Unnecessary 'is"?

[Kellawally]

Greetings!
Last week a student asked me the difference between the following two sentences:

I see a bird eating an apple.
I see a bird is eating an apple.

Grammatically, both look ok to me. Subject is "I" and object is a "bird."

But something's niggling me. Are both correct? Does the extra "is" in the second sentence change its meaning in any way? If not, then what guidance should I give to the student?

(He had previously been told the first sentence was incorrect and the second correct.)

[smelvanzq]

both are correct

[Raymott]

Greetings!
Last week a student asked me the difference between the following two sentences:

I see a bird eating an apple.
I see a bird is eating an apple.

Grammatically, both look ok to me. Subject is "I" and object is a "bird."

But something's niggling me. Are both correct? Does the extra "is" in the second sentence change its meaning in any way? If not, then what guidance should I give to the student?

(He had previously been told the first sentence was incorrect and the second correct.)

They're both correct, and they don't mean the same.

1. "I see a bird eating an apple" has a different meaning from:
2. "I see (that) a bird is eating an apple."
The object complement here is "(that) a bird is eating an apple."
Not to be confused with:
3. "I see a bird that is eating an apple."

This analogue has an obviously different meaning.
4. I hear you being rude.
5. I hear (that) you were being rude.
[It uses 'were' rather than 'is', otherwise you have the same structure. The second sentences have a reduced clause]