John was heard quarrelling with his boss.= John was heard as he was quarrelling with his boss.
Can we say both above sentences also like that:
=John was heard to quarrel with his boss.?
Many thanks! 
1 Like
The most usual way of saying this is probably “John was heard quarrelling with his boss.” The other two could be used to mean the same thing, but typically have slightly different nuances:
“John was heard to quarrel with his boss” seems to me to refer less definitely to a single specific incident, and more to the knowledge that on one or more occasions this thing happened.
“John was heard as he …” is more often used when the noise was incidental to the activity (and the person may not have intended to make it).
1 Like
The Baseline is the centre of the East London grime club scene and the queue regularly stretches around the block. Danny works on the door - breaking up fights and managing drunk kids. However, when he rescues Terry, the club owner and local gang leader, from a hitman, Danny is suddenly plunged deep into an underworld he had tried so hard to avoid. Danny is promoted to manager, but only on the condition that he turns a blind eye to the shady goings on both on and off the dance-floor. Danny and his girlfriend Jessica dream of setting up their own club, but Danny is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice when he has to choose between loyalty, morality and his own dreams of escape. Written by Miranda Howard-Williams
1 Like
Hello saneta and Dozy,
I would like to add a thought regarding “hearsay reporting”.
“John was heard to quarrel with his boss” sounds as if the intention is to “hearsay reporting”
IF that’s the case, the most common structure would be either 1) “John is said / believed to quarrel with his boss” meaning that he quarrels with his boss on a regular basis, present situation.
or 2) “John is said / believed to have quarrelled with his boss” In this case you refer to a state or an action in the past.
Regards,
Ozzy
1 Like
Dear Dozy:
John was heard to quarrel with his boss" seems to me to refer less definitely to a single specific incident, and more to the knowledge that on one or more occasions this thing happened.
how could it be: to refer less definitely to a single specific incident= to refer less definitely to one single specific incident??
Thank You…
There is is no material difference in meaning between those sentences. Arguably “one single” seems a bit redundant since “single” already means “one” and there seems no need in this particular case for the extra emphasis.
(PS: Maybe I misread the question. If in fact you’re asking why the two sentences are equivalent, could you possibly explain more specifically what aspect of this you are confused about?)
1 Like
Hi Dozy,
I obviously know that: a single specific incident =one single specific incident, but I don’t understand how it could be:to refer less definitely to a single specific incident, less = e.g. :0,5, 0,3, 0,2, 0,8 of a single specif incident, how could you write about less that one/a single specific incident, I don’t understand, it doesn’t make sense in the whole sentence:
,John was heard to quarrel with his boss" seems to me to refer less definitely to a single specific incident, and more to the knowledge that on one or more occasions this thing happened.’’ - less that one and more than one or more?
1 Like
“less definitely” does not mean “less definitely than a/one specific incident”. It means “less definitely than the sentence ‘John was heard quarrelling with his boss.’”
Dear Dozy, you wrote earlier: ,to refer less definitely to a single specific incident’’, not:,“less definitely than the sentence ‘John was heard quarrelling with his boss.’”
I don’t quite understand it:
It means “less definitely than the sentence ‘John was heard quarrelling with his boss.’”
I’m sorry that this is causing so much confusion. Let’s call:
Sentence A = “John was heard quarrelling with his boss.”
Sentence B = “John was heard to quarrel with his boss.”
In full, the sentence you’re having difficulty with was intended to mean:
“Sentence B seems to me to refer less definitely to a single specific incident than Sentence A does, and more to … etc. etc.”
In other words, Sentence A seems to refer to a single incident, but Sentence B doesn’t so much seem to definitely refer to a single incident (because it could also refer to general behaviour).
The underlined part is not actually written in the original sentence: it is implied. It’s rather like saying “Last week I saw a film. I saw another one today that was less interesting.” You know from context that the second sentence means “less interesting than the first film”, even though it just says “less interesting”.
1 Like
Thank you Dozy for your time, it’s more clearly to me!!!