# when meeting, when to respond (gerund/infinitive)



## skiarttya

I need to explain the use or not of gerund forms in the following sentences:


*1. *They may lack confidence when *meeting* alumni or recruiters, and some haven’t learned how to react appropriately to rejection or critical feedback.
*2.* Ernst & Young encourages some students to take writing courses, teaches them presentation skills and helps them figure out when *to respond* by phone or in person rather than with an email or text.

I understand that either sentence doesn't work if we swop gerund and infinitive. But I don't know how to explain this usage.

Is there a general rule about when we use '-ing' or 'to inf' after 'when'? or it is not related to the 'when'? 
Can anyone help me with it? 
Thanks!


----------



## Pass Time

Someone who is very strong on the grammar may have a definite rule. All I can point out is that "when *meeting*..." is an adverbial phrase and "when to respond" is a direct object. Sorry I can't be more specific and no doubt someone will dispute my terminology but that's how I see it.


----------



## geostan

when meeting is equivalent to when they meet (an adverb clause);  when to respond is equivalent to when they should respond (a noun clause, answers the question what?)


----------



## skiarttya

So does this make a rule? 

like adverb clauses work with gerunds, noun clauses work wiith infinitives.


----------



## The Newt

The difference is clearer when you restore the implied verbs:
_
When* they are* meeting alumni or recruiters... _(requires -ing form because it's a present progressive)_
When *they ought *to respond to..._ (infinitive following "ought")


----------



## Nino83

The second sentence (as it was said by geostan) is a noun clause introduced by _when_. If I'm not wrong, in this case _when_ is an interrogative adverb that introduces an indirect question. In this case the infinitive is used. 
For example: _He doesn't know how *to do* it__/whether *to invite* her/when *to go* there_. 

In the first sentence, the _-ing_ form is (it should be) a present participle, a contraction of the present progressive form.


----------



## wordcrafter82

Yes as indicated beforehand the 2nd, we use the infinitive because if reflects the object of the verb.

The  1st had me a little confused, I thought it was the reduced relative  clause with the gerund in the present simple, but you still have 'when'  in the sentence, so that 

'they may lack confidence *when* *they meet* alumni or recruiters'

this can be reduced to

'they may lack confidence *meeting*  alumni or recruiters' - this is the reduced relative clause using the  gerund, because you can omit the noun clause because the subject is  clear that performs both verbs.
But as your sentence still reflects the 'when', In this case i believe the reason is just a  noun-clause with the gerund in the present simple, we can omit the  subject pronoun because it is clear the subject acts on both verbs.
This is what I believe any way, perhaps there is a simpler rule that explains it.


----------



## Nino83

wordcrafter82 said:


> 'they may lack confidence *meeting*  alumni or recruiters' this is the reduced relative clause using the  gerund, because you can omit the noun clause because the subject is  clear that performs both verbs.



Reduced relative clauses require the _present participe_ (not the _gerund_).


----------



## wordcrafter82

Nino83 said:


> Reduced relative clauses require the _present participe_ (not the _gerund_).


Yes I know, that is why they are called participle clauses, I thought that perhaps because in Spain they don't differ between gerund and  present participle. Anyway, I retracted though, and said it is a noun-clause.


----------



## Nino83

> _*participle clauses following conjunctions and prepositions
> *Participle clauses, with *-ing* particularly, can be used after various conjunctions and prepositions,      such as: *when, while, before, after, on, without, instead of*. Note the following examples:
> __             Remember to take all your belongings with you when leaving the train._



http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv305.shtml 

Also in this case it's a _present participle_ and it's an adverbial clause too.


----------



## skiarttya

Ok! I think I'm able to explain it now. Thank you very much! Although you can keep discussing the issue if you wish! I'd be happy to see more comments about it! 

Thank you Nino83, this site helped a lot.


----------



## wordcrafter82

Yes but, I think we are getting our wires crossed, the 'when meeting' is an adverbial clause but the meeting itself does not function as a time adverbial clause because the when is there, the gerund 'meeting' here is is reflecting only 'they meet' so 'meeting' reflects the noun clause only, you cannot say the gerund functions here as an adverbial clause because the when is there. That was the point I made before in the reduced relative clause above, the gerund or the participle 'meeting' functions as an adverbial clause because it replaces 'when they meet' which is an adverbial clause.
they may lack confidence *when* *they meet* alumni or recruiters- 'when they meet' is an adverbial clause
they may lack confidence *meeting* alumni or recruiters, 'meeting' functions as an adverbial clause
they may lack confidence when *they meet* alumni or recruiters, 'they meet' is a noun clause
they may lack confidence when *meeting* alumni or recruiters, 'meeting' functions as a noun clause.
That was the point I was making before in my previous post. You can't say the gerund functions as a adverbial clause because when is there. No?


----------



## SevenDays

skiarttya said:


> So does this make a rule?
> 
> like adverb clauses work with gerunds, noun clauses work wiith infinitives.



If you already have a direct object (_they may lack confidence_; where "confidence" is the direct object of "may lack"), then "when" functions adverbially, with the meaning of "while", which makes "when" compatible with the gerund, because both suggest "ongoingness." In the second example, if we give a direct object to "figure out," then the gerund works, for example: _helps them figure out the answer_ (direct object) _when responding by phone or in person_. If "when" is part of the direct object, "when" introduces a non-finite clause, and that clause needs to be the infinitive, because the infinitive is _prospective_ in meaning; that is, the non-finite clause needs to express "future" from the moment of speaking, and that's why the infinitive (and not the gerund) is used: _figure out when to respond by phone or in person; tell me when to call; they told the man when to speak_, etc.   
Cheers


----------



## wordcrafter82

SevenDays said:


> If you already have a direct object (_they may lack confidence_;  where "confidence" is the direct object of "may lack"), then "when"  functions adverbially, with the meaning of "while", which makes "when"  compatible with the gerund, because both suggest "ongoingness."
> Cheers


Now we are really confusing the matter, lets make it clear 'when' in this sentence is an  adverb, that is clear. Why functions and why are you changing from one  temporal adverb to another 'while' I don't know, they don't mean the  same thing, 'when' means immediately after and 'while' means at the same  time. I don't know why you are over-complicating things, if you are  saying that after temporal adverbs we use the gerund, I would agree. But  that was said above.
After temporal adverbs including prepositional  adverbs (when, while,after,before) we use the gerund afterwards to  reflect the reduced form of the time related clauses when the subject  refer to the same thing or person. 
I think the simple answer to the  question is that here, if like in sentence 1. 'when' is an adverb it is  followed by the gerund ('when *meeting* alumni or recruiters') and if like in sentence 2. 'when' is a pronoun (interrogative), it is followed by the infinitive ('when *to respond* by phone or in person'), I think this is what the two sentences are implying. 
I'm  sorry, I went quickly through the other posters comments before, I  thought that was clear above, but now that I have reread the other  posters comments and maybe this wasn't so clear. I thought everything  else was merely adding interesting facts, which I got caught up in.
Rule: After temporal adverbs are usually followed by gerund, and after pronouns and nouns are usually followed up by the infinitive.


----------



## Nino83

Hi wordcrafter. 
So the question is whether _meeting_ (after _when_) is a gerund or a present participle? 
It's so difficult to say it because Modern English melted these two forms (the form of the _past participle,_ -_ende,_  with the form of the _gerund_, _-ing_). 
Simply _BBC_ site says that _when + -ing_ denotes a _"participle clause following conjunctions and prepositions"_, making it equal to an adverbial clause. 
It is clear that _when + -ing_ is an adverbial (temporal) clause and it's diffrent from the first sentence, that is a noun clause. 
So this is the question. The second sentence is and adverbial (temporal) clause, not a noun clause.


----------



## wordcrafter82

Hi Nino83
Yes, you are right, I keep forgetting that what?Who?Which?  are interogative pronouns and when?why? I'm sure there are more, are  interrogative adverbs. But in this case after interogative adverbs and interogative pronouns they are usually followed by the infinitive, but the reason the y are followed by the infinitive is because its an interrogative clause. I did mention anyway to Sevendays that the answer was already given beforehand, I didn't actually realise it was you who had given it.


----------



## JennyTW

Wordcrafter, you say "'..when' means immediately after and 'while' means at the same time." but in this context it's not true. You are saying this;

 They may lack confidence immediately after meeting alumni or recruiters,

which is completely wrong. Sevendays is right about the similar on-goingness of "when" and "while". 
You also say

I think the simple answer to the question is that here, if like in sentence 1. 'when' is an adverb it is followed by the gerund ('when meeting alumni or recruiters') and if like in sentence 2. 'when' is a pronoun (interrogative), it is followed by the infinitive ('when to respond by phone or in person'), I think this is what the two sentences are implying. 

For a student of English, I don't think this is a simple explanation at all. How are they supposed to know if "when" is an adverb or a pronoun, when on the surface of it the two sentences look similar? I like Sevendays' idea of 'on-goingness' as opposed to 'future projection'. The student only has to think of what is being talked about ( is it 'when I am doing something at that moment' or 'when I have to/should do something in the future'?)
I use this same idea to explain when to use the gerund or infinitive after 'stop', and with a slight variation, after 'remember' or 'forget' (does the action happen before or after the remembering etc?).


----------



## Nino83

JennyTW said:


> For a student of English, I don't think this is a simple explanation at all. How are they supposed to know if "when" is an adverb or a pronoun, when on the surface of it the two sentences look similar?



It depends. If the student speaks a Romance language this is not so difficult, because in indirect questions (noun clauses) he normally uses the infinitive. The problem comes when, after a conjunction, there is the gerund. A Spanish speaker would use, for example with the adverb _after_, the past infinitive. Unfortunately, the Spanish speaker doesn't know that the English gerund is equal to the Romance infinitive (he could know it if he studied Latin, because in that language the gerund was used for declining the infinitive, while in a later stage the gerund changed function, but in Spain, Latin is no longer studied at school, so they re-connect the English gerund to the Spanish gerund in the progressive tense without knowing that in English the progressive tense requires the present participle, and not the gerund). English grammar books don't explain at all these matters, so it's also their fault (of the books). 

_He doesn't know when to do it = no sabe cuando hacerlo_ (it's equal), but _after having done = después de haber hecho_ (English gerund and Spanish infinitive).


----------



## JennyTW

Nino83 said:


> It depends. If the student speaks a Romance or a Germanic language this is not so difficult, because in indirect questions (noun clauses) he normally uses the infinitive. The problem comes when, after a conjunction, there is the gerund. A Spanish speaker would use, for example with the adverb _after_, the past infinitive. Unfortunately, the Spanish speaker doesn't know that the English gerund is equal to the Romance infinitive (he could know it if he studied Latin, because in that language the gerund was used for declining the infinitive, while in a later stage the gerund changed function, but in Spain, Latin is no longer studied at school, so they re-connect the English gerund to the Spanish gerund in the progressive tense without knowing that in English the progressive tense requires the present participle, and not the gerund). English grammar books don't explain at all these matters, so it's also their fault (of the books).
> 
> _He don't know when to do = no sabe cuando hacer_ (it's equal), but _after having done = después de haber hecho_ (English gerund and Spanish infinitive).



Lo correcto sería: He doesn't know when to do... (It's the same). 

Por supuesto que muchas veces se puede dar explicaciones gramaticales comparando con el español. En el caso de la pregunta original, sería "cuando hacer = when to do" y "cuando hacen/ hacemos/haces/se hace etc" =when doing (además de "when they/we/you do etc"). 

Pero en la enseñanza de inglés es bueno saber también explicaciones que no se basen en comparaciones con otro idioma porque sirven para alumnos de todos los países.


----------



## Nino83

JennyTW said:


> Pero en la enseñanza de inglés es bueno saber también explicaciones que no se basen en comparaciones con otro idioma porque sirven para alumnos de todos los países.



El facto es que ni en los libros inglés-español se encontran estas explicaciones. Esta cosa es una grave carencia, en mi opinión. Muitas veces en las escolas se utilizan libros em inglés que no explican bien la gramática. 

Es indicativo que también la BBC llame _participle clause following conjunctions and prepositions_ frases que utilizan el gerundio, confundiendo a los lectores.


----------



## wordcrafter82

I wish I could understand why you want overcomplicate things. So you are saying that 'They may lack confidence while *meeting*  alumni or recruiters', sounds the same as 'when', because it doen't to  me. While normally indicate thet two events are mutually exclusive (two  events happen together with no clausal link), 'when' links both clauses.  When is conditional here, as far as I know you don't use 'while' in a  conditional sentence. The 'when' indicates a causative form they lack  confidence because of meeting alumni, and to me it does mean imediately  after, the 'may' suggests possibility but this is still a causative  form. They lack confidence imediately after meeting alumni what happens  after is indeterminate indicating they react indiffirently, some  probably continue to lack confidence and others don't, until you read  the following statement you don't know. When can suggest ongoingness or  not in this case, depending on how each person deals with this, but this is  not relevant anyway the when indicates a clausal correlation the while  doesn't.

Is it the same to say I get sick when I drink and I get  sick while I drink, no they don't, when indicates a causal link between  drinking and being sick, also while indicates that you only get sick  during the period you drink, 'when' can indicate they get sick during  the period of drinking or it can can happen after drinking.


----------



## JennyTW

I wish you could understand that I DONT want to complicate things. As a teacher I try to make things as simple as possible for my students. If I were to give my (Spanish) students your simple explanation that they should use -ing when 'when' is an adverb and the infinitive when it's a pronoun, 99% of them would just look at me blankly. 

'While' can't always be used instead of 'when' but that doesn't mean it never can. Consider;

The phone rang while/when I was having a shower. 

Your example of 'when I drink' is not a valid comparison as it isn't using 'when + -ing', which is what this debate is about. 

'When' can indeed mean 'after', but not always. What about -

'It's a good idea to wear sturdy shoes when walking in the country'. What does this mean? That you should wear sturdy shoes AFTER walking in the country? I don't think so. And it doesn't mean 'after' in the case of meeting alumni etc. They don't brightly say hello', shake hands firmly and then suddenly lose confidence. They lack confidence during the process of meeting alumni. 

Oh and by the way, your use of 'mutually exclusive' is incorrect. It actually means that one event cannot occur at the same time as another, not the opposite, as you state.


----------



## wordcrafter82

Well, this time we can agree to disagree, the example I used I believe  to be the same. the drink causes me to be sick and the alumni and  recruiters cause them to lack confidence. When you use 'when' here you  identify a causal link between them.

As far as your example used,  well I would say that your example is not similar to the example of the  original context. The telephone ringing and taking a shower are  mutually exclusive, as I stated before, it reflects two events happening  at the same time or not with no causal connection between them, meaning  one occuring doesn't affect the other event. Mutually exclusive is a  stastitical condition, for example if I pick a card from a deck and return it and  pick card again, they are mutually exclusive, if I pick a card and don't  return it, the second card I pick is not mutually exclusive because I  have fewer cards to choose from, hence my second pick is influenced by  first, there is  a causal link between them. Whether the events occur at  the same time is indifferent, they can happen at the same time or ten years apart. Anyway, the example given in the original  context is a conditional statement, one action affects the other, can  you use while in a conditional sentence? 

Pure grammatacist  wouldn't use when in the example you have given, in my view, they would  use while. But I would accept that it is used in this scenario that you  have given, and is semmantically and grammtically consitent. Pure  grammaticists would use when either expressing a time causal event or  when one action happens immediately after the other like 'the telephone  rang when he left the office' if I used 'while' here it changes the  meaning, if you use while it indicates during the action of leaving the  office. For 'when' here I could use 'after' as a prepostional adverb  also to have the same semmantical understanding but I wouldn't identify  it as having the same meaning.

We can have the grammatical tug of war until we are blue in the face. If the notion you are stipulating  is that when and while fall into the same semmantical definition in  certain scenarios, I'll agree only with one stipulation that these scenarios  are limited. The question here is, are they similar in the original  context you say yes, I say no. For me this is a conditional statement.

Certainly,  not all gammatacists have to agree all the time in this forum, you have  stated your case, I have stated mine. Others will have to weigh up the  arguments provided to side with one.


----------



## wordcrafter82

JennyTW said:


> Oh and by the way, your use of 'mutually exclusive' is incorrect. It  actually means that one event cannot occur at the same time as another,  not the opposite, as you state.


I just realised that this eventuality is possible under one  circumstance, if the causal relationship linking the two events is time  itself. If we say one event is me obtaining a job in Madrid for the  summer and another event is also obtaining a job offer to work in London  for the summer, then here we can say that these events aren't mutuallly  excusive to me, both actions or both events can't happen at the same  time, but only because time is the causal link here. But as I indicated  beforehand the causal relationship doesn't have to be time, it can be  many other things as stated in the example in my prior post.


----------



## modulus

Pass Time said:


> Someone who is very strong on the grammar may have a definite rule. All I can point out is that "when *meeting*..." is an adverbial phrase and "when to respond" is a direct object. Sorry I can't be more specific and no doubt someone will dispute my terminology but that's how I see it.



This is an amazingly good answer from a person who claims no knowledge of grammar.


----------



## JennyTW

Woodcrafter -  "While normally indicate(s) thet two events are mutually exclusive (two events happen together with no clausal link)"


Wikipedia - "Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both."


----------



## wordcrafter82

JennyTW said:


> Wikipedia - "Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at  the same time. An example is tossing a coin once, which can result in  either heads or tails, but not both."



Well if that's the  definition and explanation given wikipedia, then, that's it, case  closed. The example given here doesn't even have two events, it shows  one event with two possible outcomes, if you are indicating  if you toss  a coin twice what is the probilility of heads coming out twice. Yes that  describes two mutually exclusive events and I understand why wikipedia  and school textbooks use this explanation to explain basic game theory,  because it's a tricky concept to grasp, so they explain it two  dimensionally where time is a constant factor, to make it easier on the  student.

I'll put your example in another way, two people  flipping two coins at the same time, what is the probability of two  heads appearing, statisticians cannot study the probillity of this case  aswell, how do you describe these two events, they are occuring at the  same time. Let me assure that they are defined as mutually exclusive. If  you look at any advanced textbook on game theory they describe mutually  exclusive as 
Two events are *mutually exclusive* if the outcome of one doesn't affect the outcome of the other. 

Anyway  you assertion that I have stipulating that the two events are happening  at the same time in the original context, is not what I am suggesting  at all, well at least I didn't mean to, I have always indicated that  the event of meeting the alumni and recruiters affect consequently the  event of lacking in confidence, remember it is you who is indicating the  events happen at the same time, I said one happens after and  consquently after the other. Anyway I don't want get into this, as we  are veering away from the objective of this particular post.

Final scores just in
Wikipedia 0 wordcrafter 1


----------



## JennyTW

Ha ha ha ha! Well that's that then, isn't it?

(I have no way of knowing what you meant to say. I only know what you actually said and that's what I quoted in my post #26 from your post #21).


----------

