0

I came here after reading that perception verbs should be followed by either a base infinitive or a present participle as in the following examples:

I saw the car crash into the barrier.

I saw the car crashing into the barrier.

I am a bit confused about how to describe this situation when there are verbs in the object complement.

Am I correct in saying that the words crash, and crashing are verb forms since they refer to the action/state of the direct object (i.e. the car)?

Having searched several grammar sites online I couldn't find any information about the use of perception verbs with object complements that contain past participles like the sentences below:

I saw the car crashed into the barrier.

I saw the house burned to the ground.

It seems like the object complements here are describing the noun and so am I correct in thinking that the words crashed and burned in these sentences are in fact participle adjectives rather than verbs?

KillingTime
  • 6,206
Damian Eastwood
  • 21
  • 1
    This object complement is a clause. Clauses are really little sentences; they have subjects, and they have verb phrases. The verb phrases here are non-finite -- no tense, present or past -- and their subjects are right there in front of them -- the car did the crashing, and the speaker did the seeing. Just treat subordinate clauses like these like parentheses in algebra -- start from the most subordinate and work your way up. This one is the object, and then there's the main clause. Just turtles, all the way down. – John Lawler Oct 04 '22 at 13:42
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Non-finite clause complementation of complex transitive verbs For which Bare infinitive or present participle? (asking about He heard him snore / snoring* last night*) was closed in favour of. – FumbleFingers Oct 04 '22 at 14:06
  • 1
    There is no object complement in any of your examples. "See" is a catenative verb: in the first example, "the car" is indeed direct object, but "crash into the barrier" is not an object complement but catenative complement of "see". The same applies to your second example, "the car" is direct object and "crashing into the barrier" is catenative complement of "see". Your last two examples are simply passive versions of the first two – BillJ Oct 04 '22 at 14:50
  • it's a little confusing because "the car crashing into the barrier" can be a noun phrase where "the car" is modified by "crashing into the barrier", which functions to identify the car, as in the sentence "The car crashing into the barrier is green". Compare "I saw the car crashing into the barrier parked outside my house last night." (There "crashing into the barrier" is a subordinate clause.) But here it's better viewed as a clause, because you're describing seeing the crash not the car. – Stuart F Oct 04 '22 at 15:34

1 Answers1

0

I saw the car [crash into the barrier].

I saw the car [crashing into the barrier].

There is no object complement in either of those examples. Object complements consist in almost all cases of NPs and AdjPs, but not clauses.

They are both catenative constructions where "see" is a catenative verb and the subordinate clauses that follow it are catenative complements of "see". The intervening NP "the car" is in both cases the direct object of "see".

Depending on context, your last two examples may be passive versions of the first two or past-participials as modifiers of the nouns "car"/"house".

BillJ
  • 12,832