Wrong sentence construction?

[Mwita Chacha]

I have just come across a disputable sentence--at least for me-- on the web site of one the reputable world news agencies. The sentence reading '' the assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself up...'' is part of the BBC's story about today's suicide attack that has occured in Sana'a, Yemen, on Yemeni soldiers practising for a military parade. The contentious section of the sentence is 'was wearing army uniform', as it suggests that the attacker was in the act of putting on the uniform at the same time as he did the attack--which might be possible though. My query is, can one use a progressive tense--as BBC have done-- to refer to the happening that isn't progressive?

[Joe Carillo]

The sentence you presented, “The assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself up...”, seems to be using the progressive tense in the phrase “was reportedly wearing army uniform” but it actually doesn’t. In that phrase, the verb phrase “was wearing army uniform” is actually using “was wearing” as a stative verb phrase to indicate a condition, not as an action verb to indicate an unfolding action. We must keep in mind that in general, the progressive tense can only be used for dynamic verbs and not for stative verbs. Indeed, as you pointed out, if we think of “was wearing army uniform” as in the past progressive form, it could be construed—and wrongly so—that the attacker was in the act of putting on the uniform at the same time as he did the attack. The grammatically correct way to evoke this sense in the past progressive is to use a dynamic verb phrase instead of the stative “was wearing,” like the dynamic verb phrase “putting on” in this sentence: “The assailant, who was reportedly putting on army uniform, blew himself up...” Now that verb phrase is definitely in the past progressive tense, but then it doesn’t correctly convey the sense intended by that BBC report. (For the differences between dynamic verbs and stative verbs, click this link to my recent posting on “Re: kinds of verb”)

[Mwita Chacha]

I have visited the link you recommended to me, and my confusion has escalated instead of being lessened. The link explains clearly that stative verbs never work in progressive forms and that massive trouble begins when this rule is being violated, citing phrases such as ''having a car'', ''knowing him'' etc. as common glaring grammatical errors. If this is the case, then BBC's phrase ''was wearing'' is arguably inaccurate inasmuch as it attempts to use a continuous tense to refer to the subject's stative attribute. I would consequently propose ''the assailant, who wore military uniform, blew himself...'' to be the unassailable version of the originally controvertible sentence ''the assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself...''

[Joe Carillo]

I can understand why your confusion about the usage of stative verbs has escalated instead of getting lessened. The behavior of stative verbs is actually one of the toughest aspects of English grammar to comprehend, particularly when we are not specifically conversant with the different kinds of stative verbs and their unique characteristics.

You are absolutely correct when you say that stative verbs never work in progressive forms, but I think it’s misleading to cite usage of phrases like “having a car” and “knowing him” as violations per se of this attribute of stative verbs. In actual practice, however, it’s how these phrases are used in a sentence that determines whether they are grammatically flawed or not. To prove this point, let us me show you a few sentences using these phrases in different ways.

The sentence “I am having a car” is, on its face, grammatically flawed—clearly a violation of the general rule that stative verbs don’t work in progressive forms; for indeed, “having” here is clearly in the progressive form and as such evidently malfunctions grammatically in tandem with the linking verb “am.” We can say exactly the same thing about the stative verb “knowing” “in a sentence like “I am knowing him”; it’s a grammatically flawed sentence.

But see what happens when we have this sentence instead: “I am having a red car instead of a blue one.” The structure of the verb phrase is essentially the same as that of “I am having a car,” but the introduction of the elements of color (“red” and “blue”) and of choice makes the verb “having” no longer stative but dynamic in the sense of taking possession. In contrast, in the case of the verb “knowing,” there appears to be no way of getting around the fact that it’s a stative verb through and through. We obviously can’t say “I am knowing him for his kindness instead of his forgetfulness,” nor can we say “I am knowing him tomorrow rather than today.” What these examples of sentences are telling us is that depending on how they are used, some verbs can be stative or dynamic, but other verbs will be stative all the time and in all cases—meaning that they can only indicate a state or condition but never an action unfolding in time.

I have another misgiving over your generalization that phrases like “having a car” and “knowing him” per se are violations of this attribute of stative verbs: such phrases could, in fact, be functioning not as stative verbs but as verbals—specifically as gerund phrases, which as we know actually work as nouns in a sentence. For instance, in the sentences “I imagine having a car” or “I appreciate knowing him,” the phrases “having a car” and “knowing him” are actually noun complements in the sentence, not stative verbs in the progressive or continuous form. What are stative in those sentences are the verbs “imagine” and “appreciate,” both of which are transitive verbs—with “imagine” having “having a car” (a gerund) as direct object, and with “appreciate” having “knowing him” (a gerund) as direct object. Also, in both cases, the verbs “imagine” and “appreciate” are of the Vc two-place transitive type, in which the action actually takes place within the subject or doer of the action, then is transmitted to the direct object.

This brings me to the point I discussed about stative verbs in a recent posting earlier in this Forum: in showing a state or condition, a stative verb can be transitive, intransitive, or linking depending on how it is used in a sentence. The stative verb “knows” in “He knows Italian” is transitive, with “Italian” as its direct object. The stative verb “believe” in “We believe in Divine Providence” is intransitive, with no direct object, but it is transitive in “We believe God,” with “God” as the direct object. In the sentence “She is beautiful,” however, the stative verb “is” is a linking verb, one that simply connects the subject “she” to the predicate “beautiful.” (Click this link to my earlier posting on the kinds and types of verbs.)

Based on the above discussions, I have to disagree with you that the usage of the verb phrase “was reportedly wearing army uniform” in this sentence by BBC, “The assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself...”, is violative of grammar. It is, in fact, grammatically and semantically airtight as well as unassailable from the total language standpoint. As to your proposed alternative sentence for it, “The assailant, who (reportedly) wore military uniform, blew himself...”, it is likewise unassailable in all respects. This is really the beauty of the English language—its lexicon is so rich we can use not just one or two but often several single words to denote a specific idea. In the particular case of verbs, though, we need to be careful that we know precisely whether we are using it in a dynamic or stative sense, on one hand; or as a transitive, intransitive, or linking verb, on the other. Not to know the distinctions clearly between these kinds and types of verbs can sometimes lead us into inaccurate conclusions about the grammatical correctness of their usage in particular sentences.

[Mwita Chacha]

It is sufficient, adequate and satisfying, your above explanation anent 'stative verbs' and how to apply them precisely. Perusing it, I only have come to ascertain that depending on how they are applied, stative verbs can give a meaning of continuousness in the same magnitude as they can do to deliver a sense of stativeness. The remaining hard task ahead is to get myself familiar with a list of stative verbs that can be employed to convey a sense of progressiveness and a sense of stativeness when used in discrete occasions.