Which is the house belonging(belonged)?

[keannu]

I definitely think belonged doesn't work here, but someone asked me it might do, and I couldn't explain well. I think for intransitive verbs, especially this kind of state-describing verbs, if they are used as a past participle, they mean a perfected action or state. So belonged would mean already fininshed possesed state, so it sounds weird.
So to mean the past state, "Which is the house that belonged to Mr.Song" will be proper, and for the present, the following with belonging is proper, but I need more of your explanation about the reason why belonged doesn't work here.

ex)Which is the house belonging(belonged) to Mr.Song?

 

[Mylanguageclick]

That is a Subject Question that we ask to find out about the subject of the sentence.

When what, which, who or whose refer to the subject, the question word comes before the verb without the use of the auxiliary verb.

For example:-
If the answer is "The train to London was late." the question would be "Which train was late?"
If the answer is "I won the race." the question would be "Who won the race?"

More examples to refer to the present tense:
Which house belongs to Mr. Something?
Which is the house belonging to Mr. Something?
To refer to the past tense:
Which house belonged to him?
Which is the house that belonged to him?

Regards. ;-)

 

[Raymott]

I definitely think belonged doesn't work here, but someone asked me it might do, and I couldn't explain well. I think for intransitive verbs, especially this kind of state-describing verbs, if they are used as a past participle, they mean a perfected action or state. So belonged would mean already fininshed possesed state, so it sounds weird.
So to mean the past state, "Which is the house that belonged to Mr.Song" will be proper, and for the present, the following with belonging is proper, but I need more of your explanation about the reason why belonged doesn't work here.

ex)Which is the house belonging(belonged) to Mr.Song?

I can see how your friend thinks this is right, because, "Which is the house rented to Mr Song?" and "Which is the house bought by Mr Song?" are both right.
However, we can say, "Mr Song rented the house; Mr Song bought the house", but not "Mr Song belonged the house."

You can use "belonged" as a past participle: "This is the house that has belonged to Mr Song for 10 years."

Apart from that, it's difficut to explain why something doesn't work without guessing why you think it does work. And apparently you know that it doesn't.

 

[keannu]

I can see how your friend thinks this is right, because, "Which is the house rented to Mr Song?" and "Which is the house bought by Mr Song?" are both right.
However, we can say, "Mr Song rented the house; Mr Song bought the house", but not "Mr Song belonged the house."

You can use "belonged" as a past participle: "This is the house that has belonged to Mr Song for 10 years."

Apart from that, it's difficut to explain why something doesn't work without guessing why you think it does work. And apparently you know that it doesn't.

I think "bought" and "rented" are all transitive verbs in need of objects, so they're different from "belong" which is an intransitive verb not in need of objects. Anyway, your explanation is great, but I'm afraid if the asker will ask more for this answer.
I'm sorry I'm still not sure of the definite answer.

****The thing is, the asker thinks as belonged can mean a completed action, it can still affect the state of belonging even now...Does it make sense?

 

[Raymott]

I think "bought" and "rented" are all transitive verbs in need of objects, so they're different from "belong" which is an intransitive verb not in need of objects. Anyway, your explanation is great, but I'm afraid if the asker will ask more for this answer.
I'm sorry I'm still not sure of the definite answer.

****The thing is, the asker thinks as belonged can mean a completed action, it can still affect the state of belonging even now...Does it make sense?

They aren't past pasticiples; they are the simple past tense forms.
"The house belonged to Mr Song."

Transitivity is not the issue. Consider: "The woman married/sued/loved Mr Song."
We can't say, "This is the woman married/sued/loved Mr Song." "Who" is needed - "This is the woman who loved Mr Song." "To love" is transitive.

 

[BobK]

Hang on; can we backtrack a bit? I see no problem with "Which is the house that belonged to Mr.Song" as long as Mr Song is known to be no longer the owner at the time of asking: Which is the house that belonged to Mr Song before he sold up and went back to Singapore? Am I wrong:-?

b

 

[keannu]

They aren't past pasticiples; they are the simple past tense forms.
"The house belonged to Mr Song."

Transitivity is not the issue. Consider: "The woman married/sued/loved Mr Song."
We can't say, "This is the woman married/sued/loved Mr Song." "Who" is needed - "This is the woman who loved Mr Song." "To love" is transitive.

No, what I mean is like this.
"Which are the leaves fallen on the ground?" in this, fallen is an intransitive verb, but you quoted all the transitive verbs for comparison.
The questioner is curious if "belonged" can have any sense that completed in the past and still effective even now.

 

[Raymott]

Hang on; can we backtrack a bit? I see no problem with "Which is the house that belonged to Mr.Song" as long as Mr Song is known to be no longer the owner at the time of asking: Which is the house that belonged to Mr Song before he sold up and went back to Singapore? Am I wrong:-?

b

The sentence in question is "Which is the house belonged to Mr Song." ie. without "that".

 

[Raymott]

No, what I mean is like this.
"Which are the leaves fallen on the ground?" in this, fallen is an intransitive verb, but you quoted all the transitive verbs for comparison.
Yes, the verbs I gave are transitive. You were postulating that "belong" might be different because it was intransitive. I have proven that this is not the case, because even transitive verbs cannot be used in this way. If the same rule (that the verb form can't be used in this way) has been shown to be valid for examples of both intransitive and transitive verbs (which it has been), then transitivity cannot be the differentiating factor.

If you look at the subjects of the past tense verbs - belonged, rented, bought - you might find a difference that could be explanatory to your questioner.

The questioner is curious if "belonged" can have any sense that completed in the past and still effective even now.
He may be, but that's a different question from whether "belonged" can be used in the original sentence.

I've given a sentence using the past participle in which the belonging occurred in the past and continues in the present: "The house has belonged to Mr Song for 10 years."
If, by "completed in the past" you mean "ended in the past", then no. Things that end in the past don't continue into the present.

 

[keannu]

I've given a sentence using the past participle in which the belonging occurred in the past and continues in the present: "The house has belonged to Mr Song for 10 years."
If, by "completed in the past" you mean "ended in the past", then no. Things that end in the past don't continue into the present.

Thanks a lot Raymott, anyway, you've given a great enlightenment to me.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot Raymott, anyway, you've given a great enlightenment to me.

But what about the following ones?

1.The police are chasing the escaped prisoner.
2. These are the leaves fallen on the ground.
Does 2 have (which are) between leaves and fallen? => the leaves (which are) fallen.
Is 2 possible because of omitted (which is) or it is an adejctive.

 

[Raymott]

But what about the following ones?

1.The police are chasing the escaped prisoner.
2. These are the leaves fallen on the ground.
Does 2 have (which are) between leaves and fallen? => the leaves (which are) fallen.
Is 2 possible because of omitted (which is) or it is an adejctive.

1. is correct
2. is wrong.
For 2 to be right, you'd need a comma, "These are the leaves, fallen on the ground." This is a non-restrictive clause, and it means, "These are the leaves, and they have fallen on the ground.

But this does not mean, "These are the leaves which have fallen on the ground." and it's not anaologous to the original sentence with "belonging".