'Should've seen it glow' or 'should've seen it glowing'?
Which one of the following is the correct one?
- I should have seen it glow.
- I should have seen it glowing.
Or are both correct? Would you parse them please?
Solution 1:
I would say that they both can be correct.
"I should have seen it glow" implies that you should have taken notice at the time the item started to glow. (Effectively, "I should have seen it [when it started to] glow.")
"I should have seen it glowing" implies that the item was glowing for a significant length of time, and you never noticed it during that entire period. (Effectively, "I should have seen it [while it was] glowing.")
Solution 2:
Since memory motel asked for this to be parsed:
In both cases, it is the direct object of see. The gerund-participle glowing is a complement of see as is the bare infinitive glow.
It may be interesting to look at the passive versions:
- It was seen glowing
- It was seen to glow
Notice that in the passive, the bare infinitive will not work, but the to infinitive will.
The verb make also follows the complementation pattern OBJ + BARE INFINITIVE (e.g., I made it glow) but not OBJ + GERUND-PARTICIPLE. In contrast, caught allows OBJ + GERUND-PARTICIPLE (e.g., I caught it glowing) but not OBJ + BARE INFINITIVE. Different verbs allow different complementation patterns.
Also, I agree with David Wallace that there is no difference in meaning.