Job Discussion Forums

Sashadroogie · Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject:

Dear John

Very good very good - still got the charm and the comic rejoinder. Now all you need is the relevant pages in Swan and I'll be over the moon!

S

Sashadroogie · Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject:

Actually, the use of terms like 'gerund' and 'participle' can trip me up still, much like the distinction between 'preposition' and 'adverb' in phrasal verbs. However, though few teachers would admit it, I think there are plenty of others out there who would hesitate in making any pronouncements as to whether the following examples are gerunds or participles:

John suggested asking Bill.

John kept asking Bill.

You can read the correct (or not) answer from the source here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_and_present_participles.

Come on John!

johnslat · Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 10:57 pm Post subject:

Dear Sashadroogie,

Ah, but I rush in where angels fear to tread.

" . . . . much like the distinction between 'preposition' and 'adverb' in phrasal verbs."

I call those particles (e.g. I ran into Sashadroogie last night. He should be out of hospital in a few weeks.

Regarding your link, I disagree with this:

Gerund Use:
John suggested asking Bill.

Participle Use
John kept asking Bill.

I'd say both "askings" are gerunds, used as objects of the verbs (i.e. "suggested" and "kept" - which I assume would be a synonym for "continued.")

Regards,
John

Sashadroogie · Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject:

Ha! You dodge behind the 'particle' defence, yet mock those who need the '~ing form' defence.

Anyway, you can't disagree - it was a wiki! Incontrovertible evidence...

By the way, have I told you about the student whom I smsed to come and have a lesson at my place? My exact words were 'why not come over at five?' His reply was a lovely error, perhaps too risque to post here, but rather like Bill Cosby's book title - 'Sure, I'll come over you at five.'

Now, was that a prep or an adverb?

johnslat · Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject:

Dear Sashadroogie,

Hey, if particles are good enough for physics, they're good enough for me.

Doesn't make a particle of difference.

But you're right. I can't contradict a WIKI. WIKIs are INFALLIBLE - just like the Pope, though not only in faith and morals (Hmmm, wonder how that latter one's working out for Benedict these days.)

That was neither a prep nor an adverb. It was a salacious promise.

Regards,
John

fluffyhamster · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 2:24 am Post subject:

I suppose I should mention that the reason I asked if 'smoking' was a noun is because I am interested in the notion of 'phase' (that is, 'verbs in phase')*, because it makes for a more extended and holistic verb phrase (even when the second verb isn't obligatory), but that's not to say of course that notions such as gerund (nouny, potentially objecty etc) have no use (in discerning more function(s) as opposed to form) when an -ing form is used elsewhere or other than as part of those 'verbs in phase'.

But hey, that isn't really CELTA territory and I don't want to threadjack too much!

*COBUILD for one uses this in its grammar books.

Never Ceased To Be Amazed · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 2:41 am Post subject:

Nice try...not...

NCTBA

fluffyhamster · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 2:54 am Post subject:

So because I "asked" (somewhat Socratically) if 'smoking' in that context should be called a noun (by BrentBlack, remember - I was simply echoing his choice of word back at him) rather than a gerund specifically (both as opposed to something definitely more verby) makes you believe I hadn't heard of gerunds, NCBTA? Whatever. Rolling Eyes

The main point surely is that BrentBlack probably hadn't heard of gerunds (or at least not quite got to grips with 'em yet, not that they are ever completely non-slippery), and IMHO needn't be too bothered with the term in at least the specific context (example) given. But doubtless his CELTA masters (among many others!) will enjoy continuing to always inflict (well, OK, it isn't that tough) terms/notions like 'gerund' (and who knows, maybe only that) rather than anything ever akin to (and IMHO as simple, holistic and intuitively appealing as) 'verbs in phase' on him, if only because they presumably haven't yet consulted something (anything?) like the COBUILD grammar.

By the way, if anyone is genuinely interested in the notion of phase/verbs in phase but can't find much online about it (I myself haven't searched online as I've probably got enough in the books I have), I can type up a few details... (Edit: Or you can look up Lock's Functional English Grammar on Google Books, search in it for 'phase', and from the results select and look at page 96~ (assuming those pages are previewable when you try)).

BrentBlack · Joined: 11 Apr 2010 Posts: 96 Location: Quan 3, Saigon

What an interesting conversation, everyone. OK, so gerund or adjectve = ing word after a non "be" verb. Cool. I kind of thought about gerunds, as I looked over them in the text. Thanks for the general rule of thumb NCTBA. The rest of your comments have kept me thinking thanks.

Brent

fluffyhamster · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:37 am Post subject:

Well, if you get really keen on gerunds you might even come to view -ings after 'be' like this: I am (literally the thing called) typing (a lot of nonsense now); I am (literally the thing called) kayaking tomorrow etc. (Just make sure you avoid thinking about examples like 'I am playing tennis tomorrow').

That and more can be had in the Fluffer's Guide to Grammar, available from all bad bookstores!

Isla Guapa · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 5:57 am Post subject:

Never Ceased To Be Amazed · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:42 am Post subject:

fluffyhampster...both of yer examples are present progressive verbs. Present progressive can show intent/future actions as long as a time marker is present. e.g. I am getting off work at 4 p.m. (Said at 12 noon...)

NCTBA

Sashadroogie · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:56 am Post subject:

johnslat · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject:

Just in passing (as Bret Favre might put it,) what do you think of my idea that gerunds should be called "Nerbs" or "Vouns?"
Love those portmanteau concoctions.
Regards,
John

fluffyhamster · Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject:

Thanks for the kind words, Isla Guapa (though I'm not sure that I always shed more light that not - but what the hell, it's the taking an interest that counts, eh!). Smile

This might make for interesting reading (note especially the date it was written, the use of terms like 'progressive aspect construction' and [again, jocularly] 'gerund', the general topic of the thread [i.e. verb phrases] etc, then go back through the thread to the link at the very start of it, and then through that one onto its second page and my post there which quotes from Leech, COBUILD etc):
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=39313#39313

This also maybe (from the COBUILD Grammar):