Job Discussion Forums

[Chancellor]

Okay, I've been hearing these from some of my students and I haven't found them in any textbook or grammar book to which I have access. (So, where are they learning this stuff)? Google also hasn't been particularly helpful. They keep asking if a form of a particular verb is first form, second form or third form" (e.g. "hadn't seen" as in "she hadn't seen her in ages") I think I have a general idea of what they're referring to (e.g. perhaps simple, continuous, perfect), but this isn't something I've ever come across in North American English (I took my TESOL course in Toronto and I'm from the US).

[johnslat]

Dear Chancellor,

Perhaps the "4 parts of the verb":

Simple form: go; Present participle: going; Past: went: Past Participle: gone

Regards,
John

[Shroob]

Yes, Johnslat's right, they are the various forms verbs can take.

V1 = Base
V2= Past simple
V3=Past participle

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-verb-forms_main.htm

[Chancellor]

[johnslat]

Dear Chancellor,

I guess it's occasionally used by some:

"Verbs show up in four forms: base, simple past, present participle, and past participle."

http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/sensen/part1/two/forms.html

"principal parts of a verb

"Definition:
A traditional term for the basic forms of a verb. In English, these forms include:

the base or infinitive (look, see)
the past tense or preterite (looked, saw)
the past participle (looked, seen)

Some textbooks regard the present participle as a fourth principal part."

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prinptsterm.htm

Regards,
John

[gwiazda]

Here in Poland it is more common for students to use "1st form/2nd form/3rd form" than to call the verb forms "past simple, past participle" etc. Perhaps it is how English is taught in school? The three forms are as previously mentioned:

1) infinitive
2) past simple
3) past participle

http://www.englishpage.com/irregularverbs/irregularverbs.html

[johnslat]

I suspect that the term "parts" is more commonly used whereas "forms" may tend to be used more as regards conjugation, which requires making a systematic list of all forms of the verb for each person, number, and tense:

I am, you are, he/she/it is - etc.

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

This is the way I describe the verbs also. Look at any irregular verb list in the back of a course book, and you'll see three columns. The first is the infinitive form, the second is the past form, the third being the past participle.

Parts gets confused with 'parts of speech', so verb form seems to be favoured more.

[Sashadroogie]

Even Wiki favours form, so that settles it - form is the correct description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb

"A verb, from the Latin verbum meaning word, is a word (part of speech) that in syntax conveys an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn), an occurrence (happen, become), or a state of being (be, exist, stand). In the usual description of English, the basic form, with or without the particle to, is the infinitive. In many languages, verbs are inflected (modified in form) to encode tense, aspect, mood, and voice. A verb may also agree with the person, gender, and/or number of some of its arguments, such as its subject, or object. In many languages, verbs have a present tense, to indicate that an action is being carried out; a past tense, to indicate that an action has been done; and a future tense, to indicate that an action will be done."

[Sashadroogie]

I have not seen the term parts since Latin class: principal parts of the verb to be, Sum, Esse, Fui etc.

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

Ah, but Wiki giveth and Wiki taketh away:

"In language learning, the principal parts of a verb are those forms that a student must memorize in order to be able to conjugate the verb through all its forms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_parts

Why don't we declare a truce and simply call them synonyms?

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

Nah, let's be stuffy and pedantic and discuss/argue it in circular fashion. Then move on to angels dancing on pinheads.

Anyway, the word 'part' for English grammar seems inappropriate. Unlike, say, Latin, the same form can be used over and over, for many different parts.


Particular Sasha

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

Maybe it's a British/American English thingie.

Regards,
John

[fluffyhamster]

I'm not sure if Michael Lewis was the influence in this case, but in his & Hill's Practical Techniques he refers to the -s form (e.g. goes), the -ing form (going), and the first through third forms (go, went, gone), while in his The English Verb he refines the terminology by offering the alternate labels of basic, remote and compound for first through third forms respectively, posits some further terms such as 'retrospective forms' for perfect constructions (e.g. present retrospective, past retrospective), and retains the term 'passive. His motivation in each case is to simplify the terminology and reduce whatever potential there was for functional confusion given the traditional terms for the forms (e.g. 'Why is the past participle used for the present perfect?').

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

You mean a British/American thingie in that British TEFL course providers and TEFL literature recognise both terms, whereas with North American ones massive confusion arises from monumental blindspots and curious gaps in basic knowledge? Dunno about that, but it could be true.

Best wishes

Well-informed Sasha