Grammar question

[8filltheheart]

Ok.....you'd think that this would be an easy, obvious answer, but my kids and I all disagree with the answer key. I would like to get objective view points since at this point we are no longer objective and are now only second guessing both ourselves and the answer key. :tongue_smilie:

 

I am going to reduce the sentence to the key point:

 

Ashley is engaged. (the sentence goes on and engaged is in reference to getting married, not being involved in an activity)

 

What do you see engaged as being?

 

The answer key calls it an action verb. We disagree and believe it is a subjective complement. I can't get beyond thinking of engaged as an adj. (The engaged couple, the engaged woman, the engaged Ashley.......)

 

So what do you think?

[Kimber]

I agree with you guys.

 

Kim

[Trish]

She's engaged to be married. Does that change the thinking at all?

[Diviya]

Ok, my grammar is not at all on a level with yours, but does it help if you look at it like this?

Ashley is engaged to John.

Ashley is tired of John.

To me those are the same type of sentence, and I don't see engaged or tired as verbs. What do you think?

Certainly engage can be an action verb, but not with that meaning. So,

Ashley engaged John.

Ashley tired John.

Those are action verbs, but the meaning is completely different.

 

I don't know if that helps.

[FloridaLisa]

The dictionary lists it as a verb transitive:

 

I have engaged John.

 

as an intransative verb:

 

engage in conversation

 

and as an adjective:

 

an engaged couple

 

 

In the context you stated, I would call it a predicate adjective.

 

Lisa

 

ETA: I agree with you.

Edited November 17, 2010 by FloridaLisa

[FloridaLisa]

She's engaged to be married. Does that change the thinking at all?

 

That's really the same sentence, with an added prepositional phrase. Doesn't change the function of engaged.

 

The word isn't an action. It's a description of her state of being, which is why I think it's a predicate adjective.

 

Lisa

[Woodland_Mom]

I think it seems more like it is a Predicate Adjective.

 

Ashley is engaged.

 

Ashley is engaged to be married.

 

Ashley is happy.

 

Ashley is happy to be be married.

 

Maybe it depends on how you technically define the verb. Perhaps the book views the word engaged as actively planning to marry someone. If so, then I can see how engaged is a verb.

[Kimber]

Same would go with married.

 

I am married.

I am sick.

I am happy.

I am tall.

We are a married couple.

We are a happy couple.

They are engaged.

They are happy. (Or they should be, if they're getting married.) :-)

[Mallory]

I stand by my posts (#8, 11) in this thread http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218435&highlight=mistake

 

8FillTheHeart you even had plenty to say in that thread and had no problems taking your answer over the official answer ;)

[Crimson Wife]

I think it seems more like it is a Predicate Adjective.

 

:iagree:I would first classify it as a subject complement, then subclassify it as a predicate adjective.

[8filltheheart]

Thanks for responses.

 

I have found errors in this text before, so now most of the time I don't even use the answer key. This error was actually on the one of the tests that my dd was taking. She diagrammed it as a complement and I was surprised when I was grading it w/the grader and it was labeled as an action verb.

 

Thanks again.

[Violet Crown]

"Ashley is engaged."

 

Engaged in that sentence is a past participle in the passive form (thus using "to be" rather than "to have" as its auxiliary). It's a form of a verb.

 

Participles do indeed act like adjectives, and I'm not deeply invested in denying them adjectival status. But they don't behave quite like adjectives.

 

For instance, take a version of the sentence with a time constraint, e.g.:

 

Ashley was engaged when I last saw her.

 

Then use an adverbial modifier with "engaged" that changes the time:

 

Ashley was recently engaged when I last saw her.

 

That works fine. Now try it with a word that's definitely an adjective:

 

Ashley was happy when I last saw her.

*Ashley was recently happy when I last saw her.

 

The uneasiness of "recently happy" in that construction might be a reason to think that "engaged" is a verb and not an adjective. The action of being engaged lends itself to this sort of time-constrained construction in a way that being happy doesn't.

 

I guess that if one wanted to insist that it's an adjective, I'd want to ask whether there was room in one's grammatical system for past participles in both active and passive forms; and if so, what (if anything) distinguishes a past participle in its passive form from an adjective?

[8filltheheart]

"Ashley is engaged."

 

Engaged in that sentence is a past participle in the passive form (thus using "to be" rather than "to have" as its auxiliary). It's a form of a verb.

 

Participles do indeed act like adjectives, and I'm not deeply invested in denying them adjectival status. But they don't behave quite like adjectives.

 

For instance, take a version of the sentence with a time constraint, e.g.:

 

Ashley was engaged when I last saw her.

 

Then use an adverbial modifier with "engaged" that changes the time:

 

Ashley was recently engaged when I last saw her.

 

That works fine. Now try it with a word that's definitely an adjective:

 

Ashley was happy when I last saw her.

*Ashley was recently happy when I last saw her.

 

The uneasiness of "recently happy" in that construction might be a reason to think that "engaged" is a verb and not an adjective. The action of being engaged lends itself to this sort of time-constrained construction in a way that being happy doesn't.

 

I guess that if one wanted to insist that it's an adjective, I'd want to ask whether there was room in one's grammatical system for past participles in both active and passive forms; and if so, what (if anything) distinguishes a past participle in its passive form from an adjective?

 

I understand your logic and actually went through a similar thought process when I was thinking this through earlier. [ETA: well, sort of anyway. I don't treat participles as anything other than a verbal acting as whatever part of speech it seems to be functioning as] Past participle functioning as a complement (which is actually what dd wrote. This section is actually on verbals.) is far different from action verb which is what the answer key states.

Edited November 17, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[silliness7]

She's engaged to be married. Does that change the thinking at all?

 

that was my thought too but don't know if that changes anything...engaged to be married is the proper phrase right? Even if you drop "to be married" it is still understood.

[Violet Crown]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with that "action verb" diagnosis, either; my best guess would be that they didn't want to get into the issue of participles, and just wanted to say "well, 'to engage' is an action verb; and so even with an auxiliary or two in front of it, it's still an action verb." But it does seem a strange way to identify it.

[whitestavern]

:iagree:I would first classify it as a subject complement, then subclassify it as a predicate adjective.

 

 

:iagree:

[8filltheheart]

Ok......mommyhood is calling. I didn't finish explaining my "sort of" response earlier.

 

I don't think engaged meets the criteria for a verb being used as past participle entirely in the way that you used it. Some of the thoughts I had were along the lines of

 

The turkey was carved by dad. Dad carved the turkey.

The food was eaten by the children. The children ate the food.

Jack was sleeping. Jack sleeps.

etc.

 

If it is a pp verb, shouldn't you be able to make engaged function as a verb independently? I can't think of any way to make it work as a verb w/o changing the meaning of the word.

 

Sharon engages people easily in conversation. Yes, that works, but that essentially not the same word.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here. Sometimes it takes me a while to works these through in my mind and this is one of those things that is swirling around in there right now.

 

Anyway, baby is calling.

[Matryoshka]

I understand your logic and actually went through a similar thought process when I was thinking this through earlier. [ETA: well, sort of anyway. I don't treat participles as anything other than a verbal acting as whatever part of speech it seems to be functioning as] Past participle functioning as a complement (which is actually what dd wrote. This section is actually on verbals.) is far different from action verb which is what the answer key states.

 

:iagree: Sure it's a past participle, but I'm inclined to agree that it's functioning as an adjective in this sentence. If it were a verb, it would have to be in the passive voice - the verb "engaged" has a different meaning than the adjective form, as others have pointed out. If you say "Ashley is engaged." in the passive voice, then you mean Ashley is busy doing something, not betrothed. You'd expect the rest of the sentence to be "in training for the marathon." or some other activity. Try using "engaged" with the meaning of betrothed as an action verb not in the passive voice. Ashley engages John. No, that sounds like they were in some kind of fight - like "The Germany army engages the French."

 

Participles by themselves (without a helping verb such as in the perfect and progressive tenses and in the passive voice), are not identifed as verbs in sentences, but as nouns or adjectives (even though, yes, they are often modified by adverbs). They retain some verbiness. :tongue_smilie:

 

How about in the sentence "The happily engaged couple went on an extended honeymoon." - "engaged" is definitely functioning as an adjective modifying "couple" - but it still is modified by the adverb "happily". The participle "extended" is also functioning as an adjective here.

 

Wait - adjectives of any kind can be modified by adverbs - think of "very"! I was very happy. Actually, adjectives can only be modified by adverbs! Just because something can be modified by an adverb does not make it a verb - adverbs modify, verbs, adjectives - and other adverbs!

 

The lingering verbiness of participles I was thinking about applies to gerunds (nouns) - they can be modified by adverbs, which you'd think would be a no-no - as in: "Exercising frequently is beneficial to your health."

[LizzyBee]

I agree with you - predicate adjective.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I agree that "engaged" in the given sentence is a predicate adjective.

 

:iagree: Sure it's a past participle, but I'm inclined to agree that it's functioning as an adjective in this sentence. If it were a verb, it would have to be in the passive voice - the verb "engaged" has a different meaning than the adjective form, as others have pointed out. If you say "Ashley is engaged." in the passive voice, then you mean Ashley is busy doing something, not betrothed. You'd expect the rest of the sentence to be "in training for the marathon." or some other activity. Try using "engaged" with the meaning of betrothed as an action verb not in the passive voice. Ashley engages John. No, that sounds like they were in some kind of fight - like "The Germany army engages the French."

Even in that case, I'd still say that "engaged" functions as an adjective. In fact, I can't think of a time when a verb form followed by -ed after "is" does not function as an adjective in a sentence. When "is" is used as a helping verb, it is generally followed by the present participle (ending in -ing), not by the past participle.

[Matryoshka]

In fact, I can't think of a time when a verb form followed by -ed after "is" does not function as an adjective in a sentence. When "is" is used as a helping verb, it is generally followed by the present participle (ending in -ing), not by the past participle.

 

In English, we often use the progressive tenses - formed by to be + the present participle.

 

However, the passive voice in English is formed by to be + the past participle. It's used all the time. Hey, there, I just did it - "It is used" - instead of the active voice "I use it" or "We use it". In the passive voice, the subject is actually the recipient of the action - the agent of the action is often given in a prepositional phrase - "Many books are read by students." rather than "Students read many books."

 

Many style guides exhort the use of the active over the passive voice. Even though the construction is identical to a sentence with the verb "to be" and a predicate adjective that happens to be a participle, they are not the same thing.

 

Passive voice

 

It drives me nuts that verb tenses don't appear to be rigorously taught by any English grammar I've seen for native speakers. Looking for a link, virtually every helpful site was for ESL students.

[JudyJudyJudy]

In English, we often use the progressive tenses - formed by to be + the present participle.

 

However, the passive voice in English is formed by to be + the past participle. It's used all the time. Hey, there, I just did it - "It is used" - instead of the active voice "I use it" or "We use it". In the passive voice, the subject is actually the recipient of the action - the agent of the action is often given in a prepositional phrase - "Many books are read by students." rather than "Students read many books."

 

Many style guides exhort the use of the active over the passive voice. Even though the construction is identical to a sentence with the verb "to be" and a predicate adjective that happens to be a participle, they are not the same thing.

 

Passive voice

Yeah, you're right about the passive voice. I wasn't thinking about that at the moment. However, I still say that "engaged" (as in "She is engaged....") is a predicate adjective whether it means "betrothed" or "involved in an activity." It is not in the passive voice in either case, so you wouldn't use "is" with the "past participle" as a verb; in such cases, "engaged" would function as an adjective.

 

It drives me nuts that verb tenses don't appear to be rigorously taught by any English grammar I've seen for native speakers. Looking for a link, virtually every helpful site was for ESL students.

I'm older than many here. It was taught back in my day (plus, my school was poor, so we had old books LOL), but I've noticed that the newer books don't teach verb tenses thoroughly. Edited November 18, 2010 by JudyJudyJudy

[8filltheheart]

In English, we often use the progressive tenses - formed by to be + the present participle.

 

However, the passive voice in English is formed by to be + the past participle. It's used all the time. Hey, there, I just did it - "It is used" - instead of the active voice "I use it" or "We use it". In the passive voice, the subject is actually the recipient of the action - the agent of the action is often given in a prepositional phrase - "Many books are read by students." rather than "Students read many books."

 

Many style guides exhort the use of the active over the passive voice. Even though the construction is identical to a sentence with the verb "to be" and a predicate adjective that happens to be a participle, they are not the same thing.

 

Passive voice

 

It drives me nuts that verb tenses don't appear to be rigorously taught by any English grammar I've seen for native speakers. Looking for a link, virtually every helpful site was for ESL students.

 

:iagree: These are exactly the thoughts that I have been contemplating ever since grading this test.