Can you identify this verbal and tell how it is functioning in this sentence?

[swarmie]

Can you tell me what kind of verbal the word shut is in the following sentence:  Boysie, who slept in the kitchen, heard the door shut and came to the living room.

 

Also, can you tell me what part of speech it is acting as?

 

FYI, a guess I have is that shut is an infinitive with to being implied.  I'm also guessing that shut is acting like an adjective, telling us which door--the one that got shut.  I understand that participial phrases, which act as adjectives, can come after nouns.  But I can't find an example online where an essential  participle (single word and no comma used) can follow the noun it modifies.  In other words, another guess I have is that shut is a participle--I'm not sure!  Help!?

 

[Clear Creek]

My guess would be shut is a gerund (heard the door shutting).

[Azalea]

I'm bumping for you.

 

Here is what my daughter and I came up with:

 

Boysie, who slept in the kitchen, heard the door shut and came to the living room.

 

Remove the appositive phrase: Boysie heard the door shut and came to the living room.

 

Then changed it to this: Boysie heard the sound of the door being shut and came to the living room.

 

So, if we added the implied words, then it seems like being shut is acting as an adjective modifying door, so it is a participial phrase. So, I think we had the same conclusion you had. 

[Azalea]

I'm interested in answers as I only know enough to understand the question. Just enough to be dangerous!

[athomeontheprairie]

It is threads like this one that make me question how much grammar should be taught! ( Says the person who has no idea how to answer the question!)

[Momling]

"Shut" is a verb. It's a bare (or naked) infinitive that follows certain verbs that deal with perception like see and hear and feel.

[SparklyUnicorn]

There are such things as zero infinitives where the "to" is not used.  There are also negative infinitives with "not" used instead of  "to".

 

 

[Lucy the Valiant]

Have you heard of the "PIG"?

 

P ------->Adjective

 

I--------- >Adverb    [infinitives can also be adjectives or nouns; if you hand-draw this, you make 2 more arrows from "I" - one to adjectives and one to nouns.)

 

G ------> Nouns   

 

 

 

[swarmie]

Thank you all for your input!  After much thought--and looking into MCT's Magic Lens I--I am now inclined to think shut is an infinitive. 

[kbutton]

My stab...shut is an infinitive, and it's the direct object. Door is the indirect object. If you are going with the implied words thing, it's "heard...the door shut itself,"with itself being the object of the infinitive to shut.

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

It doesn't make sense to me that it would be an object. 

[Clear Creek]

I used an online diagrammer and it said that shut is the direct object (what was heard) and door is a modifier of shut. I don't know if I agree, but it is an interesting thought.

 

 

[swarmie]

I found a website that stated there are special verbs that elicit bare infinitives versus regular infinitives--feel, hear, help, let, make, see, watch.  This would explain the bare infinitive in the sentence.

 

I tried to find examples of sentences with a similar sentence structure on grammar sites that discuss infinitives.  What I found had indicated indirectly that shut is acting as an adjective (versus a direct object.)  Here is a sentence I found on a grammar site that stated the infinitive to write is an adjective:  "I have a paper to write before class."   Notice how there is a noun that immediately proceeds the infinitive, just like in the sentence above ("...door shut...")

 

I'm wondering--but I could be wrong--if infinitives act as direct objects only when it follows a transitive verb, such as in this sentence:  "She tried to read a good book."  That is just a thought.  I don't have anythng concrete to back it up.

[swarmie]

Clear Creek, can you tell us what online diagrammar you used?  I would love to know!!!

 

[Lucy the Valiant]

I found a website that stated there are special verbs that elicit bare infinitives versus regular infinitives--feel, hear, help, let, make, see, watch.  This would explain the bare infinitive in the sentence.

 

I tried to find examples of sentences with a similar sentence structure on grammar sites that discuss infinitives.  What I found had indicated indirectly that shut is acting as an adjective (versus a direct object.)  Here is a sentence I found on a grammar site that stated the infinitive to write is an adjective:  "I have a paper to write before class."   Notice how there is a noun that immediately proceeds the infinitive, just like in the sentence above ("...door shut...")

 

I'm wondering--but I could be wrong--if infinitives act as direct objects only when it follows an intransitive verb, such as in this sentence:  "She tried to read a good book."  That is just a thought.  I don't have anythng concrete to back it up.

 

 

But the definition of an intransitive verb is that it doesn't have an object, right?

 

I think it's an infinitive acting as the direct object. If we're taking bets. :)

 

 

 

Editing to add: Yes, in your "paper to write" sentence, the infinitive is acting as an adjective, describing which kind of paper. But "shut" does not describe what type of door. Infinitives can function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs.

 

[swarmie]

Oops, I meant transitive.  Lucy the Valiant, do you know of a grammar site/resource that supports the idea that shut is a direct object?  I would find that very helpful.

[Lucy the Valiant]

Hmm, not a direct site, but more the definition of indirect object and direct object. (And I am a dime-a-dozen grammar teacher, NOT an expert.)

 

Example:  (in this sentence, Rachel is the indirect object, and apple is the direct object)

 

Thomas gave Rachel the apple.

 

(Indirect objects can be re-arranged into prepositional phrases, like this: Thomas gave the apple to Rachel.)

 

Here's how it would work in your sentence:

 

Boysie, who slept in the kitchen, heard the door shut and came to the living room.

 

What did Boysie hear? The "shut" of the door. She didn't hear the DOOR, she hear the "shut," if that makes sense. (Substituting a synonym such as SLAM or CLICK retains the meaning.)

 

SHUT is functioning as a noun, so I believe that (by definition) is has to be an infinitive or a gerund. But gerunds (always? sometimes?) end in -ing, so I would think that if it were a gerund, the sentence would read

 

Boysie heard the door shutting and came into the living room. (which is not PRECISELY the same thing as "shut")

 

Now I am interested, too!

[swarmie]

If I read Purdue Owl's website correctly, shut would have to have an actor.  Unless the door is doing the acting itself, that is, shut itself, I am struggling to see how shut could be acting as a direct object. 

[Lucy the Valiant]

(To add to my post #17, if "door" is not the indirect object, perhaps it is a retained subject?)

[swarmie]

My guess is that Boysie did the hearing and someone else did the shutting.  I found the sentence in Killgallon's Sentence Composing for Elementary School.  Killgallon took the sentence from the book The Summer of the Swans, and even though I own the book, I haven't yet read it to either of my kids.  So I have nooo clue even where to begin looking for it to glean more contextual cues.  Too bad Killgallon did not state the page in which the sentence was taken!  Oh well.  I have enjoyed this discussion.  It helps me to be a better teacher for my kids.  :)

[Forgiven]

My first thought was that it was the DO, and after reading through the posts, I feel more confident about it. We do Magic Lens next year (The OP mentioned Magic Lens). Is this in that level? Oh boy. We've got a fun year ahead of us. LOL

[Steven]

Here is my explanation of the sentence. I hope it helps. 

 

First, the verb shut can be used intransitively to mean that the door was shut (by the wind or a person) or that it shut itself automatically. Consider these sentences: 

 

     The door shut, and I realized I was trapped in the room.

     When the door shuts, please do not panic. 

 

Second, shut is an irregular verb: The present tense (except third person singular, which is shuts), the past tense, and the infinitive are all identical. That makes it a little harder to recognize what is happening in the sentence that swarmie asked about. 

 

Third, it is a completely normal construction in English with verbs of perception to use a noun + infinitive as a direct object. For example:

 

     I saw the boy run away. 

     I heard the bird sing. 

     I watched the car crash. 

 

You can tell these are infinitives because if they were present tense, they would each have the -s ending of the third person singular, or the -ed ending or irregular form of the past tense. (Note that Latin has an identical construction that uses a noun in the accusative case (the direct-object case) as the subject of an infinitive, with the entire infinitive phrase being the direct object of a verb of perception.) The absence of to does not mean that the verbs in these examples are not infinitives. As has already been pointed out by others, infinitives in English do not always use to. Consider these sentences:

 

     I may eat the cake. 

     I want to eat the cake. 

 

In the first sentence, the infinitive eat (without to) is used with the modal verb may and is part of the verb phrase. In the second sentence, the infinitive eat (with to) is the direct object of the finite verb want. 

 

Fourth, note that an infinitive phrase being used as a direct object is different in structure from a subordinate clause that is used as a direct object. Consider these sentences: 

 

     I dreamed [that] the boy ran away. 

     I thought [that] the bird sang.

     I regretted [that] the car crashed. 

 

These sentences all use a subordinate clause (with a finite verb) as the direct object of the verb in the main clause (dreamed, thought, and regretted). 

 

Now regarding the original sentence, we can shorten it to its key elements:

 

     Boysie heard the door shut.

 

The subject is Boysie and the verb is heard. We can find the complement by asking the question "Boysie heard what?" The answer to that question, which is the direct object, is the entire infinitive phrase "the door shut."

 

It is hard to recognize this as an infinitive phrase because shut is irregular. If you substitute the verb open, it becomes clear that the verb is an infinitive because you can more readily see that it is missing any personal or tense endings:

 

Boysie heard the door open. 

 

The door open is not a grammatical sentence by itself because the verb is not inflected--it carries no personal or tense markers, it is an infinitive. 

[Guest riziuebru]

I'm interested in answers as I only know enough to understand the question. 

[Clear Creek]

Clear Creek, can you tell us what online diagrammar you used?  I would love to know!!!

 

I used this one. It only works for me in Chrome, not Firefox, BTW. And it doesn't work very well for more complex sentences because it doesn't seem to understand punctuation. It completely mangled the sentence in the OP until I dropped the adjective clause; it thought that the sentence was being addressed to Boysie and "who" was the subject, not that Boysie was the subject of the sentence.

[swarmie]

Steven, thank you for your explanation.  Very helpful!  I think I understand what you are saying about how some infinitive phrases seem to start with a noun--that is, an actor.  I believe your explanation is very similar to what I had read on Purdue Owl's website on infinitives. 

 

In your example sentences above,  I can understand how the infinitives are acting as direct objects.  There is an actor for each infinitive.  In the sentence,  "I saw the boy run away," the boy--the actor for the infinitive-- is doing the running. But in the Boysie sentence, there does not appear to be an actor.  Correct?  If so, then from my point of view, the infinitive is acting as an adjective and not a direct object.   

[Steven]

Swarmie, I am glad my comments helpful.

 

Regarding whether there is an actor who shuts the door: the Merriam Webster's dictionary notes that shut can be used both transitively (The boy shut the door--subject/verb/direct object) and intransitively (The door shut--subject/verb.) The definition of the intransitive meaning is "to close itself or to become closed." The dictionary gives the example "Flowers that shut at night." 

 

So I would disagree that shut is an adjective. Just as I can hear the bird sing, I can hear the door shut. Or to use the example from the dictionary: I saw the flower shut. 

 

After I wrote my comments last night, I thought of another way to illustrate that the subject of the infinitive is in the accusative case. Look at this sentence:

 

     I saw the boy run away. 

 

Now substitute a pronoun for "boy":

 

     I saw him run away. 

 

Run clearly is a verb and it is clearly in the infinitive form (otherwise it would have to be "runs" or "ran"). The direct object of saw is him run away, an infinitive phrase in which the subject of the infinitive is in the accusative case. Because we do not decline our nouns to show cases, we do not readily see that the boy is in the accusative case. But as soon as we substitute a pronoun that does decline, it becomes obvious. I want to emphasize that the whole infinitive phrase is the direct object, not just the noun: I did not just see the boy, I saw him do something, run away. 

 

Like shut, run can be used intransitively, i.e., without a direct object. 

 

I think you are being confused by shut in part because it is irregular and its infinitive is the same as its past tense and its past participle. Because English uses past participles as adjectives, the adjective form of shut is the same as the infinitive. This is not true of most verbs. Consider these sentences:

 

     We shut the door. (past tense and present tense)

     The boy shut the door. (past tense)

     The door is shut by the boy. (past participle used in a passive construction)

     The door is shut. (adjective or verb, depending on context)

 

This overlapping of forms is not true of other verbs. 

 

     We make the bed. 

     We made the bed.

     The boy makes the bed.

     The boy made the bed.

     The bed is made by the boy.

     The bed is made. 

 

 

If you substitute a different verb into your sentence you can see that the construction must be an infinitive:

 

     Boysie heard the door fall off its hinges. 

     Boysie heard the door bang.

     Boysie heard the door flap in the wind.

     Boysie heard the door creak.

 

In all of these sentences the verb of perception takes a infinitive phrase as its direct object. The subject of the infinitive is in the accusative case. Note that Boysie did not just hear the door, but he heard the door do something. The whole infinitive phrase, not just the noun, is the direct object of the verb. All of these sentences follow the same pattern as your original sentence.  But in all of these sentences, we are clearly dealing with infinitives since none of these infinitives can also double as adjectives. Just because shut can be used as an adjective, does not mean it is an adjective in your original sentence. 

 

Another way to see that shut must be a verb infinitive is that you could add an adverb to your sentence to indicate how the door shuts: 

 

     Boysie heard the door shut loudly. 

 

An adjective could not take an adverb in this manner. If you say "The door is shut loudly" you are using shut as a verb in a passive construction with an unstated agent. The door could be in a state of "shutness," but not a state of loudly "shutness."

 

As a last brain teaser, you could try analyzing this sentence:

 

     Boysie heard the shut door open.  :lol:

 

 

 

 

[swarmie]

Thanks again, Steven, for your efforts to make this clear to me.  I appreciate it, really.  If I am understanding this correctly, we are somewhat on the same page in thought.  It seems to me you think the actor in the Boysie sentence is the door itself (or the wind), correct?  (I apologize if I am slow to understand you!)  If that is what you are saying, then yes!  I can see without further thought that shut is a direct object.  BUT...if the door/wind is NOT doing the shutting itself, then the verb would be transitive, meaning some person must have shut the door.  If that is the case, then I don't think we know who the person is because he/she isn't stated.  Therefore--if shut was indeed transitive in this case--then shut would be acting as an adjective.  Unless, again, I am missing something! 

 

If you don't believe the door is doing the acting, please varify.  I will again re-think this.  (I really want to understand!)

 

Thank you!

[swarmie]

Whew!  I think I get it now!  Steven, I think the disconnect we have is what the word shut means in the Boysie sentence.  I was perceiving shut to mean an action--the door shutting itself--when in actually shut is referring to a sound--the door produced a shut sound.  Soooo, the door WOULD be an actor in this case.  The door is producing the sound of shutting.  That is what was heard, the shut of the door.  So, yes, and yes!!   Shut is an infinitive acting as a direct object.  Yay!!!  Thank you so much for helping me figure this out!!!

[Steven]

Yes, in your sentence, the door shuts itself. 

 

If this were a passive construction and the door was shut by an unnamed agent (e.g., the wind or by an intruder), the sentence would have to read:

 

     Boysie heard the door be shut (by the wind). 

 

Notice the presence of the infinitive "be" in this sentence. 

 

And just to clarify, in the original sentence, shut  by itself is not the direct object. Rather the direct object is the entire infinitive phrase: the door shut.

[armom]

I used an online diagrammer and it said that shut is the direct object (what was heard) and door is a modifier of shut. I don't know if I agree, but it is an interesting thought.

I am not good in the subject of grammar, but I would come to this conclusion if I picked the sentence apart using our Winston Grammar cards.  In finding the direct object, the cards direct you to ask Boysie heard what? the door shut. 

[swarmie]

How can a door shut itself if the wind or some other agent isn't acting upon the door? 

[kbutton]

Yes, in your sentence, the door shuts itself. 

 

If this were a passive construction and the door was shut by an unnamed agent (e.g., the wind or by an intruder), the sentence would have to read:

 

     Boysie heard the door be shut (by the wind). 

 

Notice the presence of the infinitive "be" in this sentence. 

 

And just to clarify, in the original sentence, shut  by itself is not the direct object. Rather the direct object is the entire infinitive phrase: the door shut.

 

Okay, so is "door" the object of the infintive "to shut," parallel to "I said to shut the door" (the DO is "to shut the door" with "to shut" being the infinitive, and "door" being the object of the infinitve)?

 

I don't know much about declensions (declining verbs?), so some of your previous explanations have been going over my head. It's been a while since college grammar, but I am used to verbal phrases actually started with the verbal itself, not ending with it. 

[swarmie]

It is my understanding that infinitive phrases technically begin with the infinitive.  However, when infinitives act as direct objects, there should be an actor preceding the infinitive--an agent doing the action (infinitive).  So, if the door was really shutting itself, then the door would be the actor and integral to the infinitive phrase...even though the word door is not technically a part of the infinitive phrase itself.  Am I making any sense?    

 

[Critterfixer]

 

And just to clarify, in the original sentence, shut  by itself is not the direct object. Rather the direct object is the entire infinitive phrase: the door shut.

 

 

It is my understanding that infinitive phrases technically begin with the infinitive.  However, when infinitives act as direct objects, there should be an actor preceding the infinitive--an agent doing the action (infinitive).  So, if the door was really shutting itself, then the door would be the actor and integral to the infinitive phrase...even though the word door is not technically a part of the infinitive phrase itself.  Am I making any sense?    

 

I read door as part of the infinitive phrase.

Like a verb, Warriner's states, an infinitive may take a subject. 

The breakdown of the sentence would be:

Subject: Boysie (followed by the adjectival element "who slept in the kitchen" describing Boysie)

Verb: heard

Direct Object: the door shut (the infinitive phrase in which the door is the subject of that phrase. Door (subject) shut (verb).

It would sit on one of those dreadful tilt-table things in a diagram.

 

That's how I make it out. 

 

ETA: If I've diagrammed it correctly that sentence is a pretty thing.

[Steven]

It is my understanding that infinitive phrases technically begin with the infinitive.  However, when infinitives act as direct objects, there should be an actor preceding the infinitive--an agent doing the action (infinitive).  So, if the door was really shutting itself, then the door would be the actor and integral to the infinitive phrase...even though the word door is not technically a part of the infinitive phrase itself.  Am I making any sense?    

 

I suppose this depends on how you define "infinitive" and "infinitive phrase." 

 

The word "to" is often included as part of the infinitive: to sell, to eat, to run, etc. But the verb without the "to" is just a special form of the infinitive, the "bare infinitive."

 

In my mind the infinitive phrase may include other things than the infinitive itself. Why else would you call it a phrase? 

 

English uses "bare infinitives" after the modal verbs:

 

     I may eat the apple.

     I can speak German.

     I must go to the store. 

 

Contrast the modal + infinitive with this pattern:

 

     I want to eat the apple

     I want to learn German.

      I want to go to the store. 

 

(Off topic: contemporary English seems to be creating two new modals, gonna and wanna, which uses a bare infinitive: I wanna eat the cake and I'm gonna eat the cake. )

 

Without researching it, I would agree that when the infinitive phrase uses "to," the infinitive must come first before other elements in the infinitive phrase. But with verbs of perception (see, hear, feel, etc.) the subject of the infinitive proceeds the bare infinitive, and subject + bare infinitive serve as the direct object of the verb of perception. 

 

You seem stuck on the problem of the door shutting itself. Of course, unless it is an automatic door, doors need an agent to open or close them. But even before the era of automatic doors, English used "open" and "shut" as intransitive verbs--sometimes the agent moving the door is irrelevant to the sentence. So there is nothing wrong with these sentences (which include no agents controlling the door):

 

     When the door opens, please come in. 

     When the door shut, I realized I was trapped. 

     The door shut when the wind blew hard. 

     The door shut with a bang. 

[Critterfixer]

 

Without researching it, I would agree that when the infinitive phrase uses "to," the infinitive must come first before other elements in the infinitive phrase. But with verbs of perception (see, hear, feel, etc.) the subject of the infinitive proceeds the bare infinitive, and subject + bare infinitive serve as the direct object of the verb of perception. 

 

 

I wanted him to wait. (Warriner's Complete Course)

In this sentence the entire object is "him to wait". Him acts as the subject of the infinitive phrase. So even with the particle to, the infinitive doesn't have to lead the entire phrase.

 

[swarmie]

Okay, thank you.  The particulars of bare infinitives are relatively new to me.  The only exposure I've had to them come from MCT's Magic Lens I, and that isn't much.  This conversation is helpful.  I'm curious.  Where are you all learning this stuff?  A curriculum?  Independent study?  Foreign language studies?  I did buy Analytical Grammar to educate myself so that I could be more independent in teaching grammar to my kids, but I don't recall bare infinitives being addressed to any great depth.  If your English grammar curriculum (e.g., KISS grammar?) addresses verbs of perception with noun/pronoun + bare infinitives, then I want to know! 

[swarmie]

Well, I just looked and saw a very nice explanation of infinitives from KISS grammar.  Wow.  I can't believe that online grammar curriculum is free.  I'm going to have to explore KISS grammar further.  Maybe this curriculum would work well for my rising 6th grader (and for me!)?   

[Critterfixer]

KISS is a good grammar program. I get lost in the site. But yeah, he does a good job of explaining grammar concepts.

I am studying Warriner's Complete Course this year in attempts to improve my grammar understanding. I need to write things down first and then search out other examples and THEN create my own examples to retain much of anything when it comes to grammar! I'm hardheaded that way. :laugh:

[Steven]

I do use KISS Grammar with my daughter. It has definitely expanded my grammatical understanding. Before KISS Grammar I don't think I would have recognized the infinitive phrase "the door shut" as a direct object. That being said, KISS Grammar does not go in depth with infinitive phrases until quite late (Level 4.2, I think). 

 

What I like about KISS Grammar is that it does  not require the memorization of definitions, but rather recognizing how words are actually being used in context. Virtually all of its sample sentences and sentences for analysis come from literary sources--they are not easy, made up sentences to illustrate grammatical points. 

 

I have never done sentence diagramming, and KISS persuaded me that I don't need to. It argues that real sentences are typically way too complicated to diagram. 

 

I don't think I was previously aware of the term "bare infinitive," but I recognized that sometimes in English the infinitive has "to" and sometimes it does  not. Since someone else in this discussion used that term, I went with it. 

 

The study of foreign language has also helped. Curiously, my daughter and I had just covered verbs of perception + direct object + infinitive in Latin. Otherwise I probably could not have explained what was going on in the OP. (We have not yet gotten to KISS Level 4.2, where infinitive phrases are explicitly covered, and it doesn't seem to specifically mention verbs of perception even there).

[swarmie]

Thank you, Steven, for sharing.  I have also observed that many grammar programs--even those designed for older kids-- ask students to analyze sentences that are very simplistic and not typical of real-life writing.  That is the main reason why I wanted to educate myself--so that my daughter and I could be free to analyze sentences in quality literature (with the ultimate purpose of imitating such sentence structures in our own writing).  Lately, I have been asking my daughter to fully analyze sentences from "Sentence Composing..." from Killgallon because those sentences, like the one I began this thread with, come from classic literature.  The challenge, of course, is that there is no answer key.  So, when I learn of someone else who is homeschooling and knows more about grammar than me, I immediately become interested in how that someone came upon that knowledge.  It makes sense that by studying other languages, you have acquired additional grammar knowledge.  It also seems apparent that you've learned a lot via KISS Grammar.  In addition to studying Latin, we may choose to use KISS Grammar next year.  :)

  

[Critterfixer]

If anyone is interested, I did a little hunting for books that contained a description of the bare infinitive and how to use it. 

Hit Google Books, and find Navigating English Grammar by Anne Lobeck. I did a search on bare infinitives and the snippet view showed an excellent explanation of them!

(I do believe I will be purchasing the book for my library!)

[swarmie]

Thank you, Critterfixer.  I will definitely check it out!