Best Of

I know that it is correct to say "a review of a new musical". Is it also correct to say "a review for a new musical"?

The point is that I came across "There are mostly five-star reviews for the product on Amazon" in
https://housebeautiful.com/shopping/a26026219/shower-curtain-liner-holds-phone-ipad/

Sam, might have been is a FORM, not a PART OF SPEECH.

Yes, might is best described as a MODAL AUXILIARY VERB or, more simply, a MODAL VERB.
This is what could be termed a PART OF SPEECH, though I prefer the term WORD CLASS.

It's debatable whether may and might should be seen as two Modal Verbs or two FORMS (PRESENT AND PAST) of the same verb. Either way, might have been is a PERFECT FORM.

Personally, I tend to think of might have been as a MODAL PAST PERFECT of be.
An important book on the English Verb by FR Palmer uses the term SECONDARY rather than MODAL.
From this point of view
PRIMARY had been
corresponds to
SECONDARY might have been/could have been/would have been/should have been.
Had been is unquestionably PAST PERFECT, so I prefer to think of might have been etc as also PAST PERFECT, but there's clearly a contrary argument which does not recognise it as a PAST form.

In my speech and for many other speakers — though perhaps not for everybody

• may have been means 'was perhaps, I don't know but it's a possibility'
• might have been can have at least these meanings:
  —1. 'was perhaps, I'm not really sure'
  —2. 'had been previously perhaps, I'm not really sure'
  —3. 'wasn't, as it happens, but if conditions had been different could have been'
  —4. 'hadn't been previously, as it happens, but if conditions had been different could have been'
  Some speakers, not me, can use may have been for meaning [3].

My meaning [1] would support 'I don't really know what Stone Age houses were like, but this is a possibility'.
My meaning [3] would support 'If there had been Stone Age houses, they would have been like this'.

As with modal verbs in general, the modality — in this case POSSIBILITY (technically epistemic modality) — may be attached to different aspects of the proposition.

• PRESENT JUDGEMENT OF POSSIBILITY ABOUT THE PAST — e.g._ may have been, might have been, will have been, would have been_
  This would cover your meaning (i) — a present judgement that it's possible, though dubious, that a Stone Age house like this existed

• JUDGEMENT OF POSSIBILITY AT THE TIME (IN THE PAST) — e.g. might have been, could have been, would have been, should have been but not_ may have been, can have been, will have been, shall have been_
  This would cover your meaning (ii) — judgement that this represents a possible design for a house in the Stone Age.

@HailieJade, on the basis of its grammar, much can be seen as two different words:

1. a QUANTIFIER
2. an ADVERB

QUANTIFIERS such as _much, little, many ... _ are used before NOUNS in the same way as we use ARTICLES, DEMONSTRATIVES and POSSESSIVES

• much energy
• the energy
• that energy
• her energy

These QUANTIFIERS can be extended to form COMPARATIVE PHRASES

• as few as
• as much as

ADVERBS combine with CLAUSES

• I haven't travelled much

The also combine with other words to make ADVERBIAL PHRASES

• I haven't travelled very much

A COMPARATIVE PHASE can combine with an ADVERB and a CLAUSE to make an ADVERBIAL CLAUSE

• You may do it as often as you like
• They came as quickly as they could
• Your body stores energy as much as you need

In your examples you get the same meaning from

• much energy — QUANTIFIER
• as much as you need — COMPARATIVE ADVERBIAL

@richerich, I think the best starting point for your exploration may be the terms FINITE and NON-FINITE — because the term FINITE is used in older traditional grammars, and there is no conflict between traditional and modern grammars in what it means.

The NON-FINITE form of a verb are of three types

1. INFINITIVE

   • to-infinitive_ — e.g. _ I want to leave, It's time to leave, To leave will be a pleasure._
   • bare infinitive — e.g. I may leave, I saw her leave
   • perfect infinitive — e.g._ I except him to have left_

2. PAST PARTICIPLE (often passive in meaning)

   • We saw it left behind. _ Left alone, I shouted for help_

3. -ing-FORMS (called present participles or gerunds in older grammars)

   • 'present' — e.g. I hate leaving . Leaving the house, he met Jane. an excuse for leaving
   • perfect — e.g. She regrets having left. Having left the house early, I didn't see him. __
   • 'present' passive — e.g. I remember being left. Being left is not much fun. He's angry about being left
   • perfect passive — e.g. Having been left by the enemy, it became one of our guns

The FINITE forms of leave are:
ACTIVE
leave
left
is leaving
was leaving
has left
had left
has been leaving
had been leaving

PASSIVE
is left
was left
is being left
was being left
has been left
had been left

Two other PSSIVE forms are grammatical, but extremely rare
has been being left
had been being left

Other FINITE forms are possible when leave is combined with verbs like will or can.

@richierich

**"Arranging the preliminary events in chronological order proved to be the most efficient means of studying them." **

Running the risk of sounding stupid, I have to ask—what is the subject?

The subject of the whole sentence is the non-finite clause

Arranging the preliminary events in chronological order

The whole sentence is a finite clause, is so it is composed of

• a subject
  (see above)

• a finite verb form
  proved

• what in some terminology is the complement of the verb
  to be the most efficient means of studying them

This 'complement' in turn is composed of

• a non-finite verb form
  to be

• the 'complement' of the verb
  the most efficient means of studying them

This 'complement' in turn is composed of

• a noun phrase
  the most efficient means

• a postmodifier
  of studying them

This postmodifier is a prepositional phrase, which in turn is composed of

• a preposition
  of

• what in different terminologies may be called the 'complement' or the 'object' of the preposition
  studying them

So this sentence contains two long non-finite clauses

• arranging the preliminary events in chronological order
• to be the most efficient means of studying them

The second of these contains a third non-finite clause

• studying them

Non-finite clauses differ from finite clauses in two ways:
1. Taking do as example the possible verb forms are: doing, done, do, to do, to have done, having done.
2. Usually there is no subject.

Older grammar books don't recognise the term non-finite clause, but it's a very useful was of looking at structure. Apart from the two differences above, the structure of a non-finite clause is exactly the same as that of a finite clause.

Both types of clause are based on a verb form with the structure decided by the verb. For example

• If the verb is make, then there must be an object.
• If the verb is exist, then there can't be an object.
• If the verb is give, then there must be one object, and there may be two (direct object and indirect object)

Whether the clause is finite or non-finite the same adverbial elements may be added:

• Finite
  I'll come on Monday. I'll definitely come. I'll come when you've finished.

• Non-fiinite
  coming on Monday, definitely coming, coming when you've finished
  to come on Monday, to definitely come (not in formal writing), to come when you've finished.

Some grammar books define a subject according to its meaning of 'doer'. But it's useful to distinguish between an agent ('doer') and a grammatical subject. Quite often they are the same thing — but not always.

And some grammar books don't recognise the difference between a sentence and a clause.
A simple sentence may consist of just one finite clause — but not all sentences are simple. Old-fashioned grammar books use the terms compound and complex for sentences with more than one finite clause. Your sentence is just one finite clause, but within it there are three structures based on non-finite verb forms.

I realise that I'm using grammatical terms that you (and your teacher) are not used to. It may be possible to answer your question using old-fashioned traditional terms, but I think that the new terms make it much easier.

I'm sorry, @Ritsu, I didn't want to confuse you.

PAST PARTICIPLE is a term for a particular verb form, but the name can be confusing. Let's look at an IRREGULAR verb: take.

As you know, you have to learn three one-word forms for take
1. take
2. took
3. taken

Form Number 3 is used in different ways:

• after have — have taken, has taken, had taken, having taken, to have taken, will have taken may have taken etc.
  These are PERFECT forms

• after be — am taken, is taken, are taken, was taken, were taken, being taken, to be taken, will be taken, may be taken etc.
  These are PASSIVE forms

• without a verb before it — Nobody saw it taken. Taken with water, the drug acts quicckly.
  These are similar to CLAUSES inside SENTENCES:
  Nobody saw it when it was taken.
  When it is taken with water, the drug acts quickly,
  The clauses are also PASSIVE.

PAST PARTICIPLE isn't really a good term for forms like taken.

• It's often used with a PRESENT or FUTURE meaning — e.g. is taken, is being taking, will take, will be taking
• When it isn't in present or future forms its in PERFECT forms. And taken can't be used as PAST SIMPLE.
• Very often it's used with PASSIVE meaning.

That's why I said

That verb form could just as well be called a PASSIVE PARTICIPLE.

Now dedicate is REGULAR verb. So you know that there are just two one-word forms to learn
1. dedicate
2. dedicated

So when you find a verb form ending in -ed, you know it can be

• on its own after a SUBJECT — PAST SIMPLE e.g. I dedicated it to ...
• after have — PERFECT e.g. have dedicated, has dedicated, had dedicated, having dedicated, to have dedicated, will have dedicated may have dedicated etc.
• after be — PASSIVE e.g. am dedicated, is dedicated_, are dedicated_, was dedicated_, were dedicated_, being dedicated_, to be dedicated_, will be dedicated_, may be dedicated_ etc.
• on its own without a subject — like a PASSIVE CLAUSE e.g. Dedicated to Athene, the temple stood on the Acropolis.

With some verbs there's another possibility:

• The -ed form may be used as an ADJECTIVE.
  A good dictionary will tell you when this is true.
  For example, look up dedicated on this website:

  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dedicated

Actually, there are some -ed ADJECTIVES than are not related to verbs,
For example one-eyed, thick skinned, big headed ...

PS
@Simone has found a page which discusses another use of PAST PARTICIPLES.
For a learner it can be interesting and useful to understand them.
But you don't need to learn them or use them yourself.

Only a small number of verbs form a DIFFERENT PRESENT PERFECT with be + PAST PARTICIPLE.
The most common of these are the IRREGULAR VERBS sit and stand.

@mnahid89, you don't

know that this is an uncountable noun

You know that it is usually an uncountable noun.

The uncountable noun knowledge refers to an abstraction — not a specific thing enjoyed by an individual. That's why we don't usually speak about knowledges.

Knowledge of English is more specific, but still not enjoyed by an individual.

But when you talk about a specific area of knowledge enjoyed by a specific individual, then it becomes exactly like the first word you asked about:

She has an excellent memory.
She has an excellent knowledge of English.

Very many nouns that are usually uncountable can change into countable nouns in particular contexts. The best way to make progress in English is to notice these exceptions and learn to use them.

And remember that it is not English to say
I have good memory.
I have knowledge of English.