| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dyak
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 630
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes, them there burglars breaking into that there bank...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
/
Last edited by valley_girl on Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I delayed making the reservations because I wasn't sure she would come.
I delayed (any noun here) because (any reason here).
|
I delayed the appointment.
I delayed the wedding.
I delayed the engagement party.
I've been following this thread with interest. It seems to my Stephen and Dyak are following a clearer path. Unfortunately, Stephen muddled me up with the substitution of adjectives in his examples.
Seen to be is often perfectly grammatical. He was seen to be incompetent = He was seen as incompetent. (roughly)
With the infinitive form only adjectives seem to be suitable. I hope that in future reference that this post isn't seen to be lacking in coherence.
To illustrate the difference between the -ing form and the infinitive form, let's contrast known to seen.
- He likes to smoke. (He likes the action of smoking)
- He likes smoking. (He likes the concept or habit of smoking).
- He was known to smoke. (People knew of his action.)
- He was known smoking. (jibberish)
- He was seen to smoke. (jibberish)
- He was seen smoking. (The doing of the action was seen).
I've been wrestling with the gerund participle debate for a little while now. I'm leaning toward the participle side of the debate. Smoking, he was seen. Breaking into the bank, he was seen. It sounds like Yoda speak when restructured, but the -ing form does seem to modify the subject.
If I may complicate things:
Carrying a weapon, he was seen breaking into the bank.
Breaking into the bank, he was seen carrying a weapon.
He was seen breaking into the bank, carrying a weapon. (dangling pariciple, but common)
Carrying a weapon, breaking into the bank, he was seen. (Seems awkward)
Enjoy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zero Hero
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 944
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 'Valley Girl', I'm afraid to say that you are embarrassing yourself with your prescriptive grammar-driven remarks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Zero-Hero summed it up in his penultimate post.
| Quote: |
hey were seen breaking into the bank.
In this sentence, the gerund phrase breaking into the bank is the object of the main verb seen. |
The verb see is in the passive. It has no object, as only ditransitive verbs have objects in the passive.
| Quote: |
I agree that adjectives can function like a participle phrase sometimes, but not all the time.
For example:
Tired of playing games, the dashing prince grabbed the maiden and kissed her. |
Where's the participle phrase there? [b]playing games[/i] is a gerundial phrases (that is a noun phrase).
| Quote: |
An example using a participial phrase in the passive voice would be:
Having broken into the bank, the robbers worked quickly. |
Not a passive in sight there.
| Quote: |
| Both verbs should refer to the subject where there is a participial -and not a gerund - phrase. |
If that were true dangling participles would not be a problem. They would always be attached to the subject. Unfortunately that is not true; they attach themselves to the nearest available noun phrase.
| Quote: |
I delayed making the reservations because I wasn't sure she would come.
I delayed (any noun here) because (any reason here).
Can you replace the gerund phrase with a noun? I couldn't think of any that fit. You might, but I couldn't. |
I delayed the meeting because I wasn't sure she would come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peabody
Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 76
Location: sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by peabody on Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dyak
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 630
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| valley_girl wrote: |
| nor will I teach that "drug" is the past participle of "drag" and that "spilt" is a proper spelling alternative to "spilled". That's just me...but, I am a bit old-fashioned. |
Spilt is the past of spill in British English, just as spelt is the past of spell, and many others...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| - He was seen to smoke. (jibberish) |
Makes little sense out of context, but I can think of plenty of examples where it can be perfect sense.
For example somebody's house is busted for drugs and the police confiscate a large bag of marijuana. When they are turning their back the little kid in the house comes in, rolls himself a joint and smokes it all, witnessed by the maid and all his schoolmates. In court it would be announced
"He was seen to smoke the evidence."
I'm not sure what why Guest of Japan is confused by the adjective substitution. A participial phrase is an adjectival phrase, and an adjective can be substituted for it and make sense, whereas a noun cannot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I see dull people. |
Dullness, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zero Hero wrote: |
| 'Valley Girl', I'm afraid to say that you are embarrassing yourself with your prescriptive grammar-driven remarks. |
Second post on the forum and such a friendly one. To whom do you belong, rogue alias?
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
Quote:
An example using a participial phrase in the passive voice would be:
Having broken into the bank, the robbers worked quickly.
Not a passive in sight there. |
This one was posted in error. The original sentence I'd posted was:
Having been seen breaking into the bank, the robbers worked quickly.
Obviously, it isn't just spelling and pronunciation that differ across the Atlantic. As I said before, agree to disagree. My grammar references contradict yours and vice versa. People are getting mighty pedantic on this thread so I am taking my leave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What you call a gerund phrase will be a noun phrase. So if 'breaking into the bank' is a gerund phrase we can substitute it with another noun phrase or a simple noun.
Let's try it.
*He saw her burglar/Frenchwoman/English Language teacher.
As you can see it doesn't work.
Now if breaking into the bank is a participial phrase, as dyak and I suspect it is, then it is an adjectival phrase and can be substituted by another adjective.
Let's try it
He saw her tired/sleepy/happy/quiet/dead/alive.
|
This is what threw me off. Your substitution of nouns make perfectly coherent sentences, while your substitution of adjectives does not. Perhaps if you had stuck to the original sentence pattern, I would never had been confused.
He was seen tired/sleepy/happy/quiet/dead/alive. These are all fine.
He was seen burglar/Frenchwoman/English language teacher. Now these don't make sense.
| Quote: |
Quote:
- He was seen to smoke. (jibberish)
Makes little sense out of context, but I can think of plenty of examples where it can be perfect sense.
For example somebody's house is busted for drugs and the police confiscate a large bag of marijuana. When they are turning their back the little kid in the house comes in, rolls himself a joint and smokes it all, witnessed by the maid and all his schoolmates. In court it would be announced
"He was seen to smoke the evidence."
|
Well done. It took me some time to comprehend the acceptability of your example, but I eventually got it.
I make no claims of being a grammar master or guru. I simply approach grammar in regards to logic and function. If I still don't understand, I look up what troubles me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
