Robin Hood is usually shown dressed in green clothes, holding a bow.

[Bin Duan]

I came across the sentence as title above in Longman DOCE 6th Ed, belonging to the definition of Robin Hood.
And I couldn’t find the same usage as being shown + -ed clauses among my dictionary apps except one similar to it in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th edition, which is “show yourself +adjective,” and there is one example sentence: she had shown herself unable to deal with money.
So I have a suspicion that being dressed +-ed clause, in this case, probably is something like being dressed yourself +adjective. And thus, it probably explains the title in some way.
Can I take both of them as interchangeable or replace the title with this one: robin Hood is usually shown himself dressed in green clothes, holding a bow?

 

[Tarheel]

If it would help you could substitute wearing for dressed in.

 

[Bin Duan]

If it would help you could substitute wearing for dressed in.

You see, my problem of the title has nothing to do with understanding but how to distinguish the similar structure the next time I come across. Anything regular would be a big help.

 

[Bin Duan]

As an non-native speaker, there are so many rules or sentence structures out there that I’m going to pick out. Looking up dictionary as well as grammar book is the best choice at hand that I’ve ever considered. So before I make certain there is another alternative, I tend to pass on anything casting doubt on the subject.

 

[Glizdka]

I couldn’t find the same usage as being shown + -ed clauses among my dictionary apps except one similar to it in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th edition, which is “show yourself +adjective,” and there is one example sentence: she had shown herself unable to deal with money.

An easy way to turn a verb into an adjective is to use its past participle. Dressed in the title is a past participle adjective. This is the same structure.

 

[Barque]

So I have a suspicion that being dressed +-ed clause, in this case, probably is something like being dressed yourself +adjective. And thus, it probably explains the title in some way.

What, specifically, is your question?

 

[Bin Duan]

What, specifically, is your question?

Sorry. Can I take both of them as interchangeable or replace the title with this one: robin Hood is usually shown himself dressed in green clothes, holding a bow?

 

[Tarheel]

Sorry. Can I take both of them as interchangeable or replace the title with this one: "Robin Hood is usually shown himself dressed in green clothes, holding a bow"?

Delete "himself" and it's fine.

 

[Glizdka]

Now that I think about it, why is it "...is shown dressed..." but "...is shown wearing..."?

 

[Bin Duan]

Delete "himself" and it's fine.

Grammatically speaking, if I keep himself there without actually applying the word for the sake of understanding, does it make sense?

 

[Bin Duan]

Now that I think about it, why is it "...is shown dressed..." but "...is shown wearing..."?

It hit me too in the first place. Dressing sounds more natural to me.

 

[Glizdka]

It hit me too in the first place. Dressing sounds more natural to me.

It's incorrect. My question was about wearing, not dressing.

---

"Robin Hood was shown dressing his younger sister in green clothes too, whom she always tried to convince to join him on his path of criminal activity."

This is a present participle. It means Robin Hood was performing the action on someone else.

"Robin Hood was shown dressed in green clothes, the color that symbolizes greed and envy."

This is a past participle. It means the action was performed on Robin Hood.

 

[5jj]

It's incorrect. My question was about wearing, not dressing.

---

"Robin Hood was shown dressing his younger sister in green clothes too, whom she always tried to convince to join him on his path of criminal activity."

The underlined clause is full of mistakes.

 

[Glizdka]

The underlined clause is full of mistakes.

Oops. I have to be more careful. Is this better?

"Robin Hood was shown dressing his younger sister in green clothes too, whom he always tried to convince to join him on his path of criminal activity."

 

[5jj]

Robin Hood was shown dressing in green clothes his younger sister, whom he was always trying to persuade to join him on his path of criminal activity.

It's a little awkward, but it gets the relative pronoun closer to its antecedent. I couldn't fit the 'too' in.

 

[Barque]

Grammatically speaking, if I keep himself there without actually applying the word for the sake of understanding, does it make sense?

As Tarheel said, "himself" is wrong there.

Those words don't refer to him having dressed himself. They're pictures and drawings, not photographs. For some reason, no one ever photographed Robin Hood.

It means that pictures of Robin Hood usually show him in the form of someone dressed in green clothes. The artists who drew the pictures usually depict him as someone dressed in green. If anyone dressed him, it's the artist, not he himself.

 

[Tarheel]

That era was before photography was invented. So there are no photographs of Robin Hood. (It would be hard to photograph a fictional character anyhow.)

 

[Barque]

That era was before photography was invented.

I was joking, of course.

a fictional character

I think opinions are divided on whether he was fictional or not.

 

[Glizdka]

I think opinions are divided on whether he was fictional or not.

He was most likely a real person whose deeds have been romanticized over the years, creating a fictional character we know today. Sort of like how it is with Santa Claus.

Thank you for the explanation, Barque. Now it makes sense why "...is seen dressed...", not "...is seen wearing...", feels more appropriate.

 

[5jj]

He was most likely a real person whose deeds have been romanticized over the years,

He was most possibly a real person whose deeds have been romanticized over the years.