Grammar correction

Question

Hello guys Can you help me answering this:
When I was watching a movie this sentence has come out:
I've been struck with this weapon before
I would like to know if this sentence is grammatically correct.
If it is correct and it's obviously correct since I see it from a movie which is in english.Could you tell me please the role of Present Perfect Continuous here please?
thanks!

Avangi · Accepted Answer

egerol1I've been struck with this weapon before.

It's correct. It's also in passive voice, as you probably know. I have my doubts that it's continuous, but I may be wrong.

"I am struck." simple present, passive voice.
"I am being struck." present continuous, passive. Yeah, I guess you're right!

"I was struck. I was being struck." (past)

"I have been struck. I had been struck." (present perfect/past perfect; passive voice)

No, I guess you're wrong! .

Note that in the present continuous passive, we have two "being" verbs:
one for the passive and one for the continuous. (I am being struck.)

egerol1 tell me please the role of Present Perfect Continuous here

I think the present perfect continuous passive would be something really ugly, like,
"I have been being struck like this before."

"I have been striking this guy with this weapon for over an hour."
This is present perfect continuous, but it's in active voice!

I've been struck with this weapon before" could refer to a single blow, or many blows -
on a single "occasion," or over a long period of time. We may think of it as continuous, but grammatically it is not.
A word like "pummeled" usually means "struck repeatedly."
"I swam across the lake" describes a long, continuous action, but grammatically it's an event.

Anonymous · Answer

egerol1Hello guys Can you help me answering this:When I was watching a movie this sentence has come out:I've been struck with this weapon beforeI would like to know if this sentence is grammatically correct.If it is correct and it's obviously correct since I see it from a movie which is in english.Could you tell me please the role of Present Perfect Continuous here please?thanks!

Hi,

The sentence I've been struck with this weapon before is grammatically correct. But you are mistaken about the tense; there is no Present Perfect Continuous here. It is the Present Perfect Passive tense which is used in the sentece. There is no notion of any continuity in the I've been struck with this weapon before. (The Present Perfect Continuous used in this context: This weapon has been striking me before, which an unusual and awkward construction indeed.)

CalifJim · Answer

egerol1When I was watching a movie this sentence ~~has come~~ came out:
I've been struck with this weapon before.
I would like to know if this sentence is grammatically correct.

It is correct.

egerol1Could you tell me please the role of Present Perfect Continuous here please?

This is not the present perfect continuous tense. You must have a verb in the -ing form to have a continuous tense. The tense is present perfect, and it's passive. That is, it has a form of be (have been in this case) followed by a past participle (struck).

Someone has struck me with this weapon before.
=
I have been struck with this weapon before (by someone).

In other words, at some unspecified time in the past, someone struck me with this weapon.

CJ

Egerol1 · Answer

hey guys I know that this sentence is in present perfect.I know that I've been struck is present perfect and not continous.
If it should be I've been struck by this weapon before" doesn't it mean that I've been struck by that weapon before and it still strikes me.
because present perfect is a time which has a realtion between past and present and we see the effect in the present time don't we?
I think it should have been I was struck before because it means that I was struck before it in a time in the past it.

Avangi · Answer

egerol1If it should be I've been struck by this weapon before" doesn't it mean that I've been struck by that weapon before and it still strikes me.

No, I don't think so. "This weapon" could refer to a device locked in a case in a museum.
Whether or not you're being struck now is not addressed.
Of course it's entirely possible that you are.

(But let's hope not.)

Anonymous · Answer

Here, 'before' is an adverb, so when you use the present perfect tense it can mean that the very weapon is still around and there is real possibility of being struck with it again.

Avangi · Answer

Anonymous it can mean that the very weapon is still around

Yes, it can. But as a stand-alone sentence, we don't know the antecedent of "this," in "this weapon." The speaker may be pointing to something in a catalogue.

Grammar correction

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions