Nobody is used to watching their parents ....

kkimmr

New Member
Korean
In the situation that someone ignored my parents and I watced it for the first time, can I say this?

"Nobody is used to watching their parents who have raised them ignored by someone else."

I'm not a native, so wonder if it's a correct sentence or not.

Thank in advance.
 
Last edited:
  • dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    It says too many things. If you remove "who have raised them" and remove the confusing "else" it becomes correct:

    2. Nobody is used to watching their parents ignored by someone.


    You can add "who raised them" to the sentence as a "parenthetical clause", by putting it in parentheses or putting commas before and after it. Then it is separate from the sentence grammar, and is just an added comment describing "parents":

    3. Nobody is used to watching their parents (who raised them) ignored by someone.
    4. Nobody is used to watching their parents, who raised them, ignored by someone.


    The "else" is incorrect. Is you say "by someone else" it implies that you ignore your parents; it only bothers you if someone else (not you) does it.
     

    kkimmr

    New Member
    Korean
    It says too many things. If you remove "who have raised them" and remove the confusing "else" it becomes correct:

    2. Nobody is used to watching their parents ignored by someone.


    You can add "who raised them" to the sentence as a "parenthetical clause", by putting it in parentheses or putting commas before and after it. Then it is separate from the sentence grammar, and is just an added comment describing "parents":

    3. Nobody is used to watching their parents (who raised them) ignored by someone.
    4. Nobody is used to watching their parents, who raised them, ignored by someone.


    The "else" is incorrect. Is you say "by someone else" it implies that you ignore your parents; it only bothers you if someone else (not you) does it.


    I really appreciate your answer~!!

    At first, the sentence above was written for the purpose to let students know "be used to ~ing, relative pronoun, the structure of perceptive verb" in a sentence. I've already known that it is too complex. Haha~
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    It seems you may not want to use the sentence, but if you do, I would add 'be' or 'being' -- watching your parents be ignored / being ignored.
     

    kkimmr

    New Member
    Korean
    It seems you may not want to use the sentence, but if you do, I would add 'be' or 'being' -- watching your parents be ignored / being ignored.

    I thought 'to be-deletion' happened in front of 'ignored' as the verb 'watch' is sensory perception verb, so I didn't write 'be'. Is using 'be or being' more suitable?
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Yes. Either "be ignored" or "being ignored" is better than just "ignored".

    "Their parents be ignored by someone" is the passive form of "someone ignore their parents."

    "There parents being ignored by someone" is the passive form of "someone ignoring their parents".

    All four of these are suitable after "watching". But your sentence puts "parents" first, which works well.
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    I thought 'to be-deletion' happened in front of 'ignored' as the verb 'watch' is sensory perception verb, so I didn't write 'be'. Is using 'be or being' more suitable?
    There is no grammatical reason not to use the verb 'to be' in front of 'ignored' after a verb of perception. With 'see' it is perfectly optional.

    With 'watch' it is different. 'Watch' expresses intention as well as perception and that makes the verb 'to be' a natural inclusion here.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    Note that in these sentences we are using "be/being" (as part of a passive verb). We are not using the infinitive "to be".

    I suspect that "to be deletion" does not apply to a "be/being" that is part of a passive verb tense.

    I'm trying to find "to be deletion" on a website. So far I have found one example:

    "Everybody considers him to be the best person for the job."
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    Note that in these sentences we are using "be/being" (as part of a passive verb). We are not using the infinitive "to be".
    The verb 'to be' has several different forms, including 'be', 'being', 'was', 'were' etc. Whichever one we use, we are using the verb 'to be'.
     

    kkimmr

    New Member
    Korean
    Note that in these sentences we are using "be/being" (as part of a passive verb). We are not using the infinitive "to be".

    I suspect that "to be deletion" does not apply to a "be/being" that is part of a passive verb tense.

    I'm trying to find "to be deletion" on a website. So far I have found one example:

    "Everybody considers him to be the best person for the job."

    I mean we don't use 'to inf' in the position of objective complement after using the sensory perception verb 'watch',

    so I have thought when the action is not active but passive, not only 'to' but also 'be or being' should be removed as well.

    In this reason, I didn't use "be or being" at first.

    I added the contents I used from 'Student's Grammar of the English Language'
     

    Attachments

    Last edited:

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    not only 'to' but also 'be or being' should be removed as well
    We do not use the 'to infinitive' or the bare infinitive in that situation. However, the participle is natural after any verb of perception and in the case of 'watch' (but not 'see') it is required.

    'I saw it being done'. :tick:
    'I saw it done'.:tick:
    'I watched it being done'.:tick:
    'I watched it done'.:cross:
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    I added the contents I used from 'Student's Grammar of the English Language
    That scan does not contain the rule you are relying on. It only states the categories the rule applies to. Can you show us the rule itself?
     

    kkimmr

    New Member
    Korean
    We do not use the 'to infinitive' or the bare infinitive in that situation. However, the participle is natural after any verb of perception and in the case of 'watch' (but not 'see') it is required.

    'I saw it being done'. :tick:
    'I saw it done'.:tick:
    'I watched it being done'.:tick:
    'I watched it done'.:cross:
    I know 'see' means 'come to our eyes' and that 'watch' means 'try to see'.
    You mean the verb 'watch' is more active and concurrent than 'see', so 'I watched it done' is incorrect or awkward, right?
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    I know 'see' means 'come to our eyes' and that 'watch' means 'try to see'.
    You mean the verb 'watch' is more active and concurrent than 'see', so 'I watched it done' is incorrect or awkward, right?
    'Watch' does not mean 'try to see'. It means 'observe visually', which means 'intentionally behold'. It means that the person is not only seeing, but has chosen to do so. It means 'see with the intention of seeing'.

    I suppose the reason why we do not use 'watch' without the present participle in this case is that with the passive participle alone it would imply that we intended the result of the action, whereas we only intend the seeing ('I watched it done' would suggest my watching made it happen).
     
    Last edited:

    kkimmr

    New Member
    Korean
    'Watch' does not mean 'try to see'. It means 'observe visually', which means 'intentionally behold'. It means that the person is not only seeing, but has chosen to do so. It means 'see with the intention of seeing'.

    I suppose the reason why we do not use 'watch' without the present participle in this case is that with the passive participle alone it would imply that we intended the result of the action, whereas we only intend the seeing.
    I wrote 'try to see' to mean 'see with the intention of seeing' as you said above but it didn't deliver what I intended..^^;;
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    I wrote 'try to see' to mean 'see with the intention of seeing' as you said above but it didn't deliver what I intended..^^;;
    The distinction is not easy to explain in a few words.
    The expression 'tried to see' means that the effort was made, but the seeing was not achieved.
     
    Last edited:

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    English has several pairs of verbs. The first is an intentional action. The second is the result of that action. The second is also used for an unintended action:

    watch -- see (TV shows and other moving things)
    look at -- see (motionless things)
    listen -- hear
    touch -- feel
    learn how -- know how
    search for, look for -- find
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    Two common expressions use 'watch' for motionless objects: 'it's like watching paint dry'; 'a watched pot never boils'.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top