Why is “Consequences inflicted.” not a sentence?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I was helping a friend write a paper and came across a sentence which confused me.
The sentence was something along the lines of:
Horrifying consequences inflicted upon innocent people.
As soon as I read this, I knew it was a fragment, but could not describe why. I can distill it down to:
Consequences inflicted.
and from there it seems to follow that there is a subject (the consequences) and a past-tense verb (inflicted). In my mind, it is no different from the sentence:
Icicles melted.
I am fairly sure that the latter is a complete sentence whereas the former is not, but both seem to have a past-tense verb and a plural noun. I would love if somebody could shed a little more light on the situation. Thanks in advance.
grammaticality verbs usage sentence-fragments
New contributor
add a comment |
I was helping a friend write a paper and came across a sentence which confused me.
The sentence was something along the lines of:
Horrifying consequences inflicted upon innocent people.
As soon as I read this, I knew it was a fragment, but could not describe why. I can distill it down to:
Consequences inflicted.
and from there it seems to follow that there is a subject (the consequences) and a past-tense verb (inflicted). In my mind, it is no different from the sentence:
Icicles melted.
I am fairly sure that the latter is a complete sentence whereas the former is not, but both seem to have a past-tense verb and a plural noun. I would love if somebody could shed a little more light on the situation. Thanks in advance.
grammaticality verbs usage sentence-fragments
New contributor
8
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
22
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
1
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
3
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago
add a comment |
I was helping a friend write a paper and came across a sentence which confused me.
The sentence was something along the lines of:
Horrifying consequences inflicted upon innocent people.
As soon as I read this, I knew it was a fragment, but could not describe why. I can distill it down to:
Consequences inflicted.
and from there it seems to follow that there is a subject (the consequences) and a past-tense verb (inflicted). In my mind, it is no different from the sentence:
Icicles melted.
I am fairly sure that the latter is a complete sentence whereas the former is not, but both seem to have a past-tense verb and a plural noun. I would love if somebody could shed a little more light on the situation. Thanks in advance.
grammaticality verbs usage sentence-fragments
New contributor
I was helping a friend write a paper and came across a sentence which confused me.
The sentence was something along the lines of:
Horrifying consequences inflicted upon innocent people.
As soon as I read this, I knew it was a fragment, but could not describe why. I can distill it down to:
Consequences inflicted.
and from there it seems to follow that there is a subject (the consequences) and a past-tense verb (inflicted). In my mind, it is no different from the sentence:
Icicles melted.
I am fairly sure that the latter is a complete sentence whereas the former is not, but both seem to have a past-tense verb and a plural noun. I would love if somebody could shed a little more light on the situation. Thanks in advance.
grammaticality verbs usage sentence-fragments
grammaticality verbs usage sentence-fragments
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked yesterday
Roy FalikRoy Falik
1087
1087
New contributor
New contributor
8
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
22
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
1
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
3
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago
add a comment |
8
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
22
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
1
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
3
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago
8
8
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
22
22
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
1
1
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
3
3
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
It's a fragment because there is no required auxiliary verb.
For instance:
✔ Consequences were inflicted.
This is a valid passive sentence, along the same lines as:
✔ The window was broken.
In this sentence, broken is an adjective. (In the previous sentence, inflicted is acting as an adjective.)
In another construction, inflicted can be used without an auxiliary verb, but it requires an object.
✔ They inflicted themselves on him.
In your second sentence, the intransitive verb melted doesn't require an auxiliary verb:
Icicles melted.
Cars crashed.
They jumped.
Although extremely short, those are all still sentences with a subject and a validly constructed intransitive verb.
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It’s not considered a sentence because it contains no subject (even implicitly, like an imperative). “Consequences” is grammatically a direct object of “inflicted.”
In formal standard written English, “Consequences inflicted” would not normally be written as a complete sentence. You would be more likely to see the phrase set off by a comma, perhaps, “Consequences inflicted, the mother left her son in his room.” If you did follow it with a full stop, it would indicate a pause for effect, as in “There would be repercussions. Consequences inflicted.”
Native speakers sometimes do say things similar to that. Most of the examples that come to mind are from the military: “Countdown initiated,” “Missile launched,” “Target acquired,” etc. The copula—the "is", "was" or "has been"—is implied but unstated. It’s a minimalistic way of speaking associated with situations where every second counts. Robots in science-fiction stories tend to speak this way, too.
add a comment |
After doing a little more research based on some helpful comments, I read about past participles at: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/verbals.html
A verbal is a word formed from a verb but functioning as a different part of speech.
A participle is a verbal that functions as an adjective.
Past participles, usually ending in -ed or -en, are created from the form of a verb used with the verb to be as an auxiliary verb (passive voice).
For example: The windows were cracked by vandals.
In the example, like in mine, there is a main verb in the past participle form ("windows cracked by vandals"); however, this is not a complete sentence without the auxiliary verb of form "to be". In my example it would be a complete sentence if I added "were" before inflicted.
The difference between "consequences inflicted" and "icicles melted" is that inflicted is functioning as a past participle in this case.
New contributor
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
add a comment |
"Inflict" is what's known as a transitive verb. A transitive verb is a verb that requires an object. Intransitive verbs don't have a subject (many verbs can be used both transitively or intransitively, but "inflicted" can only be transitive). When we write a subject and an intransitive verb, that can be complete sentence. "Melt" can function both transitively ("The sun melted the snow") or intransitively ("The snow melted"). Since "inflict" functions only transitively, "Consequences inflicted" is not a complete sentence.
Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive is often included in dictionary entries. For instance here there's
Definition of help (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support to
help a child with homework
and then later on
intransitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support —often used with out
helps out with the housework
So "help" can function intransitively, hence "I helped!" is a complete sentence. On the other hand, if you look up "confuse", you will see only transitive definitions. So "It confused" would not be a complete sentence.
Furthermore, "inflicted" is probably not the past tense of "inflict", but the past participle, in which case it is functioning as an adjective, so there isn't any verb at all. For "inflict" to be the past tense rather than past participle, "consequences" would have to be the subject, but "consequences" makes more sense as the object than the subject.
add a comment |
Yes, a transitive verb always needs a direct object or the thought is incomplete and therefor not a sentence. Other examples of incomplete thoughts: John opened. The bishop slapped
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Roy Falik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493974%2fwhy-is-consequences-inflicted-not-a-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's a fragment because there is no required auxiliary verb.
For instance:
✔ Consequences were inflicted.
This is a valid passive sentence, along the same lines as:
✔ The window was broken.
In this sentence, broken is an adjective. (In the previous sentence, inflicted is acting as an adjective.)
In another construction, inflicted can be used without an auxiliary verb, but it requires an object.
✔ They inflicted themselves on him.
In your second sentence, the intransitive verb melted doesn't require an auxiliary verb:
Icicles melted.
Cars crashed.
They jumped.
Although extremely short, those are all still sentences with a subject and a validly constructed intransitive verb.
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It's a fragment because there is no required auxiliary verb.
For instance:
✔ Consequences were inflicted.
This is a valid passive sentence, along the same lines as:
✔ The window was broken.
In this sentence, broken is an adjective. (In the previous sentence, inflicted is acting as an adjective.)
In another construction, inflicted can be used without an auxiliary verb, but it requires an object.
✔ They inflicted themselves on him.
In your second sentence, the intransitive verb melted doesn't require an auxiliary verb:
Icicles melted.
Cars crashed.
They jumped.
Although extremely short, those are all still sentences with a subject and a validly constructed intransitive verb.
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It's a fragment because there is no required auxiliary verb.
For instance:
✔ Consequences were inflicted.
This is a valid passive sentence, along the same lines as:
✔ The window was broken.
In this sentence, broken is an adjective. (In the previous sentence, inflicted is acting as an adjective.)
In another construction, inflicted can be used without an auxiliary verb, but it requires an object.
✔ They inflicted themselves on him.
In your second sentence, the intransitive verb melted doesn't require an auxiliary verb:
Icicles melted.
Cars crashed.
They jumped.
Although extremely short, those are all still sentences with a subject and a validly constructed intransitive verb.
It's a fragment because there is no required auxiliary verb.
For instance:
✔ Consequences were inflicted.
This is a valid passive sentence, along the same lines as:
✔ The window was broken.
In this sentence, broken is an adjective. (In the previous sentence, inflicted is acting as an adjective.)
In another construction, inflicted can be used without an auxiliary verb, but it requires an object.
✔ They inflicted themselves on him.
In your second sentence, the intransitive verb melted doesn't require an auxiliary verb:
Icicles melted.
Cars crashed.
They jumped.
Although extremely short, those are all still sentences with a subject and a validly constructed intransitive verb.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.8k32750
20.8k32750
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
You seem to say that inflicted can be used without an auxiliary very when it has an object, which the OP's sentence does. At least to my ear, it seems like the OP's example is a complete sentence (though probably not what anyone intended to say) equivalent to "Horrifying consequences inflicted themselves upon innocent people." with the "themselves" omitted.
– David Schwartz
5 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz It can, but not in the full sentence in the question. That sentence has no subject. The example sentence in my answer has they inflicted themselves. And while the sentence in your comment is technically grammatical, it's not possible for a consequence to inflict itself upon anyone. Consequences aren't things that can take action.
– Jason Bassford
3 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
Lots of things that can't take action can inflict themselves on people or things. A quick Google search revealed hundreds of examples such as "a new pestilence has now inflicted itself upon us", ".. the deep pain and grief that inflicted itself upon us", and "... a sharp cold pain inflicted itself upon me". I have no problem with the idea that consequences can take action.
– David Schwartz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It’s not considered a sentence because it contains no subject (even implicitly, like an imperative). “Consequences” is grammatically a direct object of “inflicted.”
In formal standard written English, “Consequences inflicted” would not normally be written as a complete sentence. You would be more likely to see the phrase set off by a comma, perhaps, “Consequences inflicted, the mother left her son in his room.” If you did follow it with a full stop, it would indicate a pause for effect, as in “There would be repercussions. Consequences inflicted.”
Native speakers sometimes do say things similar to that. Most of the examples that come to mind are from the military: “Countdown initiated,” “Missile launched,” “Target acquired,” etc. The copula—the "is", "was" or "has been"—is implied but unstated. It’s a minimalistic way of speaking associated with situations where every second counts. Robots in science-fiction stories tend to speak this way, too.
add a comment |
It’s not considered a sentence because it contains no subject (even implicitly, like an imperative). “Consequences” is grammatically a direct object of “inflicted.”
In formal standard written English, “Consequences inflicted” would not normally be written as a complete sentence. You would be more likely to see the phrase set off by a comma, perhaps, “Consequences inflicted, the mother left her son in his room.” If you did follow it with a full stop, it would indicate a pause for effect, as in “There would be repercussions. Consequences inflicted.”
Native speakers sometimes do say things similar to that. Most of the examples that come to mind are from the military: “Countdown initiated,” “Missile launched,” “Target acquired,” etc. The copula—the "is", "was" or "has been"—is implied but unstated. It’s a minimalistic way of speaking associated with situations where every second counts. Robots in science-fiction stories tend to speak this way, too.
add a comment |
It’s not considered a sentence because it contains no subject (even implicitly, like an imperative). “Consequences” is grammatically a direct object of “inflicted.”
In formal standard written English, “Consequences inflicted” would not normally be written as a complete sentence. You would be more likely to see the phrase set off by a comma, perhaps, “Consequences inflicted, the mother left her son in his room.” If you did follow it with a full stop, it would indicate a pause for effect, as in “There would be repercussions. Consequences inflicted.”
Native speakers sometimes do say things similar to that. Most of the examples that come to mind are from the military: “Countdown initiated,” “Missile launched,” “Target acquired,” etc. The copula—the "is", "was" or "has been"—is implied but unstated. It’s a minimalistic way of speaking associated with situations where every second counts. Robots in science-fiction stories tend to speak this way, too.
It’s not considered a sentence because it contains no subject (even implicitly, like an imperative). “Consequences” is grammatically a direct object of “inflicted.”
In formal standard written English, “Consequences inflicted” would not normally be written as a complete sentence. You would be more likely to see the phrase set off by a comma, perhaps, “Consequences inflicted, the mother left her son in his room.” If you did follow it with a full stop, it would indicate a pause for effect, as in “There would be repercussions. Consequences inflicted.”
Native speakers sometimes do say things similar to that. Most of the examples that come to mind are from the military: “Countdown initiated,” “Missile launched,” “Target acquired,” etc. The copula—the "is", "was" or "has been"—is implied but unstated. It’s a minimalistic way of speaking associated with situations where every second counts. Robots in science-fiction stories tend to speak this way, too.
edited 12 hours ago
Sandra
31
31
answered yesterday
DavislorDavislor
2,267216
2,267216
add a comment |
add a comment |
After doing a little more research based on some helpful comments, I read about past participles at: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/verbals.html
A verbal is a word formed from a verb but functioning as a different part of speech.
A participle is a verbal that functions as an adjective.
Past participles, usually ending in -ed or -en, are created from the form of a verb used with the verb to be as an auxiliary verb (passive voice).
For example: The windows were cracked by vandals.
In the example, like in mine, there is a main verb in the past participle form ("windows cracked by vandals"); however, this is not a complete sentence without the auxiliary verb of form "to be". In my example it would be a complete sentence if I added "were" before inflicted.
The difference between "consequences inflicted" and "icicles melted" is that inflicted is functioning as a past participle in this case.
New contributor
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
add a comment |
After doing a little more research based on some helpful comments, I read about past participles at: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/verbals.html
A verbal is a word formed from a verb but functioning as a different part of speech.
A participle is a verbal that functions as an adjective.
Past participles, usually ending in -ed or -en, are created from the form of a verb used with the verb to be as an auxiliary verb (passive voice).
For example: The windows were cracked by vandals.
In the example, like in mine, there is a main verb in the past participle form ("windows cracked by vandals"); however, this is not a complete sentence without the auxiliary verb of form "to be". In my example it would be a complete sentence if I added "were" before inflicted.
The difference between "consequences inflicted" and "icicles melted" is that inflicted is functioning as a past participle in this case.
New contributor
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
add a comment |
After doing a little more research based on some helpful comments, I read about past participles at: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/verbals.html
A verbal is a word formed from a verb but functioning as a different part of speech.
A participle is a verbal that functions as an adjective.
Past participles, usually ending in -ed or -en, are created from the form of a verb used with the verb to be as an auxiliary verb (passive voice).
For example: The windows were cracked by vandals.
In the example, like in mine, there is a main verb in the past participle form ("windows cracked by vandals"); however, this is not a complete sentence without the auxiliary verb of form "to be". In my example it would be a complete sentence if I added "were" before inflicted.
The difference between "consequences inflicted" and "icicles melted" is that inflicted is functioning as a past participle in this case.
New contributor
After doing a little more research based on some helpful comments, I read about past participles at: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/verbals.html
A verbal is a word formed from a verb but functioning as a different part of speech.
A participle is a verbal that functions as an adjective.
Past participles, usually ending in -ed or -en, are created from the form of a verb used with the verb to be as an auxiliary verb (passive voice).
For example: The windows were cracked by vandals.
In the example, like in mine, there is a main verb in the past participle form ("windows cracked by vandals"); however, this is not a complete sentence without the auxiliary verb of form "to be". In my example it would be a complete sentence if I added "were" before inflicted.
The difference between "consequences inflicted" and "icicles melted" is that inflicted is functioning as a past participle in this case.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Roy FalikRoy Falik
1087
1087
New contributor
New contributor
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
add a comment |
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
The word "cracked" can either be a past participle or a past-tense verb which may be used transitively or intransitively. Further, the preposition "by" may be used to mean "near". One could say that windows spontaneously cracked in the vicinity of vandals with the sentence "Windows cracked by vandals." That would be an awkward way of saying such a thing, but I think it would be a complete sentence with that meaning.
– supercat
21 hours ago
add a comment |
"Inflict" is what's known as a transitive verb. A transitive verb is a verb that requires an object. Intransitive verbs don't have a subject (many verbs can be used both transitively or intransitively, but "inflicted" can only be transitive). When we write a subject and an intransitive verb, that can be complete sentence. "Melt" can function both transitively ("The sun melted the snow") or intransitively ("The snow melted"). Since "inflict" functions only transitively, "Consequences inflicted" is not a complete sentence.
Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive is often included in dictionary entries. For instance here there's
Definition of help (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support to
help a child with homework
and then later on
intransitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support —often used with out
helps out with the housework
So "help" can function intransitively, hence "I helped!" is a complete sentence. On the other hand, if you look up "confuse", you will see only transitive definitions. So "It confused" would not be a complete sentence.
Furthermore, "inflicted" is probably not the past tense of "inflict", but the past participle, in which case it is functioning as an adjective, so there isn't any verb at all. For "inflict" to be the past tense rather than past participle, "consequences" would have to be the subject, but "consequences" makes more sense as the object than the subject.
add a comment |
"Inflict" is what's known as a transitive verb. A transitive verb is a verb that requires an object. Intransitive verbs don't have a subject (many verbs can be used both transitively or intransitively, but "inflicted" can only be transitive). When we write a subject and an intransitive verb, that can be complete sentence. "Melt" can function both transitively ("The sun melted the snow") or intransitively ("The snow melted"). Since "inflict" functions only transitively, "Consequences inflicted" is not a complete sentence.
Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive is often included in dictionary entries. For instance here there's
Definition of help (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support to
help a child with homework
and then later on
intransitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support —often used with out
helps out with the housework
So "help" can function intransitively, hence "I helped!" is a complete sentence. On the other hand, if you look up "confuse", you will see only transitive definitions. So "It confused" would not be a complete sentence.
Furthermore, "inflicted" is probably not the past tense of "inflict", but the past participle, in which case it is functioning as an adjective, so there isn't any verb at all. For "inflict" to be the past tense rather than past participle, "consequences" would have to be the subject, but "consequences" makes more sense as the object than the subject.
add a comment |
"Inflict" is what's known as a transitive verb. A transitive verb is a verb that requires an object. Intransitive verbs don't have a subject (many verbs can be used both transitively or intransitively, but "inflicted" can only be transitive). When we write a subject and an intransitive verb, that can be complete sentence. "Melt" can function both transitively ("The sun melted the snow") or intransitively ("The snow melted"). Since "inflict" functions only transitively, "Consequences inflicted" is not a complete sentence.
Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive is often included in dictionary entries. For instance here there's
Definition of help (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support to
help a child with homework
and then later on
intransitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support —often used with out
helps out with the housework
So "help" can function intransitively, hence "I helped!" is a complete sentence. On the other hand, if you look up "confuse", you will see only transitive definitions. So "It confused" would not be a complete sentence.
Furthermore, "inflicted" is probably not the past tense of "inflict", but the past participle, in which case it is functioning as an adjective, so there isn't any verb at all. For "inflict" to be the past tense rather than past participle, "consequences" would have to be the subject, but "consequences" makes more sense as the object than the subject.
"Inflict" is what's known as a transitive verb. A transitive verb is a verb that requires an object. Intransitive verbs don't have a subject (many verbs can be used both transitively or intransitively, but "inflicted" can only be transitive). When we write a subject and an intransitive verb, that can be complete sentence. "Melt" can function both transitively ("The sun melted the snow") or intransitively ("The snow melted"). Since "inflict" functions only transitively, "Consequences inflicted" is not a complete sentence.
Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive is often included in dictionary entries. For instance here there's
Definition of help (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support to
help a child with homework
and then later on
intransitive verb
1 : to give assistance or support —often used with out
helps out with the housework
So "help" can function intransitively, hence "I helped!" is a complete sentence. On the other hand, if you look up "confuse", you will see only transitive definitions. So "It confused" would not be a complete sentence.
Furthermore, "inflicted" is probably not the past tense of "inflict", but the past participle, in which case it is functioning as an adjective, so there isn't any verb at all. For "inflict" to be the past tense rather than past participle, "consequences" would have to be the subject, but "consequences" makes more sense as the object than the subject.
answered 10 hours ago
AcccumulationAcccumulation
1,49529
1,49529
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes, a transitive verb always needs a direct object or the thought is incomplete and therefor not a sentence. Other examples of incomplete thoughts: John opened. The bishop slapped
add a comment |
Yes, a transitive verb always needs a direct object or the thought is incomplete and therefor not a sentence. Other examples of incomplete thoughts: John opened. The bishop slapped
add a comment |
Yes, a transitive verb always needs a direct object or the thought is incomplete and therefor not a sentence. Other examples of incomplete thoughts: John opened. The bishop slapped
Yes, a transitive verb always needs a direct object or the thought is incomplete and therefor not a sentence. Other examples of incomplete thoughts: John opened. The bishop slapped
answered 4 hours ago
Aled CymroAled Cymro
30715
30715
add a comment |
add a comment |
Roy Falik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Roy Falik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Roy Falik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Roy Falik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493974%2fwhy-is-consequences-inflicted-not-a-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
Inflicted is not serving as a verb in this sentence. It is merely an adjective. for Consequences.
– Karlomanio
yesterday
22
Importantly, inflict is transitive while melt is intransitive
– James Random
yesterday
1
I'm pretty sure it is a sentence. However, only if it is just those two words. When you add "upon" you're changing the kind of word you're using with "inflicted". I can't describe this formally or I would list this as an answer. It reminds me of "The grey horse ran past the barn fell" and other garden sentences...
– BlackVegetable
yesterday
3
"Consequences" is the object of "inflicted", not the subject. "Inflicted" needs both a subject and an object.
– Michael Kay
18 hours ago