Three participles appearing in the same form.

[MrPedantic]

1. Those cars were stolen.

Exx:

2. Those cars were stolen (but have since been found).
3. I've checked the registration numbers, and those cars were definitely stolen. We'd better get after them...
4. Those cars were stolen by no other than MrQ.

To me, #2 seems to fluctuate between "verb phrase" and "subject complement". I can't pin the blighter down.

#3: subject complement.
#4: verb phrase.

MrP

[Casiopea]

Right you be, MrP. I'm of the same thinking. Two participles only: "past" and "present". Their distribution determines their function, so no need for additional wordy terminology.

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

I've heard it quite often from AmE speakers; but perhaps with a "challenging" rather than "softening" air.

MrP

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

If it's an "agentless passive" reading you're after, wherein "stolen" participates in a compound verb, try

Passive: These burgers are stolen frequently.
Active: People steal these burgers frequently.

Furthemore,

Statement: These burgers are stolen. (adjective)
Question: By who? (awkward)

Statement: These burgers are stolen frequently. (compound verb)
Question: By who?

Yes, the addition of the adverb disambiguates and clearly gives us the agentless passive reading, but do we always qualify our statements with adverbs?

<Statement: These burgers are stolen. (adjective)
Question: By who? (awkward)>

Strange, above you suggest adding an adverb so that we can identify the agentless passive and here you suggest ellipsis of "were they stolen" in "By whom were they stolen?". Are you manipulating the situation to suit your argument?

Statement: These burgers are stolen. (adjective)
Question: By whom were they stolen? (No problem. Speaker understood the adjectival use of "stolen", but now has a different focus "verbal passive".)

Other possibility:

Statement: These burgers are stolen. (adjective)
Question: Should we be eating stolen burgers?

Originally Posted by AlainK

He might be French too, non?

Or Senegalise, non?

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Greeting, JJM.

"Modifier" is a great term , but I'm not sure it works for compound verb forms.

At any rate, M56 asked:
In my opinion, and working from examples similar to M56's 2. and 3., "stolen" does in fact seem to "appear in the same [compound verb] form", but appearances can be deceptive: 2. and 3. are structurally different.

Verbal compound
2. are stolen (BE + -en; Passive)
EX: These burgers are stolen frequently.

Nominal compound
3. are stolen (LV + -en; Copular)
EX: These burgers are stolen.

What are your thoughts?

So for you, 3 (stolen) is not a past participle?

Originally Posted by Roro

[color=royalblue] with Casiopea's statement above; it's pure and simple, IMHO.

The terms 'present' and 'past' are quite misnomers, though!

They are indeed. Many ESL students, and quite a few teachers, would agree with you there.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

It's a vacuous topic -as per usual with M56.

Wow, girl, you've just got yourself back on "IGNORE". If you really don't want to participate in any positive way, don't.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

But - so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - there is, I believe, something woven within M56's statement (See post #1) that is worth saving and discussing.

Should I honoured that you give a little credit? LOL! You really are on IGNORE from now.

[QUOTE=Roro

<To tell the truth I'm still not sure what's the point exactly of M56's first argument, just as you've commented about it. [/color]he use.>

The point is that we can use a cover term, such as past participle, but then we may need to open it up and describe its use. Terms such as "perfect passive" and "adjectival passive" help most of my students understand the use. That may not be the case for all students though.