Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#116018 - 11/15/03 01:31 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
maahey Offline
addict

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 555
Faldage, that was *very interesting. Bartleby hs this to say on the history of weak /strong verbs:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/5773.html

Q: What is the verb hang; (weak/strong/irregular/regular) -hang-hanged-hung. Is it all of them?



Top
#116019 - 11/15/03 01:38 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
Wordwind Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 6296
Loc: Piedmont Region of Virginia, U...
And, maahey, another fascinating link. We are apparently a bit lazy with our verbs, aren't we, or, to put a positive spin on it, we prefer the simple, direct route, weak though it may be.


Top
#116020 - 11/15/03 02:03 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13803
Oooh. This hang, hanged/hung thang is a whole nother question involving transitive and intransitive verbs. It is more clearly illustrated in light and shine, but, still, a whole nother question, and one that I have done a small amount of inconclusive research on.


Top
#116021 - 11/15/03 05:05 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
maahey Offline
addict

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 555
a little peek into the past.

My head is so full of gerunds/ duratives/ intransitives/ causatives..., that I am merely posting the link with no further comment. It was a good thread to read though and rather heartening to know that the board has not changed much, in its idiosyncratic character, since.

http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=19694


Top
#116022 - 11/15/03 06:31 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
Wordwind Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 6296
Loc: Piedmont Region of Virginia, U...
They rather complicated gerunds on that thread. Gerunds are simply 'ing' forms of verbs that function as nouns, plain and simple. A gerund is about as easy to spot as a post oak. One person on that thread mentioned 'candle lighting ceremony'--and in that instance 'lighting' would no longer qualify as a gerund because the function in that nouns phrase was adjectivial. Take any verb, turn it into the present participle form, let it function adjectivially, and you simply end up with a present participle functioning as an adjective; that same 'ing' present participle form of the verb functioning purely as a noun in a sentence is what we call gerunds.

"We went to the candle lighting." Lighting there is a gerund.

"We went to the candle lighting ceremony." Lighting there is a present participle functioning as an adjective.


Top
#116023 - 11/16/03 09:53 AM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13803
"We went to the candle lighting." Lighting there is a gerund.

"We went to the candle lighting ceremony." Lighting there is a present participle functioning as an adjective.


Sounds a little picky to me. Does it stop being a noun when it's acting as an adjective? Is an adjectival noun not a noun?


Top
#116024 - 11/16/03 10:09 AM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
maahey Offline
addict

Registered: 12/03/02
Posts: 555
I'd agree with WW, on this Faldage. Lighting in the second sentence is a verb that is used as an adjective for ceremony and is therefore a participle. An example of this word as a gerund might be when referring to it as decor. The lighting in a house or auditorium, for e.g.


Top
#116025 - 11/16/03 02:00 PM Re: Regular v. Irregular Verbs
Wordwind Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 6296
Loc: Piedmont Region of Virginia, U...
Faldage,

Technically speaking according to modern grammar books, a gerund qualifies as a gerund only when it functions as a noun in a sentence and not as a modifier. When the present participle functions as an adjective, the grammar books show it to be just that: present participle functioning as an adjective.

Now things were very much different even a hundred years ago. I should let you borrow my great great grandfather's grammar book that is antebellum. Terms were very much different and by far more numerous.


Top
#116026 - 11/17/03 04:08 PM Re: Gerund v. Participle
Faldage Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13803
Let me try this:

Running

I saw a running deer in the meadow behind my house.

The deer is running so the running is a participle.

I entered the third running of the Dinwiddie marathon, finishing in 17 hours 35 minutes 23.86 seconds, a personal best.

Running is used as a noun, so it is a gerund.

They gave me a third-running T-shirt anyway.

The T-shirt is not running. Running is part of an adjectival noun phrase. It is still a gerund.


Top
#116027 - 11/17/03 05:14 PM Re: Gerund v. Participle
Wordwind Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/30/01
Posts: 6296
Loc: Piedmont Region of Virginia, U...
Good point, Faldage. And the noun phrase functions as an adjective. You still should, I think, give a nod to how the words in the phrase are functioning. Titles, for instance: Much Ado About Nothing. There we have a pronoun functioning as an adjective, a noun, a preposition and a pronoun again functioning together as a noun--a very proper noun, in fact--but that doesn't change the fact that the words that make up the title still are what they are in terms of parts of speech.

Participles can be harder to nail down, but unless you have a case as you showed above, generally 'ing' forms of verbs that modify nouns are going to be participles and not gerunds. Grammarians today would classifying such 'ing' modifiers as present participles and not as gerunds. The case you have shown us is one of those glorious exceptions to the rule, such as it is. But to present the exception as the rule would be misleading. Generally, 'ing' forms of verbs modifying nouns will be participles functioning as adjectives--and then to have lots greater understanding of the flexibility of the language, pull out all those possible exceptions. This is the kind of exercise that I expect gives experts in linguistics papers to write. However, were I to teach my ninth graders that present participles modifying nouns were gerunds, I think I would be leading them astray.

If you want to fervently hold on to the belief that gerunds are adjectives, then I suggest that you begin a letter-writing campaign to the board members on AHD and suggest that they redefine 'gerund.' ('Letter-writing' here has been used as an adjective modifying campaign and not as a gerund.)


Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  Jackie 
Forum Stats
8740 Members
16 Forums
13807 Topics
215222 Posts

Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
Newest Members
auster, ozyildirimeda, KatieC, ashishsum, ackcat
8740 Registered Users
Who's Online
0 registered (), 34 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters (30 Days)
endymion6 83
LukeJavan8 75
wofahulicodoc 64
A C Bowden 33
May 4
FoFong 3
Tromboniator 3
LadyReader 2
TitoMatito 2
tsuwm 2
Top Posters
wwh 13858
Faldage 13803
Jackie 11609
tsuwm 10523
Buffalo Shrdlu 7210
LukeJavan8 6513
AnnaStrophic 6511
Wordwind 6296
of troy 5400
BranShea 5282

Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 2014 Wordsmith