GOING TO, ETC

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Could you show me the phrase structure? For example, NP = VP + NP.
:D

(Waiting for people) + (can be vexing) = Noun phrase + Verb construction in the present continuous (with modal).

A word (be it a participle, noun, or whatever) does not become another part of speech per se. It becomes such other when it is used as such other. So, a participle is a form of the verb; when it is USED as a noun, then it's called a gerund; when it is used as an adjective (running water) only then is it acting as an adjective.

In "waiting for people" (unlike "running water), "waiting" functions as a verb, so in that phrase it is neither acting as a noun nor as an adjective. :wink:

Originally Posted by Casiopea

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified? To function as a particular part of speech, a word occupies a certain place in a phrase or clause, or is used with certain other parts of speech (prepositions, etc). It is its usage or function that determines in what way it is "modified" (placement, combination with other words,etc), not the other way around. Verbs are verbs in the first place; then some forms of a verb (Infinitive and the Participles) can function (that is, be used) as another part of speech besides its usage as a verb. Similarly, a noun is a noun in the first place; then some nouns may be used NOT AS A NOUN but as an adjective. So, a word belongs "originally" as a verb or a noun; then it may be utilised to act as some other part of speech. For some prepositions which are also adverbs, and adverbs which are also conjunctions, it's hard to say which part of speech is its "original" identity; for example, the word "all" is used as a pronoun (all are present), an adjective (all grammarians are funny people), an adverb (this is all correct), but it's arguable whether "all" is in the first place a pronoun or adjective or adverb (I personally, and I think most people too, would say that "all" is a pronoun in the first place but can act as an adjective or an adverb); looking into a dictionary, you'll find a lot of such words being explained in all their usages as various parts of speech . In the case of verbs and nouns (and most pronouns), it is clear that they are such in the first place, and they only function differently as some other part of speech when so used; most dictionaries do not explain or illustrate their usage as other parts of speech, such as most don't show or explain a particular Continuous Participle in its usage as a gerund.
1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)Form: Cont Participle, Function: Noun/subject (therefore called gerund)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____) Form: Cont Participle, Function: Verb (without complete tense)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help

Originally Posted by Casiopea

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified?

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help

There is only one "kind" of Continuous Participle, which is as a VERB and VERB FORM. But the verb/Cont Participle may be used to act as a Noun (I do cooking), in which such usage it is called a Gerund, and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

[Casiopea]

Thank you. That was kind of you :wink:

But it's the structure of the phrase 'waiting for people' that interests me, actually. Is the structure [[VP]+NP] as in 1) or [[VP][NP]IP] as in 2)?

1) [waiting for VP] people NP]

2) [[waiting for VP][people NP] IP]

:D

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by jwschang

and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

I'd call it an adjective there, too.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Thank you. That was kind of you :wink:
But it's the structure of the phrase 'waiting for people' that interests me, actually. Is the structure [[VP]+NP] as in 1) or [[VP][NP]IP] as in 2)?

1) [waiting for VP] people NP]
2) [[waiting for VP][people NP] IP]
:D

You are most welcome. It's interesting exploring such things with you. :wink:
A sentence cannot consist entirely of phrases, because it must have a finite verb. A phrase by definition does not have a finite verb. It is two or more words that as a syntactic unit expresses a meaning more than the individual meaning of the words making it up. If we break down further the phrase "waiting for people", there is not much meaning left in the sub-parts as a syntactic unit.
[waiting] + [for people] = participle (not phrase, only one word) + preposition phrase (but not a lot more meaning as a phrase).
[waiting for] + [people] doesn't make much sense to break it this way.

Originally Posted by tdol

I'd call it an adjective there, too.

I meant "adjective" is not a "special" term like "gerund". :wink:

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jwschang

There is only one "kind" of Continuous Participle, which is as a VERB and VERB FORM. But the verb/Cont Participle may be used to act as a Noun (I do cooking), in which such usage it is called a Gerund, and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

Well, you see, that's new to me. To my knowledge, there are two kinds of participles: present participles, so named because they end in -ing, and past participles, so called because they end in -ed/-en. I've not, until know that is, heard the term 'verb' to refer to the present participle. I've heard 'verbal', but not 'verb'. This is what I know:

If a present participle (-ing word) functions as a verb (i.e. when coupled with forms of the verb To Be) it's the string Be + ing , to my knowledge, that functions as a continuous verb; the -ing word itself remains a present participle in form.

If a present participle functions as a noun, it's called a gerund, and if a present participle modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective:

I am eating sushi. (Verb)
Eating sushi is on my list of things to do when I go to Japan. (Noun)
He's an eating sushi kind of guy. (adjective)

To my knowledge, -ing nouns are called "gerunds", whereas -ing verbs and adjectives are called present participles.

In short, I've heard of the term present participle but have never heard of a present participle being called a verb--until now that is. It's a new one on me. :D

Originally Posted by jwschang

If we break down further the phrase "waiting for people", there is not much meaning left in the sub-parts as a syntactic unit.

I'll have to politely disagree. :D

Originally Posted by jwschang

[waiting] + [for people] = participle (not phrase, only one word) + preposition phrase (but not a lot more meaning as a phrase).
[waiting for] + [people] doesn't make much sense to break it this way.

I see the phrase as follows. (By the way, and not to be challenging, a word is in fact considered a phrase in linguistics (see Chomsky, et al, et al.)

Participle = waiting for (Phrasal unit)
Object = people

I believe the head of the phrase is not 'people' but 'waiting for', a present participle, which happens to subcategorized for an object. That the phrase 'waiting for people' can be replaced by "it" makes it a nominal (a gerund) and that it sits in the subject position gives it its function as subject.

In short,

PRO + waiting for + people (S+V+O)

I see a lot of stuff happening in 'the sub-parts of the synactic unit', so much so in fact that it provides some very nice examples for form vs function:

waiting for = present participle (Verbal)
people = noun (Object)
waiting for people = (Noun)

That is, even though the head of the phrase is a verbal, the phrase functions as a nominal, a gerund. Cool!


:D

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Well, you see, that's new to me. To my knowledge, there are two kinds of participles: present participles, so named because they end in -ing, and past participles, so called because they end in -ed/-en. I've not, until know that is, heard the term 'verb' to refer to the present participle. I've heard 'verbal', but not 'verb'. This is what I know:

If a present participle (-ing word) functions as a verb (i.e. when coupled with forms of the verb To Be) it's the string Be + ing , to my knowledge, that functions as a continuous verb; the -ing word itself remains a present participle in form.

If a present participle functions as a noun, it's called a gerund, and if a present participle modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective:

I am eating sushi. (Verb)
Eating sushi is on my list of things to do when I go to Japan. (Noun)
He's an eating sushi kind of guy. (adjective)

To my knowledge, -ing nouns are called "gerunds", whereas -ing verbs and adjectives are called present participles.

In short, I've heard of the term present participle but have never heard of a present participle being called a verb--until now that is. It's a new one on me. :D

I'll have to politely disagree. :D

I see the phrase as follows. (By the way, and not to be challenging, a word is in fact considered a phrase in linguistics (see Chomsky, et al, et al.)

Participle = waiting for (Phrasal unit)
Object = people

I believe the head of the phrase is not 'people' but 'waiting for', a present participle, which happens to subcategorized for an object. That the phrase 'waiting for people' can be replaced by "it" makes it a nominal (a gerund) and that it sits in the subject position gives it its function as subject.

In short,

PRO + waiting for + people (S+V+O)

I see a lot of stuff happening in 'the sub-parts of the synactic unit', so much so in fact that it provides some very nice examples for form vs function:

waiting for = present participle (Verbal)
people = noun (Object)
waiting for people = (Noun)

That is, even though the head of the phrase is a verbal, the phrase functions as a nominal, a gerund. Cool!
:D

Hi Cas. Sorry for dropping off this conversation half way. Most of December had been a terrible month for me in terms of work. And then I got back just to have a look at this forum! And then all because of some discussion about something which I felt something about, I made a few posts. Mostly, I'm not a good user of the Net, and using it to talk about social issues seems so strange to me because its kind of very personal views, and you might say something that the other person may misunderstand or don't feel good about. I don't really like talking about social issues because they are overwhelming most times. It's only good over a beer or two on a peaceful night with good friends.
I hope you had a good Christmas and wish you an especially fulfilling 2004. May all the good and happy things be yours in the coming year. I guess I'll get back here more often again after I've completed my project. With warmest regards. :)