Karl,
I think we agree on the underlying dynamics but routinely use the terms in different ways.
To me, "taking" in "taking a direct object" is head of a nonfinite clause. The whole structure acts as subject.
This allows us to treat "taking a direct object" as the same structure when it takes on different function, as in "Any verb taking a direct object is transitive".
We get to say that a nonfinite clause can act in NP slots and can also act (in this last case) as restrictive modifier.
We could say "with a nonfinite clause headed by present participle, the verbal head is called a gerund if and only if the whole structure fills a NP role." But I have never seen a traditional grammar handle it that way. And it seems a bit convoluted.
The definition I have always heard for gerund is that it "acts like a noun." The most direct way to do that is to be the head of a noun phrase. Otherwise, it is acting like a verb and SOMETIMES heading a clause like structure that functions in NP roles.
Again, I think we agree on the underlying dynamic and perhaps on the need to do a better job than traditional grammar in describing/naming what shows up in the language.
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerunds into participles -- this time it's right!
Craig,
Taking a direct object doesn't disbar "undermining" from being a gerund. Notice the subject of my prior sentence, which is, in traditional grammar, a gerund. Even if we're going to stick to the traditional labels, we can distinguish between a noun derived from a verb and a gerund. The former uses a real NP structure, and complements must be prepositional phrases. The latter can take a direct object. Compare, "the undermining of his position," where "undermining" is an unambiguous noun.
One problem with the traditional way of looking at parts of speech is that it routinely confuses form and function. Gerunds aren't actually nouns, even though gerund phrases typically appear in spots occupied by noun phrases. Their internal structure remains verbal, and so to call a gerund a noun is a misleading simplification.
Karl
On Feb 26, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Michael,
> The fact that "their President" follows means "undermining" is functioning as non-finite verb, not as noun. (How else could it carry direct object in its construction?) That would be my thinking.
> "Democrats' undermining of their President" would be a noun phrase version and the possessive would be more appropriate.
> Traditional grammar uses gerund far too readily.
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gerunds into participles -- this time it's right!
>
> I'm not sure that it's really a matter of possessives with gerunds getting rare as that both forms have been in mixed use for a long time. I recommend the entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, which gives an extensive history of both the construction itself and the voluminous commentary on the matter. It might also be worth looking at what the Cambridge Grammar of English has to say about the distinction between gerunds and participles.
>
> I do teach the possessive in front of the gerund-participle, but as a possibility, not as a requirement. I see it as primarily a mater of intended focus. Are we stressing the action (if so, use the possessive) or the object (if so, use the plain case)? In this instance, I find the plain form of "Democrats" preferable, as that's where I would put the focus. In other words, I read "undermining..." as a participial modifier of "Democrats" rather than as the head word in the object of the preposition.
>
> Karl
>
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Michael Kischner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry about my sending troubles. This should be readable.
>>
>> From The Economist (Feb. 22): "Indeed, the idea that [trade deals] will not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining their president." I would have written "for Democrats' undermining their president," but the possessive before gerunds seems to be getting rare in both speech and writing. I hear a lot of "That's no excuse for them speaking rudely." So in parsing such sentences, do we consider the -ing words to be participles modifying the preceding noun? How many teachers out there still try to teach that gerunds are preceded by possessives? Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Kischner
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
