In the sentence "The table was set for lunch" is "set" a verb or an adjective?

I want to see if this is a passive sentence. I think if the word "set" is a verb it is passive, but if “set” is an adjective it would be an active one.

Honestly I can make my brain read it either way. "The table was set for lunch by the waitress": definitely a verb, since there's someone doing the setting. "The table was set for lunch, and the plates were shiny and clean": parallelism suggests reading it as an adjective to match the adjectives in the second clause.

What practical problem are you trying to find the solution to here? What would you do with an answer to this question? Is there a real-world use-case where that grammatical answer makes some difference in syntax or meaning or focus you'd use or imply when writing or speaking about it? For example, do you want "a set(-up) table", or are you perhaps more interested in finding a table with "a lunch setup" than in finding the actual people who had "set the table" for lunch?

If "set" is an adjective, then I don't think it makes sense in English to ascribe either a passive or active mood to the copula "was".

7 Answers 7

As is, there is not enough information to be able to tell, definitively.

i.e. The answer depends on the context in which the sentence appears.

If, for example, it were to be preceded by "I looked into the dining room. The table was set for lunch." then it is an adjective, describing the state of the table.

But if it were surrounded by "We drove home from the supermarket. The table was set for lunch. A grand repast was enjoyed by all." then it would be a verb, describing what was done to the table.

I find the second example to still be ambiguous - it either implies that everyone arrived home from the supermarket to find the table already set, or that someone set the table after everyone got home (verb). Following the active voice with a passive voice action done by the same people strikes me as odd. It might be more clear with a lead-in that makes it obvious that the table being set is not the default, ongoing state - perhaps "The restaurant patrons who had breakfast got up and left. The table was set for lunch. We sat down to eat." This also implies we don't care who set the table.

Another example would be "I saw James in the doorway - he was dressed for a night out". Here like the first case, making an observation on the state of James' outfit. This is different from "James came home and was dressed for a night out by his butler." - here the butler is taking an action to dress James in clothes for the evening.

@J. There's nothing technically wrong with the switch to passive voice, although it seems a little out of place since that's typically used when we don't know or care who did the action. If we're talking about things "we" did (drove home), I find it odd to remove ourselves from other actions also done by "us" (set the table). My example with the restaurant sounds better to my ear as a verb usage, as the passive action is performed by someone who isn't known or mentioned at all (a nameless waiter), rather than already-mentioned people who have previously been described in the active voice.

A verb, a past participle and a passive construction seem to be a reasonable analysis.

As a participle, we could ask for the active form and would get "Someone set the table for lunch." That seems valid. We can add a "by" phrase "The table was set for lunch by Joe". That also seems valid.

If it were an adjective we might ask "how set was it"? We might be able to modify the word with "quite" or "more", use the word attributively, or use the word with other linking verbs: "The table was more set" seems wrong. "There was a set table." Perhaps, but not very natural. "The table seemed set for lunch" :- No you'd say "seemed to be set. "

So describing the word "set" as a verb and a participle fits best here. The grammatical subject "Table" is semantically the object.

Your argument against it being an adjective makes no sense. While all adjectives may be qualified by adverbs, they needn't have a matter of degree; one can't be very dead, but one could say the table was recently set.

I think that example isn't the best. While figurative, one can definitely say someone's very dead (obviously, definitely, completely sure that that person is dead). I am drawing a blank right now, trying to come up with an adjective that breaks this pattern, but that's probably not really indicative of anything.