mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
adjectives and intransitive verbs Options
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:24:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


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.


But it is clear, the adjective also could be the part of the predicative complement. So. it is not clear whether it is the adjective or the participle.
Also, I see the difference between the predicate complement and the predicative complement.
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:28:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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

I didn't say that the verb in the sentence is "has".
I said the verb in the sentence: Verb=has taken=axilary "has"+participle2"taken"
RuthP
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:34:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
ghu wrote:
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)

I would need to disagree. The perfect tense simply refers to an (active) action which has already occurred.

The girl takes the sweets from the vase.
The girl is taking the sweets from the vase.
The girl has taken the sweets from the vase.


To be passive, one would need to have
The sweets are taken from the vase by the girl.
The sweets are being taken from the vase by the girl.
The sweets have been taken from the vase by the girl.


If one were to say the girl has the sweets from the vase, one would have a completely different sentence, meaning the girl possesses, holds, has possession of those sweets. (What sweets are doing in a vase in the first place is beyond me. Think )

To repeat the last part of your post, and (I'm afraid) pick it apart a little:

Quote:
It seems that you have understood me. But I think (another)(a different) way. I think the verb "has"(have),which is used intransitively, gives this feel.

(like in "it has in my pocket" Unfortunately, this does not make sense in English, and I'm not sure what you are thinking of. You can say,
I have a rock in my pocket.
It (the rock) has worn a hole in my pocket.
It has been in my pocket for a month.
It is in my pocket.


"I has in this room"-I understand that is not used, but it is understandable).
I would disagree that this is understandable, because I really don't know what you are trying to say with it.

There is a (grammatically incorrect and not-accepted) usage which substitutes has for have. This is used by some people, not just poorly educated, but so poorly educated as to be functionally illiterate. It occurs only in a few places, in uncommon vernacular, used by a few illiterate people.
I has a bed of my own in this room.
But, even people with severe learning disabilities, who will never be able to learn to read do not say this if they have grown up with people speaking standard English. Honest use of this in a conversation (as opposed to a speaker fooling around and trying to speak in vernacular or dialect) immediately shows the speaker to be uneducated to a degree which is unusual today.

I was in this room(, earlier)(, before)(, yesterday).
This might sound similar to I has . . ., if the speaker were speaking quickly, using an accent you are not used to hearing.

Using I has leads to complete confusion about whether you are trying to indicate your presence in the room (present, simple past, present perfect- which, confusingly, indicates the past, past perfect)
I am in this room.
I was in this room.
I have been in this room.
I had been in this room.
(Skip all the future tenses.)

or, on the other hand, you are indicating something which you possess, which is/was present in the room, (present, simple past, present perfect, past perfect)
I have a chair in this room.
I had a chair in this room.
I have had a chair in this room(, before). (I could put one in here again.)
I had had a chair in this room( before we remodeled, but now there is no place for it).


"I have it seen . "seen" refer to the "it". (in passive sense)(have is the transitive one)
I see it.
I saw it.
I have seen it.
I had seen it.
I will see it.
I will have seen it.


All of these, whether one, two, or even three words long are just the forms which designate verb tenses. There is no utility (that I can ascertain) in trying to pick have/had seen, will see, or even will have seen apart. The meaning in terms of the relationship between me (I), the subject-doing-the-seeing, and it, the object-being-seen, is the same in all sentences. The different forms of the verb give the tense, the time constraints, but do not change the subject/object relationship.

It is seen by me.
It was seen by me.
It has been seen by me.
It had been seen by me.
It will be seen by me.
It will have been seen by me.


And, it is the same here in the passive. The verb changes speak only to tense and time constraints. The relationship between the new subject it and the new object (of the preposition by, because the sentence is passive and this object is not being acted-upon and so is not a direct object) me, remains the same in all tenses.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:39:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I'm sorry, I took the spaces to mean "Verb=has" and "taken=auxiliary" and "verb'has'+participle'taken'.

However, everything else I said still applies.

"taken" is a separate word, but is not a separate concept. It is simply part of a concept (the compound verb 'has taken').
thar
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:48:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 25,449
Neurons: 103,256
ghu.

I am not going to comment on the grammar, but the problem which, to me reading these threads, seems to keep coming up.

You are trying to build English grammar rules, by taking an example of English, and trying to work out new grammar rules.

Even the most experienced and gifted English teachers on this forum would have trouble writing their own, new, grammar rules for the language, and you are trying to do it for a foreign language. So you use your native grammar in an attempt to build your ideas of English grammar, but there are a lot of differences.

You need to trust that English does have ways to express anything you want to say. It just may not be using the same grammar tools as another language. The language works by building words together, in their context and patterns. Taking them individually makes them lose meaning.

Although it is very important to try new stuff out, even if it is sometimes wrong, the problem is that if you think it out and write it out enough times, that is what you will remember, not the answers you may get from people like Dragon, or leon.

I think many of your questions would be answered by looking at the way language is used in English. Even an hour of any American TV show will give you loads of examples of the use of 'got' or 'need', or participles. You will quickly catch the repeated patterns, There are loads of brilliant resources out there, that will explain things and give you drills to show what can be done within each pattern, and what cannot.

Analysis is great, and is obviously your learning style, but I just think it would be a help to take time to relax and trust the language to make sense, with its own grammar rules! I know I am not a teacher, but I am a learner who likes to analyse - but I learn more of a language in a couple of hours watching a film a few times, than by trying to work out grammar rules! I don't know enough to give you the excellent grammatical explanations others do, but this is my contribution to your understanding. I hope you try it and it helps you . It helps me, to sometimes stop 'working hard' at the language and just let it become more natural learning, like a child.

End of unsolicited advice, I will shut up now. And please know I am not trying to put you off, or disparage your questions at all Silenced
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:57:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


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.


No, it is not what I tried to say. I mean the past participles in active voice. These participles like the past participles2 in passive voice could be applied to the subject and to the object of the sentence.
For example," the past active participle determing the man who smoked"=pap
we have:"The man PAP on the street seemed sad"(PAP describes the subject)
I saw the sad man PAP[/color. ([color=green]PAPdescribes the object)
As to the passive past participles, it is the same as you have.
The seeds carried by the wind have taken. (carried describes the subject)
We took several seeds carried by the wind. (carried describes the object)
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:02:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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

"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.

Yes, but only "took" is the full verb, while the "taken" is only the part of the verb, its participle, that is able to describe the noun.(in contrast to the full verb)
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:11:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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

I agree, but, in addition, "the participlle" is able to describe the noun.(the object or the subject)and "has" describes the "the face" and the active voice of the verb. Also,"has" more of the sense of "intransitive verb"(it's understood "why")
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:25:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
I mean the past participles in active voice.

The past participle of a transitive verb, when used on its own (without an auxiliary verb), is always passive in English.
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:39:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
I was mistaken with "has" haveis correct,of course.
The other things are still there.
ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:56:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Audiendus wrote:
ghu wrote:
I mean the past participles in active voice.

The past participle of a transitive verb, when used on its own (without an auxiliary verb), is always passive in English.

But Do the adjectives formed from them save this "passivity"? Or they carry completely different meanings?
RuthP
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:47:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
ghu wrote:
I mean the past participles in active voice.

The past participle of a transitive verb, when used on its own (without an auxiliary verb), is always passive in English.

But Do the adjectives formed from them save this "passivity"? Or they carry completely different meanings?

Aha! I think I get it!

More or less, yes - as long as it is the past participle which is used, it is the (more or less) recipient who/which is modified.

Grammar-quizzes.com: Adjectives and Modifiers: Participles 1: Agents and Receivers


But, remember the same word can have different meanings
I spotted the dog.

makes perfect sense and has the passive version
The dog was spotted by me.

All well and good so far, but I can also say
The dog is spotted. = The dog's coat has spots.



[image not available]



And, if an English speaker says
the spotted dog sat on the bench,
this is the kind of spotted which is meant.

This state of being use of participles as modifiers/adjectives is also covered on the same site.

Grammar quizzes.com: Adjectives and Modifiers: Participles 2: State of being vs. completion
leonAzul
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:08:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

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

Also, I see the difference between the predicate complement and the predicative complement.


There is no such animal as a "predicative complement".

The word "complement" means "that which completes". A subject may have a complement, a prepositional phrase may have a complement, and most commonly a predicate may have a complement. A complement does not modify anything, it completes something.

Transitive verbs have objects and adverbs in their predicate complements so we usually talk about them instead of the complement. Linking verbs do not, and so the only way to talk about the rest of the predicate is to refer to it as a predicate adjective, predicate pronoun, etc.

When an adjective is placed in front of the noun it modifies, it is attributive. When an adjective is placed in the predicate complement of a copula and the noun it modifies is the subject of the clause, then the adjective is predicative.

The reason I didn't use the term "predicative adjective" was to avoid this very confusion. It would seem that plan has gone agley. Whistle


ghu
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:24:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
RuthP wrote:
Aha!

This phrase is the phrase we say also, when we think we understand what's the point...Dancing

RuthP wrote:
More or less, yes - as long as it is the past participle which is used, it is the (more or less) recipient who/which is modified.
Please say this in other words, I can't get what you mean. d'oh!



RuthP wrote:
But, remember the same word can have different meanings
I spotted the dog.

You mean "I found the dog"?


RuthP wrote:
makes perfect sense and has the passive version
The dog was spotted by me.

"The dog was found by me"

RuthP wrote:
All well and good so far, but I can also say
The dog is spotted. = The dog's coat has spots.

In this case the adjective "spotted" is still in passive sense? (the mother Nature spots this Dalmatian with spots)
That is why you can use "spotted", the adjective from the past participle, after "was". If it were formed from the intransitive participle (verb) you couldn't use it after "was".



RuthP wrote:

And, if an English speaker says
the spotted dog sat on the bench,
this is the kind of spotted which is meant.

This is kind of "spotty"?
ghu
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:54:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Leon,
He got red with shame.
"red with shame"-" the adjective phrase" is the predicative complement of the pronoun "he"(by the way,its modifier)
"red with shame"---the predicate complement of the verb "got". (complement of the verb)
He got the letter from his friend.
"the letter from his friend" is the predicate complement of the verb "got". (complement of the verb) When the verb is the transitive one, as in this case, the object of the verb is the same as the predicate complement. (complement of the verb)
So, "predicate complement" is the complement (or the object, if the verb is the transitive one)of the verb.
But the "predicative complement" is the complement of the noun. When the verb is the link-verb.
I hope you'll find my explanations clear. If no, sorry.
Audiendus
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:24:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
The past participle of a transitive verb, when used on its own (without an auxiliary verb), is always passive in English.

But Do the adjectives formed from them save this "passivity"? Or they carry completely different meanings?

Can you give some examples, please?
leonAzul
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:47:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

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

He got red with shame.
"red with shame"-" the adjective phrase" is the predicative complement of the pronoun "he"(by the way,its modifier)
"red with shame"---the predicate complement of the verb "got". (complement of the verb)
He got the letter from his friend.
"the letter from his friend" is the predicate complement of the verb "got". (complement of the verb) When the verb is the transitive one, as in this case, the object of the verb is the same as the predicate complement. (complement of the verb)
So, "predicate complement" is the complement (or the object, if the verb is the transitive one)of the verb.
But the "predicative complement" is the complement of the noun. When the verb is the link-verb.
I hope you'll find my explanations clear. If no, sorry.


I see how you are using the term "predicative complement" now. In the sense that any adverbs or adverbial phrases, such as a prepositional phrase, that modify an adjective could be described as an adjectival complement, therefore a predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement. This is a rather unusual concept in English grammar, to say the least. It would be more accurate to say that the phrase "with shame" is the predicative complement of the predicative adjective "red".

This sort of detailed analysis is appropriate for developing automated cross-language translation algorithms or designing a lesson plan for teaching a language, but it is not directly useful for someone learning a language. Native speakers certainly do not compose their speech from such rules or patterns, at least not consciously. Instead, they think and speak in chunks of meaning according to patterns acquired through social interaction.




leonAzul
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:57:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
ghu wrote:
I mean the past participles in active voice.

The past participle of a transitive verb, when used on its own (without an auxiliary verb), is always passive in English.

But Do the adjectives formed from them save this "passivity"? Or they carry completely different meanings?


As I understand it, another way to say what Audiendus is getting at here is that the meaning of a past participle as an adjective is always derived from its sense in passive voice and not of active perfection in English. I frequently hear this very confusion in speakers whose native language is French, where the roles of the participles are typically reversed. For example, they will say that someone is "interesting" in something when they mean that someone is "interested" in something.

ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:36:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


I see how you are using the term "predicative complement" now. In the sense that any adverbs or adverbial phrases, such as a prepositional phrase, that modify an adjective could be described as an adjectival complement, therefore a predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement. This is a rather unusual concept in English grammar, to say the least. It would be more accurate to say that the phrase "with shame" is the predicative complement of the predicative adjective "red".


No, you don't understand it. I say all the phrase "red with shame" is the complement of the "he". But because it stands after the verb and is contained in predicative of the predicate, it is called predicative complement of the subject.(subject could have just the other complement (complement of the subject, not subjectival complement)
"Adjectival complement"? Don't know such term. It is only "complement of the adjective".
predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement.No, why to say like that?
You say about just "adjective". No matter where it is. No need to say like that. There is no predicative complement of the adjective. It has no sense. There is complement of the adjective. "with shame" is the complement of the adjective "red". No need to use the word the "predicative" here. But "red with shame" is the predicative complement of the subject.
The boy red with shame ran out on the street. "red with shame", the "adjective phrase" is "the complement" of the "boy".
Also, it is the part of the noun phrase "The boy red with shame", also, it is the "adjectival (in this case adjective) phrase", determing the main noun in the noun phrase"The boy red with shame".
ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:49:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


As I understand it, another way to say what Audiendus is getting at here is that the meaning of a past participle as an adjective is always derived from its sense in passive voice and not of active perfection in English. I frequently ...

It looks like you don't understand me at all. I mean exactly what Audiendus said. If the adjective is formed from the transitive verb it always has some "passive sense". Such adjective always could be used after "was" or "get" in contrast to the ajective formed from the "intransitive verb". Or you disagree? If you disagree, please give some examples to show visa versa. I not always understand what you try to say in your long complicated phrases. Please, have in mind I'm not native speaker.
ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:40:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


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

Tell me please whether or not we can use them after the nouns with the same meaning (in adjective phrases,for example?)
Also, could we use them as the adjectives that not formed from the verbs (green,angry) after "get" and "was". Or because they are formed from the intransitive verbs and carry the sense of the action in active voice it is impossible? Or some of them could be used?
ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:22:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Why do these words be the participles, not the adjectives? They all were formed from the transitive verbs? participle
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:54:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
To the last question - "Why do these words be the participles, not the adjectives? They all were formed from the transitive verbs? <link>participle" - the answer is that the ones formed from verbs (not 'green' or 'angry') are participles.

In some sentences, like "The bridge has collapsed", the word 'collapsed' is a participle and part of an intransitive verb. (the action is 'to collapse')
In some sentences, like "I needed to cross the collapsed bridge", the word 'collapsed' is a participle and an adjective. (the action is 'to cross')
In some sentences, like "The bridge collapsed", the word'collapsed' is a full verb (not a participle).
In some sentences, like "The man has painted the wall.", the word 'painted' is a participle and part of a transitive verb. (the action is 'to paint')
In some sentences, like "The painted wall looks clean.", the word 'painted' is a participle and an adjective. (the action is "to look")

In your link examples, the action (what was or will be done) is shown by the participle:

Someone hit him with a puck.
She hurt her thumb.
Her fingers stuck.
He (and his bike) stuck.
The piranha caught his finger.
The car is 'being built'. (passive)
The boss fires him.
They are fixing the light.

When the action being done in the clause or sentence is described by the participle, the participle is a part-verb in that sentence. It will normally be preceded by an auxiliary verb (get, was, has, became and others).

Also notice that this is teaching American English. They use 'get' and 'got' more often than in British English. (Also the site does not use perfect English - "Included in this lessons are simple yet common examples ..."
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:59:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Or because they are formed from the intransitive verbs and carry the sense of the action in active voice it is impossible?


Exactly. If a verb doesn't have a transitive meaning, there can be no passive voice sense, and the only sense that remains is the meaning derived from active perfection.

Again, in English, the meaning which results when an adjective is placed after a noun is usually that which would result from that adjective as a part of a relative clause. Past particles derived from verbs that have a transitive meaning will tend to be understood as if they had the verb "to be" as an auxiliary in that implied clause, otherwise the default meaning would be as if the implied auxiliary were "to have".

This is the best way I can think of to explain it. Perhaps someone with more teaching experience could make it more clear.

ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:14:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Hi, dragon. I really would like to know some more. I can understand when we deal with the simple past time verb or the gerund.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
To the last question - "Why do these words be the participles, not the adjectives? They all were formed from the transitive verbs? <link>participle" - the answer is that the ones formed from verbs (not 'green' or 'angry') are participles.

But many dictionaries and Google point the -ing and -ed form as the adjective. Why? what for? They mean that the participle could be used before the noun as the adjective (and after as the participle)? If it so, then it's OK. But if we use these participles after the noun, for examples
(the collapsed bridge) We saw the bridge collapsed because of tsunami (we can't use "by" before "tsunami" because " to collapse" is the intransitive one.
(the destroyed bridge)We saw the bridge destroyed by tsunami.
(The grown man)He was the man grown in the difficult conditions of a desert.
If we use them after the nouns do they have the same meaning like the meaning they have before the nouns? Or it could be,sometimes,not the same?
Drag0nspeaker wrote:


In your link examples, the action (what was or will be done) is shown by the participle:
'''''
''''''

Her fingers stuck. Tell me please why the participle from the intransitive verb is used after "got"?
;;;;;;


Also notice that this is teaching American English. They use 'get' and 'got' more often than in British English. (Also the site does not use perfect English - "Included in this lessons are simple yet common examples ..."

Oh, I noticed it too and tried to turn it somehow so that the words fit the sense.
ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:27:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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



Leon, I appreciate your help. But I always get upset, when I'm reading your cooments and can't get what you mean.
Sometimes I get you very well, but sometimes...d'oh!
Could you be so kind to express your point of view a little bit clear, in more simple words somehow. Have mercy on me.
Whistle
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:50:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
I agree with the above comments by Drag0nspeaker and leonAzul.

ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:

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

Tell me please whether or not we can use them after the nouns with the same meaning (in adjective phrases,for example?)
Also, could we use them as the adjectives that not formed from the verbs (green,angry) after "get" and "was". Or because they are formed from the intransitive verbs and carry the sense of the action in active voice it is impossible? Or some of them could be used?

Theoretically, any of the above intransitive past participles can be used after "The [noun] is/was"; there is no rule against it. However, some of them sound more natural in this position than others. (There is no particular reason for this; it is just a matter of usage.) So:

the bridge was collapsed [sounds odd if the meaning is intransitive; "the bridge had collapsed" is more natural]
the prisoner was escaped [sounds odd; "the prisoner had escaped" is more natural]
the general was retired [perfectly OK]
the plot was failed [sounds very odd; we would say "the plot had failed"]
the man was grown [sounds odd, but "the man was fully grown" sounds OK]
the passport was expired [possibly, but "had expired" sounds better]
the civilization was vanished [possibly]
the woodwork was decayed [perfectly OK]

It would not be normal to use an intransitive past-participle adjective immediately after a noun, either with or without a comma (e.g. "the general[,] retired..."), and it would certainly be wrong to use such an adjective after get/got ("the general got retired").
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:15:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
To me, the word "stuck" in "her fingers got stuck" has a passive feel, implying a transitive verb. Someone or something stuck (i.e. jammed) her fingers – it could be herself, or her action, or the expansion of the material, or something like that.
ghu
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:38:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


It would not be normal to use an intransitive past-participle adjective immediately after a noun, either with or without a comma (e.g. "the general[,] retired..."), and it would certainly be wrong to use such an adjective after get/got ("the general got retired").

you mean that my sentenses are wrong?
(the collapsed bridge) We saw the bridge collapsed because of (due to)tsunami (we can't use "by" before "tsunami" because " to collapse" is the intransitive one.
(the destroyed bridge)We saw the bridge destroyed by tsunami.
(The grown man)He was the man grown in the difficult conditions of a desert.
If we use them after the nouns do they have the same meaning like the meaning they have before the nouns? Or it could be,sometimes,not the same?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:39:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 35,686
Neurons: 249,594
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I imagine the dictionaries say that words like 'painted' and 'collapsing' are adjectives because that is the function they perform in some sentences.
The fact the dictionary says it is an adjective does not mean that it is not also a participle. Some dictionaries will call it an adjective, some will only include it in the definition of the verb, calling it a praticiple.
The fact is, it is a participle - which is defined as "a form of a verb which can sometimes be used as an adjective, and is sometimes used with an auxiliary verb to form different tenses and voices."
In the same way, a determiner can also be an adjective in the same sentence; some dictionaries decide to call it a determiner, some say it's an adjective and some say it's a modifier. They are all correct.

A participle would normally come after the auxiliary verb, when it is used as a part-verb (the whole verb is the two words together - "have painted", "got stuck" etc). If you see a participle directly after a noun, it is 99% certain that it is part of a reduced relative clause.

"We saw the bridge collapsed because of the tsunami" = "We saw the bridge, which had collapsed in the tsunami." - the whole "collapsed because of the tsunami" clause acts as the adjective. (the action of the sentence is "to see" but the action of the descriptive clause is "to collapse").

"We saw the bridge destroyed by the tsunami." = "We saw the bridge which was being destroyed by the tsunami." (the action of the sentence is "to see" but the action of the descriptive clause is "to destroy").
But there is another thought here:
"We saw the bridge, destroyed by the tsunami." = "We saw the bridge, which had been destroyed by the tsunami."

When used before a noun, 'grown' means "fully mature" or "adult". "A grown man" = "an adult man, not a youth."
"He was the man grown in the difficult conditions of a desert." = "He was the man who had grown in the difficult conditions of a desert."
Poetically, sometimes you may see "He was a man grown." = this is the same as "He was fully grown into a man." It is very unusual.

Quote:
Her fingers stuck. Tell me please why the participle from the intransitive verb is used after "got"?

Because "got" is being used as an auxiliary verb (basically meaning 'were') - basically it's a passive, rather than intransitive, when you add the 'got'. She stuck her fingers in the holes in the ball. Her fingers got stuck in the holes in the ball (by her).

Personally, I would look at it the other way - that "get" was being used as the main verb (meaning 'became') and "stuck" was being used as the intransitive participle, simply as an adjective. There are some verbs that I could look at as either passive or intransitive - jammed, stuck are the only two I can think of, but I feel there are others.
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:52:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

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



Leon, I appreciate your help. But I always get upset, when I'm reading your cooments and can't get what you mean.
Sometimes I get you very well, but sometimes...d'oh!
Could you be so kind to express your point of view a little bit clear, in more simple words somehow. Have mercy on me.
Whistle


The examples which Audiendus has given illustrate this well. Those verbs that have a transitive meaning sound natural in passive voice, and that is how their past participles are usually understood. They sound as if they had a form of the verb "to be" in front of them.

Otherwise, verbs that can only be used intransitively sound odd in passive voice, and their past participles are usually understood as if they were derived from a perfect tense. They sound as if they had a form of the verb "to have" in front of them.


ETA
I seem to be making real headway in my bid for the Insufferable Pedant award… Anxious

ghu
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:29:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

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


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.


I know it. Sorry, but it doesn't show whether or not it is the adjective or the participle.Pure adjectives could be also put after the noun and be part of the relative clause. (The sky (that was)grey from the dark clouds seemed dull.)
Also it doesn't show whether or not the sense is changing, when we put the "ing" or the "ed" form of the participle (or the adjective?) after the noun. When we deal with a "pure" adjective we know what it implies, we know it is the adjective wherever it stands. But when the -ed or -ing adjective(or participle) is put after the noun the sense of it changes often. It is not the same sense when it has when it is put before the noun as the adjective. Do you understand me what I mean?
Audiendus
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:18:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
But when the -ed or -ing adjective(or participle) is put after the noun the sense of it changes often. It is not the same sense when it has when it is put before the noun as the adjective. Do you understand me what I mean?

Please give some examples where the sense changes. Then I may be able to answer your question.
ghu
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:12:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Hello,
He was a smiling man. (he often smiled, it was his part of the appearance, his haracter)
The man smiling at me was drunk. (this "smiling" has other sense)
He was the grown man. in the sense of "He was an adult man."(I can say using "adult"-He seemed adult. He got adult. He was adult not for his years. But I can't say the same with "grown" and can't say,"The person grown (adult) only at the first look was the child in the soul"
I think the participle is the adjective only when it stands before noun. In other cases (after the nouns, verb-links) it is the participle that has other meanings. (mostly, of the varb)
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 7:58:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Sorry, but it doesn't show whether or not it is the adjective or the participle. Pure adjectives could be also put after the noun and be part of the relative clause. (The sky (that was)grey from the dark clouds seemed dull.)
Also it doesn't show whether or not the sense is changing, when we put the "ing" or the "ed" form of the participle (or the adjective?) after the noun. When we deal with a "pure" adjective we know what it implies, we know it is the adjective wherever it stands. But when the -ed or -ing adjective(or participle) is put after the noun the sense of it changes often. It is not the same sense when it has when it is put before the noun as the adjective. Do you understand me what I mean?


Yes, I do understand. What we are trying to explain is that the pattern involves several points of grammar at the same time, and that it is easier to use if one thinks about it less and simply uses the participles as adjectives.

The meaning which results is not governed by a rigid rule of grammar, but rather by the meanings of the words themselves. In English, when the original verb has a transitive meaning, its past participle is generally understood as if it were related to the passive voice, whether placed before a noun or after it. In contrast, the present participle usually expresses the active meaning of the original 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.