Search results for 'tag:Spelling tag:Gerunds' matching tags 'Spelling' and 'Gerunds'

Re: "on the verge of -collpase-"

Mister Micawber — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:37:34 GMT

.
Well, the spelling of both would be equally wrong. Collapse vs collapsing here would mean virtually the same thing, though the writer might be accentuating the action by using the gerund.

Re: Waht is difference between using ing in gerund and ing in participle ?

Nader75 — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:22:10 GMT

Thnak you . and I'm sorry again for the spelling.

Question about recive a notification:

Why I couldn't recive a notification in my email for reply?

Re: Waht is difference between using ing in gerund and ing in participle ?

CalifJim — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:06:08 GMT

A gerund acts like a noun; a participle acts like an adjective.

Rolling in the dirt was a favorite pastime for our new puppy.

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

Nader: You're doing it again. The word is what, not waht. Please be more careful with your spelling!!!

Re: forms of "be"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:04:01 GMT

Hello Sunilghai-- and welcome to English Forums. You can start your English learning by spelling properly: the word is spelt 'people'.

1) "Like most of the peoples who shifted to Delhi rather than been born here." -- This phrase is incorrect; it should read 'like most of the people who moved to Delhi rather than being born here'. Being is the present participle used to introduce a non-finite clause.

2) "I have been to India." This is the present perfect of be (and been is the past participle), where be means go.

3) Similarly please put some light on usage of "being"-- use being like any present participle:

Continuous (Progressive) forms: I am being funny; he is just not laughing.
Gerund: Being funny is a way of life. My hobby is making people laugh.
Nonfinite clauses: Being ignorant, I couldn't answer any of the questions. My teacher, seeing my distress, helped me a bit.

Re: gerund or participle

CalifJim — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:00:29 GMT

For a participle, think adjective, think -ing (present participle) or -ed or -en or -n (past participle).
For a gerund, think noun; think -ing.

a thundering voice. (adjective, present participle)
a closed door (adjective, past participle)
a hidden motive (adjective, past participle)

Marilyn enjoyed baking cakes. (noun, gerund)
Finding the keys is not going to be easy. (noun, gerund)
Mark wasn't good at spelling. (noun, gerund)

Participles are also used in introductory phrases like the following:

Passing the post office, I suddenly remembered that I needed stamps.
Startled by the children, the puppy let out a yelp.
Finding the keys, Melissa was relieved.
(Compare with finding the keys as a gerund, above.)

CJ

Please, I need help!-->++++

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:48:26 GMT

Ã I need some corrections in these sentences. The first two ones are from a grammar book but the book gave the simple gerund as an answer and I think that without context my option could be right:

He denied having been driving (driving) so fast.

He denied having broken (breaking) into the shop.

Which is the difference between both options? Are both rights?

Ã What would you say: to leap into/ to. I wrote in a writing: âwith this novel the author leaps to adult narrativeâ and the thing is that I handed out this piece of writing two times and the teacher corrected just in one of them writing leap into instead of leap to.

Ã How do you say the time after war? Post-war????

Ã In order to write with letters 19 do you write nineteenth?? (the teacher corrected it saying that it is not the right spelling but my computer accepts it!

Re: Possessive before a gerund.

Skater — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:23:03 GMT

Thanks. I hadn't thought of checking the OED on a grammatical point.

As I don't have the Chicago Manual of Style or any similar American reference work near to hand, I did a quick Internet search ("Chicago Manual of Style" + gerund + possessive) to see if I could find anything citing the Chicago Manual on this point. I didn't find an exact match specifically quoting the manual but did come across a number of sites (submission guidelines for various American academic institutions or scholarly publications, for example) citing it generally, and every single one of them said the gerund requires a possessive in this context.

I quess this may be one of those points on which someone, faced with a somewhat haphazard historical British usage, has imposed a more logical and consistent rule on American English (as Webster did with spelling -- often with reference to Latin, in which, incidentally, the gerund would always take the possessive). The OED does, however, seem to draw a distinction between "current spoken English" and written English, so presumably the possessive rule is still the correct one -- it's just that speakers "commonly" overlook it.

I don't agree, by the way, that the possessive sounds "pedantic or archaic." The same observation could be made about many examples of careful use of language, but if one's brain processes language according to a set of logical rules, it is actually quite difficult and awkward to stray just because one is speaking instead of writing.

Re: Dangling

Casi — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:49:18 GMT

Ooh, yes, very nice addition, and it fits well with the ambiguity notion.

If a speaker wants to express two thoughts: tense + tense, wherein 'tense' refers to a subject+verb structure, and the subject in the lesser clause is the same as the subject in the main clause, then as a means of efficiency, the speaker will omit the lesser subject-verb structure, and replace it with a structure that fits the syntax. And that structure could either be a participle or a gerund, because adverbs modify both, which is where ambiguity sets in:

Verb => Participle and Gerund
After I swam (subject+verb) a few lengths, I took a shower.
1a. After swimming (participle), I took a shower. (adverb+participle)
1b. After swimming (gerund), I took a shower. (preposition+participle)

And just to make things even more problematic for the descriptive linguist--poor Swan--in that context; i.e., following 'After', participles merge to gerunds:

Participle => Gerund
2a. After my swimming lesson (participle), I took a shower. (participle+noun)
2b. After swimming (gerund), I took a shower. (gerund; 'swimming' represents a noun phrase; no "Cube" gymnastics happening here. Just omitted words, that's all.)

OK. So why isn't there a 2c.? That is, why not "After swimming (participle), I took a shower"? Well, I bet there is, and that descriptive linguists are dealing with the same question. One problem I see is with meaning. In terms of semantics, what does 2c. "After swimming" actually mean? That is, can an adverb pre-modify a participle? And if so are there any other like structures in the grammar? Moreover, and this is what sociolinguists are probably asking: when a speaker reduces a participle+noun phrase (2a.) to a noun phrase (2b), s/he knows it's a noun, and yet does the listener/reader also know it's a noun? If so, how do speakers pick up on that reading--context most likely--and if not, then speaker A thinks 'gerund', whereas listener A thinks 'participle', which is an excellent example of efficiency gone wrong. Here we've an "efficiency" process (Reduction) that generates ineffective communication, which, rightly so, manifests itself in dicussions about its function. (As Sherlock says, "The answer, my Dear Watson, is always in the question.") In sum, I believe we're dealing with ambiguity: it all makes sense, and then it doesn't make sense.

Here's the link to the 'copular' quote:

http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/The%20Parts%20Of%20Speech.htm

Scroll down to where it says, Adverbs. The bit we're interested in is located at the very end that section. It's a two-liner. You can't miss it.

Looking forward to the discussion ahead.

Apologies for the spelling and whathaveyou errors. It's late.

Re: Being

miriam — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:31:36 GMT

Andrei,
Nice theory, but I'm afraid it won't work!
Let me explain.

First of all, "I can't stand your being here." (or even "you are being here", if it were correct), is different from "you are a being a teacher" (which isn't 100% correct either).

In English, the use of the verb "to be" in progressive tenses is not common because "to be" is a "stative" verb. It does not denote action, but state or existence. There are other verbs like "to be" which are generally not used in progressive tenses (seem, appear, etc.).

"You are a teacher" is correct. With the professions, you don't use progressive forms. You are a teacher today, and you won't lose your degree toorrow. You can say "you are teaching", and that's different. You are teaching now, but you won't be teaching this evening. Still, you are a teacher now and also in the evening.
Does it make sense so far?

I can think of a couple of contexts in which "you are being a teacher" would be correct, but if I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The same happens with "you are here". It is not correct to say "you are being here" because it is, simply, not necessary. You are here, upstairs, in the bedroom, on the roof. The verb "to be" in this case denotes state.

When you introduce yourself to someone, you say "I'm Andrei", not "I'm being Andrei". Why? Because that will not change. You will surely still be Andrei tomorrow.

So, the following are correct:

2. "You are a teacher; we appreciate your presence here."
If you want to use a progressive tense, you could say, for example:
"You are teaching here and we appreciate it."
Can you see the difference?

4. "Everybody appreciates your presence here."
Compare this sentence to: "Everybody appreciates your being here." They are similar; the difference is that in the first you have a noun (presence) and in the second you have a gerund (it is not a noun but functions as one).
Both sentences are correct.
Also, compare the second to "I can't stand your being here", which is also correct.

Let's see now the difference between:
a. "I can't stand your being here." (correct)
and
b. "I can't stand that you are being here." (incorrect)
The expression "can't stand" (meaning "can't bear) is followed either by a noun (or a nominal construction) or by a gerund. So, here is the problem: "being" is a gerund in sentence "a", but it is a present participle in sentence "b". Both words have the same spelling but they are different and have different functions. "Being", in sentence "b" is used to form a verb tense, and that is something a gerund cannot do.

Does this help?

Re: Help need from grammarian.

miriam — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:17:10 GMT

Hello, mona
The real grammarians out there must be busy trying to think of more rules to make our lives miserable. ~laughs~

I don't think I can help you with all of it, but I'll do what I can. and I hope I've understood your question, to begin with.

1. The four prepositions can take a noun phrase as object.
"John is as intelligent as her sister."
"I thank you for your help."
"This table is made of the finest wood."
"I'm going camping with a few of my friends."

2. I'm not sure what you mean by 'PP'. That usually means 'prepositional phrase', but I don't think it would make sense here: a preposition followed by a prepositional phrase? Can you please explain to me what you meant by 'PP'?

3. Gerunds can follow these prepositions, but I don't think that present participles can. Although both have the same spelling, they are different types of words and function differently.
"Thank you for writing back."
"I'm tired of working on Saturdays."
"What's the problem with staying up late?"
"Writing your autobiography would be the same as writing a soap opera."

4. I'll have to think about 'whether'. My first idea was to say that you can't use it after those prepositions, but the truth is that I'm not sure at the moment.

5. If I got 'tensed declarative clause' right, then the four prepositions can take one as object.
"That's the woman for whose brother I fall."
"I'm going out tonight regardless of what he may say about it."
"He's the type of man with whom I'd never go out even for a coffee."
"This isn't the same as what you said yesterday."

Let's hope all the above are correct!

Miriam