question on can + be + past participle
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
question on can + be + past participle
How is can + be + past participle defined in grammatical terms? Not sure if I am asking the correct question - I would like to know how to parse out the compound verb "can be trained", and I would like to know what tense the whole verb together is.
Example:
They are very smart and can be trained.
Thank you,
Donna
Example:
They are very smart and can be trained.
Thank you,
Donna
Is this correct:
1. Can is always used with a stem form of a verb to form a complete verb. The following verbal (infinitive, past participle, or present participle) acts as a ??? direct object (noun) or adverb depending on the verb?
2. How would you view trained? Direct object, adverb?
3. Or is it that "trained" is part of the complete verb "can be trained"?
Thank you in advance,
Donna
1. Can is always used with a stem form of a verb to form a complete verb. The following verbal (infinitive, past participle, or present participle) acts as a ??? direct object (noun) or adverb depending on the verb?
2. How would you view trained? Direct object, adverb?
3. Or is it that "trained" is part of the complete verb "can be trained"?
Thank you in advance,
Donna
Last edited by donnach on Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
"can" is a modal verb. "be" is an auxiliary verb, and "trained" is the main verb. "trained" is a past participle, but it's not considered a verbal because it's being used with an auxiliary verb. The combination of a form of "be" with a past participle usually indicates the passive voice, which this is. compare the sentence "They should be training the new students.", which is the active voice.
What makes your sentence a little difficult to analyze is that sometimes the past participle acts as a predicate adjective (complementing the subject) and "be" becomes the main verb. An example of this would be,
"He should be finished now."
The tense of your verb phrase "can be trained" is considered by many to be the present conditional aspect because of the modal verb "can". Compare "could have been trained" (the past conditional) and the usual suspects, "are trained , were trained, have been trained, and will be trained".
What makes your sentence a little difficult to analyze is that sometimes the past participle acts as a predicate adjective (complementing the subject) and "be" becomes the main verb. An example of this would be,
"He should be finished now."
The tense of your verb phrase "can be trained" is considered by many to be the present conditional aspect because of the modal verb "can". Compare "could have been trained" (the past conditional) and the usual suspects, "are trained , were trained, have been trained, and will be trained".
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
A verb phrase can have up to five elements e.g. They can't have been being trained so early in the morning; that is, optional auxiliaries alone or in combination (up to four) that can add modality, perfect aspect, progressive aspect (BE + -ing) and passive voice (BE + past participle) to/before the final main verb. So in They can be trained, there is a modal+pass be+mv (past participle) structure to that verb phrase. (It might however mean more "statively"-speaking that 'They might well not be unskilled' instead?).
Beyond the two simple tenses, you can't really talk about there being tense anymore (as you yourself are probably aware, because you use the term 'compound' tense/VP), and you are better to think in terms of finite versus non-finite elements in the VP.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 4794#14794
Some writers now seem to grant (to the less technically-minded, perhaps) that finite and non-finite more or less mean tensed versus non-tensed, but I can't see that it helps to view (in this/your example especially) the modal as having tense in the same way that a lexical/main verb has those various forms that, among other things, enable it to be tensed/form proper tenses.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 0851#20851
Beyond the two simple tenses, you can't really talk about there being tense anymore (as you yourself are probably aware, because you use the term 'compound' tense/VP), and you are better to think in terms of finite versus non-finite elements in the VP.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 4794#14794
Some writers now seem to grant (to the less technically-minded, perhaps) that finite and non-finite more or less mean tensed versus non-tensed, but I can't see that it helps to view (in this/your example especially) the modal as having tense in the same way that a lexical/main verb has those various forms that, among other things, enable it to be tensed/form proper tenses.
Of course, the names for the compound tenses are useful, when we are talking about combinations of tense and aspect, and can then be viewed as being (active or) passive, but good luck with adding modality into the terminological mix! (That is, I am not sure what "tense" 'the whole verb together is' in 'They can be trained').Leech et al, in [i]English Grammar for Today: A New Introduction[/i], Second Edition (Palgrave Macmillan 2006), Note 5 (on pg 228), wrote:We regard modal verbs as tensed, because (a) they have a contrast (between can and could, will and would, etc) which is historically present versus past tense, and (b) they always behave like operators. However, the term 'tensed' here should not be taken too literally: sometimes we can use modals in ways that reflect tense (e.g. She can't swim ~ She couldn't swim), whereas in other cases we cannot.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 0851#20851
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Wed May 26, 2010 2:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hi again Donna! You're welcome!
Actually I "simplified" your original 'They are very smart and can be trained' down to 'They can be trained', and in the process forgot the 'They are very smart (and...)' bit.
But in your original context, the meaning and thus the structural analysis is surely ...mod+(therefore)+pass be+mv/pp (="they are trainable"), NOT mod+BE+adj (="they are trained"); at least, that's how my mind processes it (i.e. their trainability is directly due to their smartness; their smartness is what will allow them to be easily trained (by sb) at some future point).

Actually I "simplified" your original 'They are very smart and can be trained' down to 'They can be trained', and in the process forgot the 'They are very smart (and...)' bit.



Ouyang or Fluffyhamster or Anyone
,
How is the distinction made as to whether the verb is part of the main verb or a predicate adjective in the following two sentences:
"They should be training the new students" - training is the main verb, correct?
"He should be finished now" - finished is a predicate adjective.
Thanks,
Donna
What makes your sentence a little difficult to analyze is that sometimes the past participle acts as a predicate adjective (complementing the subject) and "be" becomes the main verb. An example of this would be,
"He should be finished now."
The tense of your verb phrase "can be trained" is considered by many to be the present conditional aspect because of the modal verb "can". Compare "could have been trained" (the past conditional) and the usual suspects, "are trained , were trained, have been trained, and will be trained".[/quote]

How is the distinction made as to whether the verb is part of the main verb or a predicate adjective in the following two sentences:
"They should be training the new students" - training is the main verb, correct?
"He should be finished now" - finished is a predicate adjective.
Thanks,
Donna
What makes your sentence a little difficult to analyze is that sometimes the past participle acts as a predicate adjective (complementing the subject) and "be" becomes the main verb. An example of this would be,
"He should be finished now."
The tense of your verb phrase "can be trained" is considered by many to be the present conditional aspect because of the modal verb "can". Compare "could have been trained" (the past conditional) and the usual suspects, "are trained , were trained, have been trained, and will be trained".[/quote]
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Yes, '...training' is the main verb in the first verb phrase.
With the second example, you have to consider the possible contexts:
He should be finished (by) now (=He ought to be finished by now, both of which contrast with He is (usually) finished (by) now etc) - BE as main verb, followed by adj. (The work-related context is doubtless the default option for the purposes of interpretation here).
He should/must etc be finished (off) (=killed) NOW! (Gladiator, anyone? The worried Emperor Commodus speaking)
With the second example, you have to consider the possible contexts:
He should be finished (by) now (=He ought to be finished by now, both of which contrast with He is (usually) finished (by) now etc) - BE as main verb, followed by adj. (The work-related context is doubtless the default option for the purposes of interpretation here).
He should/must etc be finished (off) (=killed) NOW! (Gladiator, anyone? The worried Emperor Commodus speaking)
There is very little written about making this distinction in part because the usual purpose of grammatical analysis is to explain why a particular word form or sequence is correct or incorrect. This distinction doesn't really cause many errors, and there is a kind of overlap between the two sentence patterns. Context should be considered. Another test is whether the clause can be put into the active voice. The second sentence results in a different meaning.How is the distinction made as to whether the verb is part of the main verb or a predicate adjective
They can be trained -> Someone can train them.
He is finished | Someone finished him.
The type of verb which forms the participle is also relevant. Some stative verbs tend to become predicate adjectives whenever they form participles. "He is boring. He is bored. He is exciting. He is excited. He is interesting. He is interested in grammar." The last sentence easily converts to the active, Grammar interests him. Does that mean that "interested" is not a predicate adjective? We can say "interested customer", so it's difficult to say.
"To finish" is not a stative verb. It's a catenative verb though, meaning it combines with verbals (I finished working). Some other catenatives also form predicate adjectives in the past participle form, but many do not. This is a grey area in English grammar, and I don't think you'll find any definitive rules for making the distinction.
Seeing if the clause can be put into the active voice tests the word in question. If the active voice makes the word behave as a verb without changing the meaning of the sentence, then it was a verb all along. If the meaning changes, then it was never a verb in the first place.
I like it!
Thanks,
Donna
I like it!
Thanks,
Donna
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Querétaro, Mexico
where did the infinitive go?
Surely the idea that modal auxiliaries take an infinitve has not outlasted its usefulness. Dynamic verbs normally have six infinitives, four active and two passive:
verb: train
A. active infinitives -
1. base/simple: train
2. continuous: be training
3. perfect simple: have trained
4. perfect continuous: have been training
B. passive infinitives -
base: be trained
perfect: have been trained
So, 'be trained' in "These dogs can easily be trained" is base passive infinitive.
verb: train
A. active infinitives -
1. base/simple: train
2. continuous: be training
3. perfect simple: have trained
4. perfect continuous: have been training
B. passive infinitives -
base: be trained
perfect: have been trained
So, 'be trained' in "These dogs can easily be trained" is base passive infinitive.
-
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Six kinds of infinitives? I don't recall hearing that sort of explanation. Are you sure that it is a common view?
In any case, parsers usually want to get names for the individual words (I think that the lecturers probably making Donnach's life a misery might want that) so could you break it down further?
In any case, parsers usually want to get names for the individual words (I think that the lecturers probably making Donnach's life a misery might want that) so could you break it down further?
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm