A participle is treated as the ‘tenseless’ (so to say) form of a verb. Is it, then, appropriate for us to call it present participle or past participle? We know there are only two tense forms for an English verb - present and past.
A participle appears in the ‘ing’ or ‘en’ form. Both can be used as either present or past as exemplified below:
She is writing an article. (Present)
She was writing an article. (Past)
She has written an article. (Present)
She had written an article. (Past)
A meticulous examination of the above sentences would indicate that a participle assumes the status of present or past only when it is supported by a tense carrier (auxiliary). Otherwise they are just participles, meaning verbal forms without either of the tenses. If so, are we justified in assigning them a tense? Let’s discuss this.
I think there is some intrinsic sense of present/past too though. For example, in “falling tree” the action of falling is occurring now, while in “fallen tree” the action of falling happened in the past.
I don’t personally think of “She has written an article” as “present” (despite its being called “present perfect”). I think of it as describing a past action that has present relevance.
Yes, without the auxiliary it would be like a soup without salt. To me auxiliaries are like cart pushers, they push sentence to their appropriate destinations. BUT a word like WENT do not need an auxiliary to tell it is a past form, but for the sake of PROPER COLLOCATION one can say:
-I had gone
I have seen it.
Even though parciples help but do not actually posses the power to tell a word to be PAST or PRESENT however.
But for the SAKE of proper collocation.
How would you then name the two forms of participle? The present participle is essentially a continuous form and the past participle, a completed form. The first is called ‘present’ because on its own it represents actuality and the second is called ‘past’ because on its own it represents completion. Both are used to form compound tenses and then they are linked to an auxiliary that indicates the time of the tense.
It’s true that “falling tree” can be set in a past context, but nevertheless “falling” instrinsically has a sense of ongoing action, while “fallen” intrinsically has a sense of completed action, which I think is much the same as Alan was saying.
So what exactly does that have to do with what I have said? I was referring to the present perfect while you are talking about the present progressive in both active as well as passive mode. What does the passive mode have to do with the tenses?[YSaerTTEW443543]
So what exactly does that have to do with what I have said? I was referring to the present perfect while you are talking about the present progressive in both active as well as passive voice. What does the passive voice have to do with the tenses?[YSaerTTEW443543]
Yes, I find these two names used instead: Active Progressive Participle for ‘present participle’ and Passive Perfective Participle for ‘past participle’. It is this logical designation that has set me thinking. The grammarian says that a participle is basically a non-finite verb. An APP is used in the active voice and in the progressive tense construction (whether present or past), while a PPP is used in the passive voice and in the perfective tense construction (whether present or past).
e.g.
John is/was writing a story. (Active & Progressive)
A story has/had been written by John. (Passive & Perfective)
Wikipedia might be able to answer the question by using “active participle” and “passive participle”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle
Perhaps we explain these sentences in this way:
She is writing an article. (Present)+(active/present participle)
She was writing an article. (Past) +(active participle)
She has written an article. (Present)+(past participle) = present perfect
She had written an article. (Past)+(past participle) = past perfect
An article is being written by her. (Present)+(passive participle)
She is writing an article. (Present)+(active progressive participle) = present continuous
She was writing an article. (Past) +(active progressive participle) = past continuous
She has written an article. (Present)+(perfective participle) = present perfect
She had written an article. (Past)+(perfective participle) = past perfect
An article is beingwritten by her. (Present)+(passive participle) = present continuous (with ‘being’ functioning as a passiviser).
Can I say WRITTEN, could also be called PAST PARTICIPLE? And WRITING could also be named PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
And therefore all could be called NON-FINITE VERBS?
Is PERFECTIVE PARTICIPLE and PAST PARTICIPLE the same.
Can I say WRITTEN, could also be called PAST PARTICIPLE? And WRITING could also be named PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
And therefore all could be called NON-FINITE VERBS?
Is PERFECTIVE PARTICIPLE and PAST PARTICIPLE the same.
Please do not get confused with the discussion going on. The point here is one of logic, and not of grammar. Don’t worry about the term used or being used by the grammarians to call a particular word. They have their own justifications for the names. But be firm with what you have already understood about the so-called PRESENT and PAST participles. What I wanted to bring home shouldn’t confound you, at all.
Nevertheless, I must answer you now. So, I say that all participles are non finite verbs. PERFECTIVE PARTICIPLE and PAST PARTICIPLE are the same in appearance, but different in function. If you examine the following examples, you will understand it.
She has/had written an article. WRITTEN functions as a perfective participle here.
An article is/was being written by her. Here WRITTEN functions as a passive participle.
Thanks for the interest shown and the confirmation sought.
Thanks Mr.T.H for the kind elucidation.
Candidly I have digested your explanations, but one question left.
In your previous post your made mention of PASSIVISER could you assist me to understand what you had meant by PASSIVISER?
