1 He was reported to have been shot in the head.
2 He was reported shot in the head.
3 He was reportedly shot in the head.
4 He was reported as having been shot in the head.
5 He was reported having been shot in the head.
6 He was reported being shot in the head.
I know that the sentences 1,2,3 and 4 are correct and have no difference in meaning. And I suppose sentences 5 and 6 are also correct, but have a slight difference in meaning between them.
He was reported having been shot in the head. It suggests the action of shotting had completed.
He was reported being shot in the head. It suggests that the action of shotting was continuing.
Could you please tell me whether my understanding is correct? Thanks.
But note that this is a slightly different case from the one bhaisahab was talking about, in that both the reporter and the sufferer are the same person. So it would be acceptable to say 'he reported having being shot in the arm' but not 'he reported his daughter having been shot in the arm'. In 'He was reported having been shot in the head' the reporter is obviously not the casualty.
- A man reported being shot (by someone) ...
- <the man reported the crime. He told the officials that he had been shot in the arm by someone>
- He was reported being shot ...
- <someone reported that the man was *being shot in the head>
- The problem: the discharge of a firearm takes a split second, but 'being shot' means the act is ongoing. That meaning is best expressed using 'being shot at.'
Thank you very much. I've got it. :)
"Plain" means obvious and clear.
How could'u've said it's obvious and clear that it's wrong if you hadn't explained why?
In addition would you mind letting me know as well how happened the first three are all correct? I am mostly interested in #3.