1

What is this non finite describing "to have third form of verb " e.g,to have been,to have crossed etc.Is this showing any completeness of a work or something else.

Edit is valid to above context

1010
  • 414
  • 1
  • 9
  • 19
  • 1
    You will need to add a little bit more context. There is no third form of verb. It depends on how you number them. It is not really clear what you are asking. – oerkelens Dec 02 '14 at 16:07
  • Unless this question is edited to clarify what exactly is being asked, it should be closed as "Unclear" – FumbleFingers Dec 02 '14 at 16:17
  • @oerkelens In the EFL world, people commonly refer to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd forms of the verb to reflect the triples that people learn when learning irregular verbs. It also means that people who, for example are studying in a language school in an English speaking country don't have to learn the meta language to be able to follow their lessons. They may only be at the school for a week or so. Coming from countries where they are often not taught in English, this is effective and saves lots of time and wasted effort. In reality, there's no need for most meta-language when learning a language:) – Araucaria - Not here any more. Dec 07 '14 at 02:04
  • 1
    @Araucaria a) It can't be that common: this only the third question here which has employed the term. b)The only thing worse than terminology whose meaning is difficult to puzzle out is terminology which has no meaning at all. c)The notion that one kind of terminology is less metalinguistic than another is absurd. d) Learning table headings is exactly as onerous as learning one tuple of the table: it's four terms. EFL teachers can spare their students effort by dropping rubbish like the n conditionals and the subjunctive and future perfect progressive passive. – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 07 '14 at 04:05
  • 1
    @Araucaria In the same spirit: a)Questions, I said: very few of the NNSs use the term. b)There is a need for some terminology ("nth form" is terminology, too) so you can talk about it. 'Participle' has a transparent meaning if you take thirty seconds to explain it, just like 'infinitive'; and while I hold no brief for 'past ppl' and 'present ppl', they are quite as justified as 'past' or 'preterite'. c) Balderdash; if you use it to talk about language it's metalanguage. ... – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 09 '14 at 02:18
  • 1
    @Araucaria d) Sorry about four; when I was a boy the English principal parts were plain form, past form, present participle, past participle. German and Latin have four, too, but not the same four in either; French has seven! And that's why 1st 2nd 3rd don't work, because different languages employ different paradigms. d2) We have 46 questions which employ the term 'subjunctive'; they're learning that somewhere, and it ain't from you or me. e) A participle is called that because it participates in the properties of both verb and adjective or noun ... – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 09 '14 at 02:24
  • 1
    @Araucaria ... Besides, it's fun to say. As I said, I hold no brief for 'past' and 'present' here. Me, I'd kill two surds with one done and rename em 'DO-form DID-form DONE-form' ... But I'll take nth-form seriously if you can justify 'verb' :D – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 09 '14 at 02:33
  • @StoneyB Ok, I'll try and meet that;) When in passives or perfect constructions, it's a verb because it can't be modified by very: *It is being very read. [I'll duck out of participle constructions though! [That's not cheating 'cuz we can just say: it's the same as the 3rd form of the verb! :)] Though to be fair, by the time people are dealing with that most are familiar with 'participle' so it doesn't matter, and you won't see 3rd form so much. Btw, pre-intermediate response to your explanation is what means 'participates'? ! ... – Araucaria - Not here any more. Dec 09 '14 at 13:17
  • @StoneyB ... The other problem is you can't drop the present/past moniker if you use participle, because you still need to distinguish between the two! But I'm prepared to call it a bit of a no-mans land situation. I'd just point of in defense of Ts who use it that it is incerdibly quick to establish what you're referring to on the board etc, because you can just say (modelling on three fingers) "come, came, come - number three" as you waggle your third finger madly with your other hand. Two seconds and it's done. Don't really need a name, but can write '3/3rd' on board and keep going! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Dec 09 '14 at 13:20
  • @StoneyB Yes, I know, I didn't really do the verb thing :D – Araucaria - Not here any more. Dec 09 '14 at 13:21
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 09 '14 at 15:49
  • @StoneyB Sure! Can't do much right now, am just doing a quick note to FE and then am going to the pub. Later? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Dec 09 '14 at 16:03
  • There's a room open whenever you're free. – StoneyB on hiatus Dec 09 '14 at 16:07

2 Answers2

3

As miltonaut tells you, the verbform which you call the ‘third form’ is ordinarily called the 'past participle' (PaPpl). I urge you to discard the numbered term, which has no evident inherent meaning and is not in general use.

The construction HAVE + VERBPaPpl is the perfect construction; it signifies a state arising out of the prior eventuality named by VERB.

When HAVE is cast in a ‘finite’ (tensed) form, the resultant construction is named a present perfect or past perfect.

PRESENT PERFECT: John has now written the Anderson report.
PAST PERFECT: John had already written the Anderson report last week.

When HAVE is cast in the infinitive form, with or without the ‘infinitive marker’ to, the resulting construction is called the perfect infinitive. This construction is employed in the same uses as other infinitives, for instance:

As the complement of a modal verb: John may have written the report by tonight.
As the complement of a catenative verb: John wants to have written the report by tomorrow.
As a subject complement: To have written it so quickly is quite an accomplishment.

Note that HAVE can also be cast in the -ing form, having VERBPaPpl, and this construction can be used as either a gerund or participle. But the had in had VERBPaPpl can only represent the past form of HAVE, not the past participle form.

You may find a great deal more about perfect constructions at What is the perfect, and how should I use it?.

Community
  • 1
StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
0

I think what you call the 'third form of the verb', I call the 'past participle'.

'To have + past participle' is the 'present perfect' tense. It has many uses. All of those uses involve actions completed in the past. However, they are different from past simple.

Past simple is usually used for one-time events, or when talking about a specific event in the past ("I went to China last year."). One of the uses of the present perfect is talking about an experience in the past that might be repeated in the future ("I have been to China, and I want to go again.").

Totally right, oerkelens! Guess that's the final sign I need to log off and go to bed.

OP, I'm sorry, I totally did not answer your question.

miltonaut
  • 960
  • 4
  • 11