GOING TO, ETC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jwschang said:
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

I would think it's a Participle phrase serving as a Noun phrase. It's not a gerund because a gerund is the Continuous Participle used as a noun. In that sentence, while the phrase itself serves as a noun, the word "waiting" is used as a participle and not a noun WITHIN the phrase.

I'm way lost. :oops:

Waitingcan be quite vexing = It can be vexing.

Form: participle
Function: Subject

Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds.

It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D

:D
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:

(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)

(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

What's the good reason? :D Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb? :D
:D

If we have (say) an Adjective phrase classified as a CONSTRUCTION and also as a USAGE, then when we mention an Adjective phrase, we won't know if we are talking about a construction type or a usage type. That's the reason (I believe and agree) that we don't call a phrase such as "A shrewd businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction) although its headed by the article/adjective "A". We call it an Absolute phrase, which consists of a noun or nouns and its modifiers (and the only modifiers of a noun are adjectives, because adverbs don't modify nouns).

We don't find the same phrase-type classified under both Construction-type and Usage-type. So, construction types are Absolute/Preposition/Infinitive/Participle. Usage types are Noun/Adjective/Adverb.

Of course, many writers don't follow this distinction; in fact, they don't even talk about two different classifications, construction vs usage. It is a distinction that I practise and I find it useful, logical and practical. The distinction also covers all possibilities, and I believe will withstand any test.
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

I would think it's a Participle phrase serving as a Noun phrase. It's not a gerund because a gerund is the Continuous Participle used as a noun. In that sentence, while the phrase itself serves as a noun, the word "waiting" is used as a participle and not a noun WITHIN the phrase.

I'm way lost. :oops:

Waitingcan be quite vexing = It can be vexing. Yes, waiting IS a gerund in "Waiting can be vexing", used as noun/subject. WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

Form: participle
Function: Subject

Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds.

It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D

:D
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
:D I think I get it. :D Thank you :D

He, searching diligently, soon found the lost coin.

Or copular,

He was searching diligently. He soon found the lost coin.

Getting back to the original topic, 'searching' functions as a predicate adjective in that sentence, right?

:D
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds. When the Continuous Participle functions as an adjective, it is NOT a gerund. (jws' response)
It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D
:D

Since nouns can be adjectives (English lessons), """theoretically""", a gerund can be an adjective, BUT in fact no, a gerund is not a participle functioing as a noun functioning as an adjective. A gerund is the Continuous Participle functioning as a NOUN and a NOUN ONLY.

(A) So, when the Continuous Participle acts as an adjective, it is not a gerund. The Continuous Participle acts EITHER as an adjective OR as a gerund.

(B) And a Gerund acts as a Noun, and no more. It does not act as an adjective: it's the Continuous Participle itself acting as an adjective.

(C) It's NOT: Continuous Participle first becomes (=) a gerund, then the Gerund becomes (=) a noun, then the Noun becomes (=) an Adjective.
It is Continuous Participle becomes (=) Adjective. For example,

Running water (not gerund, simply Participle acting as Adjective)
Falling snow (not gerund)
Burning desire (not gerund)
Cooked meat
Broken window
Pressed shirt

See my previous response re"[Waiting] can be vexing" and "[Waiting for people] can be vexing".

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Participle as Gerund and subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Participle as Participle/Verb)
3. A waiting lover. (Participle as Adjective, NOT gerund as adjective)
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:

(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)

(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb? :D
:D

(A) CONTINUOUS Participle phrases function as Noun phrases or Adjective phrases.
(B) PERFECT Participle phrases function as Adjective phrases. I don't think it can function as a Noun phrase.
(C) Neither CONTINUOUS nor PERFECT Participle phrases can function as an Adverb phrase. (Can't think of any such usage).

1. [Taking advantage of people] isn't too ethical. (Noun phrase)
2. [Picking his teeth], he stared at me. (Adjective phrase)
3. [Asked for a reply], he dragged his feet. (Adjective phrase)
4. Shoes [made in China] are good and cheap. (Adjective phrase)
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
:D I think I get it. :D Thank you :D
He, searching diligently, soon found the lost coin.
Or copular,
He was searching diligently. He soon found the lost coin.
Getting back to the original topic, 'searching' functions as a predicate adjective in that sentence, right?
:D

In this case, it's not the same as "I'm going to type a letter". I'd say it's the participle as the main verb, and with "was" forms the past continuous.
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jwschang said:
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

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
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

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
In sentence 2, "waiting" remains a verb (not supported by auxiliary, therefore no tense). It doesn't HAVE to be either a gerund or adjective. It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

It acts as an adjective when placed before (not necessarily immediately before) a noun: Running cold water. But, in "waiting FOR people", the preposition relates the verb "waiting" to the noun "people".
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jwschang said:
2. Waiting for people can be vexing.

It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

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

:D
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
2. Waiting for people can be vexing.

It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

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:
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

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
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

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

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
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

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
jwschang said:
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. ;-) ;-)
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
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.
 
J

jwschang

Guest
tdol said:
jwschang said:
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. ;-) ;-)
I meant "adjective" is not a "special" term like "gerund". :wink:
 

Casiopea

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Member Type
Other
jwschang said:
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


jwschang said:
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

jwschang said:
[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
 
J

jwschang

Guest
Casiopea said:
jwschang said:
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


jwschang said:
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

jwschang said:
[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

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. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top