"Welcomed" is past tense. The couple will be joining you this Wednesday (in the future). Accordingly, they cannot currently be "welcomed" (past tense) when the occurence has not yet happened. In this context, "is" could be exchanged for "will be" and the sentence would read:I've been trying to find out the same answer to the question that Milkyway asked...and from reading the replies, I don't find it here. Specifically, here's the sentence in question:
The couple that had to miss last week's class is (welcome/welcomed) to join us this Wednesday.
I see that Google has many examples of both being used...like there is no real rule for the usage of either word. Of course, I'm not talking about past or present tense. The tense in that sentence is present, but both words seem to fit. HELP!
Thank you, but I mean the usage as passives.
For example, which one is correct?
1. They are not welcome abroad. This means that the people who live in other countries do not want them to visit or have hostile feelings toward them.
2. They are not welcomed abroad. This means that no one does anything to welcome them.
"Welcome" to the board. But I'm amazed that as a native English speaker your ear would find no difference between invited and welcomed. Some verb may be followed by an infinitive and others may not. "Invite", Challenge" and "Defy" may be followed by an infinitive; "welcome" and "embrace" may not.I would think that if the word "invited" could be substituted for the word in question, "welcomed" is appropriate.
I have a fairly simple rule - I think! - "welcome" is an adjective and "welcomed" is a verb, so the first is a state and the second an action.Giordano, thanks for your response. As you may know, American English and European English vary - sometimes wildly. A lift on that side of the pond is an elevator - not so here - lift is a verb. Labour vs. labor and judgement vs. judgment are other examples of how different the English language is between the two regions.
Many things did sound weird as we're being instructed in school, because we learn language at home and sometimes our parents simply don't speak proper English. In addition, many rules have exceptions that "help" to confuse us. My example for "welcome" and "welcomed" was not definitive; it was simply an instance in which "welcomed" was demonstrated to not be past tense, because of the suffix "ed".
You may be aware that in American English, what was not acceptable at one point in history becomes acceptable with frequent usage. My ears bleed when I hear some people speak - even though what they're saying has become perfectly acceptable.
American English is fluid and progressive. There are far fewer firm rules than there were when I was in grade school.
I'm sure that scholars from both sides of the argument could debate for many years with no simple rule on how to use - the word in question.
Thanks for your response. Have you checked out responses to this dilemma on other message boards? No two "answers" are the same. I will stay tuned.
Hi timpeac,Giordano - I don't think Mommy was saying that "welcomed" and "invited" meant the same thing if substituted in the sentence, but that their grammatical sense was the same.
I am having trouble with this one as well and I am an American! I am embarrassed.
Would someone help me with what I am trying to express?
I want to post a sign on my property that says:
Unsolicited visits are not welcome/d.
Would I use welcome or welcomed?
What makes it confusing for me is that welcome does not have a past participle such as:
Candy is "eaten" by many.
When used with the verb "to be" in English we generally join the past particle to express what is generally accepted as typical or customary. So this is what confuses me?
Fish is generally "eaten" during Lent.
Soccer is "played" on the soccer field.
Spanish is "spoken" in Spain.
Chinese is not typically spoken in Mexico.
It is a passive voice style and that all that frequently used. But that is why I an inclined to write:
Unsolicited visits are not "welcomed" here.
It just seems to follow the rule of the examples I provided above.
Can anyone elaborate please?
You're welcome.Okay, yes welcome does have a past particle but I guess I should have explained how we use verbs in the past particle tense such as:
Broken glass will cut your fingers.
Determined people are successful.
Undetermined people are lazy.
Aren't the examples above before the past participles adjectives?
I appreciate the swift response by the way and thank you very much.
Thankfully I did type WELCOME and so apparently I am correct. But it was just a lucky guess so far.
It is correct to say or write 'unsolicited visits are not welcomed by my neighbours' or 'unsolicited visits are not a welcome, to my neighbours'.Hi,
But it does have a past participle. The Queen was welcomed by the crowd.
With questions like this I find it useful to think of a verb where the adjective and past participle form are different - such as open/opened.
The window was opened by the boy (active verb so past participle). The window was then open (state so adjective). You could turn the first around into "the boy opened the window" but there is no comparable verb for the second, which highlights the difference.
So translating that to your situation, both could work depending on what you mean. So you could say "unsolicited visits are not welcomed by neighbours when they occur". However, I would guess that as it's a sign your are talking about it's almost certainly the "state" version that you want, and therefore an adjective and so "unsolicited visits are not welcome".
It's effectively the same question as above. Both are possible - but I would guess that you need "welcome". "Are not welcomed" would mean that "when unsolicited visits occur they are not met with a welcome (ie applause, a cup of tea etc)" whereas I guess you mean "any (future) visits will not be appreciated (met with pleasure)".It is correct to say or write 'unsolicited visits are not welcomed' or 'unsolicited visits are not a welcome'.
"Welcomed in" can be grammatical when it means "received a welcome". "He was welcomed in Spain" means something like "when he got off the plane the mayor was there to shake his hand".I hope this doesn't seem ridiculously obvious, but no one has mentioned it yet:
He is always welcome in their home.
He is always welcomed into their home.
Actually, I am surprised to see so many examples of "welcomed in" on Google. It sounds very odd to me.
Yes, of course. You're right. What I meant was that I was surprised there were so many examples of "welcomed in their home." Obviously I didn't make that clear."Welcomed in" can be grammatical when it means "received a welcome". "He was welcomed in Spain" means something like "when he got off the plane the mayor was there to shake his hand".
The passive use of welcome vs welcomed depends on whether the the actual arrival or attendance of the intended guest(s) was consummated.Thank you, but I mean the usage as passives.
For example, which one is correct?
1. They are not welcome abroad.
2. They are not welcomed abroad.
You are CORRECT! Because again in this case the couple is invited to join us Wedenesday, but the actual occurrence is not consummated. You can use 'welcomed' in a future sense (in which the action is obviously not yet consummated) when there is a subordinate clause stated in the subjunctive mood, therefore requiring a past participle in the predicate structure of the main clause. For example, "The couple will be welcomed, IF THEY WISH TO COME BACK NEXT WEDNESDAY."The couple that had to miss last week's class is (welcome/welcomed) to join us this Wednesday.
Welcomed cannot be used here.