Three participles appearing in the same form.

[M56]

Does anyone disagree with this?

It is well known that English has three kinds of participle which appear in the same form.

1. The perfect participle.

Dave has stolen these Big Macs.

2. The past participle.

These Big Macs were stolen by Dave.

3. The adjectival participle (deverbalised)

These Big Macs are stolen.

[MrPedantic]

Hello M56

Out of interest:

1. Why not "past participle", in #1?

2. Why "deverbalised"?

MrP

[Tdol]

If you're making a distinction between 1 & 2, what do you call 'is stolen'? It strikes me that if you want to separate the perfect aspect, then you might want to rename the 'past participle'.

[M56]

Hello M56

Out of interest:

1. Why not "past participle", in #1?

2. Why "deverbalised"?

MrP

To me, the term "past participle" is inadequate at explaining how certain participles are used and for which purpose.

"Deverbalise" means to convert from a verb into another part of speech.

[M56]

If you're making a distinction between 1 & 2, what do you call 'is stolen'? It strikes me that if you want to separate the perfect aspect, then you might want to rename the 'past participle'.

"Is stolen" could be verbal or adjectival, IMO.

I would love to rename the past participle.

[Roro]

Hello there, hello M56
They all are, for me at least, past participles, used in a Perfect / Passive construction, or as a predicate adjective, respectively. ...no?

How would you call this usage, M56?
4. Those Big Macs have been stolen.

?

[M56]

Hello there, hello M56
They all are, for me at least, past participles, used in a Perfect / Passive construction, or as a predicate adjective, respectively. ...no?

How would you call this usage, M56?
4. Those Big Macs have been stolen.

?

Thanks for your view on this point.

<What would you call this usage, M56?>

4. Those Big Macs have been stolen.

I'd call it the present perfect. How about you?

[Roro]

Hello M56, you're most welcome, besides I'm a learner of EFL.

4. Those Big Macs have been stolen.
I'd call it the present perfect. How about you?

You mean: you'd call this construction the present perfect?? or this kind of participle ??

I don't know the exact term, but I'd call your example #1 the present perfect. ..no??


# Those Big Macs were stolen yesterday.
# Those Big Macs have been stolen since yesterday. (if possible)

[Casiopea]

Does anyone disagree with this?

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be (dis)agreeing with. To me, its present definition stands.

The term participle refers to a word formed from a verb that participates in compound forms, either verbal (1. and 2.) or nominal (3.)

1. In the present and past perfect
Dave has stolen these Big Macs. (compound verb)
Dave had stolen these Big Macs. (compound verb)
Dave would have stolen these Big Macs if . . . (compound verb)

2. In the passive
These Big Macs were stolen by Dave. (compound verb)

3. As an adjective
These Big Macs are stolen. (adjective)
He writes about stolen kisses. (adjective)

Additionally,

is standing (verbal)
a standing invitation (nominal)

Note, there are only "two" kinds of participles in English: present -ing and past -ed/-en. The terms 'present' and 'past' are misnomers:

EX: She was swimming yesterday. (not present tense)
EX: He is a goldenboy. (not past tense)

[M56]

You mean: you'd call this construction the present perfect?? or this kind of participle ??

I meant "the construction". The participle is a perfect participle, IMO.


<I don't know the exact term, but I'd call your example #1 the present perfect. ..no?? >

As a construction, yes.

Tell me, are you Spanish, Roro? I say it because you use the question tag "no". That's not very common in English and I would advise against its use.