# How to use participles(..ing/..ed) as adjectives？



## 0915reg

Hello All:​ 
How to use *Participles* as *Adjectives*? 
For example, the _*selected*_ person, _*losing*_ keys ... What are the rules?​ 
Are all verbs plus -ing or -ed can be adjectives?​ 
Or tell me where I could find this kind of resource?
Thanks for help!​


----------



## Dimcl

Please provide some context so that we understand exactly what you are saying.  "the selected person, losing keys..." means absolutely nothing to me.


----------



## SweetSymphony

Maybe an example would be useful
Bored – Boring
He is bored … means that something or someone has made him feel that way
But … He is boring … means that he makes others feel that way
I hope it helps


----------



## taked4700

Supposing that a man was killed by someone and you found him dead on a road.

Is it OK to say,

"Oh, here is a killed man."?


----------



## guiding*inspiration

No, you could say "here is a murdered man", but not killed (don't ask me why  )
I think -ed is passive as SweetSymphony said, for example: the lost coin (the coin which has been lost), but -ing means the person themselves has done it, for instance: the losing team (the team who has lost).
I don't know of any formation rules, although there must be some.


----------



## 0915reg

*Sorry for my bad example!*
*"losing keys" is weird, I just copied from somewhere...*

I mean the followings:
1) A great number of frightened investors took their money out of the stock market.
2) I am excited about my company's new advertising campaign.
3) I found this broken plate in the kitchen cupboard. 
When to use -ing and when to use -ed?

*Thank you all.*


----------



## Zsuzsu

Hi 0915reg,

The simplest way is to understand past participles as something similar to a passive structure.
The -ing adjectives, on the other hand, are active.

So if you say "frightened investors", you mean they are frightened by somebody/something, while if they are "frightening investors", it means that they frighten somebody.
An "advertising campaign" is a campaign that advertises, while a "broken plate" is a plate that was broken by somebody.
Do you see the active-passive difference?

Similar is surprised-surprising:
a surprising news - it surprises you (active)
a surprised man - he is suprised by something (passive)

Hope that helps!


----------



## taked4700

guiding*inspiration said:


> No, you could say "here is a murdered man", but not killed (don't ask me why  )
> I think -ed is passive as SweetSymphony said, for example: the lost coin (the coin which has been lost), but -ing means the person themselves has done it, for instance: the losing team (the team who has lost).
> I don't know of any formation rules, although there must be some.


 

Thank you guiding*inspiration for your quick answer.

But I'm a bit confused, I think it's OK to say,"Oh, here's a freshly killed rabbit in a car accident."

What is the difference between "Here is a killed man." and "Oh, here's a freshly killed rabbit in a car accident."?

Adding the word "freshly" makes it ok to say,"Oh, here's a freshly killed rabbit in a car accident."?  If so, why?


----------



## Toad

Hi there,
As far as I know (and that's not much), freshly*-*killed needs to have the - and in this case the whole thing (freshly-killed) is one word and is an adjective (note that freshly alone is an adverb), but . I have never seen killed used as "killed man," nor "freshly-killed rabbit" actually, though freshly-killed rabbit sounds like it'd be grammatically correct.

Unfortunately I don't know why you can't have killed as an adjective.


----------



## Forero

The word _killed_ as an adjective is used for things killed for a purpose or useful in some way.  It sounds odd with a human being.

_living room_ = room for living in [gerund, not participle]
_sealing wax_ = wax we use to seal letters with [gerund]
_living will_ = will to be executed in case the person is completely disabled  but not dead [participle modifies the person at the time the will is to be executed, not the will itself]_

dancing girl_ = girl that dances/danced

_opening door_ = door that someone opens/opened, or door that opens/opened itself.
_opened door_ = door that someone has/had opened.
_open door_ = door in the "open" position.


----------



## taked4700

Thank you, Toad and Forero.

To be frank, I'm quite a bit confused about "freshly killed".

I googled "a freshly killed turkey", and found some like as follows:

Grace opened the door and there was Bill with a *freshly killed turkey* that he had carried all the way from New York.

It might be OK to use "freshly killed" with "a", I guess.


Let me make sure once again,:

Is it OK to say,

1. I found these two killed birds near the gate.  Someone insane must put them there to bully us.

* "killed" before animals 

2. We need a freshly-killed turkey, not rotten one like this.

* not "the" but "a" preceding "freshly-killed"
Many thanks in advance.


----------



## Zsuzsu

Hi taked4700,

Your first sentence sounds a bit strange to me - I would write "dead" instead of "killed" here:

1. I found these two killed *dead* birds near the gate. Someone insane must put must have put them there to bully us.

Your second sentence, however, sounds OK with "a freshly-killed turkey".


----------



## Dimcl

The "a" is only put before "freshly-killed turkey" because it is one turkey, singular.  If it was more than one, we'd say "We need two freshly-killed turkeys".  This is no different than any other examples ie:

"I have *a* car"
"I have two cars"

No, I'm afraid it's not okay to say "I found these two killed birds near the gate".  We don't say "There were lots of killed people" or "There were lots of killed birds" or There were lots of killed deer".  We would say "There were lots of *dead* birds".  You are using "killed" as an adjective and we don't use it that way.


----------



## taked4700

How about "There are a lot of people killed"  or "I found two birds killed at the gate"?

I mean "killed" used after noun.


----------



## Dimcl

taked4700 said:


> How about "There are a lot of people killed" or "I found two birds killed at the gate"?
> 
> I mean "killed" used after noun.


 
This is where context is so important, taked.  "killed" means that something or somebody *killed them*.  If there is a huge earthquake and people have been killed by it, then you could say "There were a lot of people killed" or "There have been a lot of people killed".

Similarly, with your sentence about the birds.  We need context.  How do you know that the birds were *killed*?  If you found them near the gate, haven't you just found two dead birds?

I strongly suggest that you look up "dead" and "killed" in your dictionaries again and study their meanings for the nuances between them.


----------



## Zsuzsu

Hi taked 4700,

I'm afraid you can't use "killed" in itself after a noun, either. You can use it, however, when you introduce a participle clause with it: "birds killed at the gate" (you say where they were killed), "birds killed by the butcher" (who killed them), etc. 
"There are a lot of people killed" is not correct, unfortunately. 
EDIT: Dimcl is of course right in saying: "If there is a huge earthquake and people have been killed by it, then you could say "There were a lot of people killed" or "There have been a lot of people killed". I didn't think of that context.


----------



## taked4700

I have looked it up with my dictionaries a couple of times, maybe more than seven or eight or ten.

I still can't understand why the word "killed" can not be used before noun or human-beings.

Is it OK to say:

I came across a huge accident this morning. There were at least ten injured and more than two killed people.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## cycloneviv

No; I'm sorry, but that does not work. As has been said, we do not use "killed" before a noun in this way.


----------



## Whizbang

We got sidetracked from the main topic, but, actually, we do use

"a killed man"
"two killed people"

etc.

Google it! (Be sure to put quotation marks around the phrase to make Google return exact matches.)

Lots of hits.


----------



## Loob

Whizbang said:


> Lots of hits.


Yes...

But a fair few (the majority?) of those are from non-native-speaker sources

More generally: past participles would, I think, only be used before nouns when they have made the transition to being 'proper adjectives' and can be modified by 'very':
_The man was very frightened_
_The frightened man came into the room_
_The chicken was very killed_
_The killed chicken was put on the table._

This might help explain why _freshly-killed_ does work before a noun: although we don't say _very killed_, we can and do say _very freshly-killed._

__________
_EDIT:  Aargh, I was wrong to agree with Whizbang that there are lots of hits.  I've now checked the last results page for each of the search items, and got totals very similar to cycloneviv's below_


----------



## cycloneviv

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Whizbang. I have performed the same Google searches and definitely do not find "lots of hits" for the two phrases.

Actually, there's only 107 results for "a killed man", and every result on the first page is from non-native speakers of English. (The first Google page claims there are more results than that, but if you actually scroll through the pages you find that there are only 107.)

As for "two killed people", there are *24* results on the entire internet. The first result is in English, but it does not say "two killed people"; it says "Blast occurs in Pakistan capital, two killed - People's Daily Online". One other result on the first page is a similar correct result: "...two killed. People..." The rest appear to be by non-native speakers of English.


----------



## Whizbang

Is that just because "killed" is a word that doesn't benefit from intensification? You're pretty much either killed or not killed at all.

"The very opened present lay on the counter."
"Smoke trailed from the very extinguished candle."

In your examples, "The killed chicken was put on the table" sounds okay to me.

In "very freshly killed", is it that "very" is modifying "freshly," as opposed to "killed"?

It seems like, if there's any ambiguity about the cause of death, a native speaker will opt for "dead" over "killed". But when you know the creature in question met a sudden demise from an external agent, "killed" seems like it's an option, even if an infrequently exercised one, in my dialect.


----------



## Whizbang

cycloneviv said:


> I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Whizbang. I have performed the same Google searches and definitely do not find "lots of hits" for the two phrases.


 
Strange, I get 1060 hits for "a killed man" and 183 hits for "two killed people" (though the latter is, upon further inspection, often a construction like "those two killed people in greater numbers...")

There are plenty of non US sources to be sure, but there seem to be native speaker references as well (including UK and AU) and I don't think I would have been taken aback to read it in print.


----------



## Loob

Whizbang said:


> Is that just because "killed" is a word that doesn't benefit from intensification? You're pretty much either killed or not killed at all.


No, I don't think so. We don't say "he is very liked or "the liked man"


This site has a helpful discussion on when participles can be used as adjectives. It quotes four tests used by linguists:





> Can the word be used attributively (i.e., before the noun it modifies), as in _an intriguing offer._
> Can it be used in the predicate, especially after the verb _seem,_ as in _She thought the party boring_ and _He seems concerned about you._
> Can it be compared, as in _We are even more encouraged now_ and _The results are most encouraging._
> Can it be modified by _very,_ as in _They are very worried about this_


----------



## taked4700

I did book search by google.

and found two examples as follows;

1. Afterwards, I saw *two killed people* lying in the street, but many more were 
murdered. 

*2. ...* and do they not disclose that over £5o was charged for putting *two killed* 
*people* into two coffins and sending them to South Wales? *...*

*No.1 was written by *Lyn Smith, Imperial War Museum (Great Britain). Sound Archive, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

No.2 was written by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons.

What do you say to these?


----------



## Loob

I say "two swallows don't make a summer"

EDIT: actually, I say that in the first one the author was quoting someone who wasn't a native speaker of English; I don't know about the second one, but people do commit all sorts of infelicities in speech....


----------



## taked4700

I see, Loob.  Thank you for the maxim.


----------



## johndot

taked4700 said:


> I did book search by google.
> 
> and found two examples as follows;
> 
> 1. Afterwards, I saw *two killed people* lying in the street, but many more were
> murdered.
> 
> *2. ...* and do they not disclose that over £5o was charged for putting *two killed*
> *people* into two coffins and sending them to South Wales? *...*
> 
> *No.1 was written by *Lyn Smith, Imperial War Museum (Great Britain). Sound Archive, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
> 
> No.2 was written by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons.
> 
> What do you say to these?



I believe your first example, taked4700, was the report of a bystander who might or might not have had a very good command of English. But it doesn’t matter, because what he is really doing, and it is perfectly ok to do it this way, is making the distinction between a lot of dead people; some had been killed (somehow) and many had been murdered.
 
The second example is one of rhetorical licence, in my opinion. I can imaging the parliamentarian spluttering whilst expostulating. You’ve only given part of the quote, unfortunately, but nevertheless one can do one’s own bit of speechifying by making it up at will: “... and do they not disclose, Sir, that over £50 was charged for putting two killed people into two coffins and sending them in two hearses to South Wales?...”
 
I’m afraid, taked4700, that the general rule applies—English doesn’t allow for ‘killed people’. But of course you can bend the rules to make a specific point.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

The site Loob referred to was very helpful, but perhaps more so to the natives. 

A good dictionary is usually helpful - if the participle is labelled adjective, then you're in the clear. If it's not there, or only appears as a verb, you may want to think twice about using it as an adjective. A fair amount of examples is always helpful...

/Wilma


----------



## Loob

Good point, Wilma.

I really like your favourite dictionary, too!


----------



## Philo2009

0915reg said:


> Hello All:​
> 
> 
> How to use *Participles* as *Adjectives*?​
> Are all verbs plus -ing or -ed can be adjectives?​


 
If you're looking for a simple rule to account for the usability of certain participles as attributive adjectives (e.g. _the falling leaves_) and the non-usability of others (*_the talking girl_), you will be sadly disappointed! It isn't even a matter of saying that a certain participle can or cannot be used, since the same word may or may not be possible depending on a complex set of factors ranging from the noun/noun-type with which it is collocated to the degree of figurativity inherent in the expression: you may, for instance, speak quite acceptabily of _a_ _sitting duck,_ but not of *_a sitting man_! If you have the energy/time to pursue the topic, you will find it discussed in some detail (although, even in that compendious tome, not quite as fully as one might wish!) in Quirk's _Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. _

The best course of action, if in doubt, may simply be to ask a native!


----------



## Forero

Complex indeed:

_Falling leaves_ [leaves as they fall/fell]
_Falling star_ [a meteor, not a star, but mistaken for a star that has "come loose"]
_Shooting rifle_ [rifle used for shooting (gerund) at something]
_Shooting star_ [meteor]
_Talking bird_ [bird that can talk]
_Talking girl_  [Girls are expected to be able to talk.]
_Sitting duck_ [duck on water with wings folded]
_Sitting man _ [Men don't have wings anyway.]
_Sitting judge_ [judge "in office"]
_Seated judge_ [Judge (placed) "in office"]
_Seated duck_  [Ducks are generally prohibited from holding office.]
_Setting sun_ [Sun going down, approaching the horizon]
_Setting hen_ [Hen incubating her eggs]
_Setting man_  [Not even a man setting a thermostat]


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Philo2009 said:


> If you have the energy/time to pursue the topic, you will find it discussed in some detail (although, even in that compendious tome, not quite as fully as one might wish!) in Quirk's _Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. _
> 
> The best course of action, if in doubt, may simply be to ask a native!


As usual, we just have to learn it the hard way, examining for every verb how it can be used... When I don't have a live native to ask, I resort to corpora, which are more reliable (material from native speakers only) and efficient (grammatic searches available) than Google, although sometimes limited (missing very infrequent words). This link provides syntactic searches of some major corpora (registration is free but required for habitual users), courtesy of Prof. Mark Davies at the Brigham Young University.

While looking for killed critters (without a modifying adverb like freshly) in the above corpora, I found 0 killed men, the occasional killed soldier or mammal *but* several killed viruses, in the context of killed virus vaccines. Thus, we have found one single creature that can have killed as an adjective. 

/Wilma


----------



## lrosa

My advice for non-natives is: Do not use a participle as an adjective until you hear/see it being used. Use relative clauses instead: "A man who was killed" instead of "a killed man". Most past participles *cannot *be converted successfully into adjectives that go before nouns, and you must learn the exceptions by experience, I think


----------



## taked4700

It is really confusing to use participles as adjectives.

Say you are standing by a pool and watching children swimming, talking  and standing still in the pool.( I mean some children are swimming, and some talking, and some standing still in the pool.)

Is it OK to say,

1. "Look at the swimming children."
2. "Look at the talking children."
3. "Look at the chatting children."
4. "Look at the still-standing children."

Or do I have to say,

5. "Look at the children swimming."
6. "Look at the children talking."
7. "Look at the children chatting."
8. "Look at the children standing still."

Thanks in advance.


----------



## panjandrum

If you put the participle first you are making it an attribute of the noun - making it an adjective - the focus is on the noun.

If you put the participle second it is something that the noun is doing - the focus is on the action.

Think of pigs.
I have a flying pig.  When I walk down the street carrying my pig people point at the pig and say "Look at the flying pig."  They do not say "Look at the pig flying," because the pig is not, at that moment, flying.

But when I get to the park and the pig takes off, people point at the pig and say either "Look at the flying pig," or "Look at the pig flying."

From this point, whether a particular combination is natural English or not depends on the noun, the verb, the context, and customary usage (as Philo2009 said earlier).  So it's easy, OK


----------



## taked4700

Excuse me, panjandrum, but I can't understand your flying pig example or explanation.

Could you  be more specific with sentences below?

1. "Look at the swimming children."
2. "Look at the talking children."
3. "Look at the chatting children."
4. "Look at the still-standing children."
5. "Look at the children swimming."
6. "Look at the children talking."
7. "Look at the children chatting."
8. "Look at the children standing still."

Many Thanks in Advance.


----------



## panjandrum

Examples 1-3 are possible, but a little strange.
These are not children who can be identified from other children in the same way as blonde children or curly-haired children could be.  "Swimming" is not an attribute of the children.
Example 4 is not good English - "still-standing" is the problem.
Examples 5-8 are fine, asking me to look at children currently engaged in some kind of activity.


----------



## taked4700

Thank you, panjandrum.

1. Don't touch that red-burning candle.(Context: You are sneaking into a room and a candle is burnig red on the floor. You say this phrase to other person )

2. Chatting students tend to be more careless than silent students. (Context: You are stating the general tendency of students in school.)

3. Happily smiling ladies are better to speak to than seriuosly crying ones. (general tendency when you speak to people )

Are those participle used before noun sounding natural or not?

Or should I put them after noun?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## lrosa

taked4700 said:


> 1. Don't touch that red-burning candle.  I don't really understand the sense of "red-burning". It would be natural to say "Don't touch that candle; it's red-hot."
> 
> 2. Chatting Chatty students tend to be more careless than silent/quiet students. Of course you could also say "Students who chat tend to be more careless than those who don't."
> 
> 3. Happily smiling ladies are better to speak to than seriuosly crying ones. "Ladies who smile happily are nicer to speak to than ones who cry."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think the obvious point about the example of the flying pigs is that pigs don't have wings, except in Wodehouse novels, so we can talk of _flying pigs_ as well as of _pigs flying_. If we say _talking children_, the _talking_ doesn't add anything - to be able to talk is a standard attribute of children. But they don't talk all the time, so it makes sense to speak of hearing the _children talking_.

We could equally speak of _talking horses_, because talking isn't a usual accomplishment of horses.


----------



## taked4700

Thank you, lrosa.

Let me ask some more.

Say we are looking at a photo of children playing in a pool. Is it OK to say;

1. Those chatting boys are my children.

2. These swimming girls are not wearing swimming caps.

3. Merrily smiling children are from kindergarten, not from elementary school.


Or should I have to rephraze them as

4. Those boys chatting are my children.

5. These girls who are swimming aren't wearing swimming caps.

6. Childrens smiling merrily are from kindergarten, not from elementary school.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## lrosa

taked4700 said:


> 1. Those chatting boys are my children.  I'd prefer "Those boys who are chatting, they're my children."
> 
> 2. These swimming girls are not wearing swimming caps. It is clear, from the reference to "swimming caps", that the girls are swimming
> 
> 3. Merrily smiling children are from kindergarten, not from elementary school.  I don't really understand this. Are you referring to specific children who smile merrily, or all children who smile merrily?
> 
> 4. Those boys chatting are my children.
> 
> 5. These girls who are swimming aren't wearing swimming caps.
> 
> 6. Children smiling merrily are from kindergarten, not from elementary school.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Rather to my surprise, my principle works in most of these examples: 

e.g.
1. Boys chat, so you say _those boys chatting_ not _those chatting boys_.

2. Girls swim, so you say _those girls swimming are_ _not wearing c__aps._

3. Children smile merrily, so you say _the_ _children smiling merrily are from a kindergarten, not from an elementary school_.

4. _Those boys chatting are my children_.

I think it needs to be thought of in tandem with the points made earlier about whether you are using the adjective attributively or to describe what the noun is doing.


----------



## taked4700

Thank you, Thomas Tompion and lrosa.

I checked google book search and found some examples as below.

I can't think of the reasons that you say my examples in the previous post are not good ones. What is the difference?

1. chatting something;

solemn stillness has taken the place of the laughing children and *the chatting* 
nurses.

Deaf men typically seek each other DEAF out for conversation and, although *the* 
*chatting* groups are typically formed of a mixture of deaf and hearing men,

*The chatting* women may in fact be priestesses, like the group shown in the 
Grandstand Fresco at Knossos, in which case the shrine image would represent the 
*...*

Then hobbling home across the fields Beneath the shining moon, *The chatting* dame 
forgot her pain, Her heart was so in tune.

We move out with *the chatting* crowd. The street sparkles and roars. 

This strange figure looked like an apparition in the midst of *the chatting* crowd
, the elegant carriages, and dashing horsemen.


2. smiling something;

While normal parents responded positively to *the smiling baby*, child abusers 
became anxious and upset with *the smiling baby* just as they had with the crying 
*...*

Consider again the example of *the smiling baby* and her mother. 

She only asked to leave her child in my care ; but, when she placed *the smiling* 
*baby* in my arms, I had, for one moment, a thought of casting from me that *...*

*The smiling baby*, the eagerly pointing toddler, or the chattering preschooler 
elicits certain feelings in her parents that in turn lead the parents to *...*

Normally, we interpret *the smiling baby* as being happy and healthy as a result 
of eating the baby food. 


3. swimming something;

In addition to the renowned shot of *a swimming baby*, the band members themselves 
hopped into the pool 

Nirvana considered using a stock photograph of *a swimming baby*, but when they 
proved too expensive, hired photographer Kirk Weddle.


*4. quietly standing something;*

*a quietly standing* horse from behind, assume that the horse is sleeping and 
wake it up before getting too close. If not, the horse may lash out in *...*

*a quietly standing* girl in a peplos with her arms at her sides, is 
mechanically related to a Corinthian mold series, but the fabric is sandier than 
*...*

where equilibrating tendencies can be compared not with 'the 
balance of *a quietly standing* man, but with the balance of a walking man, who, 
*...*


*5. continuously crying something*

at the hands of inexperienced sitters who respond violently under the stress of *a continuously crying* *...*


*A continuously crying* baby is enough to rattle the most patient parent, but the key is to know what steps to take to prevent a situation from spiraling out of control. 

*A continuously crying* infant that will not be pacified is not only stressful, 
but also makes the mother feel rejected and guilty:


6. red-burning something

He was conscious of nothing except that *the red burning* pain had gone away.

Stepping through the smoke with red flames behind them, he saw the silhouettes 
of firefighters rushing out of *the red burning* light

Her face was buried in her hands ; but Isa could see *the red burning* flush on 
her neck.

There are fowls of the air ready to pick it up, — there is *a red burning* sun 
that will wither it away

* There are so many more on the Internet.


----------



## panjandrum

There appears to be no adequate explanation.
Native speakers know when and how to use verb-ing before and after nouns.
We know when it sounds OK and when it sounds alien.
I think you're going to have to take the advice and thoughts that have been contributed here as indicators of how we use these forms and accept that there are no reliable rules.

Which brings me back to the question in post #1 - what are the rules.
The answer seems to be "There are no rules, but if you get it wrong you sound non-native."
Sorry.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hi Taked,

I think if we are to keep this thing manageable we have to restrict the number of examples.

Let's just look at one: _While normal parents responded positively to *the smiling baby*, child abusers became anxious and upset with *the smiling baby* just as they had with the crying*...*_

This is quite a good example because the principle I put forward doesn't work here and I'm interested to know why. This is, I suspect, an explanation of the reactions of different people to various pictures,_ a smiling baby_,_ a growling dog_, _a flying pig_, and so on.

These usages are all correct. Here the adjectives are being used to describe what the baby or dog or pig is doing, and not to say what sort of baby or dog or pig we are concerned with. 

_What sort of baby have you got?_ _I've got a smiling one._ The answer is ridiculous because most babies smile occasionally. You might as well say you've got one who pees into his nappy from time to time. You haven't got a smiling baby; you've got a boy or a girl, or a baby with some other outstanding characteristic which differentiates it from other babies.

I didn't see your smiling baby. I saw your baby smiling - I saw her smile and that smile lit up the world.

The _smiling baby_ and the _growling dog_ and the _flying pig_ are descriptions of pictures placed before moderately unstable people to see how they react. This particular baby might have been crying. We aren't told anything about how they are smiling or growling or flying, and if we had been the adjective would have followed the noun - _the baby smiling at the camera, the dog growling at the postman etc_.


----------



## taked4700

The example "While normal parents responded positively to *the smiling baby*, child abusers 
became anxious and upset with *the smiling baby* just as they had with the crying 
*..." *means that they are referring to a baby who is crying. This can be made sure by reading the sourse text. It states "All of the parents in the study got anxious and upset when they saw a baby crying... 

I think that it is OK to use participles before noun when you describe something when you see the thing doing a move stated by the participle at that moment. In other words, I think, when you are talking about a scene on a photo, we can use particles before noun because everything on a photo does not move, which means we can see them just like something like a white dog or a big mountain.　　Have I got my idea across to you? I mean the behaivior of someone or something on a phopo could be considered as an adjective because it states a stillness. 

I think that if a baby is crying now, you can identify the baby by referring to a feature of crying at the same time.
So as long as the baby is crying, to describe the baby as a crying baby is grammatically correct and sounds natural.

Am I wrong?


----------



## lrosa

I praise you for your interest, taked!

*3. swimming something* 

It's ok to refer to a "swimming baby" in the context of a photograph, because it's quite remarkable to see a swimming baby. However, to say "I have a swimming baby" would be quite inappropriate because it would suggest that the only reason you care about your baby is because it can swim, in the same way that "I have a flying pig" indicates that the pig's ability to fly is what you consider its most important attribute.


*4. quietly standing something;*

**Your examples with "quietly standing" all sound very odd.


*6. red, burning something*

 Yes, these examples with "red, burning something" are fine, but make sure it's not "red-burning", which is what you had in your sentence. "Don't touch that red, burning candle" would be correct, although odd. We don't tend to refer to a candle that's burning as a "burning candle" - just "a candle". "red" and "burning" should be used as two separate adjectives.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

lrosa said:


> I praise you for your interest, taked!
> 
> *4. quietly standing something;*
> 
> **Your examples with "quietly standing" all sound very odd.


The example with the horse sounded slightly odd, but would sound even more odd if you changed the word order: 
If you approach a quietly standing horse from behind, it may kick you. 
If you approach a horse quietly standing from behind, it may kick you.  
If you approach a horse standing quietly from behind, it may kick you.  
If you approach a horse from behind when it's standing quietly, it may kick you. 

I can't help feeling that the quietly standing horse will have to do unless we rephrase the sentence to something longer and more cumbersome.



> We don't tend to refer to a candle that's burning as a "burning candle" - just "a candle".


In the context of fires, I can accept burning objects, as in 'the fire was started by someone throwing a burning match on the barn floor' or 'someone forgetting a burning candle when they went shopping' etc. In this case, the fact that the candle was burning is distinctive, and I'm not sure if it's obvious that they were burning, or whether you would automatically draw that conclusion from the context?

/Wilma


----------



## lrosa

Wilma_Sweden said:


> If you approach a horse from behind when it's standing quietly, it may kick you.



Actually, I find this sentence fine  Or perhaps "If you approach a horse that's standing quietly from behind, it may kick you." I concede that it does sound a little strange: "standing quietly from behind". But it's a funny concept...



Wilma_Sweden said:


> In the context of fires, I can accept burning objects, as in 'the fire was started by someone throwing a burning match on the barn floor' or 'someone forgetting a burning candle when they went shopping' etc. In this case, the fact that the candle was burning is distinctive, and I'm not sure if it's obvious that they were burning, or whether you would automatically draw that conclusion from the context?



This is a fair context, but in this case I think I would certainly say "Someone left a candle burning when they went shopping" instead.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

lrosa said:


> Actually, I find this sentence fine  Or perhaps "If you approach a horse that's standing quietly from behind, it may kick you." I concede that it does sound a little strange: "standing quietly from behind". But it's a funny concept... Absolutely!  Your safest bet is to avoid approaching any horse from behind...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fair context, but in this case I think I would certainly say "Someone left a candle burning when they went shopping" instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops! Yes, of course, that sounds more 'right'. My candle was sort of  'Swenglish'...
> 
> /Wilma
Click to expand...


----------



## Cagey

> I think that it is OK to use participles before noun when you describe something when you see the thing doing a move stated by the participle at that moment. In other words, I think, when you are talking about a scene on a photo, we can use particles before noun because everything on a photo does not move, which means we can see them just like something like a white dog or a big mountain.


Yes, I agree with you.  If we are talking about an action that happens at the same time as the action of the main verb, we can use a present _participle, _and that participle is often placed before the noun.  This also works for photographs, but I will use another example so that I can have different tenses. 
_She feels sorry for the crying baby.
She felt sorry for the crying baby.
She will feel sorry for the crying baby.  _​This is true when we use the participle by itself.  If we add an adverb to the participle, or any thing else to the participle phrase, the question of position becomes more complicated._She feels sorry for the loudly crying baby._ (Or ... _for the baby crying loudly._)
_ She feels sorry for the baby crying in his mother's arms. 
_​I hope I answered some part of your question.


----------



## taked4700

Thank you, Cagey.  I'm very pleased to read your answer.

Thanks again.  
                       taked4700


----------

