Cynthia,
You ask a good question, and I suspect others who have followed this thread share your puzzlement. “Imperfect participle” and “bare infinitive” are not common terms outside of the world of professional grammarians and linguists, but they are used carefully and to good purpose. First, the participles. It’s widely known that English has two participles, what are called the –ing form and the –en form. The –ing form is well named because all of them end in –ing. The –en form is simply a name for the third form of the verb, especially with strong verbs like take/took/taken, swim/swam/swum, eat/ate/eaten, etc. In weak verbs, those that form their past tense with a –t or -d like walk/walked/walked, pay/paid/paid, think/thought/thought. I stick with the strong/weak terminology because obviously weak verbs can be regular or irregular, so that contrast doesn’t help us much. The –ing form is what we usually call the present participle, and the –en form is what we usually call the past participle. The problem with using tense terms for these, at least for professional grammarians and linguists, is that these really are not tensed forms; they are aspectual forms. That is, they indicate that an action or state is going on at the time of the tense of the sentence or that it is completed at that time. (There are other meanings, but let’s keep this focused.) The –ing form marks progressive aspect, what grammarians and linguists call “imperfect,” meaning uncompleted, and we call the –en form “perfect,” meaning completed. Linguists like the terms imperfect/perfect partly because they are more precisely about aspect and because they are useful across languages, which is important to linguists.
The bare infinitive is a little simpler. English typically marks infinitives by putting “to” in front of them. The use of “to” developed historically from the preposition “to.” There are certain classes of verbs that don’t allow “to” with the infinitive and therefore take the bare infinitive. These include modals may/might/can/could/will/would/shall/should/must and verbs of perception, like “see,” “hear,” “feel,” “smell,” etc., as in
X saw Y run to the corner.
X hear the wind blow.
X felt the temperature drop.
X smelled the insulation burn.
Also verbs like “let” and “make” do not take the “to” infinitive, and semi-modals, like “need” and “ought” have uses that take the bare infinitive.
I hope this helps.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
I hate to sound uneducated, but would someone in this thread take the time to enlighten some of us about what exactly is an "imperfect participle" and a "bare infinitive"? I have been following this thread with great interest and I can understand most of what you linguistics and upper-level grammarians are saying but, sadly, my secondary teacher education classes did not provide me with this level of language knowledge. I know I could just not worry about the finer distinctions of grammar, but I find it useful when quizzed by astute students to be able to give them a more in-depth analysis of a tricky grammar situation. And I also need that knowledge in the "back of my head" even if I don't feel that such knowledge would be useful to share with students. Besides, I love this stuff!
Sorry if this query takes you away from your discussion. Maybe someone, like Herb or Craig (who has done so in the past) would be willing to respond to me offline so as not to distract other members?
thanks!
From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
Marie,
I think your point is very well taken. The problem we are addressing is the fact that there appear to be at least two -ing forms to make nouns from verbs and also at least two -ing forms to make adjectives from verbs. In one case the syntax of the verb is retained. These have been called "verbal nouns" or "verbal adjectives."
The progressive aspect is usually called a verb form, rather than a verbal adjective, but strictly it is not a "form." It has two parts, the verb "to be" and the imperfect participle form." Three "-ing forms": "This thread is interesting me." (verb form) "Interesting the readers, each column is felt worthwhile." (verbal adjective) "This is very interesting." (gradable adjective). The first two are the imperfect participal. [I avoid calling it a "present participle" as that may make it seem to carry tense.]
The "bare infinitive" is one of the principle parts of the verb as a verb form." It appears with modals, where it is not strictly a "form." When it is used as a noun it is usually derived from the verb as a verbal noun. "I will leave." (verb form) "I saw him leave quickly." (verbal noun). But there is another noun usually having the same outward appearance as a bare infinitive. This noun has brought none of its verb syntax along with it: "He quickly took leave of me." (noun)
These three kinds of derivational morphology can cause no end of confusion. When we discuss the -ing formative for nouns, just the latter two kinds of derivation are manifest. [The first kind of derivation has been traditionally treated as though it were an inflection.]
Just my $1 worth, which, I must say, is way over-priced.
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gerund phrase v. gerund--grammar question
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:39:14 +0100
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"
> <
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/