Category talk:English gerunds

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

11 members. I did not think that we presented English present participles as English gerunds. This says that the members of the category are proscribed. This is not a desirable result of using template {{gerund of}}. I am not sure why we would want that template to apply to English. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this is specifically for English gerundial nouns, i.e. the kind of -ing word that walks like a noun and quacks like a noun -- for example, it has a plural if countable, etc. If we renamed this to Category:English gerundial nouns per CGEL, would that resolve the issue?

I agree that the bit about proscription seems like a stretch. But some sort of usage appendix would not be out of place IMO. -- Visviva 11:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been intended only to make a kind of prescriptive point. I'm not sure whether the template is intended to do something special for English.

I have inserted some wording at Category:English present participles. I remember that we had discussed the idea of standard usage note(s) for these, linking to a more extensive appendix.

I am fairly sure that gerund is not a very useful term to users, even less so than participle.

I'm trying to collect some grammar books of the last 90 years to compare what they say about present participles/gerunds/present participial adjectives and the derived true adjectives and nouns. The most basic presentation that we do of present participle is certainly correct, as is the presentation of true nouns or adjectives. What is a little less clear to me are:

1. Is pluralization alone enough indication to justify a noun PoS?
2. Are other criteria sufficient in the absence of pluralization?

I expect our answers to both to be "yes", but I'd like to see what Jespersen, Bloomfield, Quirk et al, and Huddleston & Pullum all have to say. Once I have, I'd be ready to draft something I think. But I'd be happy to let someone else have the fun. DCDuring TALK 14:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2008/December#English_plural_gerunds. I'm feeling somewhat muddled about this ATM. Huddleston & Pullum (aka CGEL, pp. 81-82) draw four distinctions between gerundial nouns and "-ing" verb forms (what they call "gerund-participles"):

• Complementation: Among other things, gerundial nouns take an "of" prepositional phrase as complement ("the singing of the song").
• Modification: Gerundial nouns take an adjective as modifier, while participles take an adverb. ("Her splendid singing of the song left them transfixed.")
• Determiners: Only nouns can take the definite article ("_the_ singing of the song").
• Plurals: Only nouns can take the plural (however, they don't always do so).

H&P go on to point out (as they do again on p. 1222) that the traditional gerund/participle distinction cannot be sustained. So, as you say, it is probably incorrect to speak of "gerund" here, and of "plural gerund" as well (sigh).

The number of -ing forms that can be cited as nouns according to the above criteria (if we accept them) is likely to be arbitarily large. It would be hard to say that any -ing form is categorically incapable of acting as a noun; it's simply a matter of whether it can be attested doing so. So even if there is a meaningful grammatical distinction between the gerundial noun and the "participle-gerund," we might still question whether that distinction is useful for our purposes. -- Visviva 06:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I now own CGEL and am very respectful of all of its analysis and find myself agreeing with virtually every substantive point, the argumentative content means to me that some of the work's conclusions are not settled matters. I think we are wise to focus our efforts on bringing Wiktionary up to date on the matters on which Quirk et al and CGEL agree (or where the arguments of one of the other have clearly prevailed). In this area they seem to be in substantial agreement, although I need to go to a library to check Quirk et al. I don't know what other grammars are worth checking for a modern PoV (Biber?). DCDuring TALK 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete category, rename as Category:English gerundial nouns. Consider creating special template for English words of this type (and their plurals). -- Visviva 06:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How did you view us as using the renamed category? DCDuring TALK 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To hold all actual nouns of this nature -- that is, all "-ing" words that form a plural. -- Visviva 14:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, fails RFDO. I'll just decategorize them for now, but I don't object to a category English gerundial nouns, which seems at least correctly worded. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)