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

Re: "head" as a verb

Raen — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:53:05 GMT

Thanks for your help Nick, and also Star:

AlpheccaStars

I am heading this way. (active) >> present progressive - means going to a place in a particular direction. ("this way")

I am headed this way. (passive) >> This is not passive voice. It is active voice. It has about the same meaning as the previous statement, but it is not the progressive form. This use of "head" is an intransitive verb. It has no object, and thus passive forms are not possible

I may not have a clear idea of what "active" and "passive" voices are, not long ago I was corrected for mis-identifying a set of sentences as such. Still if, in this case, "head" is an intransitive verb, why does it take form of "be + past participal" (...am headed..) that's also the form of passive voice (as far as I know). So what part of speech is it?

Re: No subject

Kooyeen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:12:41 GMT

Oh my, I don't even know what to say now, LOL. I always go a little crazy when I hear the words "standard" and "non-standard". Forget about standard and non-standard English. Let's consider "English used in general by Americans, without considering regionalisms" (but it would be interesting to know about the situation in the UK too). Now the question is, can anyone think of some patterns where the subject is left out?

I can think of:
- questions with "you" and present progressive or present perfect: (Are)(You)Getting ready for tonight? (Have)(You)Been here long?
- offers with "you" and "want": (Do)(You)Wanna come along?

Any others? Other subjects, other verbs? I am also thinking of (I)(Have)Never heard of that, but it only seems to work with "never" and when the subject is "I".
You might be wondering why I am asking about this. Well, I realized I tend to leave out some parts, and I realized I have no idea if what I do is actually done by native speakers or not. (I)(Have)No idea where and how I picked this up (See? I would tend to leave out subject and verb, and just say "No idea where I picked it up"). One of the weird things I tend to do is leaving out the subject "I" with the present progressive. Example: "Oh sorry, I was distracted.... (I) was trying to fix my pc."

Remember all this applies to informal contexts and fast or not careful speech.
(Does)(Anyone have)Any advice? Ooops, that's another one. Thanks.

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: progressive tense

Lakshwadeep — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:34:38 GMT

My answer is similar to Yankee's.

The present progressive ("is beginning") can refer to a future eventÂ when used in conjunction with an adverb or adverbial phrase.

Examples:

It is beginning to rain. (no adverb/adverbial phrase)

The farmer is beginning his work on Tuesday. (adverbial phrase)

For the past progressive ("was beginning"), it is discussing something that was going for a while but not now. So, I don't know how the past progressive could refer to a future event if it can't involve the present.

It doesn't seem that "is beginning to rain" can refer to a future event very well; the best I can think of is this:

It is beginning to rain a deluge next week.

This sentence is really awkward with the "next week" (necessary for the event to be in the future), so the future tense (It will begin to rain...) would be a better option.

Re: STATIVE VERB

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:35:04 GMT

<< think it is right to say most stative verbs like "feel" can not be used in progressive>>

No, this is a misconception.

He isn't feeling well.

Is the word "feeling" an adjective?

No, [felling] is still a verb in present progressive form.

i.e. how are you felling with you flu?
I am still not feeling too well

Re: Stative verb: part of progressive or an adjective?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:53:36 GMT

.
He is playing tennis. -- I think the word 'play' is active, thus allows for the use of progressive.-- YES

He is feeling good/humble. -- Here, I think the word 'feel' is stative, where the word 'feel' could be used in an active sense too.
Does the word 'feeling' an adjective here??-- Not an adjective; it is 'feel' in the present progressive.

He is tasting the pie. -- Here the stative verb 'taste' seems to be used in progressive tense. Does that mean it is a part of a progressive tense like "He is playing tennis"?-- YES, it is an active verb here. = 'He is sampling the pie'. Cf: 'the pie tastes good' (= the pie has a good flavor).

He is thinking about the test result. -- Here, I think the word "think" is stative. Does that mean the word "thinking" in the sentence is acting as an adjective? NOT an adjective; it is 'think' in the present progressive.

MANY stative verbs can take on progressive verb forms.
.

Function of tenses

gordo604 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:50:06 GMT

Hello,

I need help with checking whether these verb tenses are present perfect, present simple, present progressive, past simple.

I put my answers in (brackets)

2. I wish I had more time to finish this exercise. (present simple)
3. When you have finished, you can go home. (present progressive)
4. 'Major calls for peace summit' (a headline). (present progressive)
5. I'm meeting some friends at the pub tonight. (present progressive)
6. We've got the next lesson in the language library. (present perfect)
7. I am to give a speech at the conference next week. (present simple) Thanks so much.

Re: the middle voice option

MrPedantic — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:49:37 GMT

Hello Dawnstorm,

Dawnstorm

In most of these sentences you could make a case for elided objects, that are taken care off by context (rather than considered irrelevant, as in "I am eating."):

e.g. Yes, I saw X. X = anaphoric; referring to "Did you see X!" or "Omg, X!"

"You push X and I'll lift X." : X is exophoric; determined by a present or imagined contex (e.g. they're standing in front of X).

Yes, I agree; such cases could presumably be classified as "common ambitransitives" (see ex. 4a in my earlier post); or perhaps as "ambiguous ambitransitives" (see ex. 6); thus:

1. You push (it) and I'll lift (it)

But:

2. It lifted quite easily

Dawnstorm

"What should we do when we punish X?" This one's actually more like the "considering irrelevant" I mentioned above, the assumption being that there is one set of answers for all X, so that X doesn't have to be mentioned. (Similarly, "I am eating X," the point I'm making holds for all X.) Note that the listener might enquire, here, "punish who?" or "eat what?"

"Please give X generously.": Here, X usually means "money", but context probably takes care of this (it might mean used clothes, household appliances etc. for flood victims). Here X is not so much irrelevant as implied.

Again, agreed. Presumably therefore "common ambitransitives".

Dawnstorm

I've heard that cognitive linguists often work with an implied object for many "intranstives". So: "I am reading" and "I am eating" always have a hint of "I am reading X" and "I am eating X", which is not expressed. A lot of this has to do with "theta roles"; what parts the verb's arguments are playing.

I am eating (X): Subject = agent

I am dying: Subject = experiencer

***

Yes, agreed. "Eat" is presumably unergative (ex. 4); "die", unaccusative (ex. 2).

I also agree with your inverted commas ("intransitives"), for verbs such as "eat" and "read". In non-metaphorical usage, the objects of "eat" tend to belong to a particular class ("food"), and are therefore to some extent always cognate with "eat"; whereas the objects of e.g. "hit" are not.

Thus "He eats well" does not need a context, for us to understand what the implied object is; but "He hits well" does.

Dawnstorm

Notice, for example, the semantic equivalence, but syntactic difference between:

- The sign reads, "Beware of the dog!"

- The sign says, "Beware of the dog!"

I agree that there's a syntactic difference: the first can't be presented as indirect speech, for example. "Reads" has almost a copulative sense here.

But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Dawnstorm

This is the gordian knot that tangles up syntax, semantics and pragmatics. There are a lot of problems:
- The mirror is breaking.
I am dying.

vs.

- Don't break the mirror!
- Don't kill me.

See the problem? It's not only a syntactic but also a lexical problem. Break (intr.):Die (intr.) = Break (tr.):Kill (tr.). Does it make sense to claim that "break" is ergative/unaccusative (I'm still confused by the difference) and "die" isn't, because "die" selects a different lexical item for the transitive?

No, it doesn't make sense; and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

Dawnstorm

But, again, syntax is not the same as semantics. Take this construction, for example:

"He died a cruel death."

While this assigns subject and object along the formal transitive model, semantically the "agent/patient" distinction breaks down; or rather, the fact that dying is not an action that affects death posits a problem to the "agent/patient" distinction within "voice".

The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

Dawnstorm

I'm not surprised people run from "ergativity"/"accusativity"; it's a tangle. I don't think that conventional morphological/syntactic analysis can solve the tangle adequately. It's a gordian knot, and all the syntanctician has is Alexander's sword. I'd look for solution in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, frame semantics etc. These approaches could then help patch holes in syntax.

The terminology is not happy, admittedly; "middle voice" and "ergative" belong to other linguistic contexts, as has been mentioned; but I think it can be disentangled.

It may be the case that "ergative" usage was once much more common in English. Before the rise of the passive present progressive, for instance, an active present progressive often expressed the same meaning. Thus:

3. The house is building (pre-19th century) =
4. The house is being built

Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative. For instance, last week I heard a sports commentator say:

5. The pitch doesn't look very pretty; but as long as it plays well, that's all that matters.

Best wishes,

MrP

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.