Sugar cane is USED To be EATEN AND BEATEN or BEAT..??

wohlamhay

Member
Urdu
Hello friends,

I have got another question..

It is sugar cane. It used to BE EATEN AND TO BE BEATEN too..
It is sugar cane. It used to BE EATEN AND TO BEAT too..

What is right ?? If both are right then do both have same meaning..?? Is there any grammar rule which can make both of them right with same meaning...

Regards
Wohlamhay

 
  • owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    What are you trying to say, Wohlamhay? Do you mean to say that people crushed sugar cane (to be beaten) to make cane syrup and ate sugar cane?
     
    Last edited:

    Sparky Malarky

    Moderator
    English - US
    If you are simply asking for the past perfect of beat, it is beaten.

    I beat the drum. (present)
    I beat the drum last week. (past)
    I had beaten the drum before he came. (past perfect)
     

    lucas-sp

    Senior Member
    English - Californian
    I have the sense that we're trying to get to "Sugar cane was used to beat (slaves working on plantations)."

    I think perhaps wohlam is confused about the multiple meanings of "used"?

    (Sugar cane used to be eaten. It was also, at the same time, used to beat people. Thus sugar cane used to be eaten // sugar cane used to be used to beat people.)
     

    wohlamhay

    Member
    Urdu
    I am not confused..
    Sorry for incomplete sentence..

    I did mean to say that..

    Sugar cane is used to beat people

    Can i say
    Sugar cane is used to be beaten????

    Will it give same meaning or not as sugar cane is used to beat gives..??
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    I'm glad Lucas SP figured out your meaning, Wohlamhay. I don't think you should use "...is used to be beaten". Instead, you might try: It is sugar cane, which was used for food and also to beat people with.
     

    lucas-sp

    Senior Member
    English - Californian
    The fundamental thing, Wolham, is that you're confused about these two forms:

    1. X is used to Y
    and
    2. X used to Y

    1. is present. It means "X is employed as a means of doing Y."
    2. is past ("used to" is one way of forming the past tense in English). It means "In the past, X Yed."

    So compare these sentences:

    1. My car is used to drive around the city.
    2. My car used to drive around the city.

    1. means "Today, in the present, my car is employed as a means of driving around the city." I employ ("use") my car to drive around the city today, in the present.
    2. means "In the past, my car drove around the city." This suggests that now, in the present, my car no longer drives around the city. It might have broken down. It only drove around the city in the past.

    You're confusing two words - "used" and "used" - that look the same, but have very different meanings. To make things harder, you're getting confused about passive infinitives. You really have two separate questions here.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top