Is there any logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' in traditional...
To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:
A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).
The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.
The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:
An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.
For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.
(Boldface mine.)
In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".
With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:
(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]
Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an NP.
(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]
Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an adjective phrase (AdjP).
Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to function not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.
*The man hungry is my brother.
The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.
All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.
Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:
a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective
QUESTION
If this distinction doesn't work, is there any (other) logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar (if traditional grammar is to be anything logical)?
gerunds present-participle
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
add a comment |
To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:
A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).
The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.
The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:
An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.
For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.
(Boldface mine.)
In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".
With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:
(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]
Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an NP.
(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]
Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an adjective phrase (AdjP).
Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to function not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.
*The man hungry is my brother.
The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.
All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.
Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:
a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective
QUESTION
If this distinction doesn't work, is there any (other) logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar (if traditional grammar is to be anything logical)?
gerunds present-participle
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago
add a comment |
To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:
A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).
The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.
The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:
An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.
For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.
(Boldface mine.)
In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".
With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:
(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]
Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an NP.
(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]
Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an adjective phrase (AdjP).
Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to function not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.
*The man hungry is my brother.
The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.
All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.
Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:
a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective
QUESTION
If this distinction doesn't work, is there any (other) logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar (if traditional grammar is to be anything logical)?
gerunds present-participle
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:
A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).
The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.
The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:
An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.
For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.
(Boldface mine.)
In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".
With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:
(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]
Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an NP.
(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]
Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that functions (or is used) as an adjective phrase (AdjP).
Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to function not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.
*The man hungry is my brother.
The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.
All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.
Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:
a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective
QUESTION
If this distinction doesn't work, is there any (other) logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar (if traditional grammar is to be anything logical)?
gerunds present-participle
gerunds present-participle
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
edited 50 mins ago
JK2
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
asked 56 mins ago
JK2JK2
39311751
39311751
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago
add a comment |
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489127%2fis-there-any-logic-behind-continuing-to-distinguish-gerund-from-present-parti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489127%2fis-there-any-logic-behind-continuing-to-distinguish-gerund-from-present-parti%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I don't get why you're basing this question on the sloppy terminology used by answers on this site (which is not a good source for rigorous linguistic analyses). As you said, you can just replace "noun" and "adjective" in those descriptions with "NP" and "AdjP": "a gerund is a verb-form used in a non-finite clause that functions as an NP, and a present participle is a verb-form used as the head of a phrase that functions as an AdjP".
– sumelic
45 mins ago
The function of a phrase typically depends on the part of speech of the phrase's head, so I don't see why you it's obviously a "gross mistake" to suppose that the word "eating" in "The man [eating this cake]" might be grammatically distinct in some way from the word "eating" in "[Eating this cake] is easy." I haven't read the relevant parts of CGEL in a while, but doesn't it address some arguments for a distinction in the course of ultimately arguing against that distinction?
– sumelic
41 mins ago