The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Audiendus
About
User Name: Audiendus
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Language, philosophy, music
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Last Visit: Friday, April 26, 2019 7:07:53 AM
Number of Posts: 5,671
[0.61% of all post / 2.02 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Do you agree with the explanations and examples? (1)
Posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:47:27 PM
DavidLearn wrote:
Having said that, if I tell them that a gerund phrase functions like a noun; it's quite sure that someone will ask, but isn't a noun one word?

I suggest you say that a gerund phrase functions like a noun phrase (i.e. it can be a subject, object etc).
Topic: State The Obvious or A Contradiction in Terms
Posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:11:31 AM
Caution! This product may become hot when heated.
Topic: double consonant game.
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:51:06 PM
squirearchy
Topic: FIRST AND LAST LETTERS COMES IN UPCOMING WORDS
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:44:03 PM
frankly
Topic: Do you agree with the explanations and examples? (1)
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:40:33 PM
First, define "noun" and "gerund":

What is a noun? It is a word which...
What is a gerund? It is a word which...

Mention that a gerund functions as a noun. Do not use the word "phrase" yet.

Then add:

DavidLearn wrote:
What is a noun phrase? It is a phrase that has a NOUN as its head plus any modifiers or complements.
What is a gerund phrase? It is a phrase that also functions as a NOUN GERUND and begins with a gerund plus one or more words after it.


I wonder if the word "as" is ambiguous here. A noun phrase functions like a noun (it is not a noun, but it functions similarly to one). A gerund phrase functions like a gerund, which in turn functions like a noun.
Topic: the last place..., which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing(Relative(adjectival) Clauses)
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:40:45 AM
A cooperator wrote:
You think "[That] I was late" can be compared to the preceding adjectival clauses?
The reason [that] I was late was the traffic. Yes.

But, I think "the reason" can be replaced with "why"
"Why I was late was the traffic." Yes.

Which raises another question which is as follows: As long as "why" is conjunction introducing a noun clause, how could "the reason" replace the conjunction "why" which enables the clause "why I was late" to function as a noun? I do not see a problem here. "The reason" can introduce a noun clause because it is a noun. It is connected to the rest of the noun clause by the implied conjunction "that".
Topic: FIRST AND LAST LETTERS COMES IN UPCOMING WORDS
Posted: Sunday, April 14, 2019 11:40:12 PM
fandango
Topic: Heard by VS. Heard of (phrasal verbs, Participles)
Posted: Sunday, April 14, 2019 9:44:22 PM
A cooperator wrote:
As long as you mentioned "I see fighting" and "I see many people fighting", I'd ask you the following:
See + a direct object + a participle + (a direct object)
I saw many people fighting. = .... many people who are were fighting.
I saw you fighting. = Do you think it can be a reduced relative clause = ..... you who are were fighting. Yes.
I saw you repeating the word the dummy 'Do'. .... Do you think it can be a reduced relative clause = ..... you who are were repeating the word the dummy 'Do'. Yes.

See + a direct object + a bare infinitive (a direct object):
I saw him go.
I saw him shoot her.

If both are correct, along with the examples, do you think the difference is as follows:
The first structure means if you see something happening, you see it while the action is in process. You do not necessarily see the end of the process. However, the second one means if you see something happen, you see it through to the end. Yes, that is correct.
Topic: Heard by VS. Heard of (phrasal verbs, Participles)
Posted: Sunday, April 14, 2019 9:08:56 AM
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus,
1. Then what hint made you think of 'being' as a participle as long as the participle "being" isn't part of the present continuous tense of "be", nor the present simple tense of "be" in "I see talking in English being interesting. = I see talking in English [which is] being interesting."? That is, my datum is to call a -ing form a participle, a -ing form should act as a verb(DOING something), which only can do so if a participle is part of the present continuous tense of a verb, or the present simple tense of a verb.

As always, you have to consider the meaning of the sentence. "Being interesting" is a static situation; it does not denote an action. The following examples also denote static situations:

I regard the universe as constituting the total of everything that exists. [it is constituting]
Some children see [= regard or imagine] Heaven (as) being situated on top of a bank of clouds. [it is being situated]

A cooperator wrote:
2. You previously said "I see talking in English being interesting. = I see talking in English [which is] being interesting." Before I answer this question, can you please tell me whether you mean "is being" (a) as the present continuous tense of "be", or (b) as the present simple tense of "be" plus a gerund. See Drag0nspeaker's earlier comment:"
So, I know the present continuous tense of "be" is 'am/is/are being' which can be a participle as 'being'.
But, I've never ever come across a sentence in which "is being" can be meant as the present simple tense of "be" plus a gerund.(impossible to find 'is/am/are being" where 'is/am/are' is the present continuous simple tense of "be" and 'being' is a gerund.) I give such a sentence below. So, I don't know why you said whether I mean "is being" as (b) as the present simple tense of "be" plus a gerund, and I don't know what you mean as the present simple tense of "be" plus a gerund.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference between (a) a continuous tense and (b) simple tense plus gerund. You will see that it makes a large difference to the meaning:

The man is shouting. [continuous tense]
Talking very loudly is shouting. [simple tense + gerund]

The boy is being rude. [continuous tense]
Being late is bad, but the worst thing is being rude. [simple tense + gerund]

A cooperator wrote:
3. Why do you think 'being' is regarded as a participial in "I see talking in English being interesting.", but as a 'gerund' in ""I see talking in English as being interesting." as Drag0nspeaker's viewpoint below?

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
"... see talking in English being interesting." is not the same at all. The noun-phrase "talking in English" is being equated to 'something interesting'.
"Talking in English" is not DOING something, it is being shown as equivalent to the gerund-phrase "being interesting".
This form needs the "as" in order to make sense properly. "... see talking in English as being interesting."

I think "being" in "I see talking in English being interesting" can be regarded as a participle (but not as part of a continuous tense). If "interesting" is thought of as a description of "talking in English" (which I think is the intended meaning), then "being" is a participle, and could be omitted without a change of meaning. If "being interesting" were regarded as a gerund here, it would mean that "talking in English" is equivalent to (i.e. the same thing as) "being interesting"; but that would be false because "talking in English" and "being interesting" are clearly two different things (one can be interesting without talking in English).
Topic: Heard by VS. Heard of (phrasal verbs, Participles)
Posted: Sunday, April 14, 2019 8:09:44 AM
BobShilling wrote:
In the two major grammars published in the UK in the last 45 years, the distinction between gerunds and participles has been given up as unhelpful. If Quirk et al (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002) find the distinction unhelpful, I suggest you stop worrying about it, A cooperator.

Nevertheless, there is an important difference of function, which I will try to explain to A cooperator.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.