[Grammar] when use 'see'

[finwing]

Here are senteces

It's interesting to see the cats play together.
=To see the cats play together is funny.

If I'd like to make those shorter, is this correct to write;
The cats were interesting to see play together.

 

[bhaisahab]

Here are senteces

It's interesting to see the cats play together.
=To see the cats play together is funny.

If I'd like to make those shorter, is this correct to write;
The cats were interesting to see play together.

No, it's not correct. It's not shorter either, all your sentences above have eight words..

 

[finwing]

No, it's not correct. It's not shorter either, all your sentences above have eight words..

Thanks. I didn't count the words^^ But if I still want to put those cats on subject location, how other words must be arranged?

 

[Raymott]

Thanks. I didn't count the words^^ But if I still want to put those cats on subject location, how other words must be arranged?

The cats were interesting to watch playing together.

 

[finwing]

The cats were interesting to watch playing together.

Thanks. I see the difference between SEE and WATCH. But as far as I know, PLAYING and PLAY are both fine after SEE/WATCH. Am I correct or any specific reason to write PLAYING?

 

[Barb_D]

The cats are entertaining when they play together. (Not shorter, but perhaps more direct?)

 

[kfredson]

Thanks. I see the difference between SEE and WATCH. But as far as I know, PLAYING and PLAY are both fine after SEE/WATCH. Am I correct or any specific reason to write PLAYING?

You raise a great question. I'm actually not sure. Which is better?
It's interesting to see the cats play together.
It's interesting to see the cats playing together.

I would select the first alternative, but I'm not exactly sure why. I suspect that they are both correct. There does some to be a slight difference in meaning, but, again, I'm not quite sure what it is.

Perhaps others can elucidate.

 

[Mzungu39]

Could we compare the sentences discussed to the following two:

I saw him cross the street.
I saw him crossing the street.

Here there's an obvious difference in aspect and thus in the meaning. I don't think there's the same difference in the sentences under discussion. According to this I tend to use the second version with the'cats playing'.
What do you think?

 

[kfredson]

Could we compare the sentences discussed to the following two:

I saw him cross the street.
I saw him crossing the street.

Here there's an obvious difference in aspect and thus in the meaning. I don't think there's the same difference in the sentences under discussion. According to this I tend to use the second version with the'cats playing'.
What do you think?

That's very useful. I actually do think there is a similarity. The second version seems to emphasize the fact that you saw him. When did you see him? When he was crossing the street. It is different than saying "I saw him cross the street." The emphasis is on the fact that he crossed the street. It is a subtle nuance, but it is there, or so it seems to me. And, while the difference is still smaller in the cats example, I do believe that it is there.

I join you in being interested in what others may bring to this. Now, for those of you are ESL students, I do believe that the difference is not that significant. Either form seems perfectly acceptable.

 

[Abstract Idea]

Could we compare the sentences discussed to the following two:

I saw him cross the street.
I saw him crossing the street.

Here there's an obvious difference in aspect and thus in the meaning.

That's very useful. I actually do think there is a similarity. The second version seems to emphasize the fact that you saw him. When did you see him? When he was crossing the street. It is different than saying "I saw him cross the street." The emphasis is on the fact that he crossed the street. It is a subtle nuance, but it is there, or so it seems to me.

I think Mzungu was trying to call attention to the fact that in his example "cross" can be interpreted as a preposition (across). Such interpretation is confirmed here cross: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com. In this case, "he may never have crossed the street at all", he just happened to be the other side when I saw him. In order to avoid the ambiguity the second version could be used.

 

[sarat_106]

I think Mzungu was trying to call attention to the fact that in his example "cross" can be interpreted as a preposition (across). Such interpretation is confirmed here cross: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com. In this case, "he may never have crossed the street at all", he just happened to be the other side when I saw him. In order to avoid the ambiguity the second version could be used.

Your interpretation of ‘cross’ linked to preposition ‘across’ is fine as it refers to the other side of the street, but how can he be at the other side without crossing the street completely?
I think the main difference is that "I saw him cross the street" means he did get across, (In fact I saw the complete action begining with his movement from this side to that side), while "I saw him crossing" leaves it a little more open to changes. "I saw him crossing the street when he got hit by a car." It means: I saw him while he was still in the middle walking towards the other side of the street. The event of "crossing" has not been completely performed, it was progressing when the unfortunate incident occurred.

 

[Raymott]

I think Mzungu was trying to call attention to the fact that in his example "cross" can be interpreted as a preposition (across).

I don't think so. I believe Mzungu was merely giving another example of how this construction can use a simple indicative (cross, play) or a continuous form (crossing, playing).
Both are correct to my ears.

However, even though both of the following are correct:
It's interesting to see the cats play together.
It's interesting to see the cats playing together.

this doesn't mean that the original sentence (below) is correct: (it's not, IMO):
*The cats were interesting to see play together.
but the following is correct:
The cats were interesting to see playing together.

 

[Mzungu39]

Well, I must say that Sarat 106 was right about what I was trying to say.

I saw him cross the street. (the action is finished)
I saw him crossing the street. (while crossing, the action is not completed)

Here there's a great difference in the meaning whereas with 'the cats and play/playing I don't really feel it. Maybe the reason lies in the first part of the sentence (It's interesting to see), because we're generalizing it. On the other hand it might be the verb 'play'.
Should we change the sentence a litlle bit, we can see it's the first part and the Past tense that changes the things. Or am I mistaken? Enlighten me

I saw the cats play.
I saw the cats playing.

 

[Abstract Idea]

Your interpretation of ‘cross’ linked to preposition ‘across’ is fine as it refers to the other side of the street, but how can he be at the other side without crossing the street completely?

Maybe he was born and grew up there, or even further that side of the street, and never had the chance to come to our side of the street to watch us discuss/discussing such interesting linguistic subtleties motivated by his behaviour.

I understand that maybe this interpretation (cross=across) does not come to the native speaker ears naturally, but I guess it exists.

If that wasn't Muzungu39's point, I claim it myself now.

 

[Abstract Idea]

this doesn't mean that the original sentence (below) is correct: (it's not, IMO):
*The cats were interesting to see play together.
but the following is correct:
The cats were interesting to see playing together.

What about

The cats were interesting to be seen playing together ?

Any difference?

 

[Raymott]

What about

The cats were interesting to be seen playing together ?

Any difference?

It's not something I'd say. But I would not use "cross" as a preposition either.