I'm seeing

[boot6]

Hi Everybody

While grammar rules out usage of a progressive form of "seeing" in the case of using your eyes
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/seeyet

find an affiramative opinion among natives, like below.

Should you send a quick message from a movie theater during the projection of a film, you would type:
"I am seeing this movie (as in "right now") and it's awesome!"(and not "I see...")

Well, if it makes sense, how about the sentence below:

In today’s market, we’re seeing more young shoppers reject the traditional shopping trip in favor of their smartphones.

thanks for your reply in advance.

 

[Rover_KE]

The link in your post has nothing to do with your thread title.

 

[boot6]

funny?
don't see what you mean to say.
More over, my post on this title was deleted. Is it because of you?
Did I do something wrong?

I just wanted to know if the sentence below is grammatically OK.


In today’s market, we’re seeing more young shoppers reject the traditional shopping trip in favor of their smartphones.

 

[GoesStation]

I just wanted to know if the sentence below is grammatically OK.


In today’s market, we’re seeing more young shoppers reject the traditional shopping trip in favor of their smartphones.

It's grammatically correct, yes.

 

[boot6]

for GoesSattion

Thanks for your reply.

TheFreeDictionary mentioned above says:

Be Careful!
You usually use can in sentences like these. You say, for example, 'I can see the sea'. You don't say 'I see the sea'. Don't use a progressive form. Don't say 'I am seeing the sea'.
To say that someone was aware of something in this way in the past, you usually use could see.
He could see Amir's face in the mirror.
To say that someone became aware of something, use saw.
We suddenly saw a ship through a gap in the fog.
Be Careful!
Don't confuse see with look at or watch.
See see - look at - watch
2. meeting someoneSee is often used to mean 'visit' or 'meet by arrangement'.
You should see a doctor.
If two people are meeting regularly, for example because they are in love, you can say that they are seeing each other. When see has this meaning, it is usually used in a progressive form.
How long have Daniel and Ayeisha been seeing each other?

3. understandingSee is very commonly used to mean 'understand'.
I don't see why she was so angry.
The situation could be complicated, if you see what I mean.
People often say 'I see' to show that they have understood something.
'He doesn't have any children.' – 'I see.'
When see means 'understand', you can use can or could with it.
I can see why they're worried.
I could see his point.
Be Careful!
Don't use a progressive form when see means 'understand'. Don't say, for example, 'I am seeing why they're worried'.

Though it rules out the usage of "I'm seeing/We're seeing, how do you comment if the sentence is

grammatically correct.​

 

[jutfrank]

The sense of see in your example sentence is something like observe/notice/witness.

This is a fairly common sense of the word when used to comment on societal trends, as it is here. The present continuous, which is also good for describing societal trends, goes very well with this use of see.

Since this has a (semi-)academic use, the subject of the verb is usually we, in the general impersonal sense, i.e., 'We, as detached observers, can notice a particular pattern of behaviour occurring.'

We are seeing more and more young men turn to drug abuse as a means to deal with underlying mental health conditions.
We are seeing a rise in populist rhetoric in the mainstream media.

You should note that the trend does not have to be about human society. It can also be about other things; for example, the natural world.

We are seeing a large-scale extinction of species, unparallelled in natural history.
We are seeing the loss of 8 million hectares of rainforest per year.

I wonder if you could come up with your own example sentence. Feel free to post one below if you want to practise.

 

[boot6]

Dear jutfrank
Thank you for your reply.

Being this as academic use, it would be OK to say that we are seeing a rise in populist rhetoric in the mainstream media.

The real question I wanted ask you is that a perceptual verb sturacture like "see" can be used in the following context? As this is well known English learner's sentence,

She saw a man cross the street.

It implies that she saw a man coming out from the corner of street till disapearing. If a progeressive form can be allowed,

She was seeing a man cross the street.

What was she seeing? It applies to your sentence as well.

We see young men turn to drug abuse as a means to deal with undrelying mental health conditions.
We are seeing young men turn to drug abuse as a means to deal with underlying mental health conditions.

thanks and best regards,

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Dear jutfrank
Thank you for your reply.

Because this is academic use, it would be OK to say that we are seeing a rise in populist rhetoric in the mainstream media.

That's fine whether it's academic or not. It's ordinary conversational English.

The real question I wanted ask you is, can a perceptual verb sturacture like "see" be used in the following context? This is a well-known English learner's sentence:

She saw a man crossing the street.

It implies that she saw a man coming out from the corner of street and disapearing.

It doesn't imply that. We can't infer anything about what the man was doing before or after crossing the street.

If a progeressive form can be allowed, . . .

It can.

. . . she was seeing a man cross the street.

What was she seeing? It applies to your sentence as well.

We see young men turn to drug abuse as a means to deal with undrelying mental health conditions.
We are seeing young men turn to drug abuse as a means to deal with underlying mental health conditions.

They have slightly different shades meaning, but both are grammatical and natural. Neither is academic, not that it matters. Grammar is grammar.

I would delete "as a means."

Thanks and best regards.

You're welcome.

 

[jutfrank]

The real question I wanted ask you is that a perceptual verb sturacture like "see" can be used in the following context? As this is well known English learner's sentence,

She saw a man cross the street.

It implies that she saw a man coming out from the corner of street till disapearing.

Yes, that sentence is correct. The verb see there is indeed a verb of perception. (It doesn't imply what you say it does, but that's beside the point.)

She was seeing a man cross the street.

What was she seeing?

That's a very strange sentence. It's very hard to imagine why someone might want to use the progressive aspect there. I'm tempted to simply say that it's wrong, unless you can justify why someone would use the past progressive form instead of the past simple form. Can you? (And don't just say that it's an answer to the question What was she seeing?—you have to justify why somebody would ask that question, instead of What did she see?)

It applies to your sentence as well.

No, it does not apply to my sentences. It's not even remotely similar. Read my post previous post again very carefully.

 

[boot6]

Dear jutfrank

Thanks for your reply.

Then how do you say the sentences below. Are those acceptable?

We see young men turn to drug abuse.
We are seeing young men turn to drug abuse.
We see yang men cross Yotsuya Crossing as a study of human behavior.
We are seeing young men cross Yotsuya Crossing as a study of human behavior.


best regards,

 

[jutfrank]

The second, which you've taken from my example in post #6, is okay, but the others are no good.

Are you trying to practise the use that we're talking about in this thread? Look again at all of the examples so far. Remember:

1) Use the present continuous and not the present simple.
2) Make sure the sentence is about a trend.

 

[GoesStation]

I can't help observing that we're seeing a lot of posts about using the continuous aspect. (I do mean "aspect", don't I?) We've been seeing quite a bit of discussion of the subject lately.

 

[boot6]

Dear jutfrank

Thanks.

I do see the sentence 3 & 4 do not indicate any trend. I think this sentence will be acceptable to you.

We are seeing more foreigners cross Shibuya Crossing.


If it's correct, do those sentences described below have completely different meaning?

We saw more foreigners cross Shibuya Crossing.
We were seeing more foreingres cross Shibuya Crossing.

 

[jutfrank]

We are seeing more foreigners cross Shibuya Crossing.

Excellent. Well done.

(Use crossing instead of cross.)

If it's correct, do those sentences described below have completely different meaning?

We saw more foreigners cross Shibuya Crossing.
We were seeing more foreingres cross Shibuya Crossing.

Yes. Those are not right.

 

[boot6]

While I don't get the meaning of "those are not right," if I understand you correctly, the two sentences couldn't be compared because the first one has to be "crossing" instead of "cross."


It's fine.

We saw more foreigners crossing Shibuya Crossing. (when we were passing by a car yesterday)
We are seeing more foreingers crossing Shibuya Crossing. (from 2015 to the last year)

So the second sentence is not a progressive form of the first one. Is it correct?



​

 

[jutfrank]

While I don't get the meaning of "those are not right,"

I mean that the two sentences that you wrote at the end of post #13 are not right.

if I understand you correctly, the two sentences couldn't be compared because the first one has to be "crossing" instead of "cross."

No, you misunderstand.

The first sentence is not right because you have used the past simple saw instead of the present continuous are seeing.
The second sentence is not right because you have used the past continuous were seeing instead of the present continuous are seeing.

We saw more foreigners crossing Shibuya Crossing. (when we were passing by a car yesterday)
We are seeing more foreingers crossing Shibuya Crossing. (from 2015 to the last year)

The first sentence above is not right, because you have used the past simple saw instead of the present continuous are seeing.

The second sentence is right because you have correctly used the present continuous. The trend that this sentence talks about could have started in 2015 but it is not correct to say that it finished last year. The whole point is that the trend is still in effect now. That's why the present continuous is used.

So the second sentence is not a progressive form of the first one. Is it correct?

Yes, it is, but the first sentence is not right. You cannot use the past simple to talk about current trends. You must use the present continuous. Is that clear? Please stop trying to use other tenses.
​

 

[boot6]

1) We saw (more) foreigners cross Shibuya Crossing (when we were passing by a car.)​

2) We were seeing more foreingres cross Shibuya Crossing (from 2015 to the last year)

3) We saw (more) foreigners crossing Shibuya Crossing (when we were passing by a car)
4) We were seeing more foreigners crossing Shibuya Crossing (from 2015 to the last year)

Regarding 1 and 3 , I 'm saying that we saw (more) foreigners were walking Shibuya Crossing when we were passing by a car yesaterday.
I'm not talking about the trend.


Regarding2 and 4, yes, I'm taking about the trend in the past. No need to discuss 2 as you say crossing is better in the present tense.

So, the present pregressive tense can only be allowed whenever we talk about the trend and we can't talk about the trend happened in the past in the past progressing form.






​

 

[jutfrank]

Regarding 1 and 3 , I 'm saying that we saw (more) foreigners were walking Shibuya Crossing when we were passing by a car yesaterday.

I'm not talking about the trend.​

In that case, you could say:

We saw some foreigners crossing Shibuya Crossing as were were driving past yesterday.

It is odd to use the word more in this sentence. (I don't think that's what you mean.) You will see that I have changed it to some. I have also changed the final part of the sentence to make it sound better.

Regarding2 and 4, yes, I'm taking about the trend in the past.

In that case, neither sentence is very good, since they do not obviously talk about a trend. I don't recommend you try to use We were seeing to talk about past trends. Focus on current trends first.

No need to discuss 2 as you say crossing is better in the present tense.

First of all, cross is not present tense. It is the base form of the verb.

Secondly, both cross and crossing are grammatical. However, they give different meanings, so which one is correct depends on what you mean.

So, the present pregressive tense can only be allowed whenever we talk about the trend

No, that is not correct. There are many different uses of the present progressive tense. Talking about current trends is only one of these uses.

and we can't talk about the trend happened in the past in the past progressing form.

Yes, we can, but I think you should focus on mastering the present continuous for current trends first. That's a much more useful use.​