being killed/killed/having been killed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dominik92

Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Member Type
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Hello all :)

Are all these sentences correct + do they make sense?


A) Being killed by all the people, the mosquitos qucikly learnt to avoid the slapping hands.
B) Killed by all the people, the mosquitos quickly learnt to avoid the slapping hands.
C) Having been killed by the poeple, the mosquitos were smashed all over the walls and ceiling.
D) Killed by the people, the mosquitos were smashed all over the walls and ceiling.

Thank you very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dominik92

Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Member Type
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Do C and D mean exactly the same? D is just shorter?

I thought that "being" in A emphasizes the continuous aspect - while they were being killed.



Let me try again:

1)

Being bothered by the police, he was desperately trying to remember who could help him.

2)
Bothered by the police, he was desperately trying to remember who could help him.

3)
Having been bothered by the police for half an hour, he was relieved to finally go home.

4)
Bothered by the police for half an hour, he was relieved to finally go home.


Are these sentences better?
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Those are all unnatural, mainly because people aren't generally "bothered" by the police. What are the police doing? Are they harassing someone? Are they simply doing their job?

I think I can see what you're trying to do but you're choosing verbs that don't work, or contexts that don't work for those verbs.

Unfazed by his failures, John continued trying to invent a machine to create gold from chocolate.
Baffled by her constant rejection, Dave finally gave up trying to get Tina to go on a date with him.
Fuelled by the thought of winning £1,000,000, Hannah bought a lottery ticket every week, even when she couldn't afford it.
 

GoesStation

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Unfazed by his failures, John continued trying to invent a machine to create gold from chocolate.

John strikes me as highly impractical. Why didn't he invent a machine to make India ink out of ordinary dog biscuits? Now that​ would be useful!
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China
A) Being killed by all the people, the mosquitos qucikly learnt to avoid the slapping hands.
B) Killed by all the people, the mosquitos quickly learnt to avoid the slapping hands.
C) Having been killed by the poeple, the mosquitos were smashed all over the walls and ceiling.
D) Killed by the people, the mosquitos were smashed all over the walls and ceiling.

A) While I would question the ability of a mosquito to learn, the sentence is okay.
B) This doesn't work. The mosquitos are dead. They can't do anything (except maybe decorate the walls with their squished bodies).
C) and D) are OK.
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China
Can you honestly imagine a native speaker producing these sentences?

They would not be what I'd use in normal conversation, but in certain written texts, sure. "A" is illogical insofar as mosquitos learning anything is concerned, but that doesn't disqualify it as something a native speaker would say. "C" is very close to something I might have actually said on occasion after going on a rampage of killing mosquitos by hand; it well describes a scenario I have seen many times.

I really don't see why you are excited about this.
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China
I wouldn't say "Having been killed by me, the mosquitoes were smashed all over the walls and ceiling", but if you would, fine.


Please review; I said I'd say something very close, not verbatim.

The idea of the forums is to discuss people's questions about English, not my state of excitement.

I'm not asking about your state of excitement; I assure you it holds no interest for me. I am questioning why you are challenging my favor towards the OP's sentence.
 

Dominik92

Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Member Type
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic

One thing is pretty confusing me. "Being" at the beginning can often be ommited however sometimes I should use it as it adds something extra to the meaning of the sentence - that "something extra" should be the continuous aspect. I wonder whether it is necessary to use "being" at the beginning of a sentence even in those sentences with the continuous aspect of "while". For example : "
Being paid for her services this time, she was glad to work again." Can I omit "being" here as well without changing the meaning of the sentence?

Or does it differ from speaker to speaker? Because some natives do not mention anything about "the need" of using "being" at the beginning of a sentence, explaining that it does not add anything to the meaning of a sentence:-?:shock:
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China

One thing is pretty confusing me. "Being" at the beginning can often be ommited however sometimes I should use it as it adds something extra to the meaning of the sentence - that "something extra" should be the continuous aspect. I wonder whether it is necessary to use "being" at the beginning of a sentence even in those sentences with the continuous aspect of "while". For example : "
Being paid for her services this time, she was glad to work again." Can I omit "being" here as well without changing the meaning of the sentence?

Or does it differ from speaker to speaker? Because some natives do not mention anything about "the need" of using "being" at the beginning of a sentence, explaining that it does not add anything to the meaning of a sentence:-?:shock:

Back up a little. Forget the specific word, and understand that we are talking about whether or not to use the progressive or simple forms. That is the choice we are talking about. This is going to be a long-winded explanation because what you are playing with has a rather advanced use beyond what you have mentioned.

But rather than "tell" you the situation, I am going to try to "show" you.

Consider these rewrites:

1. In the past, she always seemed to work for free. But she got paid this time, and she was glad to work again.
2. In the past, she always seemed to work for free. But being paid this time made her glad to work again.
3. In the past, she always seemed to work for free. But being paid this time was making her glad to be working again.

In "1", I use the simple form to tell you her status. It is a common way to write, but it is a little detached. You are informed of what happened to the character but I have not really involved you in her story.

In "2", I used the progressive to tell you about her financial situation, but not when I tell you how she feels about that. Now I'm giving you the sense of a passage of time; the "work" is not done in an instant, and while she is doing it, she will be paid. But the use of past simple in telling you she is glad once again fails to involve you in her emotional state. I have created a sense of passing time without investing in her personally.

In "3", I used the progressive consistently. I chose this because I want you, the reader, to be aware of the passage of time. I want you to know that her state of mind is changing over time. There are things going on in her life; this is a process going on in a living, thinking, feeling person, and I am inviting you into her world. I am trying to get you involved in her, invested in her story. I am going for immersion so you feel compelled to keep reading, to find out what happens next.

Appropriate use of the progressive form creates immediacy; a strong sense that this is happening right now, rather than in the past. You don't use it for everything; only for the things that are important to the flow of your story...
As she walked down the street, her eyes darted everywhere. Parked cars, shadowed doorways, dark alleys. Danger could lurk close by. Maybe even now it stalked her without her awareness. Her heart hammered in her chest and she fought back tears; she had to keep it together. Safety was only a few blocks away.

Compare to:
Walking down the street, she kept her eyes darting everywhere. Parked cars, shadowed doorways, dark alleys. Danger could be lurking close by, and even now could be stalking her without her sensing it. Her heart was hammering in her chest, and she was fighting back tears; she had to keep it together. Safety was only a few blocks away.

Can you feel the difference?

Now, most of your writing will probably be far more mundane than a thriller, but the function is the same; a progressive verb tells the reader that the process matters; the time it takes, or the fact that it is still happening now, is important for some reason.

If only the fact of something is important, and not the progressive sense of it ("she had put on sports shoes" versus "she was wearing sports shoes"), then use the simple form. If something is completed, finished, over from the perspective of your narrative (the cars are parked, they aren't being parked right now), then use the simple form.

There is a reason we use the progressive, or continuous form. Hopefully, I've shown you at least some of the basis for how/why a native speaker chooses between progressive and simple forms.

Watch this video.
 
Last edited:

Dominik92

Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Member Type
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Thank you very much ChinaDan! I am afraid one "like" can´t not show you how grateful I am for your help!:)

It helps me a lot not only with ym original question but also with my understanding of past tenses. I´ve always wondered why (mainly in books) writers choose past simple in cases like you mentioned - "As she walked down the street..." - now, thanks to you, it is clear.

If I understand you correctly I have to have a good reason for using "being" at the beginning of a sentence.

I think I understand what the difference between these two sentences is but still....let me ask you if I get it right:

Being stopped by the police, I had to finish the call:

I would say this if I were telling e.g. a story and wanted to emphasize that I finished the call (I had to) when I was being stopped by the police. Me as well as the police were driving in our cars - the police overtook me and I could see the shining "STOP" back on their car. So during this I finished the call.

Stopped by the police , I had to finish the call:

Without the "being" I understand the sentence the way that I finished the call after I had been stopped by the police.



For me things get worse with another example:


(Being) Given the money, she left.

Here I understand the sentence the way that it means that she left after she was given the money. It means the same with or without the "being" at the beginning. But I don´t understand how come that sometimes the "being" adds the continuous aspect (being paid, being stopped) and sometimes not at all (being given...).


P.S.:

You wrote:
1. In the past, she always seemed to work for free. But she got paid this time, and she was glad to work again.

As a non- native speaker I am just making sure whether it matters or not - would it be the same even if you had used the original sentence? I mean if you had rewritten the original sentence just without the "being": Paid for her services this time, she was glad to work again."
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China
Thank you very much ChinaDan! I am afraid one "like" can´t not show you how grateful I am for your help!:)

It helps me a lot not only with ym original question but also with my understanding of past tenses. I´ve always wondered why (mainly in books) writers choose past simple in cases like you mentioned - "As she walked down the street..." - now, thanks to you, it is clear.


A quick aside: Grammar is not my specialty. You should take note of post #14. While I confess to enjoying a little sport with Piscean, when it comes to grammar it is 99% likely that he is correct. In so far as the correct identification of the grammatical aspects are concerned, you should take his word.

Grammar, however, is not the purpose of my post. Language concepts is my focus.

If I understand you correctly I have to have a good reason for using "being" at the beginning of a sentence.

That would be overstating it. My message is that you should have a reason for (all) your choices; it should not be haphazard nor dictated by some over-rigid rule. Just have a purpose in mind when you chose how to write something.

I think I understand what the difference between these two sentences is but still....let me ask you if I get it right:

Being stopped by the police, I had to finish the call:

I would say this if I were telling e.g. a story and wanted to emphasize that I finished the call (I had to) when I was being stopped by the police. Me as well as the police were driving in our cars - the police overtook me and I could see the shining "STOP" back on their car. So during this I finished the call.

Stopped by the police , I had to finish the call:

Without the "being" I understand the sentence the way that I finished the call after I had been stopped by the police.

You have the concept right, yes. I would rewrite your sentences, but I think it is best to ensure you walk away from this with the usage clear in your mind.



For me things get worse with another example:
(Being) Given the money, she left.

Here I understand the sentence the way that it means that she left after she was given the money. It means the same with or without the "being" at the beginning. But I don´t understand how come that sometimes the "being" adds the continuous aspect (being paid, being stopped) and sometimes not at all (being given...).

Okay, this time I have to address the structure of the sentence. You would more properly write this:

"As she was being given the money, she left". This does not appear to make sense. How can she leave during the act of getting the money? This could perhaps be a logical statement, but there would need to be a very specific set of circumstances in this context to make it so. This feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

It comes back to what we talked about before. Why would you make this choice? What are you trying to say? Why do you want to present it in a particular way?

Perhaps the best way to say what we want is, "With the money in hand, she left".

I'm struggling to learn Mandarin. The sentence structure is so different to English. I keep trying to find "rules", thinking "if I just learn this, I can say so many things". It is deeply tempting; also ultimately a failure as a way to learn.

You must come from a natural situation, a real context, then learn the natural way or ways native speakers would express that context. The best thing for you to do is get your hands on a modern fiction novel in English and read it every night. 15 minutes is sufficient. Make sure you pick a story that you'll enjoy. While your conscious mind is enjoying the story, your subconscious will figure out all the rules and structures of English. You need never pick up a grammar book to learn a language.

P.S.:

You wrote: As a non- native speaker I am just making sure whether it matters or not - would it be the same even if you had used the original sentence? I mean if you had rewritten the original sentence just without the "being": Paid for her services this time, she was glad to work again."

99.9% the same. ;-) I don't always have a conscious reason why I choose one form over another. For me it is instinctive. There is a small difference here, but it has nothing to do with meaning. My choice, in this case, would be based on the effect I want it to have on the reader.

Similar to choosing to write in longer sentences or shorter ones. How to decide? The meaning will not be altered, but the mood most certainly can be. Shorter sentences can be used to help create tension; longer sentences lend themselves towards more relaxed, peaceful expression.

The choices to use long or short sentences, past simple or progressive (or gerunds), active or passive speech - all of these choices are made, or should be made, holistically. As part of the whole.

Grab a good book. Read it (preferably last thing at night) for the story, not as an English lesson. Do not study it or take notes. Do not look up words you do not know - guess and keep reading (you can check tomorrow). Enjoy the story. I promise you; your subconscious will do all of the heavy lifting for you while you sleep.
 

Dominik92

Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Member Type
Native Language
Czech
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Thanks! It seems to me I am gonna spend the whole night with it. Poor life, I know:lol: But I love it! Before I print it and read it all until I get it ,let me ask you one thing.


"As she was being given the money, she left". This does not appear to make sense. How can she leave during the act of getting the money? This could perhaps be a logical statement, but there would need to be a very specific set of circumstances in this context to make it so. This feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.

It comes back to what we talked about before. Why would you make this choice? What are you trying to say? Why do you want to present it in a particular way?
The thing which surprised me was that this sentence can be interpreted by two ways: (doesn´t matter whether with or without that "being")

1) She left as soon as somebody gave her the money.
2) The one you perfectly decribed for me - "As she was being given the money, she left"


But you might have wanted to show me that the second interpretation is too rare and from that standpoint it is obvious that in most cases it would be interpreted as the first one.
 

ChinaDan

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
China
Thanks! It seems to me I am gonna spend the whole night with it. Poor life, I know:lol: But I love it! Before I print it and read it all until I get it ,let me ask you one thing.


The thing which surprised me was that this sentence can be interpreted by two ways: (doesn´t matter whether with or without that "being")

1) She left as soon as somebody gave her the money.
2) The one you perfectly decribed for me - "As she was being given the money, she left"


But you might have wanted to show me that the second interpretation is too rare and from that standpoint it is obvious that in most cases it would be interpreted as the first one.

You know, it could also mean she'll get the money later. :shock: Confusing, right? Seriously, the sentence could be read this way. Consider a potential backstory, where someone was refusing to pay her. She's gone to their office to threaten them. With her 45 Magnum to the guy's temple, she gets his solemn promise he will pay her by midnight; he just needs a little time to get the $2 million together.

"Since she was going to be given the money, she left".

The trick is "As...". It can be interpreted in this sentence as "while", but also as "since". This sentence is an excellent candidate for a rewrite. This is the sort of ambiguity you need to look for when you proofread and edit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top