6
Is it correct to use the present participle to describe what something does rather than only describing/modifying its current state? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Kalcifer@lemm.ee to c/english@lemmy.ca
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For example:

It is a thing that works producing stuff.

This feels wrong to me, but I can't quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong about it. It seems like it's trying to be a participle phrase, but it's not necessarily modifying the current state of "it", and is, instead, describing what "it" is.

If it is, indeed, a participle phrase, then it should be able to be written as

Producing stuff, it is a thing that works.

But, to me, this doesn't seem correct either, so it leads me to believe that the very structure of the sentence is incorrect.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AlexanderESmith@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@Kalcifer

If I'm honest; Neither of those sentences make any sense to me as a native English speaker (reader, in this case).

What idea are you trying to communicate? That there is a thing, and it works (Is functiobal? Is operating presenly?), and it produces stuff?

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
6 points (87.5% liked)

English usage and grammar

360 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss and ask questions about English usage and grammar.

If your post refers to a specific English variant, please indicate it within square brackets (for instance [Canadian]).

Online resources:

Sibling communities:

Rules of conduct:

The usual ones on Lemmy and Mastodon.. In short: be kind or at least respectful, no offensive language, no harassment, no spam.

(Icon: entry "English" in the Oxford English Dictionary, 1933. Banner: page from Chaucer's "The Wife of Bath's Tale".)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
pglpm@lemmy.ca
pglpm@mander.xyz
pglpm@lemmy.sdf.org