"Snow" is a bare infinitive here. "Seen" carries the actual tense, and "snow" remains a bare infinitive no matter what the tense is. So:
I saw it snow.
I will see it snow.
I'm seeing it snow.
I see it snow.
I had seen it snow.
I would have seen it snow.
I will have seen it snow.
At least some of these can be rephrased so that "snow" takes the tense instead ...
"I saw her cross the street" describes the event as a complete action from start to finish, while "I saw her crossing the street" describes the action as something that was in progress when you observed it. The first emphasizes what she did, the second emphasizes the girl's state at the time you saw her.
VERBS OF PERCEPTION can take a clause with the verb in the infinitive or plain form. Verbs of perception are verbs about how our bodies detect things in the world. Some examples are:
hear, listen, see, watch, look, taste, feel, sense
If these clauses take a verb in the plain form, then the pronoun before the verb will always be accusative (an 'object' ...
VERBS OF PERCEPTION are verbs that explain how we use our bodies to know about the world. They explain how we use our "five senses". These are our senses of:
touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell
Example verbs are:
hear, listen, see, watch, look, taste, feel, sense
They also include some mental processes we have when we sense things. For example:
Verbs of perception like see, hear, watch, feel take both -ing-form and bare infinitival† clauses as complements, but there is a slight difference of aspect between them:
The infinitival complement implies that what is perceived is a completed action.
He watched me play means that he watched until I was finished playing.
The -ing-form complement ...
Some answers have already been given to this question, I will try to phrase it differently, I hope that helps.
Gordon was about to walk away from the Impala when he saw it stop and (saw) his son get out.
This sentence is correct. As already mentioned, the past tense is "saw". The man saw something. What did he see? Two things:
1) He saw the car stop.
As Glorfindel noted, this is due to see, not because of can. This is a common construction in English. Other verbs that have the same effect include observe, watch, hear, feel.
There's a good explanation here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/verb-patterns/hear-see-etc-object-infinitive-or-ing
The difference between bare infinitive and gerund (-ing) is one of aspect, not tense. The bare infinitive looks at an action as a signal point in time whereas the gerund looks at it as a process (which is currently happening).
I watched him climbing over the fence
This means at the moment you watched him, the act of climbing was still in progress. ...
The phrase "he saw it stopped" sounds, to my native ears, that he sees a car that has already stopped. You can use more than one past tense (e.g. past perfect), as in "has stopped" or "had stopped" depending on whether the car continues to be stopped, or if it at some point started up again, or is unknown.
You can say "he saw that it had stopped", but this ...
Michael Swan writes in "Practical English Usage", topic 281.2, that certain verbs are followed by an object ("clock") and then by an infinitive without "to" (clock strike ten; not to strike ten).
He writes that such verbs include see, hear, feel, watch and notice ("verbs of perception") and let and make.
There's a great example with heard, a poem by A. E. ...
With verbs of perception the complement is the bare infinitive (without "to") or the present participle
I heard the phone ring|ringing.
I saw the car skid|skidding on the ice.
I smelled the wood burn|burning.
She heard the baby cry|crying.
The fans watched the teams compete|competing.
They felt the ground quake|quaking.
You are asking for the part of speech. They are all verbs functioning as catenative verbs.
Verbs of perception are idiosyncratic in that they can take a bare-infinitival clause as a complement. So both sentences are fine.
Causative-let and -make take only a bare infinitival complement.
He made me cry.OK
He made me to cry....
The first two sentences mean the same thing. Note that many people will prefer "I heard someone who is singing," since "who" refers to a person. You seldom hear this expanded version though because the "that/who is" is unnecessary and people will just say the shorter version "I heard someone singing."
Your third sentence means something completely ...
Verbs of perception can usually take both a bare infinitive or a participle as a complement.
I saw him eating fish
I saw him eat fish
Sometimes, there's a distinction in meaning between the two. Sometimes not.
Further, verbs of perception are about how a person1 perceives things. See and hear, watch, even remember and imagine.
You cannot use ...
"He saw it stop" is the past tense, but it's a particular construction, where you use the past tense of see (saw), and the present tense (or infinitive minus the "to") of stop. The two verbs are connected, so the fact that saw is past tense implies that the whole phrase is.
"and his son get out" is a parallel construction, and you can understand that by ...
That's a different meaning of see. When see means visual perception, either mood can be used:
“I see him play”: with the infinitive, I see the action as a whole.
“I see him playing”: with the present participle, I see the action in progress.
But when see means “imagine” or “anticipate”, as in your first example, it's always constructed with a participle, ...
After reading the discussion you linked to, I think user, brilliantpink, has a very good answer:
The construction "to be seen to do something" is indeed correct, but
uncommon. It means exactly the same as "to be seen doing something".
The only difference, in my opinion, is that "to be seen to" puts the
emphasis on the seeing rather than the action ...
The original sentence is correct - it is using the bare infinitive form of the verbs (the infinitive minus the word to). It is also correct to use accepting/signing, although the emphasis is slightly different (see below). It is not correct to use accepted/signed.
Many verbs of perception follow this pattern: hear, see, notice, watch, etc., where the ...
Yes, it can be used to reflect perception, but I'm not sure it counts as a verb of perception. What it's actually doing is using the sense of get to mean obtain, and could be replaced with appropriate forms of have. What the first example means is that they have constructed a timeline based on evidence, or a picture of events based on evidence, and on that ...
Of your three options, the first is wrong. You cannot say: He was seen do the test. If you use the verb do in this context, it requires the infinitive to in front of it.
Thus, it's correct to say: He was seen to do the test. This implies - without stating explicitly - that he was seen to have taken the whole test and completed it.
It is also correct to say:...
Both examples are grammatically correct.
However, you would use 1) and 2) when the action is complete, or is instant (and therefore complete by default.) For example, you would only say "I saw my friend being shot" if the friend got shot over a period of time (multiple shots were fired and hit the friend)
You would use 1a) and 2a) when her seeing of the ...
You don't have to be present to record someone talking. You only have to be present to listen to (or hear) the recording you made. Therefore, record is not a verb of perception.
Even if you are present, your listening or hearing are independent of the act of recording. You may not even be aware whether the instrument you're using is in fact recording. It ...
Mary told me that Tom had seen Peter [fall off his bicycle].
The simple answer is no. In your example "fall" is not a tensed verb-form, but a plain (infinitive) form, so it is not replaceable by past tense "fell".
"See" is a catenative verb which requires either a bare infinitival clause or a gerund-participial clause as catenative complement.
In your ...
We saw Fred leave.
Did you hear them arrive?
These are both catenative constructions.
"See" and "hear" are catenative verbs, and "leave" and "arrive" are bare infinitival non-finite clauses functioning as catenative complements. The intervening objects "Fred" and "them" belong syntactically in the matrix clauses, not the infinitivals, though they are,...
In my opinion,
V(see) + O(this) + O.C(continue)
[Verb of perception]+ O + [Infinitive]
O: object, O.C : objective complement
Verb of perception : see, watch, notice, hear, etc.
Verb of perception can take an infinitive as an objective complement.
I am no good at grammar and cannot tell you why. The words inside the parentheses are not necessary but are fine to use.
"I am playing (the) piano." This is what I am doing now.
"I play (the) piano." I know how to play the piano, but not playing it now. (Unless you are showing me and saying "Of course I play (the) piano."
I grew up watch his movies..
This is the correct way to say it, if you really want to use "being" in the sentence. As you mentioned, the better way to say this is this:
I saw you using this.
But if you're set on using the passive "being", then yes, this is correct! It isn't used super often, but it's understood by anyone who hears it.
The first option is correct.
The reason for that is the second sentence is actually two gerunds nested inside of each other. Let me show you what I mean.
I love watching them play in the park.
The bolded text is the direct object of the sentence. "Watching them play" is a gerund phrase. "In the park" is just a prepositional phrase, and like most, it can ...
I'm not even going to try to do this 'grammatically' I'm attempting my usual fly by the seat of my pants explanation…
As mentioned in one very much down-voted answer, there is a sense of a single action. Though not quite 'single' there is the sense that the actions were continuous, one followed the other in such a way that the first would not have been ...