[Grammar] He was reported shot in the head.

[e2e4]

/A learner/ As a learner I can't be as short as needed.

A sentence which gives an additional information about the situation in which the main verb performs its job could reasonably be called adverbial because an adverb modify its verb by similar way saying how something is done, has happened, took its place or so.

Adverbial clauses usually begin with conjunctions such as although, when, because, or even prepositions after, at, etc.

I decided to continue because this still bothers me.

"still" is probably an adverb of time for the verb "bothers".
"because this still bothers me" is an adverbial clause for the main clause I decided to continue.
No coma needed between the main and the adverbial clause.

If I, by any reason, put the adverbial clause before the main, a coma's needed. (Some grammarians say that. Do the rest of them agree, I don't know.)
If I, by any reason, put the adverbial clause before the main, a coma's needed.;-)

Seems to me that the two adverbial clauses and one which was the main a bit earlier could be an adverbial clause for the clause in the end of the complete sentence.

The sentence "Reportedly, he was shot in the head." is my creation this time. Simply scroll up, please.

If this one can exist, there is no need for the controversial form "He was reportedly shot in the head."
This form is forbidden for me. That's flat.

Theories, theories, theories..

 

[BobK]

...

The sentence "Reportedly, he was shot in the head." is my creation this time. Simply scroll up, please.

If this one can exist, there is no need for the :?:controversial:?: form "He was reportedly shot in the head."
This form is forbidden for me. That's flat.

Theories, theories, theories..

It's not controversial for native speakers of English, but if you're going to avoid it, fine. ;-) Just don't think of it as 'forbidden', because it's not.

b

 

[ostap77]

It's not controversial for native speakers of English, but if you're going to avoid it, fine. ;-) Just don't think of it as 'forbidden', because it's not.

b

1)"He reported having been shot in the hand."

OR

2)"He reported being shot in the hand."

OR

3)"He reported he had been shot in the hand."

OR

4)"He reported he was shot in the hand."

I sligtly changed the meaning. Would there be a difference in the meaning between 1) and 2)? I would suggest that 4) is incorrect. Which wold sound natural?

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

Below, is my opinion.

1)"He reported of having been shot in the hand." Okay

OR

2)"He reported being shot in the hand." wrong

OR

3)"He reported he had been shot in the hand." Prefer this one. When? We don't know but for sure before he reported it.

OR

4)"He reported he was shot in the hand." wrong, no sense

I have slightly changed the meaning.

 

[BobK]

/A learner/

...
2)"He reported being shot in the hand." wrong
...

Below, is my opinion.

Will you for heaven's sake stop giving out duff information in this forum! I have already (https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/132071-he-reported-shot-head.html#post662210) said that this is OK. I know you don't like it - TOUGH. ;-)

b

 

[e2e4]

BobK, is this one below okay for you?

He was reported being shot in the hand.

Thanks

 

[bhaisahab]

BobK, is this one below okay for you?

He was reported being shot in the head.

Thanks

"He was reported as being shot in the heard."

 

[e2e4]

Please explain what is the difference between

"1. He reported being shot in the hand." and

"2. He was reported being shot in the hand." except some other one reported in the second case, and not him personally.(the passive voice)