mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
adjectives and intransitive verbs Options
ghu
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:10:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Hello,
I wonder if there are any adjectives with ends of -ed , that came from the intransitive verbs? (I know that there are adjectives from them with ing-ending that coincide with participles1)
to appear, to coincide, to come, to arrive...
Or we have deal only with the participles2?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:41:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
You can, I think, use 'past participle adjectives' from intransitive verbs, if they make sense, but the examples I can think of sound 'unnatural' to me.

I don't think it is very common (I would more normally use a clause or existing adjective).

One hundred guests should have arrived by now, but there are only sixty. Make a list of the arrived guests and call the rest.
(...make a list of those who have arrived and ...)

I definitely would not use 'the come guests' - I would say "the guests who have come".

Several of our purposes coincide. Write down the coincident ones as topics for planning. (In this case 'coincided' would not be used as an adjective, because there is already the adjective 'coincident'). It is the same with 'apparent' or 'visible' for 'appeared', I think.
ghu
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:23:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
You can, I think, use 'past participle adjectives' from intransitive verbs, if they make sense, but the examples I can think of sound 'unnatural' to me.

.

Ok, but if they make sense, you wouldn't use them with "was" or 'get" as the usual adjectives, would you?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:36:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hmmm - no

I'd use them with 'have', as a participle

"The guests were arrived" - this sounds 'odd' to me, but I think I have seen sentences like this in books. I've never heard it said. Possibly it is used in very formal language:
"'My lord, the guests are arrived.', said the butler."
"The guests have arrived" is more normal.

You could not use 'get' with a pure intransitive, because 'get' means 'is caused to be' or 'cause oneself to be' - it would only work with transitive or reflexive verbs.
"He got dressed" - reflexive "He dressed himself"
"She got him dressed" - transitive "She dressed him".
papo_308
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:52:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/29/2012
Posts: 1,127
Neurons: 26,737
Location: Velké Meziříčí, Vysocina, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Hmmm - no

Possibly it is used in very formal language:
"'My lord, the guests are arrived.', said the butler."
"The guests have arrived" is more normal.


The forms like 'the guests are arrived' might be some analogy to German, where such verbs take the forms of 'to be' as the auxiliary verb in the present perfect (die Gäste sind angekommen).
Edit: Or it may be the influence of French (Les visiteurs sont arrivés).
Anear Foru
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:23:45 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/4/2012
Posts: 66
Neurons: 239
ghu wrote:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
You can, I think, use 'past participle adjectives' from intransitive verbs, if they make sense, but the examples I can think of sound 'unnatural' to me.

.

Ok, but if they make sense, you wouldn't use them with "was" or 'get" as the usual adjectives, would you?


_________________________________________________________________________


Hello Forum Members;

I recall that the word convention is paramount to speaking and writing any language. Convention facilitates understanding.

Being concise, and being clear, and being able to stick to linguistic convention all together facilitate the communication a language provides for its readers, its listeners, and its speakers.

Absolutely, if it doesn't sound or feel right to you, then it's probably not the construct for you at that moment. Use one that makes sense to you. "Poetic license" comes later and naturally.

Thank you Forum Members for a moment void of convention?...

Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall


ghu
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 3:27:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Could one use "seen" as the adjective of "who has seen"?
Does exist any adjective for this case? Or existence of such adjectives is not possible? If some verb could use as the transitive and intransitive ones (see), then the participle 2 is used only as the participle that is formed from the transitive one? I hope you get me.
Anear Foru
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 5:43:38 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/4/2012
Posts: 66
Neurons: 239
ghu wrote:
Could one use "seen" as the adjective of "who has seen"?
Does exist any adjective for this case? Or existence of such adjectives is not possible? If some verb could use as the transitive and intransitive ones (see), then the participle 2 is used only as the participle that is formed from the transitive one? I hope you get me.


__________________________________________________________

Hello Forum Members;

I think that I take your meaning. How do we talk about the mechanics of english grammar, usage, and style. I'm learning. If I don't know whether a verb transfers its energy to an indirect object followed by a direct object, then I must look at my construct to see. Direct objects are easy to recognize, and the transitive verbs and past participle adjectives that lead to them are not that difficult to recognize either, but both are hard to imagine.

Yes. "Seen" affects "who." However, "has seen" alone is second person (he, she, it), present perfect tense by convention. A participle is a word that shares some characteristics (parts) of both verbs and adjectives. (Bing; Wikipedia) Seen is the past participle of see. See? So I think the answer, again, is yes. Yes you can and yes I do. Except, I need a little visualization on that second to last construct.... The first is unconventional (impossible).


Think Think Think Dancing



ghu
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2012 2:18:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Hi,
Could we use "taken" to point the person who takes something..
The man taken big bag from the car was angry. (The man who took big bag...)OR
The man received the latter was dressed in brown coat. (the man who received the letter...)OR
The man smoked(who smoked) in the street.
I mean could one form the adjectives or participles from the intransitive verb, if this verb could be transitive?
Or we must use "having received" "having taken" as the adjectives? (I know the using "having done" as the perfect active participles only, but it is not about that using that I mean)
papo_308
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2012 2:53:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/29/2012
Posts: 1,127
Neurons: 26,737
Location: Velké Meziříčí, Vysocina, Czech Republic
Such forms are not possible in my opinion.
The present participle would be appropriate here:
The man taking the big bag from the car was angry.
The man receiving the letter was dressed in brown coat.
The man smoking in the street.


Having taken, etc. are verb forms:

Having taken the big bag from the car, the man got angry. (not exactly the same as above)
(= After the man had taken the big bag from the car, he got angry)
ghu
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2012 5:11:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
papo_308 wrote:

The present participle would be appropriate here:
The man taking the big bag from the car was angry.
The man receiving the letter was dressed in brown coat.
The man smoking in the street.


(= After the man had taken the big bag from the car, he got angry)

hi,papo,
thank you for answer, I know such using participle phrases.
When we use participle1 we mean the present,current time.
I'm interested in describing the person that had taken the big bag without relative clause.
We can do it when we describe the person that was taking something. (the person taking something)
Could we say,"The person arrived at the station was dressed in blue coat." (The person that has arrived at the station...)
Could someone tell me whether the participle2 is reffering to the object when it is used in perfect tense of the verb in the active voice? He has taken the bag.(the bag taken, not he taken(the person that took)
The man has smoked in the street. (in this case we have not any object after "smoked", so "smoked" reffers to the man. "Smoked" is the participle formed from the intransitive verb, or it is still the form of the transitive verb?)
papo_308
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:41:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/29/2012
Posts: 1,127
Neurons: 26,737
Location: Velké Meziříčí, Vysocina, Czech Republic
Hi ghu,
I think I know what you are aiming at. We in Czech (and probably you in Russian too) have a special verb form (or rather adjective derived from a verb, not a past participle) which can be used for this purpose. But it is already outdated and is normally used nowadays neither in speech nor in writing.
Nothing like this exists in today's English as far as I know.
The present participle (you call it participle1) can be used for past actions as well if they occur at the same time:
The man taking the big bag from the car was very angry. = The man who took the big bag from the car was very angry.
If it is to be expressed that one action took place before the other, a relative clause must be used:
The man who had taken the big bag from the car was very angry.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:48:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
The present participle (is that what you mean by "Participle1", with the past participle being "participle2"?) is used in the present and the past and future, when it is used at the start of an adjectival phrase.

The man taking the bag is tall and dark. (present)
The man taking the bag was tall and dark. (past)
The man taking the bag will be tall and dark. (future)
The person arriving at the station is dressed in a blue coat (present)
The person arriving at the station was dressed in a blue coat (past)
The person arriving at the station will be dressed in a blue coat (future)

Quote:
Could someone tell me whether the participle2 is reffering to the object when it is used in perfect tense of the verb in the active voice? He has taken the bag.(the bag taken, not he taken(the person that took)


I'm not sure what you mean here. The verb "has taken" refers to "He" as a subject and to "the bag" as an object.

Quote:
The man has smoked in the street. (in this case we have not any object after "smoked", so "smoked" reffers to the man. "Smoked" is the participle formed from the intransitive verb, or it is still the form of the transitive verb?)

A difficult question! - I would consider it to be a transitive verb with the object omitted - basically
He - subject
smoked - verb
? - direct object (tobacco?, Marijuana? herbs?)
in the street - indirect object phrase.

I think this is just one of those 'conventions' Anear Foru mentioned

The intransitive verb "to smoke" means "to produce smoke by being or becoming hot". 'He was smoking' (assuming an intransitive verb) would mean this:

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:07:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean here. The verb "has taken" refers to "He" as a subject and to "the bag" as an object.


I mean not the whole present perfect form of the verb "take" in active voice. I mean only the participle "Taken" that is taken for this. Is this participle formed from the transitive verb "take" or intransitive one?
Transitive verb:-He has taken the keys out of the porket.(It were the keys takenout of the porket).) The participle "taken" is the same here. Does it reffer to the keys (taken keys)in both cases?

Intransitive verb. 3. To start growing; root or germinate: The seeds have taken.
If we compare this "taken" with the "taken" from the sentence He has taken the keys out of the porket" is,in this case, the "taken" still the same form of the participle of the transitive verb "take"?

Also,"to smoke", when it is used as the intansitive verb, means To draw in and exhale smoke from a cigarette, cigar, or pipe: It's forbidden to smoke here. It doesn't imply funny picture you put.
smoke
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:21:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
papo_308 wrote:
Hi ghu,
I think I know what you are aiming at. We in Czech (and probably you in Russian too) have a special verb form (or rather adjective derived from a verb, not a past participle) which can be used for this purpose. But it is already outdated and is normally used nowadays neither in speech nor in writing.


I'm not sure what you mean. We don't use outdated words. When we translated the phrase,"The man that smoked in the street",we can say it without using clause "that smoked", but only by using the adjective,formed from the verb "smoke".
It is very moden style. I think it was never possible to do in English earlier, many years ago. This adjective would not be used with the "cigarette",describing it. But we can use this adjective for describing the man, that smokes it.
Do you mean that outdated? Could you give me an example of what you mean?
papo_308
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:23:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/29/2012
Posts: 1,127
Neurons: 26,737
Location: Velké Meziříčí, Vysocina, Czech Republic
Neither we use outdated words, exactly because they are outdated.
I wanted to say that we have a possibility to express the equivalent of
The man who had taken the big bag from the car was very angry.
like this:
The man [special_verb/adjective] the big bag from the car was very angry.

so that the relative clause can be avoided.
But nobody would say or write it like this now because it is outdated, although most people would still understand it.

It's difficult to explain it in English if we speak about another language.
I simply accept that in English I must use a relative clause and that's all.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:03:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

I mean not the whole present perfect form of the verb "take" in active voice. I mean only the participle "Taken" that is taken for this. Is this participle formed from the transitive verb "take" or intransitive one?
Transitive verb:-He has taken the keys out of the porket.(It were the keys takenout of the porket).) The participle "taken" is the same here. Does it reffer to the keys (taken keys)in both cases?


I have noted this before, but the term "participle" can refer either to a non-finite form of a verb that is used with an auxiliary ("to have taken" to express perfection of the verb "to take"; "to be taken" to express passive voice) or as an adjective. (There are more uses, but they are derived from these two.)

As the word order indicates, the sentences "It was the keys taken out of the pocket" or "They were the keys taken out of the pocket" could be described as involving a type of reduced clause. They have exactly the same meanings as "It was the keys that were taken out of the pocket" or "They were the keys that were taken out of the pocket," both of which express passive voice.

As I think of it, no example of "taken" as an adjective comes immediately to mind. Most examples that might be thought of as a predicate adjective make more sense as expressing passive voice, and no idioms where "taken" is placed before a noun or pronoun sound natural to me.

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:12:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
papo_308 wrote:

The man [special_verb/adjective] the big bag from the car was very angry.

But nobody would say or write it like this now because it is outdated, although most people would still understand it.

It's difficult to explain it in English if we speak about another language.
I simply accept that in English I must use a relative clause and that's all.

I think such adjective (form from the verb was never existing in English). I wonder why this form became outdated in your language. It is so suitable to avoid the relative clause. It is because it sounds countrylike in Czech?
As to Russian I can't immagine our language without this form (the adjective or the participle))of the verb.
I think in English, it is impossible because all participles2 formed from the transitive verbs (-ed) are able to describe only the objects that bear the action of the subject.
"the worn out shoes" The shoes that are worn out by someone. Not 'someone that is worn out the shoes'.
Even when the same verb could be intransitive one, the function of the participle2 is still saved: to describe the object. This function without auxiliary verbs "has" "have" is still "passive one".
If you have done something, you have (something done), not you,that are "done" something. I hope you understand me.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:40:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
papo_308 wrote:

It's difficult to explain it in English if we speak about another language.
I simply accept that in English I must use a relative clause and that's all.


It sounds to me that what you are describing is very similar to what in English is called a reduced clause. This involves omitting the subject and finite part of the verb, leaving only the participle and the predicate complement. The example I gave above, "They were the keys [that were] taken out of the pocket" illustrates one way that this is used in English.


With a past participle, this example expresses passive voice. To express active voice in English, as you have described in Czech, a present participle form would be used: "The man [who is] taking the keys out of his pocket is the shop owner."

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:42:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


As I think of it, no example of "taken" as an adjective comes immediately to mind. Most examples that might be thought of as a predicate adjective make more sense as expressing passive voice, and no idioms where "taken" is placed before a noun or pronoun sound natural to me.


It is even not important that the participle "taken" is not used before nouns (without comma,of course).
When it stands after nouns "taken" always is able to describe only the nouns which were exposed to influence.
The sweets taken from the vase by the girl. (not girle taken the sweets)
The girl has taken the sweets from the vase. (again, "taken" is not able to describe the girl. The girl taken the sweets from the vaseis wrong)Even when we use "taken" for forming perfect tense in active voice, the "taken" is still implied in passive sense.
Maybe it is one of the reason why English pure intransitive participles couldn't describe the nouns. Because the third form of the verbs (participle2)is always perceived as the passive form. (people arrived to the stantion..wrong, because people couldn't be arrived)
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:47:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:


As I think of it, no example of "taken" as an adjective comes immediately to mind. Most examples that might be thought of as a predicate adjective make more sense as expressing passive voice, and no idioms where "taken" is placed before a noun or pronoun sound natural to me.


It is even not important that the participle "taken" is not used before nouns (without comma,of course).)


In English, it is important. Think
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:15:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Leon, tell me please if the participle2 may be used before and after nous, how do you make difference whether it is the adjective or it the pure participle2? As far as I know pure adjective might be also used after the nouns.
...in the the sky grey of the clouds.(i'm not sure in gramma of this phrase, but I hope you got me right)
...people tired of the long road...He was tired by reading this book.
....tired people...
....He jumped out of the open window...
.....window opened by the maid... We saw the boat, <--(?) moored to the shore. (not we saw how the boat moored to the shore.)
We saw the boat moored by him to the shore. Is any agreement on this point? What does it depend on?
Thanks.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:57:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi again. Perhaps it is just the way I think, but I see the main definitions of 'smoke' are these (there are other specialist cooking and glass-making definitions etc)

smoke vb
1. (intr) to emit smoke or the like, sometimes excessively or in the wrong place
2. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Brewing)
a. to draw in on (a burning cigarette, etc.) and exhale the smoke
b. to use tobacco for smoking
3. (Law / Recreational Drugs) (intr) Slang to use marijuana for smoking

Numbers 1 and 3 are marked as "intransitive". Number 2a (the one you quote) shows a direct object (a burning cigarette, etc). It is in brackets. sometimes it is stated, sometimes omitted, but it is there. This definition is not labelled as "intransitive".

**********************
At first I did not understand your question here:
Quote:
I mean not the whole present perfect form of the verb "take" in active voice. I mean only the participle "Taken" that is taken for this. Is this participle formed from the transitive verb "take" or intransitive one?

But, having read the questions and answers from you and leon and papo, I think I understand.

In English, if you see a past participle coming after 'has/have/had' you can be 99% certain that is is a verb. If is followed by a noun or noun phrase, it is almost certainly a transitive verb.
"She has taken the bag" = subject - verb - article - noun(object)

You could then use the word 'taken' as an adjective to describe the bag.
"The taken bag hit the lamp." = article - adjective noun(subject)- verb - object

It seems to me that (possibly it is so in Russian) you think you can use 'taken the bag' as an adjective to describe "she" - sort of like:
"She has taken the bag."
"The 'taken the bag' woman ran down the street."

This does not work in English - you have to say "The woman who took the bag ran down the street".
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:06:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Leon, tell me please if the participle2 may be used before and after nous, how do you make difference whether it is the adjective or it the pure participle2? As far as I know pure adjective might be also used after the nouns.
...in the the sky grey of the clouds.(i'm not sure in gramma of this phrase, but I hope you got me right)

I believe what you are looking is "…in the sky grey with clouds." This is the commonly used preposition for this. For variety, one may also write "…in the sky grey from clouds" as the next best choice.

ghu wrote:

...people tired of the long road...He was tired by reading this book.
....tired people...
....He jumped out of the open window...
.....window opened by the maid... We saw the boat, <--(?) moored to the shore. (not we saw how the boat moored to the shore.)
We saw the boat moored by him to the shore. Is any agreement on this point? What does it depend on?


I know this is confusing so I will try to make it only as complicated as necessary.

"He jumped out of the open window." (The word "jumped" is a finite verb expressing the simple past tense, and "open" is an adjective modifying window. Why is this here? Eh? )

In English, the natural place for a modifier is usually before the word being modified. Adjectives are particularly stubborn about this. It is possible for an adjective to follow a noun, yet except for creative writing (in song lyrics, for example) and several idioms that come from other languages (mostly French) that have a different natural word order, an adjective that follows a noun is best understood as a part of the predicate of a reduced clause.

"…in the sky [that was] grey with clouds…"
"…window [which was] opened by the maid…"
"We saw the boat [that was] moored to the shore."
"We saw the boat [that was] moored to the shore by him." (Your word order is good; this is a little more natural to the way I would say it. Please listen if others disagree)
Allow me to point out that although this last one is correct, the more natural way to say this in English would be in active voice:
"We saw the boat [that] he moored to the shore." To be absolutely correct this would be "We saw the boat [that] he had moored to shore."
{This last example, of course, is just a part of my campaign for a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in the Insufferable Pedant category. One must have goals. Whistle }

The word "tired" is in that 1% class that Drag0nspeaker mentioned when is preceded by "to have" and followed by a plural noun. It has acquired a meaning as an adjective that is usually related to the intransitive meanings of the verb "to tire".
"....tired people..." (This is already in its natural and correct word order.)
"...people [who are] tired of the long road..."

papo_308 has noticed something very important on which I would like to elaborate at this point. Whenever an adjective is followed by a prepositional phrase, it always implies a predicate complement, which means that it needs to be part of a clause of some kind, typically a relative clause which is often reduced. The nominal phrase "tired of the long road people" doesn't work as subject nor as object. This does work;
"The people [who are] tired of the long road never tire of taking shortcuts."

The first clue about which meaning is intended with a verb that can be used either transitively or intransitively is the preposition that follows it. A past participle followed by the preposition "by" indicates a transitive verb expressing passive voice 99% of the time. (There are always exceptions, expecially when I can't think of them. Whistle )

Idiomatically, there are other prepositions that can work this way, according to the verb. For the verb "to tire" the preposition "from" can also indicate passive voice with the added suggestion of perfection.

"The people [who are] tired by the long road often miss the long road that tires them."
"The people [who are] tired from the long road often miss the long road that has tired them."

You may now stick a fork in me. Whistle

excaelis
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:19:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


The intransitive verb "to smoke" means "to produce smoke by being or becoming hot". 'He was smoking' (assuming an intransitive verb) would mean this:




And " She was smoking " could mean this:

Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:05:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,431,999
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
Even when we use "taken" for forming perfect tense in active voice, the "taken" is still implied in passive sense.

I disagree. I don't think "taken" in "The girl has taken the sweets from the vase" implies a passive sense in English; I think it has an entirely active feel. The situation may be different in some other languages – e.g. French, where the participle sometimes has to agree with the object, e.g. "J'ai vu la maison/Je l'ai vue" (I have seen it = I have got it seen).

ghu wrote:
Maybe it is one of the reason why English pure intransitive participles couldn't describe the nouns.

There are exceptions. For example, "the fallen hero" means "the hero who has fallen", not "the hero who has been fallen". Other examples:

the collapsed bridge
the escaped prisoner
the retired general
the failed plot
the grown man
the expired passport
the vanished civilization
the decayed woodwork
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:49:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

a. to draw in on (a burning cigarette, etc.) and exhale the smoke

This definition is not labelled as "intransitive".

But if you look at my link you would see that it is the intransitive verb(without pointed object). One just smokes. Of course, he smokes a cigarette (or something like that). I wouldn't say that when someone smokes, he looks like the man in your picture. Or you never use the verb "smoke" without object(a cigarette in a mouth)?
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:55:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

At first I did not understand your question here:

But, having read the questions and answers from you and leon and papo, I think I understand.

In English, if you see a past participle coming after 'has/have/had' you can be 99% certain that is is a verb. If is followed by a noun or noun phrase, it is almost certainly a transitive verb.
"She has taken the bag" = subject - verb - article - noun(object)


It looks like you don't understand what I mean. I don't mean the form of the verb "take" in perfect tense in active voice. The verb in the sentence, Verb=has taken=axiliary verb"has"+participle2"taken". I'm interested only in "taken". I say about it.
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:39:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


It seems to me that (possibly it is so in Russian) you think you can use 'taken the bag' as an adjective to describe "she" - sort of like:
"She has taken the bag."
"The 'taken the bag' woman ran down the street."

This does not work in English - you have to say "The woman who took the bag ran down the street".

But if we say (in Russian) "The 'taken the bag' woman ran down the street." Or what is the same, The woman ,"taken the bag",ran down the street.", we don't use the same participle "taken" for describing the woman. "Taken" has a passive sense ("passive past participle). It used only for the bag, that was taken. But woman herself takes the bag. We use for describing the woman the "active past participle". It has common root(beginning of the word)with "take" and "taken", but the ending is other. I hope you understand me.
So, when I translate literally, not ussual way, of course, the sentence "The woman has taken the bag", could I translate the participle "taken" in active sense? Not in the sense "taken bag" (the bag that was taken), but in the active sense?
Or the active sense is only possible at using the whole verb "has taken"? (the auxiliary verb "has" gives this sense)
''''''''
Sorry, if I'm confusing you, but I always wonder why you can describe the nouns (subjects or objects)only which are affected by the action of the other subject, but not the nouns (subjects or objects) that do the action themselves by using past participles.
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:48:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Audiendus wrote:


ghu wrote:
Maybe it is one of the reason why English pure intransitive participles couldn't describe the nouns.

There are exceptions. For example, "the fallen hero" means "the hero who has fallen", not "the hero who has been fallen". Other examples:

the collapsed bridge
the escaped prisoner
the retired general
the failed plot
the grown man
the expired passport
the vanished civilization
the decayed woodwork

Thank you for examples of the adjectives which are formed from the pure intransitive verbs. No wonder that it is possible.
These verbs are intransitive, so it would be strange if they used in passive sense.
But this kind of adjectives wouldn't be used without noun after "was" like the other kind of the adjectives,
He was angree,it was green,...he was escaped, he was retired, he was grown (in the sense of the grown man, not the
grown tree.)
As to "tired"...I think this adjective came from "to tire"-the transitive verb. That is why it is possible to say "He was tired" But why then you can't use "by"? It is because "tired" becomes pure adjective? Think Or there are also some transitive verbs the subject of which couldn't be the man, animal, any person. Only inanimate subjects..
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:06:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Audiendus wrote:
ghu wrote:
Even when we use "taken" for forming perfect tense in active voice, the "taken" is still implied in passive sense.

I disagree. I don't think "taken" in "The girl has taken the sweets from the vase" implies a passive sense in English; I think it has an entirely active feel. The situation may be different in some other languages – e.g. French, where the participle sometimes has to agree with the object (I have seen it = I have got it seen).


It seems that you have understood me. But I think other way. I think the verb "has"(have),which is used intransitively, gives this feel. (like in "it has in my pocket" "I has in this room"-I understand that is not used, but it is understandable).
"I have it seen . "seen" refer to the "it". (in passive sense)(have is the transitive one)
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:45:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Hi,Leon, thanks for long answer, for time taken for it.
leonAzul wrote:


papo_308 has noticed something very important on which I would like to elaborate at this point. Whenever an adjective is followed by a prepositional phrase, it always implies a predicate complement, which means that it needs to be part of a clause of some kind, typically a relative clause which is often reduced.

It is really hard to immagin other kind of a clause.
leonAzul wrote:
The nominal phrase "tired of the long road people" doesn't work as subject nor as object. This does work;
"The people [who are] tired of the long road never tire of taking shortcuts."

But why do you tell this. I'm not sure for what reason. Also, what do you mean under "the nominal phrase"?

leonAzul wrote:
The first clue about which meaning is intended with a verb that can be used either transitively or intransitively is the preposition that follows it. A past participle followed by the preposition "by" indicates a transitive verb expressing passive voice 99% of the time. (There are always exceptions, expecially when I can't think of them. Whistle )

I know the cases without participles.(I was proud by him.) and when "by" means "near" or in phrasal verbs or "how". ( She has stood by the house.She has stood by her friend. He has begun by explaining...) I think it is more than 99%.


I'm still not there to understand the way of understanding of when we have deal with participles and when with the adjectives. (I mean the adjectives that have the same look as the participles) Both can be used the same way..(before or after the noun)
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:54:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Audiendus wrote:

ghu wrote:
Maybe it is one of the reason why English pure intransitive participles couldn't describe the nouns.

There are exceptions.


More to the point, that is simply false.

Whether or not a past participle makes sense or what sense it makes as an adjective has entirely to do with with the meanings of the verb and the nouns involved, and not whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. When there is an ambiguity, the meaning resolves it, or additional words and phrases in the form of an implied relative clause are included to clarify the meaning.

On the other hand, passive voice makes no sense at all with anything but a verb that has a transitive meaning. Think

leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:05:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

I'm still not there to understand the way of understanding of when we have deal with participles and when with the adjectives. (I mean the adjectives that have the same look as the participles) Both can be used the same way..(before or after the noun)


When it is placed before a noun, it directly modifies that noun.

When it is placed after a noun, it indirectly modifies it as a part of the predicate complement of an implied relative clause. In the examples I gave above, the words in brackets [] indicate the words that would explicitly show you the clause that is implied.

Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:11:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Ghu wrote:
Quote:
The verb in the sentence, Verb=has taken=axiliary verb"has"+participle2"taken". I'm interested only in "taken". I say about it.


There are some errors here:
The verb in the sentence, Verb=has - no, the verb is "to take"
taken=axiliary verb - no, the auxiliary verb is "has" (an auxiliary verb only modifies the actual verb of the sentence, changing its tense or mood)

I will speak about 'taken' in this sentence "The woman has taken the bag". What I say applies to this sentence, it probably does not apply to some other sentence using the word 'taken'.

In this sentence 'taken' is part of a compound verb "has taken" - which is the perfect tense of the verb "to take". "Taken" is not a separate verb, it is not an adjective or adverb. It is part of the compound verb "has taken".
It does not apply only to the subject, or only to the object. It says what the subject did to the object. It refers to both the subject and the object.

I realise (from what you said in another post here) that Russian has participles that relate only to the subject, and different participles that relate only to the object.
This is not true in English. The participle of a transitive verb (when used with an auxiliary verb) is a part of a verb and relates to both the subject and the object. It tells the relationship between the subject and object.

What is the relationship between the woman and the bag? - The woman took the bag.
This sentence does not say when in the past that happened. In order to specify that it was recent, you change the form of the verb from "took" to "has taken".
"Took" refers to both the woman and the bag (the order of words says which one is the subject and which is the object).
In the same way, "has taken" refers to both the woman and the bag.

In some languages, "has taken" is all one word. In English it is two words, but they act as one verb - the word 'taken' describes the action (the main part of the verb), the word 'has' describes the time of the action (the auxiliary part of the verb).
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.