Is this an embedded clause? Why is happening with the second verb?

Question

Hello all!"I saw you play baseball in the park.""I saw you playing baseball in the park."BOTH seem fine to me, but could someone explain the diffence between these 2 forms? Embedded clause? Also, could someone explain why the second verb in the first sentence is not also in past tense?Thanks!

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Anonymouscould someone explain the diffence between these 2 forms?

"I saw you play baseball in the park."
"I saw you playing baseball in the park."

The first is an infinitive phrase. The second is a present participial phrase. (The main verb in both cases is "saw.")

Both "verbs" (play, playing) are actually "verbals," or non-finite. They do not have tenses.
Verbals don't change with the tense of the main verb:
(future) I shall watch you play baseball tomorrow.
(past progressive) I was watching you play baseball yesterday.
(present progressive) I am watching you play baseball on TV.

Some main verbs require the infinitive marker when the infinitive follows. Some don't.
I like playing baseball. I like to play baseball.
I'll help you playing baseball. I'll help you [to] play baseball. ("to" is optional)

(I know you didn't ask about "to," but people often wonder how there can be an infinitive without it.)

The only clause I see is "I saw you." What follows is not a clause in either example.
It's just a phrase which modifies "you," making it adjectival.
Some would say it modifies the whole main clause, making it adverbial.

I'm not acquainted with "embedding."
I suppose other analyses than the ones I suggest are possible.
I think if there are two clauses in each sentence, they must share at least one word.
Some avant garde grammar allows clauses with non-finite verbs.
clause #1: I saw you clause #2: You play[ing] baseball

Is this an embedded clause? Why is happening with the second verb?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions