Could you tell me if the word enjoyed in the sentence below is a past or past participle?
I have always enjoyed tennis.
I thought it might be past participle because of the word have in the sentence but have is not next to enjoyed.
Your instincts are right: "enjoyed" here is functioning as a past participle, which is, of course, signaled by the preceding auxiliary verb "have" in the sentence's verb phrase. The use of the adverb "always," coming in between, does not change this past participle function.
Realize that there are some who might object to an adverb splitting a verb phrase, such as your example does. But my advice is to pay them no heed, as this kind of construction is widely accepted by all but the most fussy. And it's exactly this kind of "fussiness" that, according to this January 21, 2009 New York Times Op-Ed piece, may have led to the widely-publicized embarrassing flub of Obama's Oath of Office during the January 20th inauguration ceremonies.
So don't get "hung up" on an adverb splitting a verb phrase. It's a common and accepted usage both in speaking and writing.
Last edited by Monticello; 06-Mar-2009 at 04:51.
Which always brings my thoughts of, " Why is grammar given such an important role in our education "?.
I know this is a thorny subject amongst academics, but my point is that the majority of the public are termed " working class " and we speak , and perpetuate, everyday language. We don't ask ourselves if we are speaking in a particular tense ... we just know it by having heard it from childbirth, and so, our foreign friends should not have to be subjected to the unnecessarily extrapolated tenses that academics appear to thrive on.
I hasten to add that I am not wishing to appear argumentative over this. I'm simply stating my point of view, and would welcome further debate, and also input from our foreign Forum members as to their views on English grammar.
I really hope that non-native speakers in the forum do speak up.
It occurs to me, that from the todler's first word, it takes constant exposure to the language, and as parents will attest, constant bombardment of others around them every waking moment with their constant use and repetition of the language - and correction of their grammatical errors as they learn - ('I swam', not 'I swimmed') for something like 7 years to acquire English, and then another 7 to build up a decent vocabulary with the use of abstract terms, as opposed to the concrete names of objects.
How much exposure per day do ESL learner's have, to acquire by such osmosis?
" I really hope that non-native speakers in the forum do speak up."
Agreed David. We have so many viewers, and too few posters.
My hope is that they are not put off from posting through a feeling of not knowing enough to couch their posts in understandable English.
We must do our utmost to encourage viewers to become posters.