I was reading a schoolbook which have some stories and one of the sentences really confuses me. Here's the part of the paragraph of the story: Learning of the plan to cut down her beloved trees, Amrita tried to reason with the Maharaja's men. But, they did not listen. They did not want to know how mere trees protect and guard people from sandstorms or help them find water to drink. All they cared about was following their ruler's order. The men start axing trees. Which each blow the men did, Amrita hurt. In the last sentence, the words "Amrita hurt" doesn't make sense to me--or maybe it is just I don't know. Is this a correct grammar? What word/phrase should replace this? Please explain this.
So far as I understand, it's correct though a rather American usage. 'Hurt' is a bit of a funny verb, because it can be both transitive and intransitive, with opposite meanings. In its transitive form (i.e. 'I hurt you') it means the subject causes pain to the object. In its intransitive form, (i.e. 'I hurt') it means the subject is in pain. In your example it is intransitive, meaning Amrita is in pain. The sentence that bothers me is the one before it, one does not 'do' a blow, one strikes it! Slightly appalled that that made it into a school book tbh.
"Hurt" can be both a transitive and intransitive verb. That is to say: James hurt Joe by hitting him. (transitive) - someone or something does the action to something else. My leg hurts. (intransitive) - the action is carried out by someone or something, but not on something else. So "hurt" is being used as an intransitive verb here, to indicate that Amrita is hurting. Think of it like this - if you replace "hurt" with "cry", the sentence says: With each blow the men did, Amrita cried. Makes sense, right? Hurt is just the same. You've probably heard "I am hurting inside" in some song lyrics. This is the present continuous tense of "hurt". In the passage, "hurt" is in the past tense.
I think the sentence is NOT grammatically correct as written in the forum but not because of 'hurt', but I am going to assume maybe you just transposed it wrong. Assuming 'Which' is actually 'With', then like @alw86 said, I think the sentence sounds a little awkward. I would have written it "With each blow the men landed, she hurt inside." 'Delivered' is a better alternative for 'did' too, I'm surprised that was the final version. I didn't notice 'Which' at first. Please let us know if that was in the actual book or not.
As Bruce Johnson already noted, the sentence isn't even a sentence unless "Which" is changed to "With." If that change is made, the sentence is grammatically correct, but rather awkward.
What a mess! That's in a book? It's first draft slop. Maybe there's some transfer typos in getting the text here. (I do that too much myself, so I'm not blaming . . .) Regardless, the whole paragraph's broken. I shall edit it. I realize it still has an overly simple kid's voice. I understand the choice in that. (I should have said "irregardless," just to go with the insanity of the paragraph.) After learning of the plan to cut down her beloved trees, Amrita tried to reason with the Maharaja's men. But [no comma] they did not listen. They did not care want to know how mere that trees protected and guard people from sandstorms and helped them find water to drink. They blindly followed cared about was following their ruler's order. The men began chopping the trees. With each axe blow the men did, Amrita hurt. I mean, it starts with a non-concurrent -ing phrase. That's a bad sign. Then there's a weird dramatic comma. Then there's fat phrasing. Then there's a clunky parallel structure with empty emphasis inside of it. (Protected and guarded. What is the difference?) And then >>> FAST FORWARD >>> and it ends with a stereotypically awful phrasing. I would then do another draft to vary sentence structures a bit, but that's enough of this time-killer. And "Amrita winced" would have been a better finish because it's more visual. Show don't tell. har har! I also seriously question that people of the desert don't recognize the value of trees. These men probably understand it better than anyone, certainly better than a small child, and so the whole premise is absurd.
I'd question the frequency of sandstorms in India... since Maharajah is an Indian title and Amrita is an Indian name. India is not a particularly desertified (which is not even a word) country.
Yeah, I've got that up in mine too. It's in the last sentences. It's show don't tell with exactly the same word count. Kind of unusual.
Yes!! My evil plan to absorb all your grammatical wisdom is succeeding!! (there need to be some more evil smileys round these parts)
"Learning of the plan" implies that she learns this info at the same moment that she reasons with the men. That's why it's wrong. It's a concurrency error. These -ing phrases describe a state of being, because they're always adjectival. So they are in play as the action happens. It's the same error as "Putting on my shoes, I went out the front door." It's a pretty common mistake. (Unless you're literally hopping out the door doing this.) Or if you're writing in a very loose grammar, in an MC's voice. I guess that would allow it too. That allows everything. (Edit: Here is a fix that works though, because "knowing" is not a momentary state like learning is. "Knowing of the plan to cut down . . ." ) I'm going to plug one of my favorite sites again: http://theeditorsblog.net/2015/04/08/writing-advice-what-about-ing-words-part-four/ Running up the stairs, she peered quickly into every bedroom. X This one doesn’t work either. Running up the stairs and peering into rooms are consecutive or sequential actions, not simultaneous ones. Unless, of course, the rooms are arranged along the stairs themselves and not off a hallway that begins at the top of the staircase. I see this problem a lot. Actually, concerning sentence-level issues, this is probably the top problem I come across. This doesn’t mean that you can’t use participles and participial phrases, only that you need to correct for impossible-to-perform concurrent actions. This lady's book is fantastic. I'd put it in the top tier of writing books I've got. For years I pictured this old curmudgeonly guy writing this site. But that's not who it is at all. I guess I'm derailing the thread, sorry. I'm going to get back to work*. * After having disposed of the 1000-hour time killer known as "Noita," Seven Crowns fires up "MTG Arena." Taxes are open on the main monitor. They go unread, unfiled. Will SC's significant other find out? Will there be the proverbial "hell to pay?" Tune in next week!
I'm guessing this is a story translated into English from another language. That would explain the bizarre phrasing and misused words.
I'm sorry, I copied the wrong word! (my god) It's With in the book. Sorry again. But mistakes do happen. Yeah, I understand what hurt means but the phrase "Amrita hurt" doesn't make sense...get what I mean? Like it should put, like "Amrita cried" or "Amrita felt hurt"
Yes, it does make sense. I tried to explain why. Do you understand why "My leg hurt" makes sense? Simply substitute Amrita for "my leg".
That's a kid's schoolbook so it explains a lot. Thanks for editing it, I can understand better of the paragraph.
Honestly it really doesn't/shouldn't. Kids learn to write from what they read. The language in schoolbooks should be age-appropriate, but it should be correct and well put together.
