From a different perspective (EFL/ESL), the 2 types of -ing forms pose
different problems, so I find the distinction useful (although I don't use
these terms with the students):
- for the "participle", students will sometimes use the past participle
instead of V-ing, or vice-versa: 'I am boring', 'the area surrounded my
city', ...
- for the "gerund', they often use the bare infinitive instead of the
V-ing form: 'Teach children is my dream'.

Just my 2 cents,
Marie

> Bruce,
>     I find these responses very interesting. I hope the rest of the list
> isn’t getting  frustrated.
>    As you know, the verb plus ing after a be verb auxiliary is quite often
> ambiguous. “Interesting” is certainly most likely an adjective in the
> instance you give, but if I give an example like “she is sleeping” or
> “she is painting,” I think most people would see these (is sleeping, is
> painting) are present progressive verb phrases. This is pretty much my
> point: that the ing form of the verb  has a single name (participle)
> but carries out a number of functions. Adjective is one of them.
>    This is true to some extent in noun phrases as well. I have a friend
> whose first novel is titled “Dreaming maples.” In this case, “dreaming”
> could be a transitive verb taking “maples” as its object. It could be
> an intransitive verb, denoting the maples as dreaming.  It could also
> tell us what kind of maples we are dealing with; in this case, maples
> that are suitable for dreaming. We don’t have that ambiguity with
> “sinking,” but a “fishing boat” could be a boat that is doing some
> fishing (in the process of fishing) or a boat that can be classified as
> a boat suitable for fishing, which would make “fishing” much more noun
> like in the way it acts.  Context might decide it. In the case of my
> friend, she was perfectly happy to have a number of meanings available
> with her title.
>     Within systemic functional linguistics (I’m not sure about others),
> perception verbs are thought of as taking subject bearing clauses as
> their object. In “I saw the ship sinking” or “I saw the ship sink,”
> they would treat “the ship sinking” and “the ship sink” as subject
> bearing nonfinite clauses. The verb would be very much a verb. That
> might be clearer in cases where the predicate is long enough for
> explicit verb complements: “I saw the ship ram the dock and sink
> slowly into the harbor.”  For more cognitive verbs, the structure
> would be equally clause like, but with the finite added. “I believe
> the ship was sinking.” “I thought the ship sank.”  I don’t see
> anything to be gained by thinking of these as adjectives, though
> context can pressure that. “Which car did you see?” “I saw the car
> sitting in the driveway.” “What did you see the car doing?” “I saw the
> car sitting in the driveway.”  The same sort of ambiguity can be
> present.
>     There are two ways of looking at the hybrid structures sometimes
> generated by the possessive. “His leaving the ship bothered me.” One
> is that “his” helps us locate the missing subject for the following
> clause. The other is that “his” helps us determine which leaving the
> ship is in focus. (I’m certainly not bothered by the fact that the
> passengers left.) One construes what follows as clause, the other as
> a bit noun like.  It is a bit hybrid as a structure.
>     You notice, though, that I have gotten this far without using the term
> “gerund.” I am simply talking about the different ways in which the
> –ing form of the verb behaves within discourse and the ambiguity that
> sometimes results. Does a term like” gerund” add anything to this?
> Usually it’s defined as a verb acting like a noun, but what does
> acting like a noun mean and what do we do when it only partly acts
> like a noun in some contexts?  One frequent area of confusion is the
> clause like structure in a role like subject. “Stealing that pie got
> him into trouble.” To me, “Stealing that pie” is a nonfinite clause
> containing a transitive verb. The same would be true with “the guy
> stealing that pie is my brother.”  The nonfinite clause has a
> different role within the sentence, but its internal structure remains
> the same.
>     We can continue to call a noun a noun even when it is in  a modifying
> role in a noun  phrase or even acting adverbially. “He left
> yesterday.”  We don’t need to give it a different name for each of its
> functions. To me, it seems easier to talk about the present participle
> form of the verb and the various ways it acts within discourse.
>
> Craig
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
> Craig,
>
> Interesting.  This is an adjective formed by adding the -ing suffix to the
> verb interest.  When we say, "that is interesting" it is not normally
> interpreted as an imperfect participle, since that would be taking it as
> forming the progressive aspect of the verb interest.  Instead it serves as
> a predicate adjective.  R.A. Close has a list of 36 such adjectives
> serving either in attribute or predicate position.  One characteristic he
> mentions is that it is gradable, i.e., can be preceeded by very.
>
> Sinking in "leaving a sinking ship" is the imperfect participle describing
> the activity of the ship that the captain was leaving.  This is positioned
> like any attributive adjective to stand before the noun modified, but is
> not gradable.
>
> Sinking in "they watched the ship sinking" has not changed its part of
> speech, it is still an adjective, but now as an attribute complement.  It
> is the ship that is being watched, and the activity it is engaged in
> modifies or completes its meaning.
>
> Sink in "they watched the ship sink" is the bare infinitive, a noun form
> selected by the verb watch.  It serves as an attribute complement.  This
> sentence is virtually synonymous with the one formed with the adjective
> form in -ing as attribute complement.
>
> Sinking in "they watched the ship's sinking" now makes the possessive case
> modify a noun formed using the -ing.  The ship is a subject to the
> activity of the verb.  This is what is being watched: the event that the
> ship is engaged in.  If I keep the ship in the subjective case without a
> marker, the sentence is identical to the one above and actually will be
> seen to allow either interpretation.  Most will say that they will not be
> misunderstood in either case.  When the (deep) subject is possessive (or
> subjective) case we are concerned with a gerund.
>
> Certain verbs like stop, remember, forget, try, take either an infinitive
> or a gerund as object, but with a different interpretation.
>
> Because the gerund of the last example refers to an abstract idea, we must
> have an abstract subject to make it serve in that form as an attribute
> complement, "The vast audience made the results of the debate a sinking in
> the polls."   Providing it with an article gives it an unambiguous
> interpretation as a noun.  Yet there are a number of verbs where the -ing
> forming a noun has a meaning different from the noun that denotes an
> activity or event.  These are not gerunds: a feeling, leavings, a writing,
> a beginning, because they refer to the result of the activity.  Sometimes
> the presence of the article is required, "Give him a good listening to."
> Maybe the jury is still out on whether these turns of phrase are properly
> grouped with the gerunds, but the fact that they refer to the activity
> seems conclusive.
>
> I'm not sure I can answer your question as directly as you desire.
> [Maybe I'm up in the night, but I think I'll reconsider my use of the term
> "supine" for the case-imposed gerund.  In Latin supines are passives.]
>  Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hancock, Craig G"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:51:23 +0000
> Bruce,
>     I want to thank you for taking much care and answering me so
> patiently. I'm still having trouble understanding what structures you
> would apply "gerund" to, perhaps because you only have one example
> among those comments, the one from Greenbaum. Would you limit its use
> to that sort of hybrid structure with both noun and verb elements?
> ("The captain's leaving the sinking ship was shameful.") I can see the
> usefulness of that, though it also seems to me much more narrow (and
> precise) than the way the term is usually applied (as is clear from
> Scott's opening examples.)
>     I have always thought of the present participle as a verb form, not
> exclusively as an adjective. It can function in an adjective slot, but
> it can also appear in finite verb phrases, as the head of noun
> phrases, and as the head of predicate like structures that can
> sometimes act like noun phrases, sometimes like modifiers. I think I
> am not alone in this. I'm not sure what you mean by "accident of
> history." "The captain is leaving the sinking ship with passengers
> still aboard." It seems natural to me that we are able to make that
> activity the focus of another statement. "Leaving the sinking ship was
> outrageous."  We are able to report an event as ongoing, but are also
> able to conceive of the event as a whole thing that we can make
> comment on in some way. It's not just history that's involved, but an
> overlap of structure that allows us to make different kinds of
> statements about the same occurrence. It may be ongoing; it may be
> done; it may be bandied about as an ongoing topic.
>     To me, present participle is a form. It has a number of
> manifestations. I think this is the first time I have heard it applied
> solely to the -ing form used as an adjective.
>     I would echo a point Karl made earlier. It's much more important to be
> able to focus in on how these structures are working than it is to
> name them. As commonly used, "gerund" seems to get in the way of
> that.
>
> Craig
> ________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the correction.  Tense/lax is not one of  the best defined
> phonological features since it involves a complex of gestures that are
> different with different sounds.  A lot of speakers do tense or raise /I/
> to /i/ before /ng/.  I’m not one of them.  The raising before /n/ does
> sound unusual, although I’ve certainly heard it with British speakers in
> the word “been.”  I haven’t listened closely for sin/sing types of
> contrast though.  Sounds like we both have some unusual vowel features.  I
> have phonemic Canadian raising in pairs like “kind” (adj) with the lower
> diphthong and “kind” (noun) with a raised diphthong.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
> On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
>
>
>
> Herb,
>
>
>
> Your note addressed to Karl was intended for me (Bruce).
>
>      The palatalization of [I] to [i] occurs ineveitably with my "ee"
> phoneme before the alveolar "n."  Tense and lax are not contrasted
> for me here.
>      The velarization of [I] before the velar "n" may well be a separate
> phone for the same phoneme, but it seems to be the lax allophone.
>
>
>
>      It is of some interest that I have reversed the rolls of the two -ing
> suffixes, but so be it.  Maybe my mentors taught me wrong, maybe I
> hear it wrong, maybe this phenomenon needs more study in the various
> dialects.  I have not done research in the literature, just tried to
> analyze carefully what was going on with my tongue in the oral cavity
> when I speak, and how the various interpretations change when I do
> so.   I have a western dialect developed (corrupted) in urban Utah,
> but not that of the rural folks, which is much like Gov. Palin.  I
> have heard some actors on British TV using the "een" sounds for the
> imperfect participle and found it strange to my ear.
>
>
>
> Bruce Despain
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Stahlke, Herbert" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:53 -0500
> Karl,
>
> Just a tangential note.  You wrote:
> , in my ideolect the -ing of the gerund "rolling logs into the river" has
> an "ee" + n-sound, whereas the -ing of the imperfect participle "rolling
> logs into the river" has the "ee" + eng sound.   The imperfect participle
> is a subclass of participle and participle is a subclass of adjective.
> piqued my interest for a couple of reasons.  First, your use of –n in the
> gerund vs. –ng in the participle reflects but reverses the history of the
> forms.  Historically the adjectival form was marked by the suffix –nd, and
> the final –d was so generally elided in speech that it was ultimately
> dropped.   The –ng ending was a nominalizing suffix with a number of
> meanings.  For most speakers, the use of the –n form and the –ng form
> became a sociolinguistic variable, in fact, the most widely studied
> sociolinguistic variable in English.  What makes your idiolect curious is
> that your morphosyntactic distinction between them reflects their sources
> but in mirror image.
> What surprised me most was your use of “ee,” which I take to represent
> [i], not [I].  There has been discussion of this on other lists and blogs,
> and “ee” occurs frequently in –ing but not in –in.  The velar articulation
> of –ng tends to raise the lax [I] to [i], but the alveolar /n/ does not do
> that.  You appear to have generalized the tense vowel across the two
> forms.
> Herb
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
> On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Karl,
> Thank you for your clarification.  The assignment of a word out of context
> to a particular part of speech has been the subject of a number of
> communications before on this listserve.  There is also the assignment of
> a word (out of context) to a particular part of phrase, which ought to be
> discussed as well.  I must admit that I have misunderstood the "gerundial
> noun."  In my mind it is a gerund.  It seems to be the form that brings
> almost all of the syntax of the verb with it.  This was my point in
> labelling it as an analytically "transient" verb.  As a part of phrase it
> may be subject, object, and other syntactic functions that a noun clause
> might have and is therefore a variety of noun.   It was in this sense that
> the term supine was suggested, on the basis of Latin, which requires their
> gerund forms with similar syntax to show case.  The case is what indicates
> its particular syntactic function (what is governing it).
> The nouns that look like gerunds, but do not have the full syntax, are
> what I was pointing out as abstract nouns.  If subjects or objects are to
> be added to them, it must be by the process of morphological compounding.
> "Leaving home" is a supine, whereas "a home leaving" would be an abstract
> noun derived from the verb leave.  This form is also commonly called a
> gerund, but doesn't have the verbal complements.  Thus supine is a
> subclass of gerund, some abstract nouns are a subclass of gerund, and a
> gerund is a subclass of noun.
> There is a problem with the position that two constructions are not really
> distinct if they only differ in their grammatical function.  The
> difficulty is in what the grammatical function is defined as.  If it is
> defined by the grammatical context that they are in, then nouns and
> pronouns may be the same.  But if it is defined by the grammatical context
> they license, then gerunds and some abstract nouns may be the same.
> Gerunds are noun forms of a verb while participles are adjective forms.
> In their context they are different, yet the context that is in them may
> be the same.  Furthermore, in my ideolect the -ing of the gerund "rolling
> logs into the river" has an "ee" + n-sound, whereas the -ing of the
> imperfect participle "rolling logs into the river" has the "ee" + eng
> sound.   The imperfect participle is a subclass of participle and
> participle is a subclass of adjective.
> Sincerely,
> Bruce
>
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:51:02 -0800
>
> Bruce,
>
> Just to clarify, I don't conflate gerundial nouns with other -ing forms
> traditionally called gerunds. Nor do I think that gerundial nouns must
> have articles to be nouns. Of course you can usually add one (e.g., "the
> log rolling"), and the grammaticality of that construction is evidence of
> noun-hood.
>
> My points are these:
>
> First, there's no principled reason to say that "log rolling" is headed by
> a noun and "the rolling of logs" is headed by a gerund.  In both cases,
> "rolling" passes all the tests of noun-hood. We don't say that "wall" is a
> different part of speech when it occurs in the phrase "a stone wall" as
> opposed to the phrase "a wall of stone." To assert that "rolling" is not a
> noun in this case makes a pointless distinction. It is a noun derived from
> a gerund, whether it is well established or transitory, as you put it.
> (The problems with "the annual log rolling into the river" aren't
> explained by calling "rolling" a gerund. They exist with other deverbal
> nouns in the same situation, for example, I find "the annual stone toss
> into the river" equally infelicitous. Something else is going on here.)
>
> Second, to call such instances of "rolling" (i.e., the gerundial nouns)
> gerunds lumps them together with an entirely different syntactic
> construction ("rolling logs"). I don't see any explanatory benefit to this
> grouping. Sure, they share a derivational morphology, but that's it. When
> I do use the term "gerund," I don't include gerundial nouns, and I
> certainly never call them participles.
>
> Third, once you've separated the gerundial nouns from the traditional
> category of gerund, there is very little left to distinguish gerunds
> ("Rolling logs into the river is fun") from participles ("Rolling logs
> into the river, the lumber company saved on transportation costs"). It's
> here that I often simplify with students and call these participles. I
> take the position that two constructions are not really distinct if they
> only differ in their grammatical function. After all, we still call a noun
> phrase a noun phrase whether it is functioning as a subject or an object.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On 1/17/2012 7:12 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
> Karl,
> I would definitely cringe to intentionally conflate the transient
> adjective in -ing (imperfect participle) with the transient noun in -ing
> (gerund).  Even though the constructions are similar, the transient
> adjective modifies a noun in the sentence, whereas the transient noun
> serves one of the noun functions.
> When there is no article, the noun form (gerund) is no less a verbal noun.
>  There are many abstract nouns that do not have an article; they take a
> null article.  And then I can see you cringe again, because it is so hard
> to take a null form as being present.  There is no dispute that there are
> nouns similar to gerunds that do not have the verbal complements.  They
> are just like mass nouns, but do not refer to substances.
>
> Man is mortal.  (count noun used as an abstract noun, referring to a set
> of objects)
> Grammar is fun.   (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> Recreation is fun.  (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> Log rolling is fun. (an indefinite abstract count noun)
> We understand that this last example is not a gerund, but a noun derived
> from a gerund.  We may say "the annual log rolling is fun," but not *"the
> annual log rolling into the river is fun."  (Some people may be persuaded
> to accept this one.)  The gerund would be, "the annual rolling of logs
> into the river is fun."  Thus there may or may not be a definite article.
> What about "the (rapid) river log rolling"?  Maybe this kind of
> modification on an abstract noun derived from a gerund is allowed (the
> adjective but not the prepositional phrase).  This seems to be "behaving
> like nouns internally," whatever that means.   My grammar treats of two
> levels of noun phrase modification: classification and identification.
> These two kinds of noun phrase modification seem to be fair game for the
> gerund as well.  The abstract noun is rarely used to identify a specific
> event.
> Bruce
> --- [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:48:40 -0800
>
> Like Bruce, I think that there are definitional issues at the core of your
> question. I see your examples as an illustration that the traditional
> understanding of "gerund" (which would, indeed, cover all your examples)
> doesn't adequately capture what's going on here.
>
> Your examples with "the" are nouns. Not only do they take a determiner and
> a prepositional phrase as a complement (both characteristics of nouns),
> but they also take adjectival modification, as in "the rapid waving of the
> baby's legs..." or "the annual rolling of logs into the river." You can
> even make them plural, given the right semantic framework: "He has
> participated in three runnings of the bulls." The Cambridge Grammar of the
> English Language calls these "gerundial nouns," (IOW, nouns derived from
> gerunds).
>
> Your examples without "the" do not behave like nouns internally, even
> though the whole phrase can fill a slot normally occupied by a noun
> phrase. They fail the above tests for noun-hood:
>
> *the rolling logs into the river
> *rapid rolling logs into the river
>
> On the other hand, they pass verb tests, taking a noun phrase complement
> like transitive verbs, and accepting modification by adverbs ("rapidly
> rolling logs into the river"). In short, this type of "gerund" behaves
> almost exactly like a participle. Indeed, unless the gerund/participle has
> a subject, they are exactly alike.
>
> In short, the traditional label of "gerund" lumps together two classes of
> words with very different behavior, which to my mind makes it not useful
> as an analytical category.
>
> With my students, I tend to soft-pedal, or even ignore, the terminology
> here. I dislike the CGEL term "gerund-participle" just because it's
> unwieldy, but have nothing better to offer. I'll often just call it a
> participle and ignore the gerund part, although the pedant in me cringes a
> little bit each time I do that. I focus on getting them to see that the
> -ing words can sometimes behave as nouns and sometimes as verbal
> participles. What's essential to me is getting them to see how to test the
> difference.
>
> Karl
>
> On 1/16/2012 12:02 PM, Scott Woods wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> Would you characterize "the waving of the baby's legs from the buggy" as a
> gerund phrase in the following sentence? "Susan could see the flash of her
> teeth, laughing, and the waving of the baby's legs from the buggy."  It
> soesn't seem to be one to me, since it can't operate as a participial
> phrase in another sentence. Would you agree? Why do some gerunds take an
> article and others not? In the following pairs, the first seems to me to
> be a gerund phrase and the second not.  Is this right? What is the
> principle behind why some take an article and other don't?
>
> Rolling logs into the river was fun.
>
> The rolling of the logs into the river was annoying.
>
> Eating oatmeal is boring.
>
> The eating of the oatmeal has begun.
>
> Running with the bulls is fun.
>
> The running of the bulls has begun.
>
> Growing vegetables is fun.
>
> The growing of the vegetables was left to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4746 - Release Date: 01/16/12
> 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/
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4749 - Release Date: 01/17/12
> 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/