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] wrote:

From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [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] wrote:

From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [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
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
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/