Gerund vs present participle :?

[dduck]

In my enthusiasm, that very good point conveniently slipped my mind. Not sure what you mean when you talk about transitive and intransitive adjectives. Normally, these terms apply to verb indicating whether the verb needs an object or not.

Returning to your examples.

He's singing = (El) esta cantando.
He's cold = (El) se siente frio (he feels cold).

My Spanish grammar is far from perfect, but, I believe that if a woman felt cold you'd say:

She's cold = (Ella) se siente fria
They are cold = (Ellas) se sienten frias.

The adjective agrees with the noun. Whereas with the first example, the present participle doesn't change - thus, in Spanish at least, it doesn't function as an adjective.

However, I'm still pondering over:

She's Spanish = (Ella) es española
She's tired = (Ella) es cansada

Iain

[Stephen Jones]

The point I was makng is that treating the participle as an adjective merely creates new problems. How would you explain that "he's saying" is wrong without the notion of transitive and intransitive?

[dduck]

I think we've talked about how words have different functions, the present participle can be used as an adjective: the singing detective, the dripping tap. What we're discussing is how the participle is being used in sentences like "The tap is dripping".

Often we use substitution to determine the function of parts of language. Thus we can replace"copper" for "dripping", so, in the sentence above the participle is functioning as an adjective.

"He is singing" - again we can substitute "tall".

But, "He is saying" (what?).

So, we see that saying subcategorizes for a noun phrase (i.e. it's transative) to make the sentence grammatical. For example, He is saying hello. Here we can't substitute an adjective for the present participle - He is old hello. So, in this sentence the participle isn't functioning as an adjective. However, we can substitute "saying hello" with old, so we can deduce that this phrase is adjectival.

Everybody agree?
Iain

[LarryLatham]

Your logic is impeccable, Iain, so far. But I start having trouble when you carry that idea out another step. By your idea, then, any sentence which begins with a subject noun or pronoun phrase and which is then followed by (be) would have whatever follows the copula functioning as an adjective. So consider this one:

Robert is climbing up there on the roof to see if he can retrieve the tennis ball.

Would you say that "climbing up there on the roof to see if he can retrieve the tennis ball" is adjectival?

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

For me, the issue is in how you look at a sentence like:

He is singing.

If you analyze it as a subject, a copula verb, and a predicate adjective, that is probably OK as far as this sentence is concerned. But your analysis is strictly limited to just what you've said. Even here, you might get an argument about the analysis. Consider the overall meaning probably intended by the user. Did he mean to describe "He" as a "singing (person)"? Or did he maybe mean to state what "He" is doing?

So, if you analyze the sentence as a subject, and a continuous verb form (intransitive), that is also OK as far as this sentence goes. Moreover, you don't get into tight situations like the one above. Take your pick.

Larry Latham

[dduck]

Did he mean to describe "He" as a "singing (person)"? Or did he maybe mean to state what "He" is doing?

If we look at some simple adjectives:

"She is tall" and "The tall woman" - physical characteristic
I think it's clear that were describing a permanent characteristic in both sentences.

"She is sad" and "The sad woman" - emotional state
The first sentence is temporary - without further information we can't tell how long the sadness lasts. We can't tell in the second sentence whether it's a temporary or permanent state.

"He is smiling" and "The smiling man" - physical appearance
The first sentence is temporary. I'm not sure what to make of the second sentence, can this be both temporary and permanent? Or do we always use "the man [who is] smiling" for a temporary states.

Iain

[john martin]

I am sure I have missed the whole point of the original post, because I fail to see how "ing" used as an adjective is any where near "ing" used as part of the present/past continuos.

"The singing man fell down the stairs" can be written as
"The man, who was singing, fell down the stairs"
In the first example, "singing' is used as an adjective to describe the man. Semantically the "singing" has an "action" meaning, but it is still acting as an adjective in a grammatical sense.
In the second example, the "singing" is used to describe the man's ACTIONS, with the whole clause being used as an adjective. It does not mean that 'singing" as part of the past continous becomes an adjective, it is just part of the structure of that tense/aspect in the same way as as blue in a "Blue clock" and the "The clock is blue" can not be considered as having a verb function.

For "He is happy" and "He is singing" I see no reason to consider singing an adjective in the same way as "happy". In the first we are describing the man's STATE, and happy is acting as an adjective complement, in the second we are describing his action. If we are to use the same logic, then in the sentence "The man is here" would mean that "here" also becomes an adjective. Although with extended usage we may be able to create a situation where " A here man" becomes accepted, at the moment it is not thought of or used in this way.

But maybe I am missing the whole intended meaning of the first post!
My appologies for that possibility in advance.

[dduck]

For "He is happy" and "He is singing" I see no reason to consider singing an adjective in the same way as "happy". In the first we are describing the man's STATE, and happy is acting as an adjective complement, in the second we are describing his action. If we are to use the same logic, then in the sentence "The man is here" would mean that "here" also becomes an adjective. Although with extended usage we may be able to create a situation where " A here man" becomes accepted, at the moment it is not thought of or used in this way.

Taken from m-w.com:

Main Entry: 2here
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 -- used for emphasis especially after a demonstrative pronoun or after a noun modified by a demonstrative adjective <this book here>
2 nonstandard -- used for emphasis after a demonstrative adjective but before the noun modified <this here book>

Taken from dictionary.com:

adj.
Used especially for emphasis after the demonstrative pronoun this or these, or after a noun modified by the demonstrative adjective this or these: This tire here is flat.
Nonstandard. Used for emphasis between the demonstrative adjective this or these and a noun: This here tire is flat.

As I understand it adjectives describe nouns - in the sentence "He is singing" we are in fact describing the man's actions which in turn give us information about the man, just as an adjective would.

Iain

[john martin]

Point taken about here, but my response (possibly self justifingly)is that they are very special circumstances and in my thoughts only acceptable in spoken English and not in written.
But I maintain that "singing" remains part of the tense /aspect structure. Most sentences will give us information about the "noun" but should we consider all that is not the noun an adjecitve? "After going to the bar, he went to the shop and bought a bottle of water". Is everything here other than "He" an adjective"
If we follow that logic then with "He is going to the shop", does "going to the shop" become an adjective phrase? It describes/gives information about the the man after all. I would normally think of it as a verb phrase. Granted here I am adding complements/objects as the case may be, but I think the logic remains the same. I think that if we start telling students that the present continuous is actually an adjective then we run into all sorts of problems. I really see no problem with differentiating the usages of "ing". They may be the same "structurally" but that does not make the same thing. I guess we could come up with a limitless number of structures and every usage would then have a discreet pattern, but the fact that these have not evolved suggests that language users do not want this kind of thing.

I will try another usage of "ing". "Wanting to go home, I said goodbye and left". Here the "wanting" is used to give a REASON for the following actions. Adjectives, or those that come to mind, never fulfill this function.
If I use "wanting" as an adjective as in the sentence "His is wanting in his language abilites", it has a completley different meaning. Or in a slightly unusual use " He is wanting to catch the bus so he must rush away". I will not look up the use of wanting as an adjective placed before a noun because I don't have the time right now, but I guess that "A wanting man" is considered incorrect.
Anyway, I guess my point is that just because an "ing" can be placed before a noun as an adjective and also used as part of a structure does not mean that it will always have the same function, no matter what the sematic meaning.

As an afterthought, and one not well thought through, as it the rest of this post actually, if we take "passives" to be adjectives, then are they a special case of adjective that can take an agent?
"THe man is wanted by the police"
"The wanted man avoided capture". I would argue that in the first sentence the "wanted" is part of the passive structure, and in the second it is a part participle used as an adjective with a passive meaning.
But if I say "Wanted by the police, the man ran away to Spain", I am giving the reason for his flight not actually describing the man's state.
I guess we could turn it around and say that an adjective has become a passive verb. But as I have said, this is not very well thought out, only here as a point of discussion.
Thanks for the reply dd and I hope there will be another to this. It is a very interesting topic to think about, and I may well be convinced!
Regards,
John.

[LarryLatham]

Here, here, John! (I can hardly wait to read what Iain thinks).

Larry Latham

[dduck]

If we follow that logic then with "He is going to the shop", does "going to the shop" become an adjective phrase? It describes/gives information about the the man after all. I would normally think of it as a verb phrase.

I see your point. I think to a large extent we use all language to describe life as we see it. Classing everything an adjective wouldn't be useful. Adjectives modify nouns directly, I will try to remember.

Granted here I am adding complements/objects as the case may be, but I think the logic remains the same. I think that if we start telling students that the present continuous is actually an adjective then we run into all sorts of problems.

I think the argument becomes clear if you compare a simple verb with the present continuous.

He walks.
He is walking.

In English we use these examples to mean different things, e.g. habits, and current action. Verbs give us information about the action of an object. We can see that "walks" and "is walking" have similar properties. But what is "walking" bringing to the party? I talked about substitution before,

He is my boss (noun phrase)
He is a bore (noun phrase)
He is boring (adjective)
He is boring me to death (verb phrase)

Boring is being used in two different ways. The first describes a characteristic, whereas in the second case it's an action. Actions that describe nouns are classed as verbs.

Also, if we substitute "tall" for "my boss" does it suddenly become a noun? Or in the last example, does it become a verb? I suspect you need reversiblity to prove the point, as you tried to point out earlier. The "my boss" man, the "boring me to death" man doesn't work. But, the "tall" man, and the "boring" man does. In each case, they retain their semantic values. However, that's not true of "singing". What does this tell us, if anything?

I really see no problem with differentiating the usages of "ing". They may be the same "structurally" but that does not make the same thing.

I agree.

I will try another usage of "ing". "Wanting to go home, I said goodbye and left". Here the "wanting" is used to give a REASON for the following actions. Adjectives, or those that come to mind, never fulfill this function.

You're right. It's an adverb.

If I use "wanting" as an adjective as in the sentence "His is wanting in his language abilites", it has a completley different meaning.

Wanting as an adjective means lacking, or he still has much work to do.

Or in a slightly unusual use " He is wanting to catch the bus so he must rush away". I will not look up the use of wanting as an adjective placed before a noun because I don't have the time right now, but I guess that "A wanting man" is considered incorrect.

I think "he is wanting to X" is poor English, but "A wanting man" is only obscure English.

Okay, that's enough for now.
Iain

[Stephen Jones]

You're right. It's an adverb.

Too much sol y sombra. Wanting is obviously a present partiple, and thus a verb. No way is it an adverb here.

[LarryLatham]

Example sentence:

"Wanting to go home, he said goodbye and left."

Perhaps what Iain meant, was that "Wanting to go home" could be classified as an adverbial, serving much the same function as:

"Curiously, he said goodbye and left."

Bravo, Iain. You did a great job in your post above. Having put my foot in my mouth many times before, I applaud your terrific recovery. (Another adverbial).

Aren't we all learning here?

Larry Latham

[dduck]

Thanks, Larry. In recently posts I've wandered off into no mans land a bit. I now think I've backtracked considerably, and I realise I still have some questions to ask.

Oddly enough afterwards, I was walking along the street and I was unable to forget about my use of "adverb"; I wondered if someone would pick me up on it. As you surmised, Larry, I meant the phrase was adverbial.

Iain

[szwagier]

Also, if we substitute "tall" for "my boss" does it suddenly become a noun? Or in the last example, does it become a verb? I suspect you need reversiblity to prove the point, as you tried to point out earlier. The "my boss" man, the "boring me to death" man doesn't work. But, the "tall" man, and the "boring" man does. In each case, they retain their semantic values. However, that's not true of "singing". What does this tell us, if anything?

Iain

Phew! Disappear to the classroom for the week, and look what's happened when I get back!

There have been a number of interesting points come up since I was last here, but I can't digest it all on-screen, I'll have to print it out and read it later tonight.

The paragraph quoted above did catch my attention because it seems to me that such stick-hyphens-between-a-whole-bunch-of-words-and-make-them-an-adjective adjectives do exist (not only in my warped imagination, I hope), certainly in spoken English and I'm sure, although I can't provide references, that I've seen them in fiction... They're obviously unusual, but not unheard of.

I also had a brief thought about the placement of adjectives, because although "the boring-me-to-death-man" is unusual, "the man boring me to death", as in "the man boring me to death now wants to bore you to death" is not as bad - if it's comparable to utterances like "the people concerned want to know what's going on".

Do those thoughts add anything, or am I just muddying waters which have been (sort of) cleared?