Re: Gerund, participle, infinitive
- From: Robert Bannister <robban1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:16:36 +0900
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 02/28/09 08:32 am Marius.Hancu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Some prefer the term "-ing form" to "p.p." and "gerund" for this reason,
and it's quite hard to disagree.
That's exactly what Quirk et al, in their "A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language" (to me, the best grammar of the English, these
days, even though 1985) do: they practically remove the term "gerund"
from the discussion. It's mentioned as the "-ing participle."
Also, Swan, in "Practical English Usage," doesn't mention any gerund,
he's using the "-ing form."
So how do we distinguish between the uses of that "-ing form" in
(a) "He is walking"
and
(b) "Walking is cheaper than driving"?
If we say that in (a) it's functioning as a verbal adjective and in (b) it's functioning as a verbal noun, why not use those terms (or even the deprecated terms "participle" and "gerund") to describe them.
I don't mind "participle", but to my mind "gerund" is particular form that exists only in some other languages. I would much prefer "verbal noun".
Why don't we just talk about the "-ed form" of a verb so we don't have to have distinct names for the various uses of what looks like the same word?
Because -ed does not work for all verbs.
E.g.,
(a) "John defeated his opponent"
(What do we call that these days? "Simple past"? "Preterit[e]"?)
and
(b) "Defeated, John's opponent went and drowned his sorrows at the nearest bar"
(Passive past participle)
Or is it just an adjective?
--
Rob Bannister
.
- Prev by Date: Re: ASCII-IPA for non-syllabic
- Next by Date: Re: As we rise
- Previous by thread: Re: ASCII-IPA for non-syllabic
- Next by thread: Re: Gerund, participle, infinitive
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|