[Grammar] could feel the ground shake/shook

[Oceanlike]

In the following sentence, 'shake' sounds better than 'shook'. If 'shake' is the answer, I don't understand the reason for it. I'm inclined to choose 'shook' as the answer due to the presence of these words: claimed, could and took.


- Some villagers claimed that they could feel the ground shake/shook even though the earthquake took place thousands of miles away.

Thank you for teaching me :-D

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think 'They felt the ground shaking (present participle)' is also grammatical, but I am not a teacher.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Oceanlike:

After certain verbs, we must use the infinitive with no "to." Here are a few examples.

1. They heard him scream.

2. I saw him run.

3. They felt the house shake.

4. We let him talk.


Source: Walter Kay Smart, English Review Grammar (1940), page 74.

 

[Matthew Wai]

5. She made him laugh.

I am not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

- Some villagers claimed that they could feel the ground shake even though the earthquake took place thousands of miles away.

You have a modal verb "could". Modal verbs carry the tense function. Note that "feel" doesn't change either.
"They could feel the ground shake"
"They can feel the ground shake."
"They will be able to feel the ground shake."
"They would feel the ground shake."
etc.
"Shaking" is also OK.
You can say, "They felt that the ground shook." This sentence has two clauses, so the rule about the bare infinitive doesn't apply in the second.
"They could feel that the ground shook" is not good.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If 'shake' is the answer, I don't understand the reason for it.

I think the reason is that 'feel' is a verb of perception, as are 'hear' and 'see' in post#4, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Polyester]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Oceanlike:

After certain verbs, we must use the infinitive with no "to." Here are a few examples.

1. They heard him scream.

2. I saw him run.

3. They felt the house shake.

4. We let him talk.


Source: Walter Kay Smart, English Review Grammar (1940), page 74.

James,
I checked out the dictionary that the word "shake" was the past tenses, it is not present tenses.
So, I think we should use shook in your example sentence.
"3. They felt the house shook."

If my expression is wrong, please tell the true.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I checked out the dictionary that the word "shake" was the past tenses

I consider your dictionary wrong, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Polyester]

In which dictionary did you find this incorrect information?

[h=2]shook[SUP] 2[/SUP][/h] (sho͝ok)v.Past tense of shake.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shook

If I'm wrong, please tell me the true.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the truth is that 'shook' is the past tense of 'shake', but I am not a teacher.

 

[Oceanlike]

You can say, "They felt that the ground shook." This sentence has two clauses, so the rule about the bare infinitive doesn't apply in the second.

Ooops...I didn't even realise that the sentence "They felt that the ground shook" has two clauses! I thought it's just one clause. I don't understand.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think there are two clauses because there are two separate subjects followed by two separate verbs, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

These should explain it:
http://www.englishgrammar.org/thatclause-noun-clause/
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adjclterm.htm

"that the ground shook" is a clause by itself.