# The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today



## Yichen

Hello all,

The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today.
source: a grammar learning sentence

It is said the sentence is wrong.
If the boy is now sitting next to Alan, it is impossible for him to be absent now at the same time.

My doubt is,
"sitting next to Alan" does not necessarily mean that the boy is now sitting there. It is a general situation.
Similarly, "a man working on the farm" does not necessarily mean the man is now doing his job, is he?

Why the topic sentence is wrong?

Many many thanks.


----------



## Packard

I'm not so happy with it either.

_The boy that [normally or "habitually"] sits next to Alan is absent today._


(Added "habitually" because I liked that in kentix' post #4.)


----------



## entangledbank

The 'sitting' sentence is clearly wrong. I'm less sure about the 'working' one: A man working at the farm came into the shop and bought a spade. This is certainly possible if the farmer told him, 'We need a new spade, Charlie. Pop into town and buy one.' He's still in his working day at the farm even if he temporarily leaves the farm. But can it be used if it's his day off? Doubtful.


----------



## kentix

Yes, to show habitual action you say:

_The boy who *sits* next to Alan is absent today._

Sitting doesn't Iindicate habitual action.


----------



## Yichen

Thank you all.
Is it deadly wrong or wrong because of its being ambiguous?


----------



## lingobingo

It boils down to what’s idiomatic and what’s not, which depends on the context. 

The boy who [normally] sits next to Alan is absent today. 
The boy [currently] sitting next to Alan is absent today. 
The man [currently] painting my house is working on another job today.


----------



## Yichen

Got it. Thank you all.


----------



## Yichen

The boy [currently] sitting next to Alan is absent today. 

Could the following sentence be possible?
The boy [usually] sitting next to Alan is absent today.


----------



## lingobingo

No. That’s wrong, as it says in the book you quoted in the OP.

To indicate what happens on each occasion (to say that it’s what habitually happens), you have to use the simple aspect. To indicate what is happening or being done right now, as you speak, you have to use the progressive aspect.

Who sits next to Alan?​Jack does. They always sit next to each other.​So who’s that sitting next to Alan today?​That’s Pete. He’s sitting in Jack’s seat today because Jack isn’t here, but normally he sits in the row behind.​


----------



## Yichen

Thank you, lingobingo.

Suppose there's more than one boy, then the following sentence could be correct, couldn't it?
The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today.


----------



## lingobingo




----------



## Myridon

The point of all the previous posts is that if he's absent, he's not sitting next to Alan.  Alan is here, the boy is not here, therefore the boy is not next to Alan.


----------



## Yichen

Yes, the idea occurred to me suddenly and I was wondering if the sentence in 10# could be possible in that scenario.


----------



## Myridon

Yichen said:


> Yes, the idea occurred to me suddenly and I was wondering if the sentence in 10# could be possible in that scenario.


The idea that has been the topic of discussion for 9 days suddenly occurred to you? As lingobingo says,  .


----------



## Yichen

I mean the moment I posted 10#.

_The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today. _
It seems you agree that it is possible, doesn't it?


----------



## Myridon

Yichen said:


> I mean the moment I posted 10#.
> 
> _The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today. _
> It seems you agree that it is possible, doesn't it?


No. It's exactly the sentence from #1. You've been told in #2, #3, ... #12 that it isn't. 
   
As I said in #12, the boy is not next to Alan, neither sitting, standing, levitating, sneezing, coughing, dying, nor any other way.


----------



## lingobingo

And in the OP, which even quotes the grammar book’s explanation of why it’s wrong.


----------



## Yichen

Thank you both.  

I need to be careful when it comes to the underlined part: 
There're two boys who sit next to Alan, one on the left, and the other right.
The boy sitting on Alan's left is absent today.


----------



## Myridon

Yichen said:


> Thank you both.
> 
> I need to be careful when it comes to the underlined part:
> There're two boys who sit next to Alan, one on the left, and the other right.
> The boy sitting on Alan's left is absent today.


On a normal day,  John Peter Alan Tom George.  Peter sits on Alan's left.
Today, John ___ Alan ___ George. The boy sitting on Alan's left is John. John is not absent.  Peter is absent.
{EDIT: I'm upside-down today}


----------



## kentix

kentix said:


> Yes, to show habitual action you say:
> 
> _The boy who *sits* next to Alan is absent today._
> 
> Sitting doesn't indicate habitual action.


Sitting indicates _current_ action. 
_The boy sitting next to Alan = The boy who is sitting next to Alan_

An absent boy can't be sitting anywhere.

A boy who habitually _sits_ next to Alan can be absent.


----------



## Ponyprof

I think this is a category of grammar error that a native English speaker could make in casual usage. I can completely hear in my mind a student saying "The person sitting next to me is absent. Who should I pair up with for this exercise?" 

As opposed to the kind of error an English learner might make. 

It wouldn't be an error I would hear in casual conversation.


----------



## Yichen

Thank you all.


----------



## velisarius

I  hope I wouldn't say, "The person sitting next to me isn't here today".

It's  a common mistake made by learners, and it's worth spending some time explaining why it's wrong.
There are restrictions on when we can reduce a relative clause to a present participle phrase. 

There are other threads where this has been discussed.
People who drink / People drinking See post #20


----------



## suzi br

Ponyprof said:


> I think this is a category of grammar error that a native English speaker could make in casual usage.


Really I don’t agree with this.
I think a native's sense of time and space would stop 99.9999999% of us saying this. 

Although,  the example you give *with an extension on it *might happen because it’s rather like the guy working on the farm who has popped to the shop. The context might suggest a continuity that the bare OP sentence lacks.


----------



## Yichen

What about this one? To me, it works well :

Boys sitting next to Alan are absent today.


----------



## suzi br

Yichen said:


> What about this one? To me, it works well :
> 
> Boys sitting next to Alan are absent today.


No it doesn't work well.  It's as wrong as all the others! 

None of these small changes make any difference to the basic wrongness of the concept.  Someone cannot be simultaneously sitting next to someone AND absent.


----------



## Yichen

Got it. Thank you all.


----------



## london calling

Yichen said:


> What about this one? To me, it works well :
> 
> Boys sitting next to Alan are absent today.


How can they be sitting next to him if they're absent? Unless you're talking about ghosts/presences.

_The boys who sit..._


----------



## Ponyprof

Yichen said:


> What about this one? To me, it works well :
> 
> Boys sitting next to Alan are absent today.



No. This really doesn't work.

It has the same basic problem as the first sentence plus is missing "the" so sounds all wrong.


----------



## Yichen

Well, a relevant sentence:

The boy bringing the milk has been ill.
(source: from google)

I think this sentence is correct.
It means,
The boy has been ill (I mean he is ill this moment), and now he is bringing the milk to somebody.
(A person who is ill can be seen doing something.)

Am I right?

Thank you.


----------



## Ponyprof

Yichen said:


> Well , a relevant sentence:
> 
> The boy bringing the milk has been ill.
> (source: from google)
> 
> I think this sentence is correct.
> It means,
> The boy has been ill (I mean he is ill this moment), and now he is bringing the milk to somebody.
> (A person who is ill can be seen doing something.)
> 
> Am I right?
> 
> Thank you.



What do you mean?

Is the boy who usually brings the milk ill, and replaced by someone else?

Or is the boy who brings the milk visibly ill and coughing and sneezing all over the milk bottles?

Or was he I'll, but now recovered and working again?

Fun fact: before antibiotics, cow milk was a vector for tuberculosis infection. In the time period between understanding bacteria and being able to cure it, the first half of the 20th century, dairy herds were tested and culled in Canada by government inspectors.


----------



## velisarius

_See that boy bringing the milk? He has been ill. He's *just recovered* from the virus. _ If he "has been ill", I'd assume he is no longer ill.


----------



## lingobingo

The boy bringing the milk has been ill. 

But it does not mean that he’s ill now.


----------



## Myridon

Yichen said:


> The boy bringing the milk has been ill.
> (source: from google)


For many people, this means that he vomited recently, not that he has an illness.


----------



## london calling

lingobingo said:


> The boy bringing the milk has been ill.
> 
> But it does not mean that he’s ill now.


Exactly. He's bringing you the milk now but he was off sick last week.


----------



## Yichen

OK, the boy who brings the milk has already recovered.   

Thank you all again.


----------



## Mohamoka

lingobingo said:


> No. That’s wrong, as it says in the book you quoted in the OP.
> 
> To indicate what happens on each occasion (to say that it’s what habitually happens), you have to use the simple aspect. To indicate what is happening or being done right now, as you speak, you have to use the progressive aspect.
> 
> Who sits next to Alan?​Jack does. They always sit next to each other.​So who’s that sitting next to Alan today?​That’s Pete. He’s sitting in Jack’s seat today because Jack isn’t here, but normally he sits in the row behind.​


Hi, lingobingo.
But the V-ing form used as an adjective does sometimes convey an idea of the present simple tense, for example:
*1. I have a friend living in London.   (...who lives in London)*​*2. There's a tree facing north.  (...that faces north)*​
Can the above two sentences be interpreted respectively as:
1a. I have a friend who is currently living in London.​2b. There's a tree that is currently facing north.​


----------



## JulianStuart

Mohamoka said:


> Hi, lingobingo.
> But the V-ing form used as an adjective does sometimes convey an idea of the present simple tense, for example:
> *1. I have a friend living in London.   (...who lives in London)*​*2. There's a tree facing north.  (...that faces north)*​
> Can the above two sentences be interpreted respectively as:
> 1a. I have a friend who is currently living in London.​2b. There's a tree that is currently facing north.​


Yes, but it's unnecessary.  The "is V-ing" form already means "currently".  If the person is (currently) sitting next to you, they cannot be absent.  The person who (_normally_) sits next to you can be absent.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes. My comments were only about this particular example. Stating where someone normally sits (at a regular meeting) is not the same as mentioning where someone is currently living (all the time).


----------



## Mohamoka

lingobingo said:


> Yes. My comments were only about this particular example. Stating where someone normally sits (at a regular meeting) is not the same as mentioning where someone is currently living (all the time).


I'd like to get it clearer:
*I have a friend living in London.*​Could it possibly have two meanings:
a) That friend lives in London all the time.
b) That friend is just currently living in London. London is not his hometown. He might just have moved there, and be leaving tomorrow.


----------



## JulianStuart

Mohamoka said:


> I'd like to get it clearer:
> *I have a friend living in London.*​Could it possibly have two meanings:
> a) That friend lives in London all the time.
> b) That friend is just currently living in London. London is not his hometown. He might just have moved there, and be leaving tomorrow.


No. You need to learn the distinction between "living somewhere" and "staying somewhere".  "Living somewhere" is not synonymous with "being alive somewhere"   It means they are living there with _no (current) plans _to leave - whether you know or he knows about any such plans.


----------



## lingobingo

living in London = currently resident in London on a permanent/long-term basis 
staying in London = currently resident in London on a temporary/short-term basis


----------



## Yichen

aa. The boy sitting next to Alan is absent today. 
bb. The boy living next to Bill's is absent today.
(The scenario  for b:  suppose someone reminds others of the fact at a meeting.)

I think sentence bb is correct.
bb differs from aa in that "live" entails a progressive meaning while "sit" doesn't.

What do you think of bb?

Thank you all.


----------



## lingobingo

Sentence bb is not something anyone would ever say. But you get the gist…

The boy who [normally] sits next to me isn’t here today 
The boy [who is] sitting next to me isn’t here today 

The boy who lives next door to me isn’t here today 
The boy [who is] living next to me isn’t here today  (implies he’s living there temporarily)


----------



## Mohamoka

lingobingo said:


> The boy [who is] living next to me isn’t here today  (implies he’s living there temporarily)



*The boy living next to me isn’t here today  * (implies he’s living there temporarily)​but
*The boy sat on the wall facing north.  *I'd interpret it as: The boy sat on the wall that faces north. (*not* that the wall is facing north temporarily)​
It would bring me more confusion should my interpretation be correct.


----------



## suzi br

Since a wall has two sides I would read that “facing north” as modifying the boy. He’s facing north.  He is doing that temporarily. If he rotated 180 degrees he’d be facing south on the same  wall.


----------



## heypresto

I would take it to mean that the _boy _was facing north. If there is a potential ambiguity, we usually go for the most probable meaning. 

Walls that you can sit on tend to face in two directions, and tend do do so permanently.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Yes, I'd think it meant the boy was facing North.


----------



## Mohamoka

suzi br said:


> Since a wall has two sides I would read that “facing north” as modifying the boy. He’s facing north.  He is doing that temporarily. If he rotated 180 degrees he’d be facing south on the same  wall.


Good point.
I've come up with a new one:
*The boy put his hat on the statue facing north.*​​How would you interpret that?​


----------



## heypresto

The statue was facing north.


----------



## suzi br

Mohamoka said:


> Good point.
> I've come up with a new one:
> *The boy put his hat on the statue facing north.*​​How would you interpret that?​



I’d interpret that as the sort of oddity people come up with when they’re trying to write things as examples but the things have limited actual use in reality. 

I’d probably say north facing statue, for what it’s worth! Then I don’t think that would be classed as a verb in the way the OP’s “sitting” is a verb.


----------



## lingobingo

Mohamoka said:


> *The boy living next to me isn’t here today  * (implies he’s living there temporarily)​but
> *The boy sat on the wall facing north.  *I'd interpret it as: The boy sat on the wall that faces north. (*not* that the wall is facing north temporarily)​
> It would bring me more confusion should my interpretation be correct.


You’ve totally misrepresented what was meant by that example, by taking it out of context. It was paired with a simple present version of the same statement, and that pair was meant in contrast to another pair of sentences. 

The point of it was to show another way of describing your next-door neighbour:

someone who *lives* next to you — whose permanent home is next to yours
someone who *is living* next to you — who’s currently resident there, although their own home (if they have one) is elsewhere


----------

