connecting sative passive with before

[rapra]

I agree with you.

For the first example sentence you'd need to add something like, say, This building is constructed out of wood. And, yes, again, you are correct: from a semantic point of view you can indeed argue that the building has been constructed. You are right. Past morphology, however, doesn't always contribute meaning, which is, I believe, why the other posters advice using the present passive to express a present fact, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider, for example, the future meaning in The buildings are constructed in May and June. It is April now. The -ed ending does not contribute meaning at all in that example as the meaning expressed is that the buildings have yet to be constructed. The past morphology serves as part of a passive verb construct, a construct that tells us that the actor/doer/agent is not in focus. That's what the other posters are saying, I believe. That the present passive expresses a fact, nothing more, nothing less, and that any additional meaning or interpretation requires additional context, which, by the way, you have given us from the very start, which is why I can't seem to grasp why the other posters don't see what I see, that the past participle can indeed contribute a past meaning, irrespective of the verb's tense.

I could understand your explanation.But my main confusion comes when this past morphology is applied to two simple sentences connected by before.So I want to come back to my initial example of where i had the confusion with this background.My initial example is fine tuned a little bit as per the comments i received and given below once again.With in the brackets i have given the context also.

D:It looks like files are verified before they are moved into this folder. (context is that I am seeing the files in a folder and observing the file information and properties, and then made the above statement with my friend who is sitting next to me.)

So don't you think, in the above context,when the above statement is made , both the actions verified and moved are already done even though present auxiliaries are used.

 

[Soup]

D:It looks like files are verified before they are moved into this folder. (context is that I am seeing the files in a folder and observing the file information and properties, and then made the above statement with my friend who is sitting next to me.)

So don't you think, in the above context,when the above statement is made , both the actions verified and moved are already done even though present auxiliaries are used.

I do. Given the observation, "It looks like files are verified before they are moved into this folder" the implication is that files were verified before they were moved; but, the present tense verb (are) does not contribute that meaning, a past meaning. It is the -ed ending on the past participle moved that does that. To be clear, the present passive expresses a fact; its past participle contributes meaning above that. After all, it shares a similar relationship with its subject as a predicate adjective shares with its subject: they are both connected to the subject by copular BE:



Present passive
The files are moved. (past participle)

• moved modifies the subject files

Copular
The house is red. (predicate adjective)

• red modifies the subject the house

 

[5jj]

There is also the point that the name usually given to this form, 'past participle' is not always helpful. The past participle does not, of itself, necessarily imply reference to past time. Other names have been proposed for this form (such as: verb +en, third form), but the traditional name is still the one most commonly used.

 

[Soup]

There is also the point that the name usually given to this form, 'past participle' is not always helpful.

True; however, I don't see how that is helpful here. Whether called 'past' or not, the past participle typically expresses a completed action.

 

[5jj]

I don't see how that is helpful here.

I thought it possible that rapra might have thought that the name of the form implied past reference, that's all.

 

[Soup]

I thought it possible that rapra might have thought that the name of the form implied past reference, that's all.

It was valid but at the same time potentially misleading given the context.

 

[5jj]

It was valid but at the same time potentially misleading given the context.

You think so. I don't.

 

[Soup]

You think so. I don't.

Is such a remark becoming of one so learned?

Please keep to the topic of the thread.

 

[Barb_D]

Has the original poster received an answer he can live with? If so, it's time to leave this thread alone.

 

[Soup]

Has the original poster received an answer he can live with? If so, it's time to leave this thread alone.

I believe the poster is a she. :-D

I will do as you have requested.

 

[Barb_D]

I believe the poster is a she. :-D

Oh, thank you! Sorry for my mistake, Rapra.

 

[rapra]

Oh, thank you! Sorry for my mistake, Rapra.

I am not she, i am he.

Anyway thank you all for your responses. I think i have got the answer i was looking for.

 

[Soup]

Oh, thank you! Sorry for my mistake, Rapra.

My apologies, Barb and Rapra. Years ago a female student of mine had the name Rapra. Again, I am sorry.