get it complete / completing / completed

bearbear posted:

Which is correct? What rules that we follow? Thanks.

 

Since the tasks is hard, Peter has to burn the midnight oil to get it complete / completing / completed on time. 

Hi, bear_bear: In the "since"-clause, you need "are" (plural), not "is" (singular), because the subject of the "since"-clause ("tasks") is plural. The word you need after "get it" is the past participle, "completed." Compare:

  • Peter will get it done.

(NOT: Peter will get it do; Peter will get it did; Peter will get it doing.)

Thanks, but what is the function of the "since-clause"? Because of the "since-clause" , we should use "past participle"? 

The correct version:

Since the tasks are hard, Peter has to burn the midnight oil to get them completed on time.  (Should be "them" instead of "it'? )

 

 

 

davidmoderator posted:
bearbear posted:

Which is correct? What rules that we follow? Thanks.

 

Since the tasks is hard, Peter has to burn the midnight oil to get it complete / completing / completed on time. 

Hi, bear_bear: In the "since"-clause, you need "are" (plural), not "is" (singular), because the subject of the "since"-clause ("tasks") is plural. The word you need after "get it" is the past participle, "completed." Compare:

  • Peter will get it done.

(NOT: Peter will get it do; Peter will get it did; Peter will get it doing.)

I got another question. Why should we use past participle ? Because of the word, "get" ? 

bearbear posted:

I got another question.

That's bad English, bear_bear. You can say "I've got another question" or "I have another question."

bearbear posted:

 Why should we use past participle ? Because of the word, "get" ? 

In the construction "[get]  + [direct object] + [past participle]," the past participle is always used. It must be used. No other form of a verb is grammatical in that position within that construction. 

In the construction "[get]  + [direct object] + [past participle]," the past participle is always used.

I'd like to add that a present participle (V-ing) may be found after the direct object in very few, highly idiomatic cases like "get it going." In such cases, the meaning is active, that is, the action is to be performed by the object. These examples have been taken from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:

get something doing something (make something do a particular thing) e.g. We got the lawn mower working again eventually.

get somebody doing something (persuade or force somebody to do something) e.g. In the end, we got the children clearing the playground.

In both of the cases above, a "to"-infinitive can also be used with the same meaning:

- We got the lawn mower to work again.

- We got the children to clear the playground.

However, the causative construction get + direct object + past participle (where the past participle has passive meaning, because the direct objec is affected by, and does not perform, the action) is much more usual. In your example, bear_bear, "get it completed" is in fact the only possibility, as David rightly told you.

gustavocontributor posted:

In the construction "[get]  + [direct object] + [past participle]," the past participle is always used.

I'd like to add that a present participle (V-ing) may be found after the direct object in very few, highly idiomatic cases like "get it going."

That's very true, Gustavo. Naturally, I thought about that shortly after making my generalization. I thought about adding an addendum about "get it going" ("get it running," "get someone going on something," etc.), and came very close to doing so, but bear_bear's English is so weak that I didn't want to complicate things for him, especially with the change from passive to active meaning. They might properly be considered two entirely different constructions.

As you say, it is absolutely impossible for the present participle to be used in bear_bear's example, and the "get it going/running" construction is not very productive, except with lexical variants in a couple of cases. A car mechanic can get a car running, a plumber can get the water flowing through a pipe again, and we can get each other going on exciting grammatical constructions. Much more usual is the case of getting something or someone to do something.

We can say, "We got bear_bear to understand the construction."

We can't say, *"We got bear_bear understanding the construction."

the "get it going/running" construction is not very productive, except with lexical variants in a couple of cases. 

That's true, David, so true that I always teach my students only the pattern with "to"-infinitive along with the one using the past participle, in pairs of examples like the following:

- Peter got a friend to complete the task for him. (active causative meaning)

- Peter got his task completed. (passive causative meaning)

bear_bear's English is so weak that I didn't want to complicate things for him, especially with the change from passive to active meaning.

I agree. I just made the addition in case somebody else came across this thread (that's why I wrote it for the "general public," so to speak). 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×