To Mike sensei

[Taka]

Originally Posted by RonBee

It would depend on the context (as always). The phrase "excited man" would be fine in any context in which "excited" describes the man's attitude.

:)

Thank you. But I'm asking strictly about "an excited game". Is it OK even for formal writing? Are "an excited game" and "the game became excited" the same in terms of informality?

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Taka

Thank you. But I'm asking strictly about "an excited game". Is it OK even for formal writing? Are "an excited game" and "the game became excited" the same in terms of informality?

I still think it is a bit jargon-like, but it would be OK if the readers will understand it.

[Tdol]

Though not wrong, I wouldn't use it in any context- there are better alternatives.

[Taka]

Thank you, teachers! :)

One more thing to ask.

What is it that determines whether you use "-ed" or "-ing" form to modify nouns? Initially, I thought it was whether the state of the noun was active or passive that determined the usage, or the "voice", if you like. But through the discussion here, I've learned that "He is excited" is OK, but "The game became excited" is not that acceptable, and I've come to feel that there should be some other determinant(s) for the choice between "-ed" and "-ing".

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Taka

Thank you, teachers! :)

One more thing to ask.

What is it that determines whether you use "-ed" or "-ing" form for nouns? Initially, I thought it was whether the state of the noun was active or passive that determined the usage, or the "voice", if you like. But through the discussion here, I've learned that "He is excited" is OK, but "The game became excited" is not that acceptable, and I've come to feel that there should be some other determinant(s) for the choice between "-ed" and "-ing".

I assume you are asking about "adjectives" formed from participles, and not "nouns".

This is not a simple question. First let's discuss the two different types of -ing modifiers of nouns. While they look the same, a gerund used as an attributive noun (functions as an adjective) and a present participle used as an adjective are different, mostly in pronunciation. When an -ing adjective is a gerund, we accentuate that word over the following noun. When an -ing adjective is a participle, we accentuate the following noun more than the adjective.

The way to tell the difference is to ask is the noun performing the action indicated by the -ing adjective (participle) or is the noun used for the action indicated by the -ing adjective (gerund).

A SWIMming pool is a pool used for swimming. -- gerund, accent in SWIM
A swimming FISH is a fish that is swimming -- participle, accent on FISH

A DINing room is a room used for dining.
A dining PAtron is a person who is dining.

So you see that a present participial adjective describes a current activity of the noun it modifies. It acts very much like the present progressive tense which is also created with present participles.

A past participial adjective describes something that has happened to the noun and is now a characteristic of that noun. The action is completed just as the past tense is completed.

A painted fence = a fence that was/has been painted.
A scorned woman is one who has been scorned.

We wouldn't say a painting fence, because fences don't paint.
We could say a scorning woman, (if she is scorning someone else) but we don't.

One could say that there is a passive feel to most past participial adjectives, because the noun has usually been affected by something else.

[Taka]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

I assume you are asking about "adjectives" formed from participles, and not "nouns".

Yes, that's what I'm asking; I should have said ""-ed" or "-ing" form to modify nouns" (Sorry about the confusion. Now I edited it).

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

One could say that there is a passive feel to most past participial adjectives, because the noun has usually been affected by something else.

Yes, I know that, Mike. But then, why is "The game became excited" weird to you native speakers? Isn't it possible that the game, or more strictly, the players in the game, got excited by something? Why is it so hard for you to understand the sentence "The game became excited", even metaphorically?

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Taka

Yes, that's what I'm asking; I should have said ""-ed" or "-ing" form to modify nouns" (Sorry about the confusion. Now I edited it).

Yes, I know that, Mike. But then, why is "The game became excited" weird to you native speakers? Isn't it possible that the game, or more strictly, the players in the game, got excited by something? Why is it so hard for you to understand the sentence "The game became excited", even metaphorically?

The metaphoric use sounds like an error, probably because it is uncommon. It is like hearing "The baby was cried" instead of "The baby was crying". :wink:

[Taka]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

The metaphoric use sounds like an error, probably because it is uncommon. It is like hearing "The baby was cried" instead of "The baby was crying". :wink:

Hmm...don't you think that theoretically there is a case where a game has been affected by something, and therefore the past participial adjective "excited", which supposedly has a passive feel, can be used to modify "the game"?

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by Taka

Hmm...don't you think that theoretically there is a case where a game has been affected by something, and therefore the past participial adjective "excited", which supposedly has a passive feel, can be used to modify "the game"?

Well, those who use the phrase think so. I still have a problem attaching an emotion as an attribute of "game".

[Tdol]

Taka, how about trying to apply the finished\unfinshed rule to the adjectives too? Excited = a state, a result, finished.
Exciting= a process, unfinished