Why “be dealt cards” rather than “be dealing cards”? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Contributor's Guide to English Language LearnersWhat is the proper use of the present progressive form, especially of “to have”?Reference Time and Event Time in the Pr. Progressive tenseWhat are the viewpoint and lexical aspects of the following two “stand”?Repeated actions and the past progressiveDo tenses agree in: “”I don't understand why the service was so slow.."Why the use of past perfect hereHow to use Would Rather?Unreal uses of past tenses “Would you rather we took the bus?” vs “Would you rather take the bus?”says rather more than is strictly certainPresent perfect simple vs present perfect progressive

Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?

What is the least dense liquid under normal conditions?

A strange hotel

A Paper Record is What I Hamper

Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?

Could moose/elk survive in the Amazon forest?

Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?

Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?

Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?

What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?

Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?

Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring

Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script

How do I proof this combinatorial identity

Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?

Multiple options vs single option UI

How long after the last departure shall the airport stay open for an emergency return?

Are all CP/M-80 implementations binary compatible?

Which fixes from mathtools were merged to the AMS packages already?

Which big number is bigger?

Rolling Stones Sway guitar solo chord function

Israeli soda type drink

Why WordPress uses 4 tables to manage terms

Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?



Why “be dealt cards” rather than “be dealing cards”?



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Contributor's Guide to English Language LearnersWhat is the proper use of the present progressive form, especially of “to have”?Reference Time and Event Time in the Pr. Progressive tenseWhat are the viewpoint and lexical aspects of the following two “stand”?Repeated actions and the past progressiveDo tenses agree in: “”I don't understand why the service was so slow.."Why the use of past perfect hereHow to use Would Rather?Unreal uses of past tenses “Would you rather we took the bus?” vs “Would you rather take the bus?”says rather more than is strictly certainPresent perfect simple vs present perfect progressive



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








11















I encounter such a confusing sentence:




You are dealt two cards.




I don't understand why we should use "dealt" rather than "dealing"(Present Progressive Tense) here? What is the normal tense of "dealt" here?










share|improve this question



















  • 5





    You are dealt two cards [by someone].

    – Lambie
    Mar 26 at 21:31

















11















I encounter such a confusing sentence:




You are dealt two cards.




I don't understand why we should use "dealt" rather than "dealing"(Present Progressive Tense) here? What is the normal tense of "dealt" here?










share|improve this question



















  • 5





    You are dealt two cards [by someone].

    – Lambie
    Mar 26 at 21:31













11












11








11


2






I encounter such a confusing sentence:




You are dealt two cards.




I don't understand why we should use "dealt" rather than "dealing"(Present Progressive Tense) here? What is the normal tense of "dealt" here?










share|improve this question
















I encounter such a confusing sentence:




You are dealt two cards.




I don't understand why we should use "dealt" rather than "dealing"(Present Progressive Tense) here? What is the normal tense of "dealt" here?







meaning tense word-difference transitivity






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 26 at 23:08









Jasper

20.2k44174




20.2k44174










asked Mar 26 at 6:54









Lerner ZhangLerner Zhang

93011229




93011229







  • 5





    You are dealt two cards [by someone].

    – Lambie
    Mar 26 at 21:31












  • 5





    You are dealt two cards [by someone].

    – Lambie
    Mar 26 at 21:31







5




5





You are dealt two cards [by someone].

– Lambie
Mar 26 at 21:31





You are dealt two cards [by someone].

– Lambie
Mar 26 at 21:31










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















43














In this context, you can assume that to deal = to give. So your sentence transforms into:




You are given two cards.




It means that while you are playing cards, you receive two cards (from the person holding the deck of cards).




It is also correct to say:




You are dealing / giving two cards.




but the meaning is different. In this sentence, you have the deck of cards, and you deal / give / share them with the other players.




  • are dealt => passive voice


  • are dealing => active voice



If you understand infinitive by "normal tense", then the infinitive of "dealt" is "to deal".






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

    – PLL
    Mar 26 at 12:06







  • 2





    Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

    – virolino
    Mar 26 at 12:10











  • This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

    – MPW
    Mar 26 at 16:06











  • @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

    – Monty Harder
    Mar 26 at 19:03











  • @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

    – PLL
    Mar 26 at 19:25


















6














You have come across a passive sentence construction. Normally in an active sentence, the subject is what's called the agent. It is the one doing the action of the verb. The patient has the action applied to it. This is normally the direct object. This sentence also has an indirect object. The indirect object is often the receiver (or in this case the recipient) of the action, but doesn't experience the action. "You" are not being dealt, the "two cards" are.



In a passive sentence the agent is either missing and assumed, or included by adding by, then the agent, e.g. by the dealer.



In all the below sentences:



  • the agent is "the dealer"

  • the patient is "one card" (I've changed it from "two cards" to illustrate the grammar below)

  • the recipient is "you"

  • the verb is a form of "to deal"

  • [verb-pap] is the past participle form

  • [verb-prp] is the present participle form, the "-ing" form (looks identical to the gerund)

  • "[be]" is a conjugated form of "to be"

  • "by" and "to" represent themselves

Here is a breakdown of possible forms. They all mean much the same thing, with different emphasis. The subject, direct object, and indirect object are not always the same from sentence to sentence, but the agent, patient, and recipient all are.



  • Passive (recipient as subject): [recipient] [be] [verb-pap] [patient] ("by" [agent])


You are dealt one card.



You are dealt one card by the dealer.




  • Passive (patient as subject): [patient] [be] [verb-pap] "to" [recipient] ("by" [agent])


One card is dealt to you.



One card is dealt to you by the dealer.




  • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [recipient] [patient]


The dealer deals you one card.




  • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [patient] "to" [recipient]


The dealer deals one card to you.




  • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [recipient] [patient]


The dealer is dealing you one card.




  • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [patient] "to" [recipient]


The dealer is dealing one card to you.




So, when the sentence uses is dealing, it is present progressive, as you observed in your question. When the sentence uses are dealt, it is passive, and only optionally includes the agent that is causing the action.






share|improve this answer






























    1














    Being a native speaker of German, I'd answer this question thus:



    When you have a sentence in the active voice, "Abel deals two cards to you", and you turn it to the passive voice, the direct object, "cards", becomes the subject: "Two cards are dealt to you". In German (and other languages that I know, and apparently in yours as well) this is the only way to use the passive voice.



    English, hovever, can say "Abel deals you two cards", and, I feel, therefore loses the exact distinction between direct and indirect object. Therefore English can use the indirect object as the passive-voice sentence's subject, thus: "You are dealt two cards".






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      In English, the notion of "X [verb]s Y" can be expressed using the passive voice as "Z is [verb]ed by X". Unlike the active-voice construct where X must be specified, in the passive voice X may be (and often is) omitted, making the construct "Y is [verb]ed".



      This construct can be applied to verb phrases as well as simple verbs, as in your example. Thus "You are dealt two cards" is equivalent to "You are dealt two cards by some unspecified entity", which is in turn equivalent to "Some unspecified entity deals two cards to you".



      Note that if it were necessary to use the passive voice in the present progressive tense, the usage would be "You are being dealt cards" rather than "You are dealing cards". The past tense would be "You were dealt cards", the perfect tense "You had been dealt cards", and the imperfect tense "You were being dealt cards".






      share|improve this answer























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "481"
        ;
        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
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202419%2fwhy-be-dealt-cards-rather-than-be-dealing-cards%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        43














        In this context, you can assume that to deal = to give. So your sentence transforms into:




        You are given two cards.




        It means that while you are playing cards, you receive two cards (from the person holding the deck of cards).




        It is also correct to say:




        You are dealing / giving two cards.




        but the meaning is different. In this sentence, you have the deck of cards, and you deal / give / share them with the other players.




        • are dealt => passive voice


        • are dealing => active voice



        If you understand infinitive by "normal tense", then the infinitive of "dealt" is "to deal".






        share|improve this answer




















        • 2





          Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 12:06







        • 2





          Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

          – virolino
          Mar 26 at 12:10











        • This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

          – MPW
          Mar 26 at 16:06











        • @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

          – Monty Harder
          Mar 26 at 19:03











        • @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 19:25















        43














        In this context, you can assume that to deal = to give. So your sentence transforms into:




        You are given two cards.




        It means that while you are playing cards, you receive two cards (from the person holding the deck of cards).




        It is also correct to say:




        You are dealing / giving two cards.




        but the meaning is different. In this sentence, you have the deck of cards, and you deal / give / share them with the other players.




        • are dealt => passive voice


        • are dealing => active voice



        If you understand infinitive by "normal tense", then the infinitive of "dealt" is "to deal".






        share|improve this answer




















        • 2





          Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 12:06







        • 2





          Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

          – virolino
          Mar 26 at 12:10











        • This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

          – MPW
          Mar 26 at 16:06











        • @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

          – Monty Harder
          Mar 26 at 19:03











        • @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 19:25













        43












        43








        43







        In this context, you can assume that to deal = to give. So your sentence transforms into:




        You are given two cards.




        It means that while you are playing cards, you receive two cards (from the person holding the deck of cards).




        It is also correct to say:




        You are dealing / giving two cards.




        but the meaning is different. In this sentence, you have the deck of cards, and you deal / give / share them with the other players.




        • are dealt => passive voice


        • are dealing => active voice



        If you understand infinitive by "normal tense", then the infinitive of "dealt" is "to deal".






        share|improve this answer















        In this context, you can assume that to deal = to give. So your sentence transforms into:




        You are given two cards.




        It means that while you are playing cards, you receive two cards (from the person holding the deck of cards).




        It is also correct to say:




        You are dealing / giving two cards.




        but the meaning is different. In this sentence, you have the deck of cards, and you deal / give / share them with the other players.




        • are dealt => passive voice


        • are dealing => active voice



        If you understand infinitive by "normal tense", then the infinitive of "dealt" is "to deal".







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Mar 27 at 5:30

























        answered Mar 26 at 7:07









        virolinovirolino

        4,72911035




        4,72911035







        • 2





          Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 12:06







        • 2





          Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

          – virolino
          Mar 26 at 12:10











        • This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

          – MPW
          Mar 26 at 16:06











        • @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

          – Monty Harder
          Mar 26 at 19:03











        • @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 19:25












        • 2





          Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 12:06







        • 2





          Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

          – virolino
          Mar 26 at 12:10











        • This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

          – MPW
          Mar 26 at 16:06











        • @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

          – Monty Harder
          Mar 26 at 19:03











        • @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

          – PLL
          Mar 26 at 19:25







        2




        2





        Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

        – PLL
        Mar 26 at 12:06






        Part of the difficulty understanding this sentence for learners, I think, is because dealt and given each take two objects, without needing any preposition, and so when they’re in the passive, you have the slightly unusual situation of a passive with a direct object. So e.g. you can say Tom gave two cards to James, with to showing that James is the indirect object, but you can also say Tom gave James two cards, where James and cards both act grammatically like direct objects. In particular, you can turn it into the passive James was given two cards [by Tom].

        – PLL
        Mar 26 at 12:06





        2




        2





        Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

        – virolino
        Mar 26 at 12:10





        Changing the order of the words in the sentence does not change anything, grammatically or in the meaning.

        – virolino
        Mar 26 at 12:10













        This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

        – MPW
        Mar 26 at 16:06





        This grammatical construction is called a retained object. Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, yet it is grammatically acceptable. The meaning is inferred from an implied active voice formulation such as "I dealt you two cards" where "you" is the indirect object and "two cards" is the direct object.

        – MPW
        Mar 26 at 16:06













        @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 26 at 19:03





        @PLL James is not a direct object even without "to" in the sentence. It's still an indirect object. The implied "to" in "Tom gave [to] James two cards" makes the meaning clearer, but need not be explicit.

        – Monty Harder
        Mar 26 at 19:03













        @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

        – PLL
        Mar 26 at 19:25





        @MontyHarder: Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that — I guess my wording was unclear. My point was that, as an indirect object without the explicit preposition, it can act syntactically like a direct one and become the subject of a passive (unlike prepositional objects), thus giving rise to a passive which also has a direct object, which is I think the thing which may surprise/mislead a learner.

        – PLL
        Mar 26 at 19:25













        6














        You have come across a passive sentence construction. Normally in an active sentence, the subject is what's called the agent. It is the one doing the action of the verb. The patient has the action applied to it. This is normally the direct object. This sentence also has an indirect object. The indirect object is often the receiver (or in this case the recipient) of the action, but doesn't experience the action. "You" are not being dealt, the "two cards" are.



        In a passive sentence the agent is either missing and assumed, or included by adding by, then the agent, e.g. by the dealer.



        In all the below sentences:



        • the agent is "the dealer"

        • the patient is "one card" (I've changed it from "two cards" to illustrate the grammar below)

        • the recipient is "you"

        • the verb is a form of "to deal"

        • [verb-pap] is the past participle form

        • [verb-prp] is the present participle form, the "-ing" form (looks identical to the gerund)

        • "[be]" is a conjugated form of "to be"

        • "by" and "to" represent themselves

        Here is a breakdown of possible forms. They all mean much the same thing, with different emphasis. The subject, direct object, and indirect object are not always the same from sentence to sentence, but the agent, patient, and recipient all are.



        • Passive (recipient as subject): [recipient] [be] [verb-pap] [patient] ("by" [agent])


        You are dealt one card.



        You are dealt one card by the dealer.




        • Passive (patient as subject): [patient] [be] [verb-pap] "to" [recipient] ("by" [agent])


        One card is dealt to you.



        One card is dealt to you by the dealer.




        • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [recipient] [patient]


        The dealer deals you one card.




        • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [patient] "to" [recipient]


        The dealer deals one card to you.




        • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [recipient] [patient]


        The dealer is dealing you one card.




        • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [patient] "to" [recipient]


        The dealer is dealing one card to you.




        So, when the sentence uses is dealing, it is present progressive, as you observed in your question. When the sentence uses are dealt, it is passive, and only optionally includes the agent that is causing the action.






        share|improve this answer



























          6














          You have come across a passive sentence construction. Normally in an active sentence, the subject is what's called the agent. It is the one doing the action of the verb. The patient has the action applied to it. This is normally the direct object. This sentence also has an indirect object. The indirect object is often the receiver (or in this case the recipient) of the action, but doesn't experience the action. "You" are not being dealt, the "two cards" are.



          In a passive sentence the agent is either missing and assumed, or included by adding by, then the agent, e.g. by the dealer.



          In all the below sentences:



          • the agent is "the dealer"

          • the patient is "one card" (I've changed it from "two cards" to illustrate the grammar below)

          • the recipient is "you"

          • the verb is a form of "to deal"

          • [verb-pap] is the past participle form

          • [verb-prp] is the present participle form, the "-ing" form (looks identical to the gerund)

          • "[be]" is a conjugated form of "to be"

          • "by" and "to" represent themselves

          Here is a breakdown of possible forms. They all mean much the same thing, with different emphasis. The subject, direct object, and indirect object are not always the same from sentence to sentence, but the agent, patient, and recipient all are.



          • Passive (recipient as subject): [recipient] [be] [verb-pap] [patient] ("by" [agent])


          You are dealt one card.



          You are dealt one card by the dealer.




          • Passive (patient as subject): [patient] [be] [verb-pap] "to" [recipient] ("by" [agent])


          One card is dealt to you.



          One card is dealt to you by the dealer.




          • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [recipient] [patient]


          The dealer deals you one card.




          • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [patient] "to" [recipient]


          The dealer deals one card to you.




          • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [recipient] [patient]


          The dealer is dealing you one card.




          • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [patient] "to" [recipient]


          The dealer is dealing one card to you.




          So, when the sentence uses is dealing, it is present progressive, as you observed in your question. When the sentence uses are dealt, it is passive, and only optionally includes the agent that is causing the action.






          share|improve this answer

























            6












            6








            6







            You have come across a passive sentence construction. Normally in an active sentence, the subject is what's called the agent. It is the one doing the action of the verb. The patient has the action applied to it. This is normally the direct object. This sentence also has an indirect object. The indirect object is often the receiver (or in this case the recipient) of the action, but doesn't experience the action. "You" are not being dealt, the "two cards" are.



            In a passive sentence the agent is either missing and assumed, or included by adding by, then the agent, e.g. by the dealer.



            In all the below sentences:



            • the agent is "the dealer"

            • the patient is "one card" (I've changed it from "two cards" to illustrate the grammar below)

            • the recipient is "you"

            • the verb is a form of "to deal"

            • [verb-pap] is the past participle form

            • [verb-prp] is the present participle form, the "-ing" form (looks identical to the gerund)

            • "[be]" is a conjugated form of "to be"

            • "by" and "to" represent themselves

            Here is a breakdown of possible forms. They all mean much the same thing, with different emphasis. The subject, direct object, and indirect object are not always the same from sentence to sentence, but the agent, patient, and recipient all are.



            • Passive (recipient as subject): [recipient] [be] [verb-pap] [patient] ("by" [agent])


            You are dealt one card.



            You are dealt one card by the dealer.




            • Passive (patient as subject): [patient] [be] [verb-pap] "to" [recipient] ("by" [agent])


            One card is dealt to you.



            One card is dealt to you by the dealer.




            • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [recipient] [patient]


            The dealer deals you one card.




            • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [patient] "to" [recipient]


            The dealer deals one card to you.




            • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [recipient] [patient]


            The dealer is dealing you one card.




            • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [patient] "to" [recipient]


            The dealer is dealing one card to you.




            So, when the sentence uses is dealing, it is present progressive, as you observed in your question. When the sentence uses are dealt, it is passive, and only optionally includes the agent that is causing the action.






            share|improve this answer













            You have come across a passive sentence construction. Normally in an active sentence, the subject is what's called the agent. It is the one doing the action of the verb. The patient has the action applied to it. This is normally the direct object. This sentence also has an indirect object. The indirect object is often the receiver (or in this case the recipient) of the action, but doesn't experience the action. "You" are not being dealt, the "two cards" are.



            In a passive sentence the agent is either missing and assumed, or included by adding by, then the agent, e.g. by the dealer.



            In all the below sentences:



            • the agent is "the dealer"

            • the patient is "one card" (I've changed it from "two cards" to illustrate the grammar below)

            • the recipient is "you"

            • the verb is a form of "to deal"

            • [verb-pap] is the past participle form

            • [verb-prp] is the present participle form, the "-ing" form (looks identical to the gerund)

            • "[be]" is a conjugated form of "to be"

            • "by" and "to" represent themselves

            Here is a breakdown of possible forms. They all mean much the same thing, with different emphasis. The subject, direct object, and indirect object are not always the same from sentence to sentence, but the agent, patient, and recipient all are.



            • Passive (recipient as subject): [recipient] [be] [verb-pap] [patient] ("by" [agent])


            You are dealt one card.



            You are dealt one card by the dealer.




            • Passive (patient as subject): [patient] [be] [verb-pap] "to" [recipient] ("by" [agent])


            One card is dealt to you.



            One card is dealt to you by the dealer.




            • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [recipient] [patient]


            The dealer deals you one card.




            • Active (simple present): [agent] [verb] [patient] "to" [recipient]


            The dealer deals one card to you.




            • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [recipient] [patient]


            The dealer is dealing you one card.




            • Active (present progressive): [agent] [be] [verb-prp] [patient] "to" [recipient]


            The dealer is dealing one card to you.




            So, when the sentence uses is dealing, it is present progressive, as you observed in your question. When the sentence uses are dealt, it is passive, and only optionally includes the agent that is causing the action.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Mar 27 at 2:32









            CJ DennisCJ Dennis

            2,161719




            2,161719





















                1














                Being a native speaker of German, I'd answer this question thus:



                When you have a sentence in the active voice, "Abel deals two cards to you", and you turn it to the passive voice, the direct object, "cards", becomes the subject: "Two cards are dealt to you". In German (and other languages that I know, and apparently in yours as well) this is the only way to use the passive voice.



                English, hovever, can say "Abel deals you two cards", and, I feel, therefore loses the exact distinction between direct and indirect object. Therefore English can use the indirect object as the passive-voice sentence's subject, thus: "You are dealt two cards".






                share|improve this answer



























                  1














                  Being a native speaker of German, I'd answer this question thus:



                  When you have a sentence in the active voice, "Abel deals two cards to you", and you turn it to the passive voice, the direct object, "cards", becomes the subject: "Two cards are dealt to you". In German (and other languages that I know, and apparently in yours as well) this is the only way to use the passive voice.



                  English, hovever, can say "Abel deals you two cards", and, I feel, therefore loses the exact distinction between direct and indirect object. Therefore English can use the indirect object as the passive-voice sentence's subject, thus: "You are dealt two cards".






                  share|improve this answer

























                    1












                    1








                    1







                    Being a native speaker of German, I'd answer this question thus:



                    When you have a sentence in the active voice, "Abel deals two cards to you", and you turn it to the passive voice, the direct object, "cards", becomes the subject: "Two cards are dealt to you". In German (and other languages that I know, and apparently in yours as well) this is the only way to use the passive voice.



                    English, hovever, can say "Abel deals you two cards", and, I feel, therefore loses the exact distinction between direct and indirect object. Therefore English can use the indirect object as the passive-voice sentence's subject, thus: "You are dealt two cards".






                    share|improve this answer













                    Being a native speaker of German, I'd answer this question thus:



                    When you have a sentence in the active voice, "Abel deals two cards to you", and you turn it to the passive voice, the direct object, "cards", becomes the subject: "Two cards are dealt to you". In German (and other languages that I know, and apparently in yours as well) this is the only way to use the passive voice.



                    English, hovever, can say "Abel deals you two cards", and, I feel, therefore loses the exact distinction between direct and indirect object. Therefore English can use the indirect object as the passive-voice sentence's subject, thus: "You are dealt two cards".







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Mar 26 at 21:16









                    MichaelMichael

                    111




                    111





















                        0














                        In English, the notion of "X [verb]s Y" can be expressed using the passive voice as "Z is [verb]ed by X". Unlike the active-voice construct where X must be specified, in the passive voice X may be (and often is) omitted, making the construct "Y is [verb]ed".



                        This construct can be applied to verb phrases as well as simple verbs, as in your example. Thus "You are dealt two cards" is equivalent to "You are dealt two cards by some unspecified entity", which is in turn equivalent to "Some unspecified entity deals two cards to you".



                        Note that if it were necessary to use the passive voice in the present progressive tense, the usage would be "You are being dealt cards" rather than "You are dealing cards". The past tense would be "You were dealt cards", the perfect tense "You had been dealt cards", and the imperfect tense "You were being dealt cards".






                        share|improve this answer



























                          0














                          In English, the notion of "X [verb]s Y" can be expressed using the passive voice as "Z is [verb]ed by X". Unlike the active-voice construct where X must be specified, in the passive voice X may be (and often is) omitted, making the construct "Y is [verb]ed".



                          This construct can be applied to verb phrases as well as simple verbs, as in your example. Thus "You are dealt two cards" is equivalent to "You are dealt two cards by some unspecified entity", which is in turn equivalent to "Some unspecified entity deals two cards to you".



                          Note that if it were necessary to use the passive voice in the present progressive tense, the usage would be "You are being dealt cards" rather than "You are dealing cards". The past tense would be "You were dealt cards", the perfect tense "You had been dealt cards", and the imperfect tense "You were being dealt cards".






                          share|improve this answer

























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            In English, the notion of "X [verb]s Y" can be expressed using the passive voice as "Z is [verb]ed by X". Unlike the active-voice construct where X must be specified, in the passive voice X may be (and often is) omitted, making the construct "Y is [verb]ed".



                            This construct can be applied to verb phrases as well as simple verbs, as in your example. Thus "You are dealt two cards" is equivalent to "You are dealt two cards by some unspecified entity", which is in turn equivalent to "Some unspecified entity deals two cards to you".



                            Note that if it were necessary to use the passive voice in the present progressive tense, the usage would be "You are being dealt cards" rather than "You are dealing cards". The past tense would be "You were dealt cards", the perfect tense "You had been dealt cards", and the imperfect tense "You were being dealt cards".






                            share|improve this answer













                            In English, the notion of "X [verb]s Y" can be expressed using the passive voice as "Z is [verb]ed by X". Unlike the active-voice construct where X must be specified, in the passive voice X may be (and often is) omitted, making the construct "Y is [verb]ed".



                            This construct can be applied to verb phrases as well as simple verbs, as in your example. Thus "You are dealt two cards" is equivalent to "You are dealt two cards by some unspecified entity", which is in turn equivalent to "Some unspecified entity deals two cards to you".



                            Note that if it were necessary to use the passive voice in the present progressive tense, the usage would be "You are being dealt cards" rather than "You are dealing cards". The past tense would be "You were dealt cards", the perfect tense "You had been dealt cards", and the imperfect tense "You were being dealt cards".







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Mar 26 at 19:50









                            supercatsupercat

                            58525




                            58525



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners 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.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202419%2fwhy-be-dealt-cards-rather-than-be-dealing-cards%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                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







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

                                What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029