What's "doing" doing there?

[CitySpeak]

"What are we supposed to be doing?"

What is "doing" in this sentence?

I would say "be" is an infinitive acting as a noun (verbal/verbid) and is the object of the semi-modal/verb form "are supposed to". (be supposed to - semi-modal)

Does that mean we can say "doing" is a present participle that is part of a "progressive/continuous infinitive phrase" which is functioning as a noun?

Is there a such thing as a "progressive/continuous infinitive phrase"?

Simply put, what is "doing" in this sentence?

:shock: :shock: :?: :?:

 

[Casiopea]

Q: What are we supposed to be doing (right now)?
A: We are supposed to be studying (right now).

be supposed to functions as a quasi-modal and takes an infinitive as its object. Example:

We are supposed to go fishing today. ('fishing' is a gerund)
We are supposed to be at home studying. ('studying' is a gerund)

Note, separating the word studying from the word be is a good indication that be studying is not functioning as a progressive/continuous verb in our sentence.

studying is functioning as a gerund, which by the way, takes the form of a participle. That is, studying is both a participle (i.e. a present participle) and a gerund.

In short,

be supposed to + infinitive + nominal object (e.g. preposition, noun (gerund))

 

[CitySpeak]

Q: What are we supposed to be doing (right now)?
A: We are supposed to be studying (right now).

be supposed to functions as a quasi-modal and takes an infinitive as its object. Example:

We are supposed to go fishing today. ('fishing' is a gerund)
We are supposed to be at home studying. ('studying' is a gerund)

Note, separating the word studying from the word be is a good indication that be studying is not functioning as a progressive/continuous verb in our sentence.

studying is functioning as a gerund, which by the way, takes the form of a participle. That is, studying is both a participle (i.e. a present participle) and a gerund.

In short,

be supposed to + infinitive + nominal object (e.g. preposition, noun (gerund))

be supposed to functions as a quasi-modal and takes an infinitive as its object. <<


mm.....


So, we can say "be doing" is the object of "are we supposed"?

And "doing" is a gerund?

Thank you for your reply.

With all respect to your answer, I still feel puzzled about this.

I somehow feel unsure, still, about "doing" functioning as a gerund, as "be" is part of the object as well. It seems that a present participle would follow "be" to me, and that the present participle would be part of the object. It seems strange that the infinitive "be" and a gerund would both be part of the same object. I think "doing" might be something else other than a gerund. I think it could be that it is actually a present participle within an object, or linked to the object "be".

I may be completely wrong. I don't know.


Sincerely,

CS

:? :shock:

 

[Tdol]

Can't 'to be doing' be thought of as a progressive form? I see no problem with the idea at all. ;-)

 

[CitySpeak]

Can't 'to be doing' be thought of as a progressive form? I see no problem with the idea at all. ;-)

Sure. No problem. But I'm trying to be more specific.

Can you say how it would be identified in the sentence? What would be the correct grammar term for it?

What do we call "doing" in that sentence? Is it part of the object/noun/verbal "be doing"?

Someone sent an email to a list serve of ESL teachers asking about this. I was not 100% sure how to answer. I'm asking for my own curiosity, but I might reply to the email. I'm not sure.


:shock: 8) :shock: 8) :?:

 

[RonBee]

Can't 'to be doing' be thought of as a progressive form? I see no problem with the idea at all. ;-)

I rather agree.

:wink:

 

[CitySpeak]

Can't 'to be doing' be thought of as a progressive form? I see no problem with the idea at all. ;-)

By the way, I sent a link to this discussion to the list serve of ESL teachers.



:shock: 8) :wink:

 

[Tdol]

You can have a perfect infinitive, so why not a progressive one? ;-)

 

[CitySpeak]

You can have a perfect infinitive, so why not a progressive one? ;-)

Sounds good to me. I just thought there had to be something more to it. I couldn't find this particular structure in the reference materials I have.

 

[Casiopea]

Thank you for your explanation.

When dealing with catenative verb forms,

We are supposed to be studying.

'studying' functions as the object of 'to be'.

In terms of what syntactic role 'studying' plays, structure tells me it's a noun but semantics tells me it's a progressive verb form. I remember reading somewhere some time ago that be + -ing functions as a pair, as a verb. Albeit, the fact that gerunds denote acts, yet function as non-acts, and, moreover, that "be" in our example sentence has a somewhat undefined ambiguity has me back at square one.

There's also the question of the subjunctive. Do such verbs take continuous verb forms as their objects? If not, gerund seems to be the better choice.

As for nominclature, 'to be studying' is the infinitive of "are studying", so there's no need to rename it.

I like your analysis. You've me 65% hooked. I await further evidence.

 

[CitySpeak]

Thank you for your explanation.

When dealing with catenative verb forms,

We are supposed to be studying.

'studying' functions as the object of 'to be'.

In terms of what syntactic role 'studying' plays, structure tells me it's a noun but semantics tells me it's a progressive verb form. I remember reading somewhere some time ago that be + -ing functions as a pair, as a verb. Albeit, the fact that gerunds denote acts, yet function as non-acts, and, moreover, that "be" in our example sentence has a somewhat undefined ambiguity has me back at square one.

There's also the question of the subjunctive. Do such verbs take continuous verb forms as their objects? If not, gerund seems to be the better choice.

As for nominclature, 'to be studying' is the infinitive of "are studying", so there's no need to rename it.

I like your analysis. You've me 65% hooked. I await further evidence.

Thank you for your comments. If I have any more thoughts on this, I'll post them.


:shock: 8) :idea: :?:

 

[CitySpeak]

Thank you for your explanation.

When dealing with catenative verb forms,

We are supposed to be studying.

'studying' functions as the object of 'to be'.

In terms of what syntactic role 'studying' plays, structure tells me it's a noun but semantics tells me it's a progressive verb form. I remember reading somewhere some time ago that be + -ing functions as a pair, as a verb. Albeit, the fact that gerunds denote acts, yet function as non-acts, and, moreover, that "be" in our example sentence has a somewhat undefined ambiguity has me back at square one.

There's also the question of the subjunctive. Do such verbs take continuous verb forms as their objects? If not, gerund seems to be the better choice.

As for nominclature, 'to be studying' is the infinitive of "are studying", so there's no need to rename it.

I like your analysis. You've me 65% hooked. I await further evidence.

How about this:

"to be doing" - verb phrase functioning as an object

"doing" - present participle - progressive/continuous verb form

"to be doing" - progressive "to infinitive"

In this way, we can say "doing" is a progressive verb form and say that it is part of an object. We would not be calling it a gerund.

:?: :shock:

 

[CitySpeak]

You can have a perfect infinitive, so why not a progressive one? ;-)

That sound just fine and dandy to me!



8) :shock:

 

[Casiopea]

How about this:

"to be doing" - verb phrase functioning as an object

supposed to be (be functions as the object of the semi-modal)

supposed to be doing (doing functions as a partitive of be)

"doing" - present participle - progressive/continuous verb form

"doing", present participle (OK)
"be doing", continuous verb form

"to be doing" - progressive "to infinitive"

"to be doing", Odd, given that 'to' is part of the semi-modal. It's either part of one or the other, not both (i.e. supposed to go, supposed to *to be.)

In this way, we can say "doing" is a progressive verb form and say that it is part of an object. We would not be calling it a gerund.

Technically, "doing" does not function as a verb unless it's part of linking BE. That is, "be doing" would be a continuous verb form. "doing" by iteself is a present participle.

My analysis of your idea:

are supposed to be studying

are [linking verb]
supposed to [modal] => takes an infinitive (i.e. base form) as its object
be [object of modal]
studying [partitive of be]

'to be' as the object of 'supposed'
are supposed [pause] to be studying (Odd)

'be studying' as the object of 'supposed to' (note, similarity with "have to")
are supposed to [pause] be studying (Awkwardly Ok)

'studying' as the nominal object of 'be'
are supposed to be [pause] studying (Ok)

'studying' as the verbal object of 'supposed to'
are supposed to be [pause] studying (Ok)

If anything, 'be studying' is not connected to 'to'. It's in that way that I believe 'be studying' is not an infinitive in form. Seems more like it has something to do with the subjunctive.

 

[Tdol]

Being a bit of a simpleton, I'm happy with the following:

to do- infinitve
to be doing- progressive infinitve
to have done- perfect infinitive

But then I'd have to go to college to learn to be a bear of small brain. ;-)

 

[Casiopea]

Found it

Predicate Adjective
A predicate adjective reaches across the copula (be) to describe its subject.

He used to be rich.
rich = he used to be.
('rich' is a predicative adjective)

We are supposed to be swimming.
swimming = we are supposed to be
('swimming' is a predicative adjective)

Function: predicative adjective
Form: present participle

We went skiing. ('skiing' functions as an adverb)
We will go skiing. (same as above)
We are supposed to go skiing (same as above).

I'm so happy

 

[Casiopea]

Being a bit of a simpleton, I'm happy with the following:

to do- infinitve
to be doing- progressive infinitve
to have done- perfect infinitive

But then I'd have to go to college to learn to be a bear of small brain. ;-)

Don't be dissin' elephants, now :shock:

To do this would be wrong. (prediction)
To be doing this would be wrong. (actuality)
To have done this would have been wrong.

 

[Tdol]

To have been doing this. ;-)

 

[MikeNewYork]

Found it

Predicate Adjective
A predicate adjective reaches across the copula (be) to describe its subject.

He used to be rich.
rich = he used to be.
('rich' is a predicative adjective)

We are supposed to be swimming.
swimming = we are supposed to be
('swimming' is a predicative adjective)

Function: predicative adjective
Form: present participle

We went skiing. ('skiing' functions as an adverb)
We will go skiing. (same as above)
We are supposed to go skiing (same as above).

I'm so happy

I hope I don't ruin your happiness. +|;-)

IMO, swimming is not a predicate adjective.

The word "supposed" is an interesting one. What part of speech is it? In my opinion, it is part of a passive voice construction in the present tense. One supposes things, concepts, and even people. In this case "We are supposed" means that others are supposing us to be doing something. It has taken on the meaning of obligation. The verb suppose takes an infinitive. We are supposed to be skiing. "To be skiing" is the progressive infinitve of "to ski" -- "to be skiing".

I am skiing.
You are skiing.
He/she/it is skiing.

In the "to go skiing" form, either "to go" is an infinitive and skiing is a gerund object of the infinitive, or "to go skiing" is a phrasal infinitive with "go" acting as a helping verb. I prefer the second explanation, but most dictionaries give that use of "go" as a transitive use, requiring a direct object. I think either explanation is acceptable.

That's my take on this.

 

[Tdol]

A phrasal infinitive? So progressive\perfect infinitives are OK to you? ;-)