0
Eddie88 Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Question help-present particple
'This event was the base of all problems that Romeo and Juliet soon face, one of them being Juliet’s unwanted marriage with Paris.'
I realise the sentence is ungrammatical, but I didn't write it.
1) What is 'being' in this sentence? It could be replaced by 'is', so I assume it is a present particple?
2) If it is a present participle, then I assume the italicised words are a non-finite clause? And, therefore, the the comma there is fine; that is, it is not a run-on sentence?
3) Is this correct? If a past participle is the only verb in a sentence, then it is, in fact, a verb in the past form, and it is therefore a finite verb....
4) Is this correct? A present participle can never be a finite verb; it needs to have an auxiliary verb....
Thanks a lot in advance.
I realise the sentence is ungrammatical, but I didn't write it.
1) What is 'being' in this sentence? It could be replaced by 'is', so I assume it is a present particple?
2) If it is a present participle, then I assume the italicised words are a non-finite clause? And, therefore, the the comma there is fine; that is, it is not a run-on sentence?
3) Is this correct? If a past participle is the only verb in a sentence, then it is, in fact, a verb in the past form, and it is therefore a finite verb....
4) Is this correct? A present participle can never be a finite verb; it needs to have an auxiliary verb....
Thanks a lot in advance.
Top answer
I agree with everything you say. I personally think the past tense 3rd sing. should not be called the past participle, but that's probably argumentative.
- I agree with everything you say.
- I personally think the past tense 3rd sing.
- should not be called the past participle, but that's probably argumentative.
- I believe there are a few rare cases where they do not correspond, and this is typically indicated in the dictionary listing.
- Of course I can't think of one right now.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
I agree with everything you say.
I personally think the past tense 3rd sing. should not be called the past participle, but that's probably argumentative. I believe there are a few rare cases where they do not correspond, and this is typically indicated in the dictionary listing. Of course I can't think of one right now. - Well, there's always "to go."
- A.
I personally think the past tense 3rd sing. should not be called the past participle, but that's probably argumentative. I believe there are a few rare cases where they do not correspond, and this is typically indicated in the dictionary listing. Of course I can't think of one right now. - Well, there's always "to go."
- A.
00
Thanks heaps, Avangi!
Always good to have confirmation and a second opinion.I also replied to another post you sent me. Could you please tell me what you think in that, too..
Thanks a heap!
ED
Always good to have confirmation and a second opinion.I also replied to another post you sent me. Could you please tell me what you think in that, too..
Thanks a heap!
ED
00
Hi. How would correct the sentence then (if it is ungrammatical as you said)?
The sentence you used in your post:
'This event was the base of all problems that Romeo and Juliet soon face, one of them being Juliet’s unwanted marriage with Paris.'
I would correct it like this and leave the italicized part as it was.
'This event was the base
The sentence you used in your post:
'This event was the base of all problems that Romeo and Juliet soon face, one of them being Juliet’s unwanted marriage with Paris.'
I would correct it like this and leave the italicized part as it was.
'This event was the base
00
This event is the basis of all problems Romeo and Juliet soon face, one of them being Juliet's unwanted marriage to Paris. ??
00
Hi,
I don't think the past tense 'would' is necessary.
I think the sentence is grammatical as it stands; however, adding in 'would' is also correct.
I think it is unnecessa because the past tense of the verb 'to be' is enugh to let the reader know that 'soon face' is in the past.
I'm actually quite interested to find out the answer to this; another opinion woul
I don't think the past tense 'would' is necessary.
I think the sentence is grammatical as it stands; however, adding in 'would' is also correct.
I think it is unnecessa because the past tense of the verb 'to be' is enugh to let the reader know that 'soon face' is in the past.
I'm actually quite interested to find out the answer to this; another opinion woul
0
Related Questions