ed participle II

[navi tasan]

Consider:
1-John was a technician properly trained.
2-John was a technician trained properly.

Which of the sentences 1 and 2 corresponds to:
A-John was a technician who was being trained properly.
and which corresponds to:
B-John was a technician who had been trained properly. John was a properly trained technician.

 

[gwendolinest]

Hmm. Neither 1 nor 2 sounds natural to me, really. They are not wrong; they just do not sound natural to me, that is all. I myself would use either A or B, as the case may be.

Fade-col

 

[navi tasan]

Thanks Gwen.
What do you think about:
3-A man badly wounded couldn't have done that.
Would that be OK?
(I don't think it's the same thing as my other two examples, because here "a man badly wounded" is generic. It means every man who was badly wounded.)

 

[RonBee]

Consider:
1-John was a technician properly trained.
2-John was a technician trained properly.

Which of the sentences 1 and 2 corresponds to:
A-John was a technician who was being trained properly.
and which corresponds to:
B-John was a technician who had been trained properly. John was a properly trained technician.

IMO, the sentences in example B correspond to (mean the same as) sentence 2. I agree with Gwen that the examples in A & B are more natural than sentences 1&2.

I wouldn't use sentence 1, but you could write it as: "John was a technician who had been properly trained."

8)

 

[RonBee]

Thanks Gwen.
What do you think about:
3-A man badly wounded couldn't have done that.
Would that be OK?
(I don't think it's the same thing as my other two examples, because here "a man badly wounded" is generic. It means every man who was badly wounded.)

That sentence would be more natural as: "A badly wounded man couldn't have done that." When putting the adjectival phrase after the noun we would normally say it something like: "A man who had been badly wounded couldn't have done that."
8)