The two forms of a participle:    (i) durative and (ii) perfective.  The durative kind look like gerunds.  (Gerunds and attributive durative participles of three syllables having "r,", "l", "n," or "w" before -ing drop the middle vowel and become dissyllabic in a given tempo of speaking:  gath'ring, lab'ling, butt'ning, swall'wing.   The attributive participle in a gath'ring storm may be contrasted with the predicative participle in a storm gathering strength; cf. further a crying child with a child crying because of hunger.  (See Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 163, for the difference orderings of "She saw a crying child" : "She saw a child crying" and of He had a broken arm" : "He had an arm broken.")
     The principle use of the durative participle in its predicative form is to constitute PROGRESSIVE modalities like is reading, were sleeping, having been studying, going to be helping, etc.  That this is not a "continuous" modality, as some grammarians allege, is evident when it cannot be used in something as continuous as "Troy was standing 600 years" or even "Troy used to stand 600 years"--a least in the absence of a locative (e.g. there).
     The second kind of participle is termed perfective although the modality formed with have plus this kind of participle is not completive, as in "They have always done it that way (and will continue to do it that way), but is used for occurrences detailed in Lesson 12.  This kind of participle has many forms in English.  It regularly ends in -ed, but may end in -(e}n, -t, or nothing (with a vowel change, as in cost and shed or simply without a vowel change (e.g. swum and bound) or with both a vowel change and appended -en (e.g. broken, spoken, frozen).

Seven verbs form both past and perfective participle by changing everything following the initial consonant(s) to -ought or -aught:  bring, buy, catch, fight, seek, teach, think; note also ought, originally a participle of owe, and distraught, from distract (see below)--whose unmarked perfect participle is distracted..  (If these forms are taught before all other verbs, foreign students will never have trouble with them; if taught after regular formations, even the best students will often get them wrong, saying teached and the like.)   There are also old participles now used as adjectives:  distraught, fraught, wrought--which is sometimes also used as the participle for work or wreak.  In North America, gotten is the participle of get, got being used as a participle only in preteritive have got (for which, see Lesson 12).  Note differences in fit and  fitted, wed and wedded, etc.  Many say fit for the past of fit, but I continue to say fitted like outfitted; the adjective fit means "in good condition," etc.   Hanged has pretty much disappeared in favor of hung, as has dived in favor of dove; neither participle of dive fits the old pattern of drive.  There is a transitive verb cost with past and perfect participle regularly formed as costed.  Cf. the different meanings of quit and  quitted (with which compare acquitted).  Some speakers have (a)waked, while others say (a)woken.  Where I come from we said, waked up or awakened--with awoke as an occasional variant. I say lighted, though others say lit--which for me means "drunken."  In contrast with broken, broke means "bankrupt."  Usually preceded by all, shook up is a variant of shaken up that has emotional connotations.  A number of verbs have two forms in use; some speakers seem to differentiate transitive and intransitive forms of some of these; e.g. speeded (up), sped up.  Note that (over)flown and (over)flowed belong, respectively, to (over)fly and (over)flow.
       If adverbial -ly is suffixed to a participle, the attributive form (e.g. rottenly) is used, unless it ends in -t (e.g. burnt, left) or nothing (put and led, the result of the sound rules operating on underlying put+t and lead+t).  Note that the participial ending -ed (e.g. in supposed, pronounced, and confessed) has "e" pronounced before -ly; e.g. supposëdly, pronouncëdly, confessëdly.  Some participles (e.g. said) are not amenable to being suffixed with -ly.

     A participial construct or participial phrase is analogous to a gerund construct in including  modifiers and an object with the participle.  Note the different roles of the participle in:

"We left it standing in front of her door.'
'They saw something moving (or  move [an infinitive]) in the bushes.'

In the first of the foregoing examples, standing is predicative participle modifying the preceding pronoun--it.  But is not a predicator like moving in the second example; the subject of moving is something.  As noted in parentheses, the short infinitive is allowed in the same position; but with be, there is a difference between the short and long infinitives (see Lesson 15):  "We saw them (to) be obnoxious."  For the different status of a predicative participle with the object of see and the object of (non-causative, non-contracausative) have,  see Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis, p. 163.
    Whenever the subject of a verbid ending in -ing is genitival, it is to be analysed as a gerund; e.g.  "They heard its moving in the bushes."
     English has absolutes with a participial predicator that function as modifiers of the predication of main clause they precede:  "They having been seen by the police, their leader could hardly avoid confessing everything."  This is more or less equivalent to "Since they had been seen by the police, their leader could hardly avoid confessing everything." Note that the pronominal forms undergo a double reversal here, re-reversing the forms heard in marked environments.  For similar expressions involving predicative-adjective quasi-absolutes, which modifying a noun in the sentence, CLICK HERE.

Prior to any time:  "One should always use whatever tools have come to hand."  

We would not say came unless we regarded as true the tools' having come to hand before the now of the statement.  Note the difference:

"They have done it at ten o'clock a.m."   [an un-English present-posterior]
"They have always done it at ten o'clock a.m."  [an exochronous-posterior, which allows a definite past time--an event or state in a block of time ending before "now"]

Prior to a past time:  "They had finished it before we arrived."
Prior to a time later than some past time:  "They were to have finished it by ten o'clock."
Prior to a future time:  "By midnight, they will have repaired whatever has gone wrong."

In the last two examples, the repairing spoke of there can have already taken place at the now of the statement; or it can still be posterior to that.  An educated person would usually avoid saying, "If they already did it, we'll be able to avoid an unpleasant task."  The past is to be avoided with since in its temporal meaning; we say, "Nothing untoward  has happened since they arrived."  (When since is equivalent to because, the past is of course acceptable.)   A past event that could have taken place at any time prefers the anterior; e.g. "That same investigator has at some time been accused of fraud."  More interesting is the contrrast between after and since; cf.:

"It stood there (long) after the war."  vs.  "It has stood there since the war."

Note that [ha]ve may be omitted when the time of the sending is known to lie in the past; have sent leaves the time of sending open--a past promise may not yet have been fulfilled.  See Lesson 13.)  In the sentence, "People who succeed in business don't give money to those who haven't helped them," didn't  (which is what I read in the newspaper today) would be correct if one had specific donors at a specific past time in mind.  Here are examples of the exochronous-anterior and a posterior-anterior:

"Things (never) seem as good as they have been"  
"It seems to be something that has been disdained in an earlier century."
"Things will never seem as good as they have been"
"They will have done it by tomorrow."

 it does, the anterior modality has to be regarded as being as marked as is the anterior modality or the least-marked posterior modalities--or as an imperative or infinitive (an anterior or posterior infinitive is doubly marked, causing double reversals, as described in Chh. 5 and 6 of Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis).     

MARKED MODALITIES-CONTEXTS-USES 

Uses of non-past-posterior would (and will)  

a)      Volitional (“be willing, insist on, persist in”; but actual volition is non-modal will[s]); e.g. ”He would drink too much when he visited them.”  A metaphorical use is heard in “It would turn out that way.” 

b) Epistemic or presumptive, as in “It’would be there by now, she mused.”  In contrast with will, past would ocurs only in mind-reading quotations like the foregoing.      
c) Characterizing; e.g. “She would always say that in those days.”

    Past-pasterior would is unmarked used in indirect quotations (where was/were going to is marked), but this use of would does not exist in independent clauses.  Could can be used for was/were able to in a main clause when the context is negative, interrogative, etc.; it is unmarked in these contexts and (even when not negative, interrogated, etc.) in subordinate clauses; e.g. indirect quotations.

     Uses of should

a) Equivalent to ought in meaning (but this use of should and the use of ought are not parallel; e.g. ought takes the long infinitive [with to] when in an unmarked context).

b) Semi-dubitative or non-expectative in hypothesis clauses; e.g. “If they should do it tomorrow, . . .”—not very different from “If they did it tomorrow, . . .”

c) Deletable or virtual in clauses subordinate to expressions of volition or necessity and of importance or propriety; e.g. “It was necessary that it [should] not arrive late.”  It is heard in negated adverbial (but hardly object-noun) pur­­pose clauses beginning with lest.

d) Factual, as in "We're surprised and disgusted that he should say a thing like that."  This follows expressions that are not neutral with respect to expectation or desideration; i.e. they are expectative or counterexpectative or else desired or undesired.

ANTERIOR-POSTERIOR MODALITIES

     Present-posteriors make use of was/were going to and would--as well as could and might.  One often hears also can have, could have, may have, might have, must have, ought to have, etc. (see Ch. 17).  The forms would, could, and might are default forms for indirect questions following a main clause with past (but not anterior) predicate.  English has past-posteriors like was going to and 
present-anterior-posteriors like have been going to, . . .  even past-anterior-posteriors like had been going to and posterior-anteriors like am going to have done and will have seen.   

A past-posterior-posterior like would be going to do is less rare than a  posterior-posterior like will be going to do.  Note that verb modalities can become as long as must have been going to have been getting watched [by the authorities].  (Note that we avoid the jingle, been being, in a passive verb where possible.)

CLICK HERE to see about the double-past-anterior in "If I'd've been there, . . .  

13 PASSIVES, CONTRAPONENTS

     The passive modality is formed with be or get (native speakers get the difference right; the teacher should read up on the difference in Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis; see index).      

Passive "Mice are hated by cats" = active "Cats hate mice"

The perspective is different:  Whichever is up front receives the main focus.

The passive modality has as its subject the direct object; passive verbs are transitive, since they can have objects when active.   If the subject of the active form is mentioned, it is preceded by a preposition-by, with, or through--and is called the agent (or, if impersonal, optionally the instrument; by is preferred for personal agents).  

One should distinguish exochronous "That program gets aired at noon every day" from "That program is aired at noon every day."  The latter simply states a fact--almost a state--with no eye to action; it may be the result of a past action.  Interesting contrasts are heard in the following:

The marked posteriority of the sentences in the lower row of the foregoing reverses the uses of be and get; negation and true interrogation (not the many kinds of English questions discussed in L78) have the same effect, though when both are combined, the result is a double-reversal that looks like an non-negated, non-interrogated use.
    Native-speakers know where to use be and get for passives. Foreign learners should refer to the index of Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis.   Contraponents are verbs that are non-passive in form (i.e. they lack the auxiliaries be and get and are finite in form) but whose sense is passive.  This use of transitive verbs is very common in timeless statements like "This book translates easily."  A normal agent is excluded, but instrumental "with the aid of good lexicon" could be added.  The current replacing of intransitive lie with contraponent lay in today's educated usage is not being paralleled except among the less-educated by a replacing of sit with contraponent set (which, however, has acceptable intransitive uses in "The concrete has set" and "The sun is setting."  (See L52.)  
     English has a verb that would be called preteritive in a classical (Latin, Greek) grammar.  The form have got is used as a non-past.  Unlike have, it lacks verbid forms (see below:  gerund, and participle, and infinitive) and, in North America, a past (viz. had got, heard in Britain and its former dependencies outside of North America).

14  SUBORDINATE CLAUSES II--EMBEDDED 
ADJECTIVAL (RELATIVE) CLAUSES

    Relative clauses are adjectival; they begin with the relative pronouns that (omitted in certain contexts; see below) and who or which--the so-called WH-pronouns; cf. the WH-adverbs.  Relative pronouns are normally moved to the front of their clauses; but see Appendix B, Lesson 7 above, and the section on pied-piping following this section.  Whose is a determiner.  We distinguish restrictive relatives and non-restrictive relatives--also called appositive--a term best reserved for true appositives to words like statement, claim, and the like--as in "the claim that he won."   (Titles like Queen and Judge function like determiners.)

 Restrictive relatives are not parenthetical in a way that non-restrictive relatives are.  Contrast the restrictive clause in "That's the one who/that happened to be here yesterday" with the non-restrictive clause in "My father, who happened to be here yesterday, told me about it."  

      Non-restrictive clauses, which are set off by commas, and indirect questions (like "Say who did it") avoid the relative pronoun that and use WH-relative pronouns (who, which; cf. WH-relative and interrogative adverbs where, when, why, and how); note that who is preferred to which for persons and pets having personal names.  That is the default relative pronoun; it is often virtual (deleted) when not the subject or predicate complement of restrictive relative clause.  But there are contexts in which that is not used.  These include the positions following a non-virtual preposition (see below) and following determiners like those and the quantifier all.  (Some languages say all what; this is un-English.)  Since the genitival postposition 's is not used with that, we say whose (for who's); but we say "of which" or "of whom" when this phrase modifies a clause-initial word; e.g. "Look at those books, some of which are falling apart"; a non-restrictive clause would prefer "Look at the ones of which some are falling apart."  We also avoid that where it could be confused with the conjunction.  In a succession of relative clauses, we often replace that with a WH-pronoun when the first is long, as in "the book that discusses what happened that year in Nigeria and which is now available in the college bookstore."  When one relative clause is embedded in another, we sometimes use a WH-pronoun in one clause (usually the clause in which the other is embedded) and who or which (hereafter WH-pronouns) in the other; e.g. "That's the book that she lent the student who needed it for his research" or "That's the book she lent the student who needed it for his research."  An example of conjoined relative clauses, the first of which has embedding of a non-relative clauses beginning with that is:  "I looked up the term that the teacher who lectured yesterday used and which seemed to her to be very important."  Whether we say relative in which or where depends on the degree of explicitness that is appropriate; see the first sentence of this paragraph.  In speaking and even in writing, we often say "the way" instead of the fuller "the way that" or "the way in which."  In "the way @ that" (where @ is a virtual pronoun), that follows a virtual pronoun; a WH-pronoun does not do so.   
    Though required when the preposition is foregrounded to the front of the clause, whom is rarely used, partly for the reasons given in Appendix B; see also the section on pied-piping that follows here.  I have known speakers unable or reluctant to use whose (for who's) for antecedents that are non-persons and animals with names.  I can use either whose or of which in the following (see L57 for <of NOMINAL> vs. <NOMINAL's>).   In the early days of Middle English, Who? was a calque of French qui?--which had the same form in every function--even as the object of a preposition.  Later, the which (a calque of Old French laquele/liquels) and who were used as relatives; and in due course, whose (i.e. who's) and whom (an indirect-object dative in Anglo-Saxon) came into use as both interrogative and relative pronouns.     
     Notice that, although from where cannot be used in a question, direct or indirect, it is allowed in a non-restrictive relative clause like "We reached Hilo, from where we went to Kona."
     Clauses beginning with whatever (pronominal or determiner), whichever (pronominal or determiner), or who(se)ever are nominal clauses; see Lesson 16.

For NOM is often deleted when NOM would be indefinite "one" or when NOM is the same as a nominal being modified (e.g. "I notified the fellow [for him] to call us"; it is also optional when a infinitive construct modifies a modifier (adjective or adverb; e.g. "easy [for one] to do").   A nominal infinitive construct functioning as the subject (e.g. "For us to come early might be inconvenient for them"), predicate complement ("The object was for us to get it done on time"), or object (e.g. "They said for us to come early" and "instead of for them to leave early") of a higher clause has the full form of the infinitive construct; i.e. both for and to are present.   Note that the only prepositions taking an infinitive object are instead of and besides (both of which prefer a gerund, though an infinitive may keep or omit the functor to, as in "wanted to stay instead of [to] go"), than (e.g. other/rather than [to] go), as (e.g. as well as [to] go"), and besides (which also prefers a gerund, but omits to with an infinitive; e.g. do nothing besides eat and sleep")  If an infinitive construct modifies an object and its own object is the same, the object of the infinitive is omitted (is virtual),  as in "It was too much (for us) to overcome X"--where X represents the deleted much.  The sequence for for is reduced to one for; e.g. "They wanted for [for] us to be on time."   When an infinitive construct indeterminate whether an example like "It was too much (for one) to overcome X"--where X is the repeated object too much.   Note that the sense is really passive "to be overcome"; one may say "It was too much to be overcome"--in which event an agent/instrumental "by one" is usually omitted at the end.
     Infinitives and infinitive constructs serving as modifiers have the long form with the functor to: