A grammatical problem...?

Question

I have two sentences here:

1. This person is protected by the excessive training of martial arts.
2. This person is being protected by the excessive training of martial arts.

Is there a difference in meaning between these 2.

Any help is greatly appreciated :)

Yup, sorry, it should be "extensive".
I was thinking to make a t-shirt with a sentence like that printed on the back.

Answer 1

Neither sentance is particularly pretty, but the 'being' is redundant since it's implied by the word 'is' You wouldn't say 'I am being hungry', you'd say 'I am hungry'.

Apart from that the sentances don't make much sense - the word 'excessive' doesn't fit in. He's protected by his training, but why does it matter that his training was excessive?

[Addition] OK, if the word should have been 'extensive', then a better sentance (and T-Shirt slogan) would be:

'This person is protected by extensive martial arts training'.

Answer 2

The first one is called "simple form", the second is called "continuous form".
This is a unique English construction that doesn't exist in any other language that I know. The two can be used interchangeably without changing the meaning of the sentence. So both grammatical forms are acceptable and do not change the meaning.

BUT I have to tell you that the choice of words doesn't make a lot of sense. How can excessive training protect someone? Wouldn't it be "extensive" rather than excessive?

Answer 3

Well, the first sentence states that, not directly, the person has the ability to be protected by the excessive training of martial arts. Number two states that the excessive training of martial arts is actively protecting him.

At least I think that's the answer.

Answer 4

If that's supposed to be ENGLISH, then neither sentence makes sense.

1. This person can protect himself, because he has done excessive training in martial arts.

2. This person is being protected by someone that has had excessive training in martial arts.

The word excessive does not need to be in either sentence the word training by itself is sufficient

Answer 5

The first sentence is in present tense.It means that the person is at present protected by the excessive training of martial arts.

The second sentence is present continuous. i feel its not as clear as the first sentence. meaningwise its almost same....except for the tenses i mentioned ofcourse.
both the sentences are in passive voice. if u convert them to active voice:

1.excessive training of martial arts protects him.
2.the excessive training of martial arts is protecting him.

i hope u got the point!

Answer 6

The first sentence means thatthe person is protected by the martial arts in the present.
The second one means that the person is only being protected for the current moment through the excessive training of martial arts

Answer 7

1. This tells us that the person IS presently protected, not necessarily by himself, could be a bodyguard, but the use of 'is' means now and in the future, IE a continual process.

2 This tells us that the protection may be in the future or he is in the process of being protected, again, not necessarily by himself.

If you want to print a T shirt that tells people that you are protected by the training that YOU have undertaken then you should amend the wording to 'This person is protected by the extensive training in martial arts that he has received.'

Note the change from 'of' to 'in'.

Answer 8

The first can mean that this person is protected by their own knowledge of martial arts. The other implies that the training belongs to someone else and that said person is doing the protecting.

Answer 9

Excessive is not a good choice, use extensive. This person is protected by his extensive training in the martial arts.

Answer 10

Functionally, they mean the same thing. I'd rewrite the sentence though.
Excessive training in martial arts protected this person.