|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Grammar and Linguistics > Non-existent or just avoided?
Non-existent or just avoided?
|
Gi2gi
|
Non-existent or just avoided?
|
|
Some time ago I was talking to my Russian colleague about the use of tense forms and she touched upon the point that according to grammar text-books (or at least those that she has encountered, by some Russian authors) would say that some tenses do not have the passive forms. The tenses that fall in this category are: future continuous future-in-the-past continuous and all perfect continuous tenses. It is true, that it does not sound very natural to use verbs in the passive in the above-mentioned tenses, and the use of such forms is avoided... Nevertheless,I have a feeling that grammatically there is nothing wrong with them and they have the right to exist. (even if they are used extremely rarely). I mean sentences like this: My car has been being repaired for over a week now. (present perfect continuous passive) I would love to hear comments about this topic.
|
1 Dec 2014
|
|
|
|
aliciapc
|
|
No passive voice with "been being" in the sentence is correct . . . It certainly IS avoided because it �s wrong. For me, at least ... Good night to all ... |
1 Dec 2014
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
No, they aren �t wrong, just rare. We use them when we have to, as in your example.
Bruce |
1 Dec 2014
|
|
|
Gi2gi
|
|
Bruce, thank you. I had a feeling that a native-speaker would confirm this.
|
1 Dec 2014
|
|
|
aliciapc
|
|
Thank you here , too , Bruce ! That�s why I clarified : "for me, at least ..." But I wonder : when do we have to use such a sentence ? I would like to know more about this, as I have always corrected it wrong when I saw "been being" .... Thank you ! I know you always explain grammar very clearly here for us!
|
2 Dec 2014
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
Hi, Alicia, Gi2gi �s example of "My car has been being repaired for over a week now." is a great example. It is a process that has been going on for a week. Because the process over time is being emphasized, we need a continuous tense. The car is being repaired, and this has been going on for over a week. These situations are rare, but they do happen. Bruce |
2 Dec 2014
|
|
|
mohamedthabet
|
|
A further argument in favor of the necessity to use the passive present perfect continuous here is the idea that if we use the present perfect simple (the car has been repaired for a week), this will mean that the car was repaired a week ago and has been functioning properly since then. However, if we use the present perfect continuous, then two other meanings will be emphasized: the first is the idea that the problem isn�t likely to be fixed yet; and the second is that the attempt to repair the car has been going on for a whole week.
|
2 Dec 2014
|
|
|
aliciapc
|
|
New to me ! Anyway, I �d rather say " The car has been at the shop for a week now and it �s still being repaired ..." , sorry, but the other option sounds too weird ! Again, that �s just me! Thank you, Bruce ! |
2 Dec 2014
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
@alicia, It could be because you were taught that it is wrong, coupled with the fact that it isn �t at all common. Of course, it is never truly necessary to use "been being" or "be being". There are always ways to re-state anything, so there is no structure that can �t be said in some other way. I agree that the combination sounds weird, but it isn �t wrong. Here �s another one to grate on your ears: At this time tomorrow, when you are at the spa, you will be being pampered beyond your wildest dreams. (Try not to scream as you read it) By this time tomorrow, you will have been being tortured by this matter for three days. (I admit that this one is a far stretch, but it isn �t incorrect). This could be re-written, but not as effectively as the future perfect passive does the job. Bruce |
3 Dec 2014
|
|
|
aliciapc
|
|
Yes, I guess I was taught that ... But your explanation made it perfectly clear for me now :-) Thanks a lot , Bruce ! @Gi2gi , sorry for being so "sure" about something which was wrong ! Promise never to do it again :-) It �s good to have learnt, though |
3 Dec 2014
|
|
|
