Why is this sentence wrong?

agent86 · Post by **agent86** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:27 pm

This is a sentence from a student composition about a trip she took last week: 'I found the lake is clean.' It doesn't sound right to me, but I'm not sure why exactly. I corrected it using the infinitive form of 'be': 'I found the lake to be clean.'

What is the rule here? Thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers . . .

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:21 pm

I'm not sure if there is a rule as such, but as you say, 'is' seems to jar somewhat with 'found', whilst 'was' could be questioned (albeit a little pathologically: 'When, exactly? Only when you were there, visiting it/testing it/swimming in it? Is it still clean?!'); 'to be' on the other hand is nice and hazy as to when exactly the state conveyed by the adjective 'clean' applies (not that anyone who said 'I found the lake to be clean' would necessarily be aware of what exactly they might or might not be saying with that apparent "choice" of words).

But going slightly beyond the quick general answer above to your question, I'd actually advise your student to simply say (or write as if she were informally saying rather than writing somewhat formally otherwise) 'The lake was clean', or 'really (nice and) clean' (or indeed something like 'The lake there/that lake is very clean!', especially when not exactly reporting her trip any longer but just making at some much later point a general remark on the basis of her experience of the place); that is, 'I found the lake to be clean' makes it sound like she was a bit like a scientist conducting tests (as the comments in my first paragraph were implying), whilst even 'I found the lake was clean' could still be carrying a very slight undercurrent of "noting" that it wasn't in fact as dirty as one had perhaps thought it might be. And of course as we have established 'I found the lake is clean' might sound a bit off (but 'I('ve) found (that) the lake is now clean' is starting to sound more acceptable, right? At least to cod scientists

).

agent86 · Post by **agent86** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:14 am

Thanks for your response. Yes, I think the proper answer is to simplify the sentence by simply saying 'The lake was clean.'

Anyway, thanks again for your response. It is much appreciated, indeed.
Take care.

Cheers . . .

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:51 am

There are always common patterns of usage, and never "rules" as such, though it doesn't make much difference really. I think the patterns in this case work like this.

I found X was/is

means you discovered something interesting worth telling us about. Lakes are often clean, so that seems unlikely.

I find/found X to be

means that you have reached that opinion about it after seeing some evidence.

You will choose that over "the lake was clean" or something else if there is some reason why opinions would differ - for example the guide book said it is filthy.

That's pretty much what Fluffy said I know but it is worth translating his words into something more explicit sometimes, for my own sake if no one else's.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:50 am

No probs with you translating my fluffy ramblings into Woody dialect, Woody! Even if it still isn't much easier ro yargniversar-lli pr^c*ss th<n Advanced Klingon.

agent86 · Post by **agent86** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:20 am

Thanks for your help, guys! It's all welcome and much appreciated. Thanks again, and take care.

Cheers.

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:12 am

I think it's useful to look at other verbs that form predicates with this structure. Check out https://arts-ccr-002.bham.ac.uk/ccr/pat ... 3.html#s04

"to find" is in the "11.8 believe" group, which includes "consider" and "discover", which could replace "find" in the student's corrected sentence.

I don't always agree with the verb lists on this site or the descriptions of the structures, but it's still a great reference. My opinion is that the relationship between "lake" and "to be clean" in "I found the lake to be clean." is the same relationship between "lake" and "clean" in "I found the lake clean." Many books refer to predicate adjectives like "clean" as object complements, but you will rarely see these compared to the infinitive phrases that can often replace them.

agent86 · Post by **agent86** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:10 am

Thanks for the response. I think the real problem is that the student (like many others) tries to say too much in a single sentence. ESL students often seem to think they have to say everything in one sentence, when the simple sentence is the most proper. Anyway, thanks again for the response.
Cheers

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:04 am

I find this diagnosis odd, 0086.

(Hmmm. Why does that sound better without "to be"?)

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:46 am

The original sentence is missing an "out".

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:26 am

JTT, I would be wary of telling the student to add (that 'out') rather than strip things down to bare essentials ('The lake is/was very clean'), and the fact that 'find out' didn't occur to anyone else as "what the student perhaps should've written" is surely suggestive.

We do of course 'find', 'come across', 'find out' or even 'discover' things on trips - such as a nice little bistro just off the town square, or that the brilliant Professor von Gherkinstoffer gave an impromptu lecture on semantics on the lake - but without such "better" examples, I fear that students will see nothing wrong with always involving themslves and some sort of sensory verb in every sentence they utter ('I saw (that) the lake is/was clean') when of course they and their exact means of perceiving such facts would seem incidental to most other people.

But obviously, if the context were that the student were expecting a dirtier lake than turned out to be the case, then perhaps the original sentence could do with all the scientific-sounding lexical wrangling; seeing as we don't (yet) know what the wider co-text and context was however, I think it would be best to err on the side of caution and wider general usage than to burden any student with anything too wordy, context-limited and potentially strange-sounding (if used "generally").

"Condemnatory" rant over.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:44 am

"He has taken a freebie holiday at enormous expense and the jury has found it is clearly not on."
"Now she is old enough to go out for walks, we have found she is growling at other dogs."
"I used 15mm copper pipe as I have found plastic is not strong enough."
"Here, as it has turned out, was an organization where he has found he is seriously good at something."
"The study has found smokers are three times as likely as non-smokers to die in middle age."

"A Government probe found youngsters are not getting enough tuition."

All found on the BNC through the BYU online concordancer (I've reduced some noun phrases, but not in any way that alters the structure).

Examples like this don't seem to be very common, and even then about 90% are in the Perfect (note how the last example would sound fine in the Perfect too). In any case, the structure seems to be perfectly acceptable... so is it really just semantics that makes the lake one feel odd?

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:57 am

is it really just semantics that makes the lake one feel odd?

I think so. Objects complement or complete the meaning of verbs. As JuanTwoThree points out, adding the particle "out" to the verb changes the meaning to express discovery of an unexpected condition.

That is the same way "find" is justified as a verb that takes noun clauses as objects in the 10.5 "discover" group. https://arts-ccr-002.bham.ac.uk/ccr/pat ... 1.html#s10 In your internet examples the meaning of "find" is similar to "discover", but that's not the meaning of "find" when it takes two verb complements. v + obj + pred. adj. / v + obj + pred. verbal phrase.

As fluffy points out, noticing that a lake is clean is typically not much of a discovery.

their exact means of perceiving such facts would seem incidental

. That's why the meaning of "find" is assumed to be similar to "consider" in the student sentence.

e.g. "I consider that lake clean. / She also considers the lake to be clean" / but we don't say "He considers that the lake isn't clean." Remove the verb complements "clean" and "to be clean", and the meaning of "consider" can change, "For our next vacation destination, we are considering the lake." The verb changes from stative to dynamic. Note that we don't say "I am considering the lake clean".

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:10 am

Ah, very helpful thanks.

I see that Fluffy and Woodcutter usually spot what's going on right off the bat... but it takes Ouyang's patiently clear explanations to get the concepts into my thick skull. The contrast between 'find' and 'consider' here, is what does it for me.

agent86 · Post by **agent86** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:30 am

Thanks for the replies and insights, everyone. Actually, the fact that the lake is clean may be a bit of a notable discovery in China lol. Anyway, I think the proper way to state what she was trying to say is the simplest way (The lake was clean). Often, ESL students try to wedge all the English they know into a single sentence and the grammar/meaning becomes convuluted (sp?).

Thanks again for the insight. It is much appreciated, indeed.

Cheers . . .

Teacher Discussion Forums

Why is this sentence wrong?

Why is this sentence wrong?

Thanks fluffy

Thanks guys

Thanks

found sth am/is/are

find vs consider