take to Ving, (gerund or present participle?)

[PaulMatthews]

So I think we all agree that -ing words are best considered to belong to one inflectional category, but that they can be used in lots of different ways.

The verb forms, yes.

However, the ing nouns and the ing adjectives belong to the category (part of speech) noun and adjective respectively, as in examples [2] and [4] in my answer #12.

[jutfrank]

The verb forms, yes.

However, the ing nouns and the ing adjectives belong to the category (part of speech) noun and adjective respectively, as in examples [2] and [4] in my answer #12.

Okay. Got it. Thanks.

[Phaedrus]

Gerunds are verbs. Some ing verbs happen to have noun forms that are best called gerundial nouns. Yes, the two forms can be distinguished by applying some simple tests.

Gerunds are nouns. They are formed like this: [verb+ing]. They head noun phrases, can be introduced by determiners, take adjectives as modifiers, do not have direct objects, etc. What you are calling a "gerundial noun" is a gerund.

As far as I can tell, you only acknowledge the existence of gerunds from the standpoint of traditional grammar. The things that you call gerunds from that standpoint are not gerunds at all. They are present participles -- verbs.

Why do you insist on calling gerunds "gerundial nouns"? Is anything to be gained by denying them the name of gerund, to which they are entitled? Incidentally, I do not bow down to CGEL. I have it from the highest authority that gerunds are nouns formed by [verb+ing].

The most important thing in this thread is that the OP got a solid answer to their question (see #6).

Whether that is the post in which the "solid answer" is contained is a matter of perception.

[Phaedrus]

Who or what is the highest authority in the field of English grammar?

Huddleston and Pullum are two of the world's best grammarians, but I have studied under at least one linguist whom I, quite subjectively, rank higher.

[Phaedrus]

May we ask the name of this great grammar guru?

PaulMatthews basically preaches CGEL gospel, but never credits any source besides himself. The person of whom I speak, who is not a "guru" but simply a linguist of extraordinary expertise in the area of syntax and morphology, was a close colleague of Pullum's for roughly 20 years at a university in California. I believe he hired Pullum.

It has occurred to me that PaulMatthews is probably referring to lexicalized gerunds with his phrase "gerundial nouns." Thus, when an -ing form like reading or painting is used as a gerund -- a noun formed by [verb+ing] -- and has made it into the dictionary as a lexicalized noun, PaulMatthews dubs it a "gerundial noun."

As I understand gerunds (not by the authority to whom I alluded, but by my own reasoning in light of the authoritative guidance I received), they exist as a productive morphosynactic class in English. The -ing suffix enables lexical verbs to be used as derived nouns, and once in a while those derived nouns get lexicalized.

[Phaedrus]

So Paul never credits any source besides himself. You, however credit a linguist of extraordinary expertise in the area of syntax and morphology, whom you 'rank higher' than H & P. That's OK, then.

As you well know, there is no comparison whatsoever: I regularly cite a multiplicity of sources, almost in every thread here in which I participate.

[Phaedrus]

'

[jutfrank]

Do we consider it grammatical to say, for example:

His deliberately not making sense is frustrating.

It seems okay to me. The subject has features of both a noun (DP) and a verb (DO and adverb modifier).

[Phaedrus]

Do we consider it grammatical to say, for example:

His deliberately not making sense is frustrating.

It seems okay to me. The subject has features of both a noun (DP) and a verb (DO and adverb modifier).

Yes, that's definitely grammatical. Traditional grammar would incorrectly label the subject DP ("noun phrase") a gerund.

The subject DP is headed by the possessive morpheme (a determiner), and that head has a VP complement (making sense), modified by an adverb.

I find Piscean's "like" suspect. Is your example supposed to be aimed at me somehow? I shall suppose it is not, since I have sought to make sense.

[GoesStation]

I find Piscean's "like" suspect. Is your example supposed to be aimed at me somehow? I shall suppose it is not, since I have sought to make sense.

I can't speak for Piscean, but my "like" was meant to agree with the statement It seems okay to me.