1

"'Sadie's Home' is a family-friendly movie told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie."

Is 'told' a non-finite verb here? (past participle)

I believe the main verb is "is", and then "told" is a non-finite verb? My reasoning is that "told" doesn't indicate tense here, because the sentence could be changed to "'Sadie's Home' was... told from..."

Is this correct?

Dee
  • 97
  • 3
    Yes: I'd say that "told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie" is a past-participial clause modifying the nominal "family-friendly movie". It is semantically similar to the relative clause in "a family-friendly movie that is told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie" – BillJ Apr 06 '23 at 16:08
  • 4
    Yes, it's a past participle, as you suspect. It's part of a reduced relative clause (which/that is/was) told from the perspective of a little girl. We can't tell whether the speaker would have used which or that, nor whether they'd have used is or was -- when words get deleted, information inevitably gets lost. But Whiz-Deletion works anyway, producing the non-finite verb. – John Lawler Apr 06 '23 at 16:10
  • 1
    I reject the term 'reduced relative clause'. I don't want to be positing a deleted verb. Just because the expression "told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie" is modifying the nominal "family-friendly movie" it doesn't make it some kind of relative clause. It's not; it's a non-finite past-participial clause. – BillJ Apr 07 '23 at 07:12

2 Answers2

3

Sadie's Home' is [a family-friendly movie told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie].

Yes: "told" is a non-finite (past participle) verb and told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie is a past-participial clause modifying the nominal "family-friendly movie".

It is semantically similar to a relative clause: compare a family-friendly movie that is told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie.

Past-participial modifiers are 'bare passives', as evident from the admissibility of a by phrase in complement function.

It is not analysed as some kind of relative clause as there is no possibility of it containing a relative phrase (compare the ungrammatical a family-friendly movie which told from the perspective of a little girl called Sadie).

BillJ
  • 12,832
  • In traditional grammar terms, it is a reduced passive relative clause: [that is] told (not [that] told). – Tinfoil Hat Apr 06 '23 at 18:41
  • @TinfoilHat I said in my answer that it's passive. As for 'reduced relative clause, why would I want to posit a deleted verb? – BillJ Apr 07 '23 at 06:43
0

The term is one I never learned, but the concept I do know. I think your reasoning is sound, and I would say you are correct. “Told” is a past tense, yet is unaffected by any other part of the sentence, and could not be changed to another tense. It’s a contraction of “which is told,” where the verb and its connected words function as the second adjective describing the movie.

The man with no name
  • 159