0
Hhtt Posted 10 years ago
Grammar

when Hunter confronted v. when confronted

"When confronted with the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him".

Above is the original but it is confusing for me because that why doesn't it write " When Hunter confronted with the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him."

What is the difference between the two. If they are identical, what is the name of the rule that allows us neglecting a subject in the when-clause?

Thank you.
  

Top answer

In that sentence, "confronted" is passive. " ("he" referring to Hunter). ", Hunter would be the active subject of "confronted", but the pattern "to confront with something" is not correct English, so the sentence does not work properly.

— GPY

  • In that sentence, "confronted" is passive.
  • " ("he" referring to Hunter).
  • ", Hunter would be the active subject of "confronted", but the pattern "to confront with something" is not correct English, so the sentence does not work properly.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
In that sentence, "confronted" is passive. "When confronted with the documents, ..." means "When he was confronted with the documents ..." ("he" referring to Hunter).

In "When Hunter confronted with the documents, ...", Hunter would be the active subject of "confronted", but the pattern "to confront with something" is not correct English, so the sentence does not work properly.
0
0
GPYIn that sentence, "confronted" is passive. "When confronted with the documents, ..." means "When he was confronted with the documents ..." ("he" referring to Hunter).In "When Hunter confronted with the documents, ...", Hunter would be the active subject of "confronted", but the pattern "to confront with something" is not correct English, so the sentence does not work p
0
0
hhttThen can we say "When hunter confronted the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him." ?
The repetition of the name feels, um, repetitious, so I will first change it to:

"When he confronted the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him."

This is grammatical. Opinions may vary about whether "confronted the documen
0
0
hhttWhen confronted with the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him.
(to be) confronted with (the documents) ~ (to be) shown (the documents)

For example, when the police showed the incriminating documents to Hunter, Hunter had to admit that he was guilty. The documents proved that he was guilty.
_______

T
0
0
CalifJim hhttWhen confronted with the documents, Hunter admitted the charges against him.(to be) confronted with (the documents) ~ (to be) shown (the documents)For example, when the police showed the incriminating documents to Hunter, Hunter had to admit that he was guilty. The documents proved that he was guilty._______The following three all have basically the same mean
0
0
hhttWith every verb used in this passive way, can we always remove related parts?
I've never thought about it. You can probably do that most of the time with a subject and a form of be, but there might be exceptions.
hhttCan we form another alternative as "when the documents confronted with hi
0
0
CalifJim hhttWith every verb used in this passive way, can we always remove related parts?I've never thought about it. You can probably do that most of the time with a subject and a form of be, but there might be exceptions.hhttCan we form another alternative as "when the documents confronted with him, Hunter was admitted the charges against him" ?Absolutely not! I think
0
0
Are you enrolled in an English class? Taking a course in English will help.
Have you read any grammar books about English? That will help.
Have you used the internet to learn about English verbs? That will help.
Read as much as possible in English, but try to read for meaning, not for grammar. The grammar will come later. The important thing is to understand the meaning of what yo
0

Related Questions