# watch someone <ride><riding> away



## brolia

i've started to read one book called "Gone with the wind" and i've came across some problems and i'll ask them in this thread.

"Scarley watched the twins ride away" 
why is there written "ride away" but not "riding away"  ?

and the same question
"i want to watch the sun go down"  
i thought we must say going down, not go down :S

_<< Deleted off-topic sentence. >>_


----------



## owlman5

Hello, Brolia, welcome to the forum. 
Verbs of perception such as hear, see, and watch often take the bare infinitive rather than some other verb form:
We watched him play.  We heard her sing.  We saw the sun go down.

If you're interested in studying this use in detail, you should try looking up "bare infinitive" with your favorite search engine.  You'll find links to many grammar websites that cover the topic in detail.


----------



## Cagey

There are two ways to say that person you are watching is doing something. One is to use the participle (_-ing_ form), as you expect:Scarley watched the twins riding away.
I want to watch the sun going down.​The other is to use the plain form of the verb, which sometimes called the "bare infinitive".   That is what the author did:Scarley watched the twins ride away.
I want to watch the sun go down.​There is an explanation of the difference between the two constructions in this thread:
Simple form followed by noun (bare infinitive)If you watched the sun _going_ down, you saw part of its movement in the sky.  You may not have seen the whole thing.  You may not have seen the end, when the sun slipped below the horizon and out of sight.  

If you watched the sun _go_ down, you saw the whole thing. You were watching when it finally disappeared from view.​


----------



## brolia

*owlman5
Cagey
*


Thank you both very much,  that was very hepful for me   Now I understand it clearly  






> Hello, Brolia, welcome to the forum.


Thanks, I already think, that there I can learn much 
( I hope I haven't made grammar mistakes in this post  )


----------



## natkretep

Brolia, maybe you can look at this thread as it discusses the same issue:

Look at it snow! [verb of perception + non-finite verb]


----------



## brolia

*natkretep

*thanks  I will


----------



## firee818

Hi, 

_1). Do you feel the earth *move/moving*?_


I thought  'moving' is correct. It is Present Participle to indicate an ongoing action.
Whereas 'move' suggest a complete action, but in actual fact, the earth is still moving, it is a non-stop action, so it is not correct.

Any comments?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Where  did you see this sentence, please?


----------



## firee818

Hermione Golightly said:


> Where  did you see this sentence, please?


Question 12 from the following link:-
Infinitive With Or Without To


----------



## natkretep

Moderator note: firee818's thread (from post 7) has been added to this thread.

Firee818, please scroll up. After verbs of perception, you can use the infinitive or the present participle, with perhaps a slight difference in meaning.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Thank you - that's very useful.
The exercise is about choosing an infinitive with 'to' or a _bare _infinitive, one without 'to'.
'Moving' is not an infinitive so the answer they want has to be 'move' because 'to move' is wrong after 'feel'.
However, it is either a poorly constructed question or a rather mean trick! The participle could be used here after a 'sense' verb _feel_.


----------



## zaffy

<Added to an older thread. Nat>

1. Grammar books say we use the bear infinitive form after 'see' and 'hear', i.e., see/hear somebody do something, but some sources say that you can also use the ing form if the activity is in progress.

I saw him leave the house.   ( He left the house)
I saw him leaving the house. (He didn't leave yet, he was say putting on the shoes) 

Do you agree with that? Are these two sentences correct?

2.  So can I say "I saw them dancing" if the dance was still in progress? Or do I still need to say 'I saw them dance'  in this situation?
In other words, would you distinguish between these two situations, depending on whether the dance was over or in progress?

-I saw them dance. 
-I saw them dancing.


----------



## Uncle Jack

zaffy said:


> Do you agree with that? Are these two sentences correct?


Both sentences are fine, but "leaving" means the very act of leaving. Passing out through the door rather than putting on his shoes. With "leave", you might only have seen him walk past your own window heading away from his house.

The only reason you would use "leaving" or dancing" is if the action has some particular significance:
A: Have you heard? John and Mary have had a terrible row and aren't speaking to each other.
B: No! I saw them dancing together only last night.​


----------



## zaffy

I'm still a bit confused. If two people kissed just once, and it was just a short kiss which I witnessed, I will surly say "I saw them kiss". But if it they were kissing for a longer period of time, which I witnessed, and they still continued kissing after I'd gone away, shouldn't I say "I saw them kissing but I left soon because  couldn't look at that" ?


----------



## Uncle Jack

zaffy said:


> I'm still a bit confused. If two people kissed just once, and it was just a short kiss which I witnessed, I will surly say "I saw them kiss". But if it they were kissing for a longer period of time, which I witnessed, and they still continued kissing after I'd gone away, shouldn't I say "I saw them kissing but I left soon because  couldn't look at that" ?


With this usage, duration doesn't much come into it. Certainly, a quick peck on the cheek would never be described as "kissing", but it certainly needn't be something that went on for so long that you had to turn away. The -ing form emphasises the significance of the act, not the duration. You could, for instance, taunt someone by saying "I saw you kissing David in the park!", where the kiss could have been very brief.


----------



## zaffy

I see, I was convinced the bare infinitive form was the perfective form and the ing form was the imperfective one. This is how we say in Polish, it is strange you don't distinguish between these two forms in English.


----------



## zaffy

Cagey said:


> If you watched the sun _going_ down, you saw part of its movement in the sky.  You may not have seen the whole thing.  You may not have seen the end, when the sun slipped below the horizon and out of sight.
> 
> If you watched the sun _go_ down, you saw the whole thing. You were watching when it finally disappeared from view.​



I'm again confused. This explanation clearly resembles the kissing situation. The sun 'going' or 'go down' nicely shows the perfective and imperfective aspect. 

I saw them kiss.    
I saw them kissing.


----------



## Cagey

You can't omit the meaning of the verb in your analysis. 

A kiss is generally a discrete action that doesn't last over time. In fact, if it does last over time, people often feel the need to say so:  It was a long, slow kiss. It's quite likely that when you report what you saw, you will say simply say, "I saw them kiss."

If you say that you saw them kissing, it is likely that you are reporting repeated instances, or show of affection that goes on for a while. 

It takes a while for the sun to go down.  Thus is is possible to make a distinction between watching the sun until it disappears (has gone down) and seeing only part of the movement.


----------



## Akasaka

<Added to this thread. Nat>

Hello members,

I have difficulty understanding which form of verb to use.

*I felt my heart (beat / beating) fast when I slipped on the wet fallen leaves.*

Which is correct? If both are correct, what is the difference?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## velisarius

Either could be correct.

Do you want to say that the feeling was more or less instantaneous (you suddenly felt your heart beat fast just a few times), or do you want to emphasise the duration of the feeling? It's subjective—it depends how it felt to you at the time.

Compare with:
_I heard the dog bark. _(Perhaps only one or two short barks)
_I heard the dog barking_. (Probably it kept on barking for some time)


----------



## Akasaka

Thanks, velisarius.  I thought I could use only "beating" here.


----------



## velisarius

I've slipped on wet fallen leaves myself, and it was not a pleasant experience. I'm sure that "beating" is more appropriate for a bad fall, though if you didn't actually end up sprawled on the ground and it was just a simple slip where you quickly regained your balance, "I felt my heart beat fast" would be fine.


----------



## Akasaka

Your explanation is to the point. I do go in the mountain from time to time, and similar experience. I think I got the difference. Thank you.


----------



## zaffy

Would you use either to emphasise a different thing? Or should I just use the bare infinitive as grammar books say whatever the context is?

-I heard them argue.
-I heard them arguing.


----------



## natkretep

I'd use the latter if I'm focussing on how they argued for a while.


----------



## zaffy

natkretep said:


> I'd use the latter if I'm focussing on how they argued for a while.



So why couldn't I do the same with 'kissing' mentioned above? To emphasise an action in progress, lasting for a while.  Some people might have been kissing for say half an hour, just like you could be arguing for half an hour.

I saw them arguing.
I saw them kissing.


----------



## zaffy

"I heard him give a lecture on modern art"  - did I listened to the whole lecture? Or was I just passing by and listened to him for some time?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> So why couldn't I do the same with 'kissing' mentioned above? To emphasise an action in progress, lasting for a while.  Some people might have been kissing for say half an hour, just like you could be arguing for half an hour.
> 
> I saw them arguing.
> I saw them kissing.


If the kiss lasted that long, then you _can_ use "I saw them kissing".


----------



## zaffy

Thanks JullianS. And how about the lecture example?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> Thanks JullianS. And how about the lecture example?


Similar logic.  If you heard the complete event, you would be more like to use simple past, while if you only heard part, you woud be more ikely to use the -ing form.


----------



## Packard

brolia said:


> i've started to read one book called "Gone with the wind" and i've came across some problems and i'll ask them in this thread.
> 
> "Scarley watched the twins ride away"
> why is there written "ride away" but not "riding away"  ?
> 
> and the same question
> "i want to watch the sun go down"
> i thought we must say going down, not go down :S
> 
> _<< Deleted off-topic sentence. >>_



Here is the transcript.  Can you tell us what chapter this is from?

Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell : Chapter 22

*Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell*


----------



## zaffy

Hermione Golightly said:


> However, it is either a poorly constructed question or a rather mean trick! The participle could be used here after a 'sense' verb _feel_.



Actually, Longman also says only bare infinitive is possible after 'feel'


----------



## JulianStuart

We have a lot of examples of things being wrong in Wrongman (or being interpreted incorrectly).  Your example from Longman does not use the word "only".  

She felt his arms going round her back. 
He felt the car rumbling across the bridge. etc.

Those are totally fine.  I suspect the Longman example is illustrating that you MAY use a bare infinitive after feel.


----------



## zaffy

JulianStuart said:


> We have a lot of examples of things being wrong in Wrongman (or being interpreted incorrectly).  Your example from Longman does not use the word "only".



Indeed it doesn't, but if there were two options according to Longman, it would say "feel somebody/something do/doing something".

Anyway, in this exercise which was also mentioned above, the key says 'move' only is correct, which in fact is not true, right? 'Moving' also works, right?


----------



## owlman5

"Move" seems a little more suitable in that question about whether somebody feels the earth move, zaffy.  It seems to refer to the ordinary movement of the planet rather than to some specific instance of movement that "moving" might express better.  If I hear "Do you feel the earth moving?", I am likely to interpret the question as a question that refers to some unusual, very noticeable movement of the earth.  That would make sense if somebody had just felt a tremor during an earthquake.


----------



## zaffy

Interestingly enough, I looked this up in three leading dictionaries, i.e., Longman, Oxford and Cambridge. They don't explain possible contexts and uses at all. So this is really misleading. Two of them give examples with bare infintive and one with -ing.  Hard not to be confused


----------



## owlman5

I can certainly sympathize with you, zaffy, as you try to use dictionaries to resolve questions you have about the appropriate use of words that are listed in those dictionaries.  I imagine that the dictionaries simply don't have enough space to allow them to include the possible contexts and uses for all those words.


----------



## JulianStuart

owlman5 said:


> "Move" seems a little more suitable in that question about whether somebody feels the earth move, zaffy.  It seems to refer to the ordinary movement of the planet rather than to some specific instance of movement that "moving" might express better.  If I hear "Do you feel the earth moving?", I am likely to interpret the question as a question that refers to some unusual, very noticeable movement of the earth.  That would make sense if somebody had just felt a tremor during an earthquake.


Living in California (and through the 89 earthquake) I heard the question quite a lot "Did you feel the earth moving?"  It went on for about 20 seconds, not just an instant


----------



## zaffy

So if I felt a single, very short touch I would say "I felt someone touch me" but if that touching/stroking continued for say a few minutes I would say "I felt Ashley touching my shoulders". Right?


----------



## owlman5

That sounds like a reasonable distinction to make in your use of "touch" and "touching", zaffy.  I would certainly be inclined to use "touch" to describe one very short touch that somebody else gave me.  I would be inclined to use "touching" to describe a longer, more noticeable and unusual period of contact.


----------



## Packard

I would expect to hear "*Did* you feel the earth *move*." and not "*Do* you feel the earth *move*."


----------



## zaffy

-I saw her cross the road.        (I saw the whole action, she reached the other side of the road)
-I saw her crossing the road.    (I saw the action in progress, I saw her perhaps in the middle of the road)

Coming back again to the above two forms, showing whether the action was complete or in progress, is it necessary to use the ing form to point out that I saw the action in progress or is it just an option to make things clearer? In other words, can the "I saw her cross the road" version also be used when I saw her in the middle of the road?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> -I saw her cross the road.        (I saw the whole action, she reached the other side of the road)
> -I saw her crossing the road.    (I saw the action in progress, I saw her perhaps in the middle of the road)
> 
> Coming back again to the above two forms, showing whether the action was complete or in progress, is it necessary to use the ing form to point out that I saw the action in progress or is it just an option to make things clearer? In other words, can the "I saw her cross the road" version also be used when I saw her in the middle of the road?


If you only saw her (in the middle of) crossing the street, it is not clear whether you know if she completed the crossing.  You will have to decide what meaning you wish to convey and how precise you want your sentence to be.


----------



## zaffy

'I saw her cross the road' -  So, this will always mean she completed the action, meaning she got to other side of the road, right?

But how about this?
'I saw her watch a movie.'  - She watched the whole movie? Or I saw her watching it at some point of the movie? Or perhaps either?


----------



## JulianStuart

zaffy said:


> 'I saw her cross the road' -  So, this will always mean she completed the action, meaning she got to other side of the road, right?
> 
> But how about this?
> 'I saw her watch a movie.'  - She watched the whole movie? Or I saw her watching it at some point of the movie? Or perhaps either?


You saw her watch the whole movie.  If you don't know (or didn't see) if she watched the whole movie, then you say "I saw her watching a movie."  This is the same answer that has been repeatedly given, I think.
Bare infinitive = you saw the complete event
-ing (progressive) form = you saw (some part of) the event _in progress_.
If you want to be more precise, you need to use more words to add the detail


----------



## zaffy

Ok, thanks, I just have an impression that sometimes you use bare infinitive even if you're talking about an action which was still in progress.


----------



## velisarius

"I saw her watch a movie" 

You stood by and observed her while she watched a whole movie? That's a strange thing to do. Let's hope it was a short one.

If I observed her for a few minutes, I would say "I saw her watching a movie".

_I went into the TV room yesterday evening, and Sarah was there. I saw her watching a  movie. She was still watching it when I left the room an hour later._


----------



## Forero

zaffy said:


> 'I saw her cross the road' -  So, this will always mean she completed the action, meaning she got to other side of the road, right?


I am not sure about that "always", but it means the speaker believes she crossed the road based on what the speaker saw.

On the other hand, if she never got to the other side, "I saw her crossing the road" is not entirely true either.

"I watched her cross the road" would be more convincing.





> But how about this?
> 'I saw her watch a movie.'  - She watched the whole movie? Or I saw her watching it at some point of the movie? Or perhaps either?


Unfortunately, watching a movie is not the same kind of watching as exemplified in "I watched her cross the road", but this sentence means the speaker believes she watched a movie based on what the speaker saw.





zaffy said:


> Ok, thanks, I just have an impression that sometimes you use bare infinitive even if you're talking about an action which was still in progress.


I don't think any of the sentences talked about so far in this thread are examples of that, but maybe with more context ....


----------



## kngram

Hello, everybody,
I have read the discussion with intense interest.  There were many view points and compelling examples concerning the question under discussion. I'd like to make a little explanation.
Not every verb can be used for the bare infinitive and participle with the verbs of perception.
In event of bare infinitives  the so-called verbs of accomplishment and achievement are preferable. The verb of either accomplishment or achievement are two terms in semantics .
For example,
I noticed her drop a pencil. (achievement)
They saw him catch a ball. (achievement)
They watched the Browns paint the fence. (accomplishment)
A complete situation was observed in every example above.
In event of participles the co-called verbs of activity are preferable.
For example,
The council camp's guides watched the next shift of their colleagues arriving. (activity)
When a participle is used, the action  is ongoing at the time of perception.
Therefore, the sentence 'Scarlett watched the twins ride away' could not be written with a participle.
The verb 'ride' is a verb of activity, but adverb 'away' transforms it into a verb of accomplishment.


----------



## natkretep

Just remember that the pronoun after the first verb must be in the object form:
I noticed she her drop a pencil. 
They saw he him catch a ball.


----------



## kngram

Dear natkretep

You are right, my mistake. I'll fix it now.


----------



## Forero

kngram said:


> Hello, everybody,
> I have read the discussion with intense interest.  There were many view points and compelling examples concerning the question under discussion. I'd like to make a little explanation.
> Not every verb can be used for the bare infinitive and participle with the verbs of perception.
> In event of bare infinitives  the so-called verbs of accomplishment and achievement are preferable. The verb of either accomplishment or achievement are two terms in semantics .
> For example,
> I noticed her drop a pencil. (achievement)
> They saw him catch a ball. (achievement)
> They watched the Browns paint the fence. (accomplishment)
> A complete situation was observed in every example above.
> In event of participles the co-called verbs of activity are preferable.
> For example,
> The council camp's guides watched the next shift of their colleagues arriving. (activity)
> When a participle is used, the action  is ongoing at the time of perception.
> Therefore, the sentence 'Scarlet watched the twins ride away' could not be written with a participle.
> The verb 'ride' is a verb of activity, but adverb 'away' transforms it into a verb of accomplishment.


These are important concepts, and I have been tempted to say something similar in this thread, but:

In English, most verbs operate in more than one way, and I suspect that the boundaries between verbs of perception and other verbs may depend on what construction is being discussed.

I would never say "I noticed her drop a pencil", because "notice" does not work that way in my variety of English. Is "notice" a verb of perception?

Both "Scarlet watched the twins ride away" and "Scarlet watched the twins riding away" are valid sentences.

"Watch" and "see" use the bare infinitive construction differently. "Scarlet watched the twins ride away" and "Scarlet saw the twins riding away" are very similar in meaning because "watch" implies attention to the action.

Sentences like "Scarlet watched the twins riding away" have multiple interpretations because "the twins riding away" can have various meanings:

the meaning I think we mean to be discussing in this thread, something like "the twins as they rode away", or
a meaning in which the participial phrase restricts the meaning, for example "the twins who rode away" or "the twins who had been riding away", or
a meaning in which "riding" is a gerund rather than a participle, as in "the twins' riding away" = "the riding away that the twins did".


----------



## kngram

Forero said:


> These are important concepts, and I have been tempted to say something similar in this thread, but:
> 
> In English, most verbs operate in more than one way, and I suspect that the boundaries between verbs of perception and other verbs may depend on what construction is being discussed.
> 
> I would never say "I noticed her drop a pencil", because "notice" does not work that way in my variety of English. Is "notice" a verb of perception?
> 
> Both "Scarlet watched the twins ride away" and "Scarlet watched the twins riding away" are valid sentences.
> 
> "Watch" and "see" use the bare infinitive construction differently. "Scarlet watched the twins ride away" and "Scarlet saw the twins riding away" are very similar in meaning because "watch" implies attention to the action.
> 
> Sentences like "Scarlet watched the twins riding away" have multiple interpretations because "the twins riding away" can have various meanings:
> 
> the meaning I think we mean to be discussing in this thread, something like "the twins as they rode away", or
> a meaning in which the participial phrase restricts the meaning, for example "the twins who rode away" or "the twins who had been riding away", or
> a meaning in which "riding" is a gerund rather than a participle, as in "the twins' riding away" = "the riding away that the twins did".


Yes, it is. In both, the UK and USA usage, as far as I know.
An example of such use from literature: A middle-aged lady had noticed her come in and walked over to her. (Jim Miller, 2012)
I noticed them come in. (Oxford dictionary) .
In this sentence the adverb 'away' is obviously used in meaning ''to or at a distance from somebody/something in space or time', which obviously forms the verb of accomplishment.
Maybe, you keep in mind such adverb as 'out of sight'?


----------



## Forero

kngram said:


> Yes, it is. In both, the UK and USA usage, as far as I know.
> An example of such use from literature: A middle-aged lady had noticed her come in and walked over to her. (Jim Miller, 2012)
> I noticed them come in. (Oxford dictionary) .


It sounds "off" to me, but I'll let others speak for themselves.





> In this sentence the adverb 'away' is obviously used in meaning ''to or at a distance from somebody/something in space or time', which obviously forms the verb of accomplishment.
> Maybe, you keep in mind such adverb as 'out of sight'?


Obviously?

You are missing at least one meaning of "away" that fits the sentence in question: "from this or that place". "Out of sight" has the same ambiguity.


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> It sounds "off" to me, but I'll let others speak for themselves.Obviously?
> 
> You are missing at least one meaning of "away" that fits the sentence in question: "from this or that place". "Out of sight" has the same ambiguity.


Perhaps it is an AE/BE thing.  "I saw him come in" is quite normal for me, possibly more often with additional information, like "I saw him come in an hour ago but I haven't seen him since then".

I agree, the "riding away" example means moving in a direction taking her to a greater distance from me, not the "location that is at some distance".  Someone can be standing next to me and begin to walk away, while I can say about a person who is on holiday in Spain "He is away this week but will be back next week".  Quite distinct meanings of the same word.


----------



## kngram

Forero said:


> Obviously?
> 
> You are missing at least one meaning of "away" that fits the sentence in question: "from this or that place". "Out of sight" has the same ambiguity.


The rest is semantics. And set theory in grammar. An example of which is in JulianStuart's remark.


----------



## JulianStuart

kngram said:


> And set theory in grammar. An example of which is in JulianStuart's remark.



Can you explain this rather cryptic comment about "my remark"?


----------



## kngram

JulianStuart said:


> Can you explain this rather cryptic comment about "my remark"?




) Nothing cryptological. You have applied an analysis that is very similar to that used in the analysis of the merits of the adverb group.


----------



## JulianStuart

kngram said:


> ) Nothing cryptological. You have applied an analysis that is very similar to that used in the analysis of the merits of the adverb group.


We don't use "cryptological in this context. 

I simply pointed out that "away" has two distinct meanings and that the one used in the "riding away" example is the one involving motion, while it seemed to me (and Forero, I think) that you considered it to be a complete movement to a distant location (the "accomplishment (i.e completion)" rather than the "(time-consuming) process")


kngram said:


> In this sentence the adverb 'away' is obviously used in meaning ''to or at a distance from somebody/something in space or time', which obviously forms the verb of accomplishment.


----------



## Forero

JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps it is an AE/BE thing.  "I saw him come in" is quite normal for me, possibly more often with additional information, like "I saw him come in an hour ago but I haven't seen him since then".


I have no problem with seeing someone come in; the problem I have is with the verb "notice" as in "I noticed her come in" or "I noticed him come in an hour ago but I haven't noticed him since then."


kngram said:


> ) Nothing cryptological. You have applied an analysis that is very similar to that used in the analysis of the merits of the adverb group.


This is even more puzzling. Walking away happens at the moment of departure and does not require reaching any goal. Walking away might be seen as an instantaneous accomplishment, but there is nothing wrong with saying "I noticed her dropping a pencil", "They saw him catching a ball", "They saw the Browns painting the fence", or "Scarlet saw the twins riding away".


----------



## kngram

Forero said:


> I have no problem with seeing someone come in; the problem I have is with the verb "notice" as in "I noticed her come in" or "I noticed him come in an hour ago but I haven't noticed him since then."




) I should cocoa, even If Oxford dictionary could not convince you, it's beyond me to carry all before you. Sorry.


----------



## kngram

JulianStuart said:


> I simply pointed out that "away" has two distinct meanings and that the one used in the "riding away" example is the one involving motion, while it seemed to me (and Forero, I think) that you considered it to be a complete movement to a distant location (the "accomplishment (i.e completion)" rather than the "(time-consuming) process")





It's all about the meaning of adverbs. Usually it is explained in the context in case of doubt. In the case under discussion, what matters is that the adverb 'away' has a more general meaning that is 'to or at a distance from somebody/something in space or time'.


----------



## Forero

kngram said:


> It's all about the meaning of adverbs. Usually it is explained in the context in case of doubt. In the case under discussion, what matters is that the adverb 'away' has a more general meaning that is 'to or at a distance from somebody/something in space or time'.


The meaning of "away" comes from its origins in Old English: "on [the] way [from a place]". What makes the definition you are quoting workable is the "from" part, since "away" always means "away from someone or something". The "at" part of the definition goes with static verbs, like "stay", and the "to" (= "toward") part goes with verbs of motion, like "go". It is never about completion or destination.

In fact, adding "away" after "go" makes the predicate in question less likely to be about completion than it would be without it.


----------



## kngram

Forero said:


> The meaning of "away" comes from its origins in Old English: "on [the] way [from a place]". What makes the definition you are quoting workable is the "from" part, since "away" always means "away from someone or something". The "at" part of the definition goes with static verbs, like "stay", and the "to" (= "toward") part goes with verbs of motion, like "go". It is never about completion or destination.
> 
> In fact, adding "away" after "go" makes the predicate in question less likely to be about completion than it would be without it.





Any modern high-quality dictionary offer more than ten senses for the adverb 'away'. From the point of usage the most frequent is the sense about which you speak. Though, I, with my explanation, paid attention to the semantical characteristic of the adverb and some general principles of the grammar behind such syntatctic constructions. If you are having such stance on the issue, I can't manage it in any way. Possible discussion on the issue could take a long time. Such discussion is for the papers of some special periodicals. This place is not for possible discussion, as it seems to me. In any case I have no intention of expanding on it here.
With sincere respect for your attitude and interest in the question.


----------



## zaffy

I'm confused again.  We use the bare infinitive when we saw the whole action and 'ing' when the action was in progress, like in:

I saw her eating a banana.   (action in progress)
I saw her eat a banana.        (the whole banana was eaten)

right?


So, now, this Canadian had trouble with the Internet while doing a livestream, all the viewers were waiting for more questions to be answered, and he said "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sit* here all puzzled."  The 'sitting' was clearly in progress and would continue, so why didn't he say "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sitting* here all puzzled."?


----------



## grassy

_Sitting_, unlike _eating_, is not action that can be completed, and that's why both forms would mean the same thing here. Also, _sit_ is simpler and therefore better.


----------



## zaffy

OK, thanks, I got it. That's why I said earlier in the thread I did come across the bare infinitive for actions in progress.


----------



## kngram

zaffy said:


> I'm confused again.  We use the bare infinitive when we saw the whole action and 'ing' when the action was in progress, like in:
> 
> I saw her eating a banana.   (action in progress)
> I saw her eat a banana.        (the whole banana was eaten)
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> So, now, this Canadian had trouble with the Internet while doing a livestream, all the viewers were waiting for more questions to be answered, and he said "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sit* here all puzzled."  The 'sitting' was clearly in progress and would continue, so why didn't he say "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sitting* here all puzzled."?
> 
> View attachment 37110





zaffy said:


> I'm confused again.  We use the bare infinitive when we saw the whole action and 'ing' when the action was in progress, like in:
> 
> I saw her eating a banana.   (action in progress)
> I saw her eat a banana.        (the whole banana was eaten)
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> So, now, this Canadian had trouble with the Internet while doing a livestream, all the viewers were waiting for more questions to be answered, and he said "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sit* here all puzzled."  The 'sitting' was clearly in progress and would continue, so why didn't he say "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sitting* here all puzzled."?
> 
> View attachment 37110


This is a case of using the so called 'bare infinitive' with the verbs of senses. There is no difficulty to understand it but one, usual grammar texts don't include any explanation on such morphology. The paraphrase of the sentence ' It's probably fun(ny) to watch me sit here all puzzled' is that 'It's probably funny that you can watch that I am sitting here all puzzled." So, there is no essential differences in syntactic meaning between two grammar constructions, 'watch somebody do something' and 'watch somebody doing something."


----------



## velisarius

The verb "sit" may mean "the action of sitting down", which takes a few seconds, and "the state of sitting", which is continuous. _He sat on the bench_ is ambiguous.

_I watched him sit on the bench_ would suggest that I watched him sit down on the bench.
_I watched him sitting on the bench _suggests that I watched him while he was seated on the bench, unless he took a long time to lower his behind onto the bench.

The guy in the video might have said "watch me sitting here", or "watch me as I sit here", if he wanted to stress that it's the sitting that's in progress, but I wouldn't have noticed the difference if I'd heard him speaking. It's not an error.

_It's fun for you to watch me sit here - _perhaps he doesn't mean the sitting that's in progress, but that viewers think it's fun whenever he sits there all puzzled.


----------



## kngram

velisarius said:


> The verb "sit" may mean "the action of sitting down", which takes a few seconds, and "the state of sitting", which is continuous. _He sat on the bench_ is ambiguous.
> 
> _I watched him sit on the bench_ would suggest that I watched him sit down on the bench.
> _I watched him sitting on the bench _suggests that I watched him while he was seated on the bench, unless he took a long time to lower his behind onto the bench.
> 
> The guy in the video might have said "watch me sitting here", or "watch me as I sit here", if he wanted to stress that it's the sitting that's in progress, but I wouldn't have noticed the difference if I'd heard him speaking. It's not an error.
> 
> _It's fun for you to watch me sit here - _perhaps he doesn't mean the sitting that's in progress, but that viewers think it's fun whenever he sits there all puzzled.


It's a usual problem when they analyse such grammar constructions. The answer is simple the meaning of the infinite verbs is just a concept. To understand such grammar construction, nobody needs to take into account the theory of the finite verbs.


----------



## velisarius

kngram said:


> It's a usual problem when they analyse such grammar constructions. The answer is simple the meaning of the infinite verbs is just a concept. To understand such grammar construction, nobody needs to take into account the theory of the finite verbs.


I don't quite follow you there.

My intention in posting #69 was to point out that this new example with _sit/sitting_ isn't quite as straightforward as _watch someone do/doing_ or indeed _watch someone ride/riding_.


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> I'm confused again.  We use the bare infinitive when we saw the whole action and 'ing' when the action was in progress, like in:
> 
> I saw her eating a banana.   (action in progress)
> I saw her eat a banana.        (the whole banana was eaten)
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> So, now, this Canadian had trouble with the Internet while doing a livestream, all the viewers were waiting for more questions to be answered, and he said "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sit* here all puzzled."  The 'sitting' was clearly in progress and would continue, so why didn't he say "It's probably fun for you to *watch me sitting* here all puzzled."?
> 
> View attachment 37110




The idea of sit is an ongoing state. When we sit, it is always in progress until we stand.

The idea that we see the whole action with the simple form and see part of the action with the progressive form is only a guideline. There is no rule of structure here. A speaker chooses one, in the moment, depending on the speaker's viewpoint of the action.

It could be that it turns out that most of the time when we use the simple form we see the whole action after a verb of perception and we use the progressive form when we see part of the action after a verb of perception. However, this is a guide. We have to take into consideration the meaning of the verb and the entire context. That said, there is no structure rule here to follow, necessarily. We have to ask ourselves if the sentence makes sense when speaking with learners about whether or not a sentence is correct with this particular topic.

So, in this case, with this topic, meaning comes first and then structure, which is to say whether or not we choose the simple form or the ing progressive form.


----------



## velisarius

Steven David said:


> The idea of sit is an ongoing state.



No it isn't. the verb _sit _may be used for an action or for a state. If I give my dog the order _Sit!  _I usually want him to stay seated, but that isn't *necessarily* implied by the verb. If my restless dog could speak he might very reasonably say to me, "If you wanted me to stay sitting for half an hour, you should have told me so".


----------



## kngram

My intention in posting #69 was to point out that this new example with _sit/sitting_ isn't quite as straightforward as _watch someone do/doing_ or indeed _watch someone ride/riding_.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for delay. Agree.It is not of course straightforward  as 'watch someone do/doing. ' if the sentence has complements as 'down' after the verb 'sit.' In such a case there is a paraphrase of such a sentence: 'It's probably funny that you can watch that I am sitting down here all puzzled." It is another meaning.


----------



## Steven David

If someone says, "Please have a seat if you would like. I'll be with you in a couple minutes", and the listener accepts the offer, then this person enters a state of sitting, and that state is ongoing until the person stands again.

I saw him sit on the bench. < He completed the action of sitting on the bench and is now in a state of sitting.

He has now entered a state of sitting.

I saw him sitting on the bench. < This means that whoever saw him sitting likely saw him for only part of the time. However, this is not necessarily so. The listener might have watched the person finish the activity of sitting on the bench and then sit on the bench until the person stood up and walked away. We don't know unless we are there.

"I saw him sitting on the bench, and then he got up and walked away." < Maybe, the speaker saw him at the very start of the sitting, or, maybe, the speaker saw him in the middle of the sitting.

So whether or not we use the simple form or the ing progressive form after a verb of perception depends on the speaker's viewoint and the context.


----------



## kngram

Steven David said:


> If someone says, "Please have a seat if you would like. I'll be with you in a couple minutes", and the listener accepts the offer, then this person enters a state of sitting, and that state is ongoing until the person stands again.
> 
> I saw him sit on the bench. < He completed the action of sitting on the bench and is now in a state of sitting.
> 
> He has now entered a state of sitting.
> 
> I saw him sitting on the bench. < This means that whoever saw him sitting likely saw him for only part of the time. However, this is not necessarily so. The listener might have watched the person finish the activity of sitting on the bench and then sit on the bench until the person stood up and walked away. We don't know unless we are there.
> 
> "I saw him sitting on the bench, and then he got up and walked away." < Maybe, the speaker saw him at the very start of the sitting, or, maybe, the speaker saw him in the middle of the sitting.
> 
> So as to whether or not we use the simple form or the ing progressive form after a verb of perception depends on the speaker's viewoint and the context.


It seems to be the point. The context can give the clue to understand a nuanced meaning with such construction if we'd want to use it.


----------



## Steven David

kngram said:


> It seems to be the point. The context can give the clue to understand a nuanced meaning with such construction if we'd want to use it.




Yes, and I suppose such specificity is very important in courtrooms when listening to witness testimony. 

Were you there the whole time while he was sitting on the bench? Can you tell us how long he was sitting on the bench? Did you see him sit down at the very start? 

This could be very important to someone's alibi.


----------



## forgoodorill

Steven David said:


> The idea that we see the whole action with the simple form and see part of the action with the progressive form is only a guideline. There is no rule of structure here. A speaker chooses one, in the moment, depending on the speaker's viewpoint of the action.
> 
> It could be that it turns out that most of the time when we use the simple form we see the whole action after a verb of perception and we use the progressive form when we see part of the action after a verb of perception. However, this is a guide. We have to take into consideration the meaning of the verb and the entire context. That said, there is no structure rule here to follow, necessarily. We have to ask ourselves if the sentence makes sense when speaking with learners about whether or not a sentence is correct with this particular topic.
> 
> So, in this case, with this topic, meaning comes first and then structure, which is to say whether or not we choose the simple form or the ing progressive form.


This is something need to be understood and be part of our learning attitude! Not just take notes!
Thanks, Steven David!


----------



## kinry

If it refers to the action that is habitual and not being done when subject happens to see or hear it, which option is correct? "do" or "doing".
i.e: I always hear him ________ (sing) in the classroom.     Every day, I see him ________ (go) by bike to school.


----------



## velisarius

kinry said:


> it refers to the action that is habitual and not being done when subject happens to see or hear it



That isn't a significant factor determining which form we use. In your example sentences, either might be used -- with a slightly different meaning. With the -_ing _form, the emphasis is on the duration or completeness of the action.

With no context, I can't know which form I would prefer to use in your sentences.


----------

