connecting sative passive with before

Status
Not open for further replies.

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
Hi,

I had always this confusion on connecting stative passives with before.Because of this my fluency is getting hurt. When you are talking on some thing, some times your point of talking will be based on the actions and some times based on states of the objects.When you are making individual statements either with reference to action or with reference to state i don't have any problem.For example consider the below statements

A:Files are moved by Ram(When you are observing the files, based on the information on who accessed the file last, this statement is correct)

B:Files were moved by Ram(When you are clearly referring the past action of movement, this statement is also correct)

My confusion comes when i am connecting two such statements with conjunction before.

C:Before the files were moved into this itself these things were verified.(This is also correct.Here you are referring two actions in the past and making the statement.I can visualize the timing and actions involved in the statement.Mental picture is perfect.)

My main confusion is in the following statement

D:Before this files are moved into this itself seems like these are all verified (when i am seeing the files in the folder, and observing the information about the files, then making the statement with reference to the state of the files(i.e the files in the moved state) i feel like this statement is also correct.My mental picture in that context make me feel that this sentence is correct.But i am not able to confidently say whether it is correct or not.Can you please clarify me whether i am correct or not.)
 
Last edited:

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
Hi Tdol ,

Can you please respond for my query?

Regards,
rapra
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Hi Tdol ,Can you please respond for my query?Regards,rapra
If you address an enquiry to one person, it may deter others from answering.
 

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
Hi fivejedjon,

Anybody is welcome to answer it.But as there was no response since yesterday, i specifically addressed tdol as i had got some responses from him some long time back for some other questions.

Regards,
rapra
 

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Hi Tdol ,

Can you please respond to my query?

Regards,
rapra

Maybe Tdol doesn't understand your question.

I certainly don't.

Rover
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Before [strike]this[/strike] files are moved into [strike]this itself [/strike] seems like these are all verified

This sentence is a bit of a mess. It should be these, this itself is confusing and unclear, and there's no subject before seems.

How about this:
Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc.
Or
It looks as if files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc.

You can link two passives with before.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If you address an enquiry to one person, it may deter others from answering.

Yes, it may, and there are so many posts coming into the forum that nobody can read them all, but all will be seen by people who are perfectly capable of answering, so personal requests ae likely to reduce your chances of getting an answer. If you don't get an answer in a couple of days, just bump the thread.
 
Last edited:

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
This sentence is a bit of a mess. It should be these, this itself is confusing and unclear, and there's no subject before seems.

How about this:
Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc.
Or
It looks as if files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc.

You can link two passives with before.

My main worry was with the semantics of the sentence.For clarity sake i will take up your sentence only.

"Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc"

What does the above sentence really mean?Can i infer it like this?Here the actions Verified and moved are done in the past itself, but still the present tense auxiliary verbs are used for the reason that here the speaker is interested in giving the information.

May be i have not been able to explain my inference properly,but considering the point i am trying to ask and considering the confusion i have on these kind of sentences, can you please explain it in detail?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
"Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc"

What does the above sentence really mean?Can [STRIKE]i[/STRIKE]I infer it like this?Here the actions Verified and moved are done in the past itself, but still the present tense auxiliary verbs are used for the reason that here the speaker is interested in giving the information.
In the sentence as it stands, there is no question of the actions taking place in the past. The speaker is using a presnt simple passive form to describe what happens on such occasions.
 

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
In the sentence as it stands, there is no question of the actions taking place in the past. The speaker is using a presnt simple passive form to describe what happens on such occasions.

Then, What about my first example sentence.

Files are moved by Ram.

Here also it appears like it is a simple present tense sentence.But in the given context what ever i mentioned before, it tells about the action done in the past.As per the knowledge i have got through this site and through other means, simple present tense is used to describe the actions done in general and to give the resultant state of the actions done in the past.One can get in which fashion it has been used, based on the context.Am i not correct?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Then, What about my first example sentence.

Files are moved by Ram.

Here also it appears like it is a simple present tense sentence.But in the given context what ever i mentioned before, it tells about the action done in the past.
Your context, such as it was, does not appear to me to establish that the action took place in the past. If you want to make it clear that the action was performed in the past, then you need to say:

The files were moved by Ram.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The actions could have taken place in the past, but that is not relevant- it's a statement of fact, telling us what always happens- yesterday, today and tomorrow.
 

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
The actions could have taken place in the past, but that is not relevant- it's a statement of fact, telling us what always happens- yesterday, today and tomorrow.

So then,in your example

"Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc"

Can we not consider the above statement as a "statement of fact" where in actions movement and verifications are already done?
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
So then,in your example

"Files are verified before they are moved here/into this folder, etc"

Can we not consider the above statement as a "statement of fact" where in actions movement and verifications are already done?

If this has already happened, then say "Files were verified before they were moved."

When the phrase "statement of fact" was used, it meant "how it always is," the habitual/repeated action. When you use the simple present, you mean it happens that way over and over, repeatedly.

Let's ignore the passive for a moment.
Do you see the difference between "I verify the files and move them" and "I verified the files and moved them"?
 

rapra

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Bosnian
Home Country
Bhutan
Current Location
Barbados
If this has already happened, then say "Files were verified before they were moved."

When the phrase "statement of fact" was used, it meant "how it always is," the habitual/repeated action. When you use the simple present, you mean it happens that way over and over, repeatedly.

Let's ignore the passive for a moment.
Do you see the difference between "I verify the files and move them" and "I verified the files and moved them"?

I am still not clear with the confusion,so i have to ask further.

Lets take another example.

First i will give the context of the example, and then the statement.

Suppose like you are going on the road along with your friend and you see a building near by you and then you a make a statement about that building to your friend like this.

'This building is constructed by Paul."

Here the action of constructing is already done.But you still use the simple present auxiliary "is" here for the reason here you are just worried of the information i.e."statement of fact".You can say 'This building was constructed by Paul" also when you see a past reference.But in both sentences the action is already done,but its just that when you are making the first statement you are just giving a fact , in the second statement you are referring the past.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Suppose like you are going on the road along with your friend and you see a building near by you and then you a make a statement about that building to your friend like this.

'This building is constructed by Paul."
You don't, if English is your first language.
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
No, the act of construction is of finite duration. It is in the past. It was constructed. You can use "is" for statements of fact about states - the world is round, the elephant is the largest land mammal, etc. You don't use it for actions that took place in the past.
 

Soup

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
Then, What about my first example sentence.

Files are moved by Ram.
As you mentioned, the verb is present tense are, which means it expresses a fact. The sentence is passive (BE + -ed), which means the doer, the Ram, is not in focus; the object of the verb (Files) is in focus, and, yes, you are correct: the resulting state expressed (note the -ed ending on the past participle moved) is that files have been transferred from one location to another before the time of the utterance Files are moved by Ram.
 

Soup

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
Let's ignore the passive for a moment.
But the passive verb form (are moved) houses a participle that expresses a past act, moved: transferred from one location to another; e.g., OMG! The car is moved; i.e., it's not in the same location that I left it. Past morphology wrapped in a present tense verb phrase is the problem the poster is struggling with. Why ignore it? :-D
 

Soup

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
'This building is constructed by Paul."

Here the action of constructing is already done.But you still use the simple present auxiliary "is" here for the reason here you are just worried of the information i.e."statement of fact".You can say 'This building was constructed by Paul" also when you see a past reference.But in both sentences the action is already done,but its just that when you are making the first statement you are just giving a fact , in the second statement you are referring the past.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top