Interested in Language
This is a simple question but it makes me confused.
I searched and found some Q&As but I couldn't find a proper answer.
1-1. Look at the falling leaves from the tree.
1-2. Look at the leaves falling from the tree.
1-3. Look at the leaves that are falling from the tree.
2-1. Look at the fallen leaves on the ground.
2-2. Look at the leaves fallen on the ground.
2-3. Look at the leaves that [have / are] fallen on the ground.
I think 1-2 and 1-3 are grammatically correct. 1-1 is a possible sentence but somewhat awkward.
On the other hand, I think both 2-1 and 2-2 are grammatically correct. I can't explain but I think so.
When it comes to 2-3, I think 'have' is correct. 'fall' is a intransitive verb. So it can't be used in a passive sentence.
However, if we think of 'fallen' as an adjective, can 'are' be used in the sentence?
I feel sorry for too many questions.
And thanks in advance.
***** NOT A TEACHER *****
I know that you come here to learn modern English, so I think that you have received an excellent answer from Tzfujimino.
I just thought that you might be interested in something that you might occasionally encounter in reading elegant English.
My books tell me that in older English (and even today in poetic English) "be" was often used instead of "have" to express what we call today the present perfect.
Here is a quotation that I found in the "books" section of Google. I think that it is very beautiful, don't you? (I have emphasized some words in boldface.)
"No power in the world can restore time that is fled, leaves that are fallen and snows that are melted."
Credit: That quotation was cited in The Unbroken Web: Stories and Fables by Adams, Gilbert, and Campbell.
As 'look at the leaves shed on the ground' wouldn't work, would 'the tree sheds leaves on the ground' not work either?