A long velvet curtain concealed a small doorway.

[99bottles]

A long velvet curtain concealed a small doorway.

This sentence is from Macmillan. What I want to ask is this: Shouldn't it be was concealing? I mean, obviously, the curtain didn't conceal the doorway only for a moment -- it was in front of the doorway continuously. Or is conceal a stative verb?

 

[5jj]

Unless we have more context, we have no idea which tense/aspect is most appropriate.

 

[99bottles]

Unless we have more context, we have no idea which tense/aspect is most appropriate.

There is no more context. It's a sentence I found in an online dictionary. But, supposing that the meaning is the obvious (the curtain was in front of the doorway), would the use of the present continuous tense be correct here?

 

[jutfrank]

The use of the past simple does not suggest that the concealing was only for a moment. You can think of it as stative, yes.

would the use of the present continuous tense be correct here?

What do you mean by 'correct'? Grammatical? Yes, but there would be a different aspect.

 

[99bottles]

The use of the past simple does not suggest that the concealing was only for a moment. You can think of it as stative, yes.



What do you mean by 'correct'? Grammatical? Yes, but there would be a different aspect.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Did you say that conceal is a stative verb yet using the continuous tense would be correct?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm saying that you can reasonably understand this use of conceal as stative, yes. Remember how in a recent post of yours you noticed that certain verbs can describe states? That's the case here. The sentence is semantically equivalent to A long velvet curtain was in front of a small doorway. The verb concealed describes a state of affairs,— more specifically, a relative position of the door and curtain. Here are a couple of other verbs in context with the same 'relative position' sense:

A velvet curtain hung over the door.
A single banana lay on his desk.

Although it is possible to class all these verbs as active rather than stative, I'm suggesting to you that it is reasonable (in fact, I think more reasonable) to think of them as stative, for reasons I've explained.

 

[99bottles]

I'm saying that you can reasonably understand this use of conceal as stative, yes. Remember how in a recent post of yours you noticed that certain verbs can describe states? That's the case here. The sentence is semantically equivalent to The velvet curtain was in front of a small doorway. The verb concealed describes a state of affairs,— more specifically, relative position. Here are a couple of other verbs in context with the same 'relative position' sense:

A velvet curtain hung over the door.
A single banana lay on his desk.

Although it is possible to class all these verbs as active rather than stative, I'm suggesting to you that is reasonable (in fact I think more reasonable) to think of them as stative, for reasons I've explained.

So, if I got it right, in this case, the sentence has the same meaning whether I use the continuous or the simple tense? If not, how does the meaning change?

 

[jutfrank]

You've asked such a question before. The meaning changes in aspect.

Using a continuous aspect (past continuous) would bring a meaning to the sentence that it simply does not have as it stands in simple form. It would bring more of a sense that the verb concealed is a continuous action, of limited duration. This added difference is very subtle but very real to a reader.

 

[tedmc]

The sentence would not be complete if you use the present continuous tense, for lack of a predicate.

 

[5jj]

Using the present continuous in that sentence changes the meaning of course, but it does not make the sentence incomplete. How does it cause the sentence to 'lack a predicate'?