Concerning past participles\verbs:

[JIM1984]

With regard to the 'sentence' below, is remembered a past participle or a finite verb? Can a participle only be considered a finite verb or, perhaps more correctly put, only be considered part of a finite verb phrase when it has a helping verb, or verb phrase, as part of, e.g. 'is' remembered; 'will have been' remembered; 'was' remembered, etc?

"Anyway, what follows are hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent."

In other words, in the strict grammatical sense, does the word remembered here need a helping verb\verb phrase to render it finite? And if that is the case, then is it correct to regard the above sentence, as it stands, as grammatically incorrect (in terms of subject-verb agreement)?

 

[5jj]

Remembered cannot be a finite verb in your example - it has no grammatical subject. The finte verb is underlined in:

I remembered his name.
I have remembered his name.

 

[JIM1984]

Remembered cannot be a finite verb in your example - it has no grammatical subject. The finte verb is underlined in:

I remembered his name.
I have remembered his name.[ /QUOTE]

[Am I correct to say that 'hostilities' in my 'sentence' is the subject? But that for it to be a grammatical subject , in other words for the 'sentence' to be rendered grammatically correct, it would need a helping verb, or verb phrase, such as '...hostilities which are remembered ...?']

 

[Raymott]

Remembered cannot be a finite verb in your example - it has no grammatical subject. The finte verb is underlined in:

I remembered his name.
I have remembered his name.[ /QUOTE]

[Am I correct to say that 'hostilities' in my 'sentence' is the subject? But for it to be a grammatical subject , in other words for the 'sentence' to be rendered grammatically correct,it would need a helping verb, or verb phrase, such '...hostilities which are remembered ...?']

Why do you keep putting 'sentence' in quotes? It is a grammatically correct sentence.
Subject: hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent
Verb: are
Complement: what follows, [anyway].
Inserting "which are" before 'remembered' doesn't change the above full subject; and it doesn't change the simple subject 'hostilities'.

 

[JIM1984]

Why do you keep putting 'sentence' in quotes? It is a grammatically correct sentence.
Subject: hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent
Verb: are
Complement: what follows, [anyway].
Inserting "which are" before 'remembered' doesn't change the above full subject; and it doesn't change the simple subject 'hostilities'.

[First off, the quotation marks around sentence were meant to indicate that I was unsure as to whether the words concerned did constitute a bona fide sentence. I would have though that was fairly clear. Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a finite verb needed to have a direct effect on the subject for it to be considered one (a finite verb). And for how the situation rests with the original, as I now consider it to be, non-sentence, I can conclude, and as was was pointed out by Fivedejohn, that remembered is not a finite verb. It is no such a thing! The past participle, remembered, has no direct effect on, hostilities, the subject. I estimate it as a non-sentence, because those original words (on account of remembered) fall flat on their face, grammatically speaking (though perhaps not in terms of style and legibility). Anyway I'm not a teacher, and am only doing my best to have a stab at things! Three cheers for me, and I don't care if you like me or not! It's a joke!

 

[5jj]

When 'remembered' is the past participle of the verb, nothing can make it finite. In any string of verbs, only the first is finite; the finite verbs are underlined here:

I remember the hostilities.
I remembered the hostilities.
I have remembered the hostilities.
I will have remembered the hostilities.

The hostilities are remembered.
The hostilities were remembered.
The hostilities have been remembered.
The hostilies will have been remembered

 

[JIM1984]

When 'remembered' is the past participle of the verb, nothing can make it finite. In any string of verbs, only the first is finite; the finite verbs are underlined here:

I remember the hostilities.
I remembered the hostilities.
I have remembered the hostilities.
I will have remembered the hostilities.

The hostilities are remembered.
The hostilities were remembered.
The hostilities have been remembered.
The hostilies will have been remembered

[Thanks, and in particular for clarifying that only the first in a string of verbs is finite. Would you agree, that my original text, when remembered only suffices as a past participle, that the text fails, grammatically, as a sentence? In short that remembered fails, being a non finite verb, a mere participle, to act on the subject (hostilities)?]

 

[5jj]

Would you agree, that my original text, when remembered only suffices as a past participle, that the text fails, grammaticaly, as a sentence? In short that remembered fails, being a non finite verb, a mere participle, to act on the subject (hostilities)?]

"Anyway, what follows are hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent."

I don't find the sentence particularly easy to understand, and I am not sure that hostilities can follow in print.

However, leaving aside those reservations, the sentence is not grammatically incorrect.

We can understand this as ...what follows are hostilities (which are/have been) remembered in part verbatim from... .The omission of the relative pronoun and BE as part of a passive in a relative clause is permissible. The past participle functions adjectivally. We can see this in the shorter:

9/ll is a day remembered by many.

 

[Raymott]

Anyway I'm not a teacher, and am only doing my best to have a stab at things! Three cheers for me, and I don't care if you like me or not! It's a joke!

And I was only trying to help you understand the sentence.
As you see, 5JJ agrees that the sentence is "not incorrect". I set out the subject, verb and complement for you. The verb is "are".
I never assume that I will receive gratitude from a poster. It's always possible in a forum that others will benefit from my posts, so I don't consider it a complete waste of my time.

 

[Raymott]

We can understand this as ...what follows are hostilities (which are/have been) remembered in part verbatim from... .The omission of the relative pronoun and BE as part of a passive in a relative clause is permissible. The past participle functions adjectivally. We can see this in the shorter:

9/ll is a day remembered by many.

That's right, but I don't think the sentence is excessively difficult.
In the following sentences, the main verb is are.
"Hostilities remembered are hostilities relived." - grammatical
"Hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July are hostilities relived by me" - grammatical
"Hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent are hostilities that I relive." - grammatical

"Anyway, what follows are hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent." - grammatical

It seems to me that "remembered" is a simple predicate adjective derived from the past particple.

 

[JIM1984]

First off, apologies to Raymott but I took exception, as I have accounted for, with regard to the word sentence and the quotation marks applied. I'm obliged to say though, that in addition, I found your initial explanation somewhat vague. There is no reference, in your first reply, to the finite verb are as having complimented remembered to have rendered that word as part of a finite verb phrase. You do however, in your second reply, reference are to that effect. Thanks to Fivedejohn for having, eventually, cleared that point up. Remembering that I'm pretty much a novice, grammatically speaking, and the subject (hostilities) between are and remembered obscured, for me, the connection between those last two highlighted words: the helping verb are and the participle remembered. It's all good now, as far as I'm concerned - everything is clear! Although, given time, I'll no doubt be back with something else.

 

[JIM1984]

Further to that just posted, I make Raymott correct in respect of the sentence being easy to understand. They could use in in kindergarten - what's difficult about that Fivedejohn? Try reading Japanese: that's hard - so I'm told!

 

[5jj]

Further to that just posted, I make Raymott correct in respect of the sentence being easy to understand. They could use in in kindergarten - what's difficult about that Fivedejohn? Try reading Japanese: that's hard - so I'm told!

For someone who took offence so easily at words written earlier, you appear to be not too worried about the risk of giving offence.

 

[JIM1984]

For someone who took offence so easily at words written earlier, you appear to be not too worried about the risk of giving offence.

Well if I did take offence so easily, which I don't dispute entirely, apologies were nonetheless made. And without being prejudicial, I would suggest you didn't exactly have to break sweat that you might take offence from me. For what it's worth none was intended, but I'll concede I may have been a tad rash. Then, as it costs nothing to do so, apologies to yourself as well.

 

[JIM1984]

Well if I did take offence so easily, which I don't dispute entirely, apologies were nonetheless made. And without being prejudicial, I would suggest you didn't exactly have to break sweat that you might take offence from me. For what it's worth none was intended, but I'll concede I may have been a tad rash. So, as it costs nothing to do so, apologies to yourself as well.

A question for Fivedejohn: would you concede to have been wrong when claiming remembered had no grammatical subject? It has, does it not, hostilities for it's grammatical subject?

Is it safe to regard the following as a grammatically incorrect sentence, " This, to an extent, represented by one side of a prison wing with inmates thereof providing a, quite literally, captive audience."? I ask on account of represented not having a helping verb in respect of This (the implied subject). In other words for it to be a grammatically correct sentence wouldn't there need to be a helping verb in association with the participle (represented),e.g. was represented, would have been represented (remembering Fivedejohn's advice about only the first verb in a string....), etc?

 

[5jj]

A question for Fivedejohn: would you concede to have been wrong when claiming remembered had no grammatical subject? It has, does it not, hostilities for it's grammatical subject?

No. See posts #2 and #6.

 

[JIM1984]

No. See posts #2 and #6.

If I'm not about to be contradicted, I'll take it as the subject (hostilities) having are as its finite verb. I suppose '...follow in print' is a literal translation, again if theres no need for a second opinion.
Would you care to elucidate on my second query? To be clear about this, it's not that I have you for a workhorse. Never mind, rumor has it that there are six million teachers here online 'just chomping at the bit'.

 

[5jj]

If I'm not about to be contradicted, I'll take it as the subject (hostilities) having are as its finite verb.

As Raymot said in Post #4 (my underlining added):

"Subject: hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent
Verb: are
Complement: what follows, [anyway].
Inserting "which are" before 'remembered' doesn't change the above full subject; and it doesn't change the simple subject 'hostilities'."

I suppose '...follow in print' is a literal translation.

Translation of what? I am not quite sure what you mean by that.
The original sentence contained the words, "...what follows are hostilities ...". Referring to that, I said, "I am not sure that hostilities can follow in print"; I meant that I did not see how 'hostilities' could happen in the following printed words.

Would you care to elucidate on my second query? To be clear about this, it's not that I have you for a workhorse. Never mind, rumor has it that there are six million teachers here online 'just chomping at the bit'.

I'll leave it to them, then.

 

[JIM1984]

As Raymot said in Post #4 (my underlining added):

"Subject: hostilities remembered in part verbatim from the encounter that July and which began, for me, with taunts for the Mancunian about his fantastically broad accent
Verb: are
Complement: what follows, [anyway].
Inserting "which are" before 'remembered' doesn't change the above full subject; and it doesn't change the simple subject 'hostilities'."
As I said,"If I'm not about to be contradicted,...."
Translation of what? I am not quite sure what you mean by that.
The original sentence contained the words, "...what follows are hostilities ...". Referring to that, I said, "I am not sure that hostilities can follow in print"; I meant that I did not see how 'hostilities' could happen in the following printed words.
That you ''did not see how 'hostilities' could happen in the following printed words'' frankly, to me, is about as clear as mud!

I'll leave it to them, then.

Why, indeed, shouldn't you?

 

[JIM1984]

As is said, "It's the fool is the wise man, and the wise man the fool". Well, I don't know about wise but I'm certainly a fool, and just to prove it I'm to take the liberty of requesting confirmation for what's considered, by yours truly, something of a formality. A bit of a 'dead ringer' if I'm to be as bold. To save time, and for any person just jumped in and disinclined to thrall backwards through the spate of replies referencing this thread, relax. Put your feet up. Here's as it is - does as follows " This, to an extent, represented by one side of a prison wing, and with inmates thereof required to hear all manner of diatribe from performances only rarely interspersed with any others of quality." constitute, as I believe it to, a grammatically incorrect sentence? It would certainly appear to. Surely, when with the participle represented having no finite verb linking it directly with the subject (the implied subject) This? To emphasize, for any like me less than au fait with grammer, sorry grammar, I am not a teacher. I am not, but with the possibility that none such, or none as consider themselves proficient in the subject, take the trouble to verify or, 'horror of horrors', repudiate my contention, well, that's to leave us ignoramusus a touch unsure. However, let's not get excited. We'll wave goodbye to uncertainty right now. I should coco. Because where, and to what extent malignant, should human beings be were it not for our indefatigable belief in one another? Nowhere much I'd say. And please don't anyone suggest, for it's too terrible for words, that such is where humanity finds itself this minute. Pray, remark not! Let's have no such talk comrades, and content ourselves as confident, in my opinion of the sentence as a grammatical washout. Do so, when not a whisper to the contrary. Should courage fail you however, ask around yourselves! Oh revere, mes amis.