[Grammar] Part of speech

Status
Not open for further replies.

decksndrums

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
South Korea
Hello everyone, this is my first post here, I have searched for the answer but cannot be sure I have found it, and so would like some advice.

Is this your first time riding a horse?

Is anybody able to tell me what part of speech riding is and why?

I think it is a gerund, but I am not sure if this is correct.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Simon
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Hello everyone, this is my first post here, I have searched for the answer but cannot be sure I have found it, and so would like some advice.

Is this your first time riding a horse?

Is anybody able to tell me what part of speech riding is and why?

I think it is a gerund, but I am not sure if this is correct.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Simon

I don't think it is a gerund (noun). I think it is a present participle introducing an adjectival participial phrase that modifies "time".

If we rearrange the sentence a bit, it will be clearer. Your first time riding a horse will be a memorable experience. In that sentence, the subject is "time" as there is really no place for another noun. The phrase "riding a horse" describes "time".
 

decksndrums

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
South Korea
Thanks so much for your help. Much appreciated.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I don't think it is a gerund (noun). I think it is a present participle introducing an adjectival participial phrase that modifies "time".

If we rearrange the sentence a bit, it will be clearer. Your first time riding a horse will be a memorable experience. In that sentence, the subject is "time" as there is really no place for another noun. The phrase "riding a horse" describes "time".

I'm afraid I must disagree with this analysis. If 'riding' were a participle modifying 'time', then 'time' would be its implied subject. However, time does not ride horses!

'Riding' here is, in fact, a gerund with the whole being equivalent to

Is this your first time of riding horses?

with - in natural, contemporary usage - virtually obligatory ellipsis of the preposition. (Compare, however, the slightly antiquated formula the first/second time of asking, where the preposition is retained.)
 

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
I'm afraid I must disagree with this analysis. If 'riding' were a participle modifying 'time', then 'time' would be its implied subject. However, time does not ride horses!

'Riding' here is, in fact, a gerund with the whole being equivalent to

Is this your first time of riding horses?

with - in natural, contemporary usage - virtually obligatory ellipsis of the preposition. (Compare, however, the slightly antiquated formula the first/second time of asking, where the preposition is retained.)

Hello, philo2009.:-D
May I ask a question here?

What about:

Is this the first time [for you to ride horses]?

I think the infinitive phrase "for you to ride horses" postmodifies "time", describing what kind of 'time' it is.
Thus, it has an adjectival function.
Do I understand it correctly?

Thank you.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I'm afraid I must disagree with this analysis. If 'riding' were a participle modifying 'time', then 'time' would be its implied subject. However, time does not ride horses!

'Riding' here is, in fact, a gerund with the whole being equivalent to

Is this your first time of riding horses?

with - in natural, contemporary usage - virtually obligatory ellipsis of the preposition. (Compare, however, the slightly antiquated formula the first/second time of asking, where the preposition is retained.)

I don't agree. Nobody said "time rode horses". As a matter of fact, neither gerunds nor participles have subjects because they are verbals, not verbs.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I don't think that gerund/present participle are always clear-cut binary choices, and this is one of those cases where there are arguments for both. There are gradations between the two and it isn't always clear. Mind you, I don't lose any sleep as the forms are identical, so it can become an artificial exercise IMO.

For what it's worth, I am slightly inclined towards the participle view.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Hello, philo2009.:-D
May I ask a question here?

What about:

Is this the first time [for you to ride horses]?

I think the infinitive phrase "for you to ride horses" postmodifies "time", describing what kind of 'time' it is.
Thus, it has an adjectival function.
Do I understand it correctly?

Thank you.

Essentially, yes: the prepositional phrase 'for you' adjectivally postmodifies the noun 'time' and is in its turn complemented by the infinitive phrase 'to ride horses', while in the original sentence 'time' was adjectivally postmodified by the elliptical prepositional phrase '(of) riding horses'.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Nobody said "time rode horses".

Actually, your answer directly implied it!

When a participle/participial phrase is said to modify a noun, that is tantamount to asserting that that noun is the implied subject of the verbal aspect/force of that participle. ( I use the term 'subject' advisedly: see below)

Thus, for example, in

The boy playing tennis is Sam.

'boy' is at once both the object of modification of the participle 'playing (tennis)' and the implied subject of the action that it denotes (i.e. = 'who IS PLAYING tennis').
You simply cannot have the one without the other!

Thus if you assert, as you did, that a participle (riding) is modifying a noun (time), you must accept that it is also its implied subject, leading to the nonsensical entailment that 'time rides horses'.

As a matter of fact, neither gerunds nor participles have subjects because they are verbals, not verbs.

Many would take issue with that rather sweeping statement!

In the strictest, narrowest application of the term 'subject', it is so. However, I use the term here, as do many grammarians, in its wider sense as the (possibly merely implicit) "performer" of the state/action denoted by the verbal element, so that we may for instance speak of 'you' as being the (implied) subject of the infinitive 'walk' in

I knew that it was hard for you to walk away.

simply as a kind of convenient shorthand for the common sense assertion that it is 'you' (the prepositional object in the surface structure), and not the sentence subject 'I' or some other person, who actually performed the act of walking.

Of course, some may prefer the term 'agent' where a participle or other nonfinite verb form is concerned, but that is clearly an even less satisfactory option, since it can be applied only where the verbal element is active.

The simple fact is that we do not actually possess any completely satisfactory general-use term to express this implicit 'doer' role with regard to nonfinite forms, and are thus reduced to appropriating the closest available analog, to wit 'subject'.

As for your implication that a verb is not a verbal, I think you'll find that you are on equally shaky ground. A (finite) verb is, by definition, a sub-class of verbal, since the term 'verbal' means 'any form functioning like/as a verb' (which, I think you'll grant, finite verbs do!)

Of course, for the sake of referential convenience, you or anybody may elect to make a restrictive use of the term to actively exclude finite verbs (just as some authorities find it convenient to draw a distinction between 'adverb' and 'adverbial'), but it is your choice so to do, not something innately predetermined by the basic meanings of the words themselves!
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I don't think that gerund/present participle are always clear-cut binary choices,

Well, we'll part company there! Personally, I have never had the remotest difficulty in distinguishing between gerunds and participles. One is nominal and the other adjectival. How could they possibly ever be mistaken for one another?

and this is one of those cases where there are arguments for both.

I don't think so...

For what it's worth, I am slightly inclined towards the participle view.

Since I have already offered an analysis that clearly demonstrates the nominal function of the -ing form in question (as the object of an implicit preposition), I have nothing further to add!
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The only function of a present participle is adjectival?
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Nobody said "time rode horses".

Actually, your answer directly implied it!

When a participle/participial phrase is said to modify a noun, that is tantamount to asserting that that noun is the implied subject of the verbal aspect/force of that participle. ( I use the term 'subject' advisedly: see below)

Thus, for example, in

The boy playing tennis is Sam.

'boy' is at once both the object of modification of the participle 'playing (tennis)' and the implied subject of the action that it denotes (i.e. = 'who IS PLAYING tennis').
You simply cannot have the one without the other!

Thus if you assert, as you did, that a participle (riding) is modifying a noun (time), you must accept that it is also its implied subject, leading to the nonsensical entailment that 'time rides horses'.

As a matter of fact, neither gerunds nor participles have subjects because they are verbals, not verbs.

Many would take issue with that rather sweeping statement!

In the strictest, narrowest application of the term 'subject', it is so. However, I use the term here, as do many grammarians, in its wider sense as the (possibly merely implicit) "performer" of the state/action denoted by the verbal element, so that we may for instance speak of 'you' as being the (implied) subject of the infinitive 'walk' in

I knew that it was hard for you to walk away.

simply as a kind of convenient shorthand for the common sense assertion that it is 'you' (the prepositional object in the surface structure), and not the sentence subject 'I' or some other person, who actually performed the act of walking.

Of course, some may prefer the term 'agent' where a participle or other nonfinite verb form is concerned, but that is clearly an even less satisfactory option, since it can be applied only where the verbal element is active.

The simple fact is that we do not actually possess any completely satisfactory general-use term to express this implicit 'doer' role with regard to nonfinite forms, and are thus reduced to appropriating the closest available analog, to wit 'subject'.

As for your implication that a verb is not a verbal, I think you'll find that you are on equally shaky ground. A (finite) verb is, by definition, a sub-class of verbal, since the term 'verbal' means 'any form functioning like/as a verb' (which, I think you'll grant, finite verbs do!)

Of course, for the sake of referential convenience, you or anybody may elect to make a restrictive use of the term to actively exclude finite verbs (just as some authorities find it convenient to draw a distinction between 'adverb' and 'adverbial'), but it is your choice so to do, not something innately predetermined by the basic meanings of the words themselves!

Sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis at all. In my view "riding horses" is an adjectival participial phrase which modifies and explains the noun "time". "Time" is the subject of the sentence, not some mysterious phrase. When you added the supposedly absent preposition, all you did was change the adjectival participial phrase into an adjectival prepositional phrase. And that still modifies the noun "time". A lot of theory to end up with the same result.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
"Time" is the subject of the sentence, not some mysterious phrase.

Let me ask you a question, Mike from New York: if someone claiming to be a Wimbledon umpire let slip that (s)he didn't actually know the difference between a serve and a volley, you wouldn't be very impressed, would you?

Well, by indicating that you are unable to correctly identify the subject of a sentence when you see one, you have just committed a faux pas of similar magnitude!

The subject, for your information and edification, of the sentence

Is this your first time riding a horse?

is the pronoun 'this': 'time' here is what we grammarians call a complement!

I hope you'll therefore understand why I do not intend to waste any further time debating with you, and would strongly urge you to refrain from attempting to give any further advice on this forum about grammar, a subject about which you evidently know nothing whatever!
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The only function of a present participle is adjectival?

Not in the least!

Participles, as their name implies, 'participate' in a number of different form-classes: they possess a combination of adjectival and verbal powers, and thus can both modify (in the manner of an adjective) and have agents/subjects (in the manner of a verb).

Gerunds, on the other hand, combine nominal with verbal powers.
 
Last edited:

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Hello.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.:-D

Well, I agree with Tdol that it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear distinction between a 'present participle' and a 'gerund', which I think is why they prefer to use the term '-ing form' to avoid making things so complicated.
Philo2009's expert opinion is, of course, very interesting and informative.


1. "I spend many hours studying English."

Is the 'studying' in the above sentence a 'present participle' or a 'gerund'?
In my opinion (I must admit I might be wrong because I'm not a grammarian), 'studying English' postmodifies the verb 'spend'.
Thus, it functions adverbially, which means the 'studying' is a 'present participle'.

However, in

2. "I spend many hours in studying English."

I doubt native speakers would use this construction, but the phrase 'studying English' is the object of the preposition 'in'.
Therefore the 'studying' in #2 is a 'gerund'.

I personally don't care too much about these things, but out of curiosity, I'd like to ask philo2009 a question again.

Is the 'studying' in #1 a 'gerund' or a 'present participle'?

Thank you.:-D
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Let me ask you a question, Mike from New York: if someone claiming to be a Wimbledon umpire let slip that (s)he didn't actually know the difference between a serve and a volley, you wouldn't be very impressed, would you?

Well, by indicating that you are unable to correctly identify the subject of a sentence when you see one, you have just committed a faux pas of similar magnitude!

The subject, for your information and edification, of the sentence

Is this your first time riding a horse?

is the pronoun 'this': 'time' here is what we grammarians call a complement!

I hope you'll therefore understand why I do not intend to waste any further time debating with you, and would strongly urge you to refrain from attempting to give any further advice on this forum about grammar, a subject about which you evidently know nothing whatever!

My, my! Somebody is very cranky this morning. :roll:
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
My, my! Somebody is very cranky this morning. :roll:

Cranky he may be, but he at least knows the difference between a serve and a volley...

Having fully answered the original question, I have no further contribution to make to this thread.

I trust that, in the meantime, you will take the opportunity to open a grammar primer and familiarize yourself with the meaning and usage of at least a few basic terms!

EOC
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Hello.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.:-D

Well, I agree with Tdol that it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear distinction between a 'present participle' and a 'gerund', which I think is why they prefer to use the term '-ing form' to avoid making things so complicated.
Philo2009's expert opinion is, of course, very interesting and informative.


1. "I spend many hours studying English."

Is the 'studying' in the above sentence a 'present participle' or a 'gerund'?
In my opinion (I must admit I might be wrong because I'm not a grammarian), 'studying English' postmodifies the verb 'spend'.
Thus, it functions adverbially, which means the 'studying' is a 'present participle'.

However, in

2. "I spend many hours in studying English."

I doubt native speakers would use this construction, but the phrase 'studying English' is the object of the preposition 'in'.
Therefore the 'studying' in #2 is a 'gerund'.

I personally don't care too much about these things, but out of curiosity, I'd like to ask philo2009 a question again.

Is the 'studying' in #1 a 'gerund' or a 'present participle'?

Thank you.:-D

Both gerunds.

The apparent unnaturalness of an ellipted preposition is rarely grounds to dismiss it out of hand. (Cf. e.g. on next Tuesday​, the - now - most unnatural-sounding ancestor of contemporary time adverbial 'next Tuesday'.)

I would be more than happy, if called on, to give you or anybody a basic tutorial in how to distinguish between gerunds and participles in another thread. My contribution to this one, however, is now over!

EOC
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Cranky he may be, but he at least knows the difference between a serve and a volley...

Having fully answered the original question, I have no further contribution to make to this thread.

I trust that, in the meantime, you will take the opportunity to open a grammar primer and familiarize yourself with the meaning and usage of at least a few basic terms!

EOC

And you should as well. You see gerunds having subjects. You see prepositions where there are no prepositions. It is interesting grammar, but it is not English grammar. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top