Ing or to / complete list?

Question

I've found a list of verbs which go with "to infinitive" or "participle", but I was wondering if this is a complete list or if there are verbs missing. I mean there are thousands of verbs out there, how to learn them all?

for example just randomly made up sentences:
"I explained him doing this"
"I toughed myself doing this exercise"
"I frightend him doing X"

I can imagine putting participle forms or infinitive forms right behind every verb I could find and don't know whether its correct or not.

Oh the list I'm referring to:
link

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

Anonymous"I explained him doing this" "I toughed myself doing this exercise""I frightend him doing X"

None of those is natural.

Teechr · Answer

AnonymousI mean there are thousands of verbs out there, so how to can someone learn them all?

Read!

AnonymousFor example, here are ~~just~~ some sentences I randomly made up: ~~sentences:~~

Anonymous"I explained him doing this"

Anonymous"I toughed myself doing this exercise"

Those sentences don't work.

Anonymous"I frightened him doing X."

That works.

AnonymousI can imagine putting participle forms or infinitive forms right behind every verb I could find ~~and don't~~ without knowing whether its correct or not.

[cross-posted with fivejedjon]

Teechr · Answer

teechrAnonymous"I frightened him doing X."That works.

I meant something like, e.g.,
I frightened him wearing that hat.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI was wondering if this is a complete list

I don't know if there is a complete list, but it certainly doesn't include every verb. I have read somewhere, and it seems believable, that there are about 600 verbs of this type, i.e., verbs which are followed either directly by some non-finite form of another verb (simple catenative verbs) or verbs which are similarly followed by a non-finite form but only after a noun phrase intervenes (complex catenative verbs). Which non-finite form (or forms) is/are grammatical depends on the governing verb (the first verb of the two verbs).

Simple catenatives: want to go, avoid walking, hope to see, enjoy painting
Complex catenatives: get the problem solved, expect the kids to be (quiet), hear the bells ringing

Note, however, that it is doubtful that memorizing a complete list of such verbs will significantly improve your English. Such a list should only be used as a reference when you get stuck. It is by far more beneficial simply to imitate the patterns you find in reading and listening.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you very much, you have helped me alot!

My biggest problem concerning this topic is that I really have difficulties to diferentiate between "complex catenatives" and participle phrases which follow the object.

Like:

"There was a man killing the bees." It is clear, that was+killing don't go together (participle after object) whereas "saw the man killing the bees" saw+killing connect to eachother (catenative).

I also was wondering how to "feel" or see whether participle constructions are used as relative sentences or not.
For example:
There was a man killing the bees.
= There was a man, who was killing the bees
I opened a window killing the bees.
= this sentence probably makes no sense, but I think it is a relative sentence "I opened a window, which killed the bees"
or "I opened a window, while I was killing the bees"

So the main question is, how to learn or indentify these indicators telling me (or which tell me?) whether it is some kind of catenative verb ("I saw him doing") or participle phrase after object ("There was a man eating the food")

I really hope something of what I have written here makes any sense to you

Thank you in advance!

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI really have difficulties to diferentiate between "complex catenatives" and participle phrases which follow the object.

Yes, I know. We've talked about this before.

Anonymous"There was a man killing the bees." It is clear, that was+killing don't go together (participle after object)

"a man" is actually the subject, not the object. The subject comes after the verb in there-constructions. So your problem is not specific to objects. It's about participle clauses after the last noun in the sentence regardless of what function (subject, object) it has.

But you're right in general terms. 'killing bees' is a reduced relative clause. It describes that man specifically.
There was a man killing bees. = There was a man engaged in the activity of killing bees.
= There was a man who was killing bees.

Anonymous"saw the man killing the bees" saw+killing connect to each other (catenative).

Yes, it's catenative. The man was killing bees and I saw that he was doing this.

AnonymousI opened a window killing the bees.= this sentence probably makes no sense, but I think it is a relative sentence "I opened a window, which killed the bees"

No. You can't call 'killing the bees' a reduced relative clause here because then you're saying that it's a window that kills bees. That's describing a special kind of window — a bee-killing window. (You're right that it makes no sense. You've got to make up some better examples next time.

)

By the way, 'open' isn't a catenative verb, so you can't call this a catenative construction either.

The only implicit connector I can think of that makes this work is "thereby" ("by doing this"). This is a case of a secondary predication of the subject in a participle clause. Here's the "math equation" that describes how it works:
I opened a window. + By doing this, I killed the bees. = I opened a window, (thereby) killing the bees.

Anonymoushow to learn or ~~indentify~~ identify these indicators telling me ... whether it is some kind of catenative verb ... or participle phrase/clause after ~~object~~ the last noun, or a participle clause that is really a reduced relative clause.

You actually have three choices. In all cases you have an -ing word that you're trying to classify. It's one of these:

1. part of a catenative structure
2. the result of reducing a relative clause
3. a separate participle structure that provides supplementary information about the subject and has a relationship to the main clause such as "because" or "thereby" or "while" or ....

Every time you try to disentangle these you have to consider the context and the meaning. Some of these -ing problems can be any one of the three types. Consider the meaning that each one would have before deciding which interpretation makes more sense.

Sample sentence: I found the children painting the house.

1. Meaning as a catenative: The children were painting the house. That's how and where I found them.
2. Meaning as a reduced relative clause: I found those children who were painting the house — not the children who were playing in the garden — not the children who were reading books — and so on — a particular group of children.
3. Meaning as supplementary predication of the subject: I found the children while I was painting the house.

Working backwards, let's examine 3 first. Because there are so many ways to interpret this, if the writer really wanted to express the idea that I was painting the house, not the children, the writer would have put this information closer to the subject, to avoid any ambiguity. That would look like this: Painting the house, I found the children. So this interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now let's examine 2. There is no context that refers to different groups of children, some painting, some playing, some reading, and so on. Therefore there is no reason to assume that the writer is referring to one of these groups of children. The writer would know that this sentence is ambiguous and would write the sentence with the full clause, not the reduced clause. That would look like this: I found the children who were painting the house. So this interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense either.

By the process of elimination, and knowing that "find" is a catenative verb, we say that the participle construction in our sample sentence belongs to a catenative structure with the meaning as given above in 1.

CJ

Catull · Answer

So. Finally I have registered

Thank you, CalifJim. You are my hero!

Just for the sake of completion or understanding, I try to repeat the deconstruction of my bad sample sentence from my post above and give one more example which I try to analyse.

"I opened the window killing the bees"
1) open is not a catenative verb. So function 1 doesn't work (how do I know this?)
2) This sentence would, as you have said, work as a weird relative sentence. Actually I intended this function of an bee-killng-window when I was writing this sentence

3) It could work as a supplement participle phrase. Can you only use thereby in this case? What about "I opened the window (while) killing the bees" or "I opened the window (because) I (was) killing the bees". How do you know which connector could fit in. I guess this comes with feeling for the language, right?

And the other example:
"If I had had a teacher like you explaining me grammar in school long time ago, I would have gone different places"

1) No catenative here, because like is not used as a verb.
2) This is probably a relative clause: "you who is explaining grammar to me"
3) Doesn't work as a participle phrase, because there would be a "me-object" in the participle phrase, which can't be because the participle phrase itself would refer to "I" and would double the subject? (Don't know if you understand my idea

)

May you write a few more examples I could analyse, so I can practise this a little bit or are there any good ressources in the internet? Everything I have come accross was very short and didn't answer my questions.

Thank you again!

CalifJim · Answer

Catull1) open is not a catenative verb. So function 1 doesn't work (how do I know this?)

You know because you have many years of experience in English. Or you will some day.
Be patient. You can't memorize all the catenative verbs in a couple of hours.

CatullIt could work as a supplement participle phrase. Can you only use thereby in this case? What about "I opened the window (while) killing the bees" or "I opened the window (because) I (was) killing the bees". How do you know which connector could fit in.

You don't actually have to supply a connector. In a more realistic example the relationship between the participle clause and the main clause would be more obvious.

Catull2) This is probably a relative clause: "you who is explaining grammar to me"

Right. "a teacher who explains grammar" is the basic idea. ("like you" intervenes.)

Catull3) Doesn't work as a participle phrase

It is a participle clause, but it doesn't predicate anything of the main subject, so you're right in a way. It's not the non-relative kind of participle clause.

Catull~~May~~ Can you write a few more examples I could analyse, so I can practise this a little bit or are there any good resources on the internet? Everything I have come across was very short and didn't answer my questions.

Google "participle clause". There should be a lot of sites. They won't analyze those clauses as we have done here, however, because what you have here is a special lesson related directly to the problems you asked about. The websites teach more general ideas. Still, it may be worth your while to take a look at five or six of them.

Meanwhile, see what you can do with this sentence.

I watched the bears eating ice-cream.

CatullFinally I have registered

Congratulations!

CJ

Catull · Answer

Thank you, CJ!

Today I was speaking to my english tandem partner and realized a little later that I had no clue why my sentence sounded grammatical and what structure it was:

"I saw them rolling on the floor crying tears of joy.

So. I assume the first one is a complex catenative verb construction. "saw them rolling on the floor", but how is the "crying" part made up? Could "crying" still connect to "them" (because the guys on the floor were crying not me) or do you think of me crying tears of joy? The floor can't cry obviously. Can this participle connect to "them" even if there are many words between them?

CalifJim · Answer

CatullCan this participle connect to "them" even if there are many words between them?

Yes, because "them" acts like the subject of "rolling". Who is rolling? Who is crying? Both "rolling" and "crying" say something about "them".

CJ

Ing or to / complete list?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions