While I found your discussion interesting the lesson fails to penetrate into my dullard mind such that it can be put to use. It's like water off of a duck's back, I can see it and feel it, but it doesn't penetrate into my being enough to be useful.
I use grammar the way I learned to play the guitar, by ear. Both painfully obvious to everyone! Were it not for Grammarly, I simply could not write on Substack, period. Yet, I find myself correcting Grammarly often, which is sort of scary.
Anyway, I did make it all the way through your post and enjoyed it!
It might help to remember that gum can’t chew anything, so “chewing gum” can’t refer to gum that is chewing. Boots can’t hunt, so “hunting boots” can’t refer to boots that are hunting. Unless, of course, you’re going for some silly word play.
Although it is fiction, would Jack's beanstalk qualify as both a climbing stalk (a thing that is climbing) AND a climbing stalk (intended for climbing)?
In our yard we have a climbing tree and a swinging tree. The kids climbed in one and had a swing in the other. The climbing tree was always climbing higher (though very slowly), and in a high wind, the swinging tree could also be a swinging tree.
I don’t know about these two examples because I still stress the words differently when I speak. For the kitchen tool, I stress “smoking” and for the other option I put more of a stress on “gun.”
Racing bikes- the bike that is used a for racing, I put the stress on “racing.”
Bikes that are racing right now- the stress is less noticeable, but “bikes” has a hint more stress when I say it. So for me, it still follows the pattern.
As for the gentleman with explosive dogs that are sniffing, well, I plan to stay far away from all those dogs and explosives! I don’t even think the right kind of smoking gun would help me in that situation.
I was following along beautifully, even reading bits and pieces out loud to my annoyed fourteen year old who is studying gerunds right now. And then I got to the very end about how hunting boots/hunting boots don't count. I didn't understand why they don't count .... So I must not have understood the post as well as I thought. Argh!
As a native English speaker, I intuitively know things such as hunting wolves are/is, but as a long time student of a foreign language (German), I love hearing the grammar explanations of why. Understanding the why of my native language helps me better understand the why of another language - even if its why is very different. The grammar explanations provide an important mental hook for me to latch onto as my mind reaches to master the other language's grammar.
I'd really like to better understand why hunting boots doesn't count. Not knowing will keep me up a night or two. Haha!
Hey, Lari...maybe it helps to go back to "racing bikes" (bikes made for racing)/"racing bikes" (bikes that are in a race, whether they are designed for racing or not). In both senses, the noun is "bikes" and "racing" modifies the noun.
"Hunting boots/hunting boots" on the other hand, is different. There is one use in which "boots" is the noun and "hunting" modifies "boots," as in a sentence like "These are my cowboy boots, these are my work boots, and these are my hunting boots."
But in any other use I can think of, "boots" is the direct object of "hunting." Consider the sentence "I am tired of hunting boots that my dog has carried off." In that case, "hunting boots" is a gerund phrase serving as the object of the preposition "of." Or consider this exchange: "What are you doing in the closet?" "I am hunting boots." In that case, "hunting" is part of the verb phrase "am hunting" and "boots," again, is the direct object.
I felt the same way at the very end. Perhaps our mental trains have been built for the same style of track? Thanks for asking this, Lari; because you asked I've gone back to try to "sonify" my cognitive dissonance. (However, my conclusion could be wrong, so hopefully someone can clarify if I'm offbase.)
JR put out four categories in bold: 1) progressive verb tenses, 2) gerund, 3) gerund phrase, 4) present participle. He is looking for participles that act like gerunds. But "hunting boots" and "chewing gum" examples fall in the gerund phrase category (#3).
For my part, I'll have to memorize the fundamental differences between categories in order to go on this quest.
Actually if my theory is correct, what I'm looking for is gerunds that act like participles...phrases that I have always thought of as participles (as in swimming trunks, running shoes), but may actually be gerunds—trunks (for the purpose of) swimming, shoes (for the purpose of) running.
You are correct that chewing gum and hunting boots are disqualified because they are gerund phrases (#3).
That second one is a gerund, Sandee. "Flashing lights" is the subject of the sentence. It's hard coming up with examples that don't turn out to be gerund phrases!
Yes, I realized after I saw your response that I was thinking one of the examples was supposed to be a gerund. I got a little lost in my head. I’m also now tapping out syllables and stresses on my wrist like I did in grade school when I was trying to figure out where to put the accent mark. Thanks for that.
I got one: Explosive sniffing dogs. Explosive SNIFFING dogs.
That's a game changer.
Where can I purchase one of these smoking guns?
Just kidding lol
While I found your discussion interesting the lesson fails to penetrate into my dullard mind such that it can be put to use. It's like water off of a duck's back, I can see it and feel it, but it doesn't penetrate into my being enough to be useful.
I use grammar the way I learned to play the guitar, by ear. Both painfully obvious to everyone! Were it not for Grammarly, I simply could not write on Substack, period. Yet, I find myself correcting Grammarly often, which is sort of scary.
Anyway, I did make it all the way through your post and enjoyed it!
More Principle Parts Please!!!
It might help to remember that gum can’t chew anything, so “chewing gum” can’t refer to gum that is chewing. Boots can’t hunt, so “hunting boots” can’t refer to boots that are hunting. Unless, of course, you’re going for some silly word play.
If I’m understanding correctly.
Does “tuning fork” work? Also, hear me out.
Driving moccasins (tasteful shoes)
Driving moccasins (snakes that have earned their driver’s licenses.)
Driving moccasins...of course. How did I not think of that one?
Interestingly, I will be wearing these on my drive tomorrow.
That’s tasteful!
Although it is fiction, would Jack's beanstalk qualify as both a climbing stalk (a thing that is climbing) AND a climbing stalk (intended for climbing)?
Ah, that's a good one. Thanks!
In our yard we have a climbing tree and a swinging tree. The kids climbed in one and had a swing in the other. The climbing tree was always climbing higher (though very slowly), and in a high wind, the swinging tree could also be a swinging tree.
I don’t know about these two examples because I still stress the words differently when I speak. For the kitchen tool, I stress “smoking” and for the other option I put more of a stress on “gun.”
Racing bikes- the bike that is used a for racing, I put the stress on “racing.”
Bikes that are racing right now- the stress is less noticeable, but “bikes” has a hint more stress when I say it. So for me, it still follows the pattern.
As for the gentleman with explosive dogs that are sniffing, well, I plan to stay far away from all those dogs and explosives! I don’t even think the right kind of smoking gun would help me in that situation.
this is so much fun!
I was following along beautifully, even reading bits and pieces out loud to my annoyed fourteen year old who is studying gerunds right now. And then I got to the very end about how hunting boots/hunting boots don't count. I didn't understand why they don't count .... So I must not have understood the post as well as I thought. Argh!
As a native English speaker, I intuitively know things such as hunting wolves are/is, but as a long time student of a foreign language (German), I love hearing the grammar explanations of why. Understanding the why of my native language helps me better understand the why of another language - even if its why is very different. The grammar explanations provide an important mental hook for me to latch onto as my mind reaches to master the other language's grammar.
I'd really like to better understand why hunting boots doesn't count. Not knowing will keep me up a night or two. Haha!
Hey, Lari...maybe it helps to go back to "racing bikes" (bikes made for racing)/"racing bikes" (bikes that are in a race, whether they are designed for racing or not). In both senses, the noun is "bikes" and "racing" modifies the noun.
"Hunting boots/hunting boots" on the other hand, is different. There is one use in which "boots" is the noun and "hunting" modifies "boots," as in a sentence like "These are my cowboy boots, these are my work boots, and these are my hunting boots."
But in any other use I can think of, "boots" is the direct object of "hunting." Consider the sentence "I am tired of hunting boots that my dog has carried off." In that case, "hunting boots" is a gerund phrase serving as the object of the preposition "of." Or consider this exchange: "What are you doing in the closet?" "I am hunting boots." In that case, "hunting" is part of the verb phrase "am hunting" and "boots," again, is the direct object.
Does that help?
I felt the same way at the very end. Perhaps our mental trains have been built for the same style of track? Thanks for asking this, Lari; because you asked I've gone back to try to "sonify" my cognitive dissonance. (However, my conclusion could be wrong, so hopefully someone can clarify if I'm offbase.)
JR put out four categories in bold: 1) progressive verb tenses, 2) gerund, 3) gerund phrase, 4) present participle. He is looking for participles that act like gerunds. But "hunting boots" and "chewing gum" examples fall in the gerund phrase category (#3).
For my part, I'll have to memorize the fundamental differences between categories in order to go on this quest.
Actually if my theory is correct, what I'm looking for is gerunds that act like participles...phrases that I have always thought of as participles (as in swimming trunks, running shoes), but may actually be gerunds—trunks (for the purpose of) swimming, shoes (for the purpose of) running.
You are correct that chewing gum and hunting boots are disqualified because they are gerund phrases (#3).
Enjoyed the post! Please explain more parts. Can't get too grammary for me.
Flashing lights—-Flashing lights warned us of the speed trap ahead.
Flashing lights—Flashing lights is helpful.
That second one is a gerund, Sandee. "Flashing lights" is the subject of the sentence. It's hard coming up with examples that don't turn out to be gerund phrases!
Yes, I realized after I saw your response that I was thinking one of the examples was supposed to be a gerund. I got a little lost in my head. I’m also now tapping out syllables and stresses on my wrist like I did in grade school when I was trying to figure out where to put the accent mark. Thanks for that.
Don't overthink it. Be athletic!
I am all in on this. When will you explain 'ablative absolutes'? Hopefully, you can describe the asverbal equivalent in English.
Unless I'm mistaken, Jerry, the closest thing in English to the ablative absolute is the nominative absolute.
Here's an article I wrote about nominative absolutes: https://thehabit.co/nominative-absolutes/
Or, if you prefer, here's a video: https://vimeo.com/317680024/ae4389e8c4?share=copy