Gerund and noun

[wahaha]

I read a sentence from "Winning" by Jack Welch:

"In the meantime, it would be dumb to get booted for sulking."

I wonder if it's right to use "for sulking", because sulk has its noun form.
So should I say that this sentence is wrong and it should be changed into "for sulk"?

[BobK]

No - "for sulking" is right. You're right to say "sulk" can be a noun on its own:

"She's having a sulk"
"That's OK - you go off and have a good sulk. You'll be back, I'll bet, as soon as you get hungry."

But in your case the text is talking about the fact of sulking (or "having a sulk").

b

[wahaha]

Dear Bobk:

Thanks for giving me clear explanation.

I wonder that the sentence I quoted is not correct because my grammar book told me that "He deserved punishing" is a wrong sentence.

But I understand the reasons because of your explanation.

Thanks a lot!!!

[BobK]

I wonder that the sentence I quoted is not correct because my grammar book told me that "He deserved punishing" is a wrong sentence.

I think the book said that because a lot of people were once taught that. According to this rule, you should in that case say "he deserved to be punished" or "he deserved [+ either article, or none] punishment", or even (for real sticklers) "he deserved that someone should punish him".

But "he deserved punishing" is quite commonly used (slightly informal, but becoming less so).

But I understand the reasons because of your explanation.

Thanks a lot!!!

Glad to be of service

b