I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain.
This was a fill the gap exercise I gave my students. Both verbs had to be completed. Some students wrote:
I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when he was painting the Haywain.
But some students omitted the 'he was'. This (latter) version sounds better to me but I can't work out what form painting is here.
Is it the Present Participle? Or a reduced form of the Past Continuous? I don't think it is the gerund.
Thanks.
Can someone explain this grammar?
Moderator: Josef Essberger
Re: Can someone explain this grammar?
Hello,
The phrase "when painting the Haywain" in the sentence "I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain" is a reduced form of the Past Continuous tense. Specifically, it is a reduced form of the Past Continuous tense in an adverbial clause.
The complete form of the sentence in the Past Continuous tense would be:
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when he was painting the Haywain."
In the reduced form, the subject "he" and the auxiliary verb "was" are omitted, and the verb "painting" remains. This reduction is possible because the subject "he" is the same as the subject in the main clause ("I’m thinking"), and the action of "painting the Haywain" is happening at the same time as the thinking, making it unnecessary to repeat the subject and auxiliary verb.
So, both versions are grammatically correct:
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when he was painting the Haywain." (Complete form)
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain." (Reduced form)
The second version (the reduced form) is commonly used in informal or spoken language, and it sounds more natural and concise. Both forms convey the same meaning, but the reduced form is often preferred for its brevity.
The phrase "when painting the Haywain" in the sentence "I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain" is a reduced form of the Past Continuous tense. Specifically, it is a reduced form of the Past Continuous tense in an adverbial clause.
The complete form of the sentence in the Past Continuous tense would be:
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when he was painting the Haywain."
In the reduced form, the subject "he" and the auxiliary verb "was" are omitted, and the verb "painting" remains. This reduction is possible because the subject "he" is the same as the subject in the main clause ("I’m thinking"), and the action of "painting the Haywain" is happening at the same time as the thinking, making it unnecessary to repeat the subject and auxiliary verb.
So, both versions are grammatically correct:
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when he was painting the Haywain." (Complete form)
"I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain." (Reduced form)
The second version (the reduced form) is commonly used in informal or spoken language, and it sounds more natural and concise. Both forms convey the same meaning, but the reduced form is often preferred for its brevity.
Re: Can someone explain this grammar?
Hi Alfonso
Thanks. That makes sense.
Thanks. That makes sense.
Re: Can someone explain this grammar?
In the sentence "I’m thinking about how Constable must have felt when painting the Haywain," the word "painting" is a present participle. This construction is an example of a reduced adverbial clause.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 22 Oct 2023, 10:20
- Status: Teacher
Re: Can someone explain this grammar?
reduced form is better to write, but little bit hard to understand...