparently, itâs a noun phrase, but I canât really see why, as the verb is declined as a present perfect passive, and so, to my understanding, is working as a verb. Could someone help me with this one, please?

Re: verbs, nouns....-1

Yankee — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:46:28 GMT

Solomon_13000 wrote:
Verb

All the furniture is my fatherâs study room ~~are~~ is made of oak.

They are responsible for handling the money

Those are spoiled apples

Matt forgot that he had invited some friends to dinner yesterday. OK

I had invited all the neighbors for my birthday party tomorrow. There is nothing in your sentence that justifies the use of the past perfect. The present perfect ('have invited') or past simple ('invited') would be OK.

We had invited a lot of people today There is nothing in your sentence that justifies the use of the past perfect. The present perfect ('have invited') or past simple ('invited') would be OK.

Re: simple past vs present perfect

Magic79 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:12:34 GMT

Sorry Cali for using the wrong pronoun.

Thanks Grammar.

So my discourse grammar thing was not quite right and both simple past and past perfect can be used depending on whether we know when or whether it was pretty recent or relevant. It's all about how we percieve the distance and relevance of the verb "ordered."

I have a question:

Do average Americans make a clear distinction between the simple past and present perfect or is it only for professors, teachers, journalists, and the like?

I know that they use simple past with YET and ALREADY...when they should use the present perfect. Am I missing something...Am I only seeing the tip of an iceberg?

Re: sentences correct? - 1

Yankee — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:22:13 GMT

Solomon_13000 wrote:
Are the sentences using the underlined word (pronoun and so on) as shown below correct?

Interrogative pronoun/relative pronoun

The lady whom you saw just now is my teacher.

I consulted a doctor whom I met in Paris

I am not sure whom ~~did~~ he invited for the wedding

This is the girl who told me where to park my car.

Who owns that car?

Who is responsible for the accident?

indefinite pronoun

The kid was disappointed when there was nothing in the box.

I found nothing in the envelope

There is nothing in the postbox

Noun

Only after doing her revision was Sally allowed to watch the cartoon show.

He was doing his homework. (was doing = past continuous of the verb do)

I was doing nothing. (was doing = past continuous of the verb do)

Adjective

The floor looks clean because it has just been scrubbed (has been scrubbed = present perfect, passive voice of the verb scrub)

Those dangerous training programs should have been scrubbed. (verb)

His reputation has been scrubbed clean. (verb)

Hi Solomon

You are using the words well, but you often do not label them correctly.

Re: ING

Kooyeen — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:26:24 GMT

Hi,

I have been to China twice. - Past Participle. Used in several tenses, like the present perfect. Sometimes used as an adjective.

Studying history is a good way to waste your time. - Gerund. A verb used as a noun.

Call me later, I'm busy. I am burning a couple of grammar books. - Present continuous (also called present progressive) . Used to say what someone is doing now. It is used in other ways too, for example as a future tense.

Re: in/on the ceiling

MrPedantic — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:40:55 GMT

Hello M.,

Milky wrote:

But we can say "inflict damage on something", right?

"On" in your example relates to the verb "inflict", not the noun "damage":

1. He inflicted his views on a weary public.

2. They inflicted heavy losses on the Allied forces.

3. The present perfect has inflicted pain on ESL students since 1354 AD.

MrP