[Grammar] WORTHY OF followed by a noun in its gerund form

[Vinko]

First of all, I'd like to apologize that I didn't mention I wasn't a teacher. I thought it was obvious that my post was just a personal opinion, and this one is no exception, too.

What exactly do you mean by this part?

Well, a gerund is created by adding "-ing" to a verb. However, no noun can be inflected to form a gerund. Therefore, noun is not the same as gerund, in terms of "forms".

Also, in the parts of speech, gerunds are categorized to be verbals only, and nouns are just nouns.

The term "nominal" is just a generic terminology that is very convenient when used to describe the function of any word, phrase, or clause that is used like a noun.

There are other "generic terminologies" such as adjectival and adverbial; and, yet, they are not necessarily used for referring standard adjectives and adverbs. For example, an adverbial clause is a subordinate clause used for modifying the meaning of the verb phrase in the main clause. Such clause is an adverbial but not a standard adverb like "quickly" or "vividly".

 

[Matthew Wai]

... clause that is used like a noun.

How can a clause be used like a noun? Any examples?
Not a teacher.

 

[Vinko]

How can a clause be used like a noun? Any examples?
Not a teacher.

What I want to drink is beer.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That is a noun clause; it acts as a noun. An adverbial acts as an adverb. An adjectival acts as an adjective. A gerund acts as a noun. A gerund phrase acts as a noun. Those are all standard parts of speech. Inventing new names for things does not help basic understanding. These ESL students are not studying to become linguists. They are trying to learn a very difficult language. Familiarity with the 8 or 9 or even 10 parts of speech is a good place to start.

 

[Vinko]

I did not invent the term "nominal". In fact, a google search with keywords "nominal" and "grammar" returns entries that are related to nominal being used to refer to noun-like function.

 

[MikeNewYork]

And how do the numbers compare to "noun"?

 

[Vinko]

I believe they are determiners which are limiting adjectives.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Nouns? They are determiners which limit adjectives? Where did you learn that?

Let me help you with the numbers.

nominal grammar: 568,000
noun grammar: 45,800,000

 

[Vinko]

Ah, my mistake. I misunderstood you.

I never thought of the statistics. Like I said, these are just my personal opinions. The numbers may not be great, but they are irrelevant to me. Why do I need statistics to justify using the term "nominal"? It's just a word-tool for me to make sense functions of groups of words.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You don't need anything to justify your use of "nominal". You just need to understand the terms that are in more common use. I see from you profile that you are a student. Keep learning. That is a good thing.

 

[Vinko]

I've been learning more than what teachers offer, and I am very thankful that my way of learning works.

 

[Matthew Wai]

infinitives that are used as nominals

Do you mean something like 'To err is human'?

 

[Vinko]

Yes.

 

[Matthew Wai]

As you think gerunds and infinitives are nominals, do you think 'being admired' can be replaced with 'to be admired' in 'be worthy of being admired'?

Not a teacher.

 

[Vinko]

I have to emphasize that this is another personal opinion, and I'm not a teacher.

Although an infinitive can function as a noun, an adjective, or an adverb, depending on its usage, I guess you cannot always rely on its versatility as a reason to replace a gerund with an infinitive.

 

[Esredux]

That is a noun clause; it acts as a noun. An adverbial acts as an adverb. An adjectival acts as an adjective. A gerund acts as a noun. A gerund phrase acts as a noun. Those are all standard parts of speech. Inventing new names for things does not help basic understanding. These ESL students are not studying to become linguists. They are trying to learn a very difficult language. Familiarity with the 8 or 9 or even 10 parts of speech is a good place to start.

With all due respect, whether ESL students find English a VERY difficult language or not would hugely depend on how they could relate English to their L1, especially at an early stage. Some will get confused by this noun/gerund/ present participal classification and rightfully so since they do not have a gerund in their mother tongues. It is not rocket science to familirise them with standart parts of speech but if there's a noticeable difference between the two languages in terms of grammatical terminology, it leads basically nowhere. And, there is so much to accomplish apart from pure grammar! So, from such "the-easier-the-better" poin of view, I'd second that generic terminology, if any.

For those few who are studying to become linguists, there is always a fantastic, eye-opening, mind-blowing time of understanding what Englih grammat is (and what it isn't) awaiting them in the future.

I hope I am not straying too far from the topic here.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't see the problem. For those who are confused, that's what teaching is for. What I am against is every teacher having his/her own terminology. That is very confusing.

 

[Tdol]

This is a problem with terminology- is it the present progressive, continuous, durative or imperfect? All have been suggested in my teaching/learning life, and that isn't an exhaustive list, and all have arguments as to why they're better than the others, but they're all really talking about the same thing, which may be a tense or an aspect of one tense. There are differences in viewpoint- and as a two-tenser, I wish people wouldn't call will the future tense, but they do so for good reason and after serious thought. Proposing changes to terminology is all very well and good, often very good IMO, but the realities are that making a case does not guarantee results. I can see the case for nominals, but I can also see why it will struggle.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I am a future tense guy, but I understand the two-tense argument. This is a minor point that can be easily handled in the classroom.

 

[Esredux]

Funnily enough, I am not, but it has very little to do with teaching practicalities - if some can benefit from the future tense perspective, let it be so. I'd welcome any reasonable flexibility in terminology as soon as it can help develop skills and would avoid any if it doesn't. After all, grammar as such is a truly minor point to handle in the classroom.

upd. I suspect it's all going too far from the original question, so I'd better quit.