Could you please explain what is the difference between this two:
Mr. Sherlock Holmes was seated at the breakfast table.
Mr. Sherlock Holmes seated at the breakfast table.
-
The difference is in transitivity (i.e., whether the verb seat can take a direct object). Check the dictionary to see which way seat is most commonly used.– user3395Commented Mar 10, 2018 at 13:11
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
The second one doesn't make sense. To seat something or someone means "to place something on a seat or seats, or cause someone to sit down". So if Sherlock Holmes was sitting at the table, then he was seated. That construction is the passive voice (to be + the past participle, which is seated) in the past tense (was seated). We often use the passive voice to describe something as though the participle was an adjective: he was tall, he was tired, he was seated, etc.
If you say "Sherlock Holmes seated..." that means he put someone or something else in a seat. But since the sentence doesn't have an object (what did he put in a seat?) it doesn't make sense.
The verb could also be used reflexively; e.g., "Sherlock Holmes seated himself behind a desk," is a valid sentence because the object (himself) is present.
