# ing form after the linking verbs "get, become, seem"



## yakor

Hi!
Is it possible to use present participles as adjectives after the linking verbs?
She became (got,seemed) boring.


----------



## lucas-sp

"Boring" isn't a present participle (at least not any more). It's a deverbal adjective: over time we stopped associating it with the verb from which it was derived, and now it feels just like any other adjective. So you can use it after any linking verb. (The same is true for other deverbals like "thrilling," "exciting," "interesting," etc.)

Now, as for more verb-y present participles, it's much harder to use them with these linking verbs:

She got/became/seemed sewing/flying/running/aching 

That's because those participles are still forms of verbs. We'd just say "She began to sew/fly/run/ache."


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> That's because those participles are still forms of verbs. We'd just say "She began to sew/fly/run/ache."


Thank you!
  All ing adjectives and ing nouns came from only intransitive verbs?


----------



## lucas-sp

No:

She became/got/seemed hitting/blocking/naming/helping me 
She started/began to hit/block/name/help me


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> No:
> 
> She became/got/seemed hitting/blocking/naming/helping me
> She started/began to hit/block/name/help me


Now, It seems you don't get my question.  I don't see some contrary to my question in your answer.
I would like to know if all ing adjectives and all ing nouns came from intransitive verbs.
If we saw an ing adjective or an ing noun we could be sure that they came from an intransitive verb. 
"helping" in your example is a participle from the intransitive verb (yes?), not the adjective. I say about wide-spread ing adjectives and nouns. They all came from only intransitive verbs? I think not. (interesting from the transitive "interest") I think nouns too.


----------



## lucas-sp

> I would like to know if all ing adjectives and all ing nouns came from intransitive verbs.


Do you mean deverbal nouns and adjectives ending in "-ing"? They can come from both transitive and intransitive verbs: "a boring person," "an exciting movie," "a running joke," "a beautiful painting," "a film screening," etc.

There are no hard-and-fast rules about the creation of these deverbals. It really just depends on what form has been used in the past, and eventually became the most popular.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Do you mean deverbal nouns and adjectives ending in "-ing"?


I really don't know what is possible to mean else?
I mean the adjectives you provided in #6 posts, that are used attributively.
Is it possible to use the direct object of the ing forms when the ing forms are modified by adjectives, noun, pronouns.
For example,"*this painting trees seems tedious" "Her feeling the pain was strong"*(or because "painting" and "feeling" are the nouns they couldn't take the direct object? It should be,"This painting of trees seems tedious. Her feeling of the pain was strong) I hope you get me.
Is it possible to use the direct object of the ing form when it is used as the adjective after the linking verb?
She seemed interesting everyone. (or some examples else)


----------



## lucas-sp

Again, there are many questions here, and it would really help if you could use a clearer vocabulary, especially since these are all -ing forms (but not "the -ing form of the verb," i.e. the gerund-participle). Gerunds and participles are *verbal* nouns and adjectives; there are also *deverbal* nouns and adjectives.

Q1) Some words ending in -ing are deverbal nouns and adjectives. But can the same word *also *be a verbal noun or adjective?
A1) Certainly. Compare:

a) The painting of trees was tiresome.  "Painting" is a deverbal noun. Notice how it doesn't take a direct object, but instead a prepositional object. We're talking about an object here - a "painting" on canvas that depicts trees.
b) Painting trees is tiresome.  "Painting" is a verbal noun - a gerund. Notice how it takes a direct object. We're talking about an action here - the act of painting trees. We could rephrase this as "It's tiresome to paint trees."

c) Her feeling of pain was intense.  Deverbal noun; prepositional object. "Feeling" here means "sensation," "experience."
d) Feeling intense pain from her broken leg, Sharon limped weakly across the room.  "Feeling" is a participle - a verbal adjective. Notice that it takes a direct object ("intense pain") and introduces a participial phrase, all of which modifies "Sharon."

As you can see, verbal and deverbal forms of the *same word* often have *different meanings*. That's one reason we call them "deverbals" - their meaning has diverged from the underlying meaning of the base verb.

Now, question 2:





> Is it possible to use the direct object of the ing form when it is used as the adjective after the linking verb?
> She seemed interesting everyone. (or some examples else)


I don't understand this question. But...

After "She seemed..." you need a deverbal, not a verbal, adjective. So:

a) She seemed interesting everyone.  As seen above, deverbals take prepositional objects, not direct objects. This is wrong.
b) She seemed interesting to everyone.  Now that the deverbal "interesting" has a prepositional object, the sentence is right. The meaning, however, is "Everyone thought that she seemed interesting."
c) She seemed to be interesting everyone.  Now we're dealing not with the deverbal "interesting," but instead with the gerund-participle ("the -ing form") of the verb "to interest," being used to form a progressive infinitive ("to be interesting"). The infinitive takes a direct object. This sentence means "It seemed that she was interesting everyone."

Again, notice that the meaning of the sentence changes dramatically based on whether a verbal or deverbal word is used.


----------



## yakor

Thanks lucas,
So, if the ing form is modifired by the noun and pronoun , or the adjective or article attributively  it is always the deverbal noun, not the gerund, and could take only the prepositional object? It is wrong to say, "Her feeling pain was intense. OR Our painting these trees lasted two hours. 





lucas-sp said:


> c) Her feeling of pain was intense.  Deverbal noun; prepositional object. "Feeling" here means "sensation," "experience."
> d) Feeling intense pain from her broken leg, Sharon limped weakly across the room.  "Feeling" is a participle - a verbal adjective. Notice that it takes a direct object ("intense pain") and introduces a participial phrase, all of which modifies "Sharon."


Also, if the clause Feeling intense pain from her broken leg, modifies "Sharon", does it mean that this clause is a relative clause?
To me, it is an adverbial modifier, and this phrase(clause) doesn't modifies "Sharon".


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> a) The painting of trees was tiresome.  "Painting" is a deverbal noun. Notice how it doesn't take a direct object, but instead a prepositional object. We're talking about an object here - a "painting" on canvas that depicts trees.


If the painting is not  process here but picter, then how could it be "tiresome"? I think the most appropriate word is "dull" for it.
Also, what do you mean under the "prepositional object"? It is the "trees" or "of trees" (the noun with the preposition)
Also, you meant "subject", not "object"( We're talking about an object here - a "painting" on canvas that depicts trees).


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Thanks lucas,
> So, if* the ing form* is modifired by the noun and pronoun , or the adjective or article attributively  it is always the deverbal noun, not the gerund, and could take only the prepositional object? It is wrong to say, "Her feeling pain was intense. OR Our painting these trees lasted two hours.


The -ing form is always the gerund-participle. It is the -ing form _of the verb_. A deverbal noun like "a painting" (meaning "a piece of painted canvas presented as an art project") _is not_ the -ing form, because it is no longer part of the verb. In other words, in "Tom's drawing of his cat" and "Tom enjoys drawing his cat" the two words spelled "drawing" _are in fact entirely different words_. The first is a deverbal noun; the second is a gerund-participle and a form of the verb "to draw."

But the -ing form of a verb can still be used as a gerund (one of the uses of the -ing form) _even if there is also a deverbal noun spelled the same way as the -ing form_. So "Our painting the trees took two hours" is a grammatical sentence. _However_, it is too confusing to be written or spoken, because _usually_ "painting" when used as a noun is the deverbal noun "painting" (and not the gerund "painting"). A native speaker would naturally say "It took us two hours to paint the trees," instinctually avoiding the more confusing sentence.





> Also, if the clause Feeling intense pain from her broken leg, modifies "Sharon", does it mean that this clause is a relative clause?
> To me, it is an adverbial modifier, and this phrase(clause) doesn't modifies "Sharon".


Relative clauses are introduced by relative pronouns. In fact, I would only say that something is a "clause" if it has a finite verb. I would _only_ call "Feeling intense pain from her broken leg" a _participial phrase_ (a group of words introduced/governed by a participle). To a native speaker, this particular participial phrase _can only modify "Sharon."_ That's just how we understand participial phrases.


yakor said:


> If the painting is not  process here but picter, then how could it be "tiresome"? I think the most appropriate word is "dull" for it.
> Also, what do you mean under the "prepositional object"? It is the "trees" or "of trees" (the noun with the preposition)
> Also, you meant "subject", not "object"( We're talking about an object here - a "painting" on canvas that depicts trees).


We can call pictures "tiresome" or "dull." Both can collocate. A tiresome picture is a picture that gets tiresome, that eventually bores you. I only chose "tiresome" because I didn't want to create more problems by using its synonym "boring."

A "prepositional object" is the object of a preposition. In the sentence "Have you heard of Tom?" "Tom" is the prepositional object of the preposition "of." Transitive verbs have _direct_ objects - that is, objects which are not introduced by a preposition. Compare:

A) Tom painted his cat.
B) Tom loves painting his cat.
C) Tom's painting of his cat sold for $1000.

In A) "his cat" is the _direct object_ of the verb "painted." In B) "his cat" is the _direct object_ of the gerund "painting." But in C) "his cat" is the _prepositional object_ of the deverbal noun "painting."

Other kinds of deverbals can have prepositional objects: "Her imitation of _Julia Child _is hilarious," "Her portrayal of _an incompetent city councilperson_ won her an Emmy," "You will be refunded upon the submission of _your receipts_." If we re-wrote those sentences to use the verbs "imitate," "portray," and "submit," the prepositional objects would become direct objects in the new sentences.





> Also, you meant "subject", not "object"( We're talking about an object here - a "painting" on canvas that depicts trees).


No, I meant "object" in the sense of "item, physical thing." My apologies for using a confusing word!


----------



## yakor

Hello, lucas-sp,
Thanks for your answer. Everything is clear. I just used the term the  "ing form" in common sense, for words ending with "ing". If it is wrong  for deverbal nouns, ok, it is taken in.
So, gerunds could be modified attributively, like deverbals, by nouns,  pronouns and even adjectives, only articles "the" and "a" couldn't  modify them. (be used before them) Could you tell me if every deverbal  noun with  the ing-ending needs an article before itself? Or there are ing  deverbals that are used without any article? If so, how could one know  if it is the gerund of an intransitive verb OR deverbal?
Also, when we deal with the ing words (deverbal adjectives) after the  linking verbs, these adjectives couldn't take the direct objects? (She  seemed/was interesting everybody.) In the case with "was interesting  everybody" we deal with just the continuous form of the verb?   





lucas-sp said:


> Relative clauses are introduced by relative pronouns. In fact, I would  only say that something is a "clause" if it has a finite verb. I would _only_ call "Feeling intense pain from her broken leg" a _participial phrase_ (a group of words introduced/governed by a participle). To a native speaker, this particular participial phrase _can only modify "Sharon."_ That's just how we understand participial phrases.


I agree about "clause". I have read that there are also, "non-finite reduced" clauses. Long story...
Could you tell me please, if the participle phrase modifies the  noun(pronoun)/phrase then its function seems to be the adjectival  modifier, not the adverbial..
But in most cases it is really adverbial. How to explain this? Two functions for one phrase?


----------



## lucas-sp

> I agree about "clause". I have read that there are also, "non-finite reduced" clauses. Long story...


Leave them to the linguists. For me, in terms of grammar, clauses have finite verbs in them.





> Could you tell me please, if the participle phrase modifies the noun(pronoun)/phrase then its function seems to be the *adjectival* modifier, not the adverbial..
> But in most cases it is really adverbial. How to explain this? *Two functions for one phrase?*


Exactly: participial phrases can modify nouns or whole sentences, in which case they are more adverbial. I would say that more often they modify nouns. But this is a question about participial phrases.





> So, gerunds could be modified attributively, like deverbals, by nouns, pronouns and even adjectives, only articles "the" and "a" couldn't modify them. (be used before them) Could you tell me if every deverbal noun with the ing-ending needs an article before itself? Or there are ing deverbals that are used without any article? If so, how could one know if it is the gerund of an intransitive verb OR deverbal?


Unfortunately, I doubt that there is a hard-and-fast rule. Instead, both gerunds and deverbals follow the general rules of article use, which depends on whether a noun is countable or uncountable, whether it's plural or singular, etc. etc. _(If I had to generalize - and I think it's a bad idea - a gerund will normally take no article, while a deverbal noun ending in -ing will more commonly take an article.)_

A verbal noun (a gerund or an infinitive) still belongs to the semantic field of the verb. It will focus more on the action communicated by the verb. A deverbal noun, meanwhile, will focus less on the action and its meaning will be less constrained to the semantic field of the verb.


----------



## yakor

Hello,lucas!


lucas-sp said:


> d) Feeling intense pain from her broken leg, Sharon limped weakly across the room.  "Feeling"  is a participle - a verbal adjective. Notice that it takes a direct  object ("intense pain") and introduces a participial phrase, all of  which modifies "Sharon."


 
I'm not sure that I get the function of this participle phrase.  Every participle phrase modifies the noun/noun phrase. Yes? To me, if  something modifies the noun/pronoun/phrase, it is nothing else than the  adjectival modifier. But it is evident that  Feeling intense pain from her broken leg  is a reduced non-finite adverbial clause(sorry that I intruded into  linguistic) It says about, points out the fact, at which she limped  across the room. Also, there are many cases when participle phrase,  describing the noun has the adverbial function. (Standing near his  house, Jack was talking with someone) I don't know what to think about  these cases.From one side this participle describes the subject, but  from the other hand it is the adverbial. So, what is correct to say about  the function of the participle(participle phrase) in this case?


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> I doubt that there is a hard-and-fast rule. Instead, both gerunds and deverbals follow the general rules of article use, which depends on whether a noun is countable or uncountable, whether it's plural or singular, etc. etc.


You mean that gerunds admit using articles "a" and "the" before them?


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> You mean that gerunds admit using articles "a" and "the" before them?



Example: The Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare).


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Example: The Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare).


But you gave the example of a deverbal, that takes the prepositional object. It is not a gerund. I'm in a big doubt that any articles are used before gerunds, though nouns, pronouns and adjectives seem to be used before them..
Person's/our painting these trees was long. (Person/we painted these trees long)But not, the painting these trees was long.


----------



## e2efour

Other examples of a "gerund" preceded by_the_:
"The shooting took place on Saturday night."
"The (quality of) painting was abysmal." (i.e. painting carried out on a house)

_Deverbal_ is not a term that I use. I prefer _the -ing form of the verb_.

In your example above you should say _The painting of/Painting these trees was a long process._


----------



## lucas-sp

e2efour said:


> _Deverbal_ is not a term that I use. I prefer _the -ing form of the verb_.


The deverbal and the -ing form of the verb are *absolutely different things*. When this entire post is about the difference between the two categories, it doesn't seem helpful to me to deny the difference.

But e2efour is completely right: "taming" in _The Taming of the Shrew_ is a gerund. It refers to the act, the process of taming. "Taming" is not (yet) a deverbal noun. The dictionary confirms this: there is no entry for "taming."

I also thought of other titles, like Martin McDonagh's _A Behanding in Spokane_ or Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark."

To me, "shooting" can be both a deverbal noun ("a gangland shooting took place last night") or a verbal noun ("shooting a movie takes weeks"). You see the difference between the first word, which focuses on a historical and complete event, and the second, which focuses on an active, ongoing process. The first is semantically more noun-like, the second semantically more verb-like.


----------



## yakor

Hello,


lucas-sp said:


> The deverbal and the -ing form of the verb are *absolutely different things*.


I agree.



lucas-sp said:


> But e2efour is completely right: "taming" in _The Taming of the Shrew_  is a gerund. It refers to the act, the process of taming. "Taming" is  not (yet) a deverbal noun. The dictionary confirms this: there is no  entry for "taming."


But why then the gerund is modified by the article? You mean that every gerund could be modified by any article?
I  think "taming" is a deverbal here. It takes the prepositional object.  If it were the gerund it would take the direct object. "timing" here, I  think,  "focuses on a historical and complete event". Everything was  completed by the "timing". Also, "timing" is a name of the MULTIPLE  different actions, not one long action. 
e2efour says that "painting" is a gerund in "The (quality of) painting was abysmal." (i.e. painting carried out on a house)...
But  I think it is necessary to put the article "the" before  "painting"..."this/the painting" because "painting" is used in the sense  of " the picture on the wall".
Or, painting is one lasting process here?


----------



## e2efour

If workmen paint a house, we talk about the quality of (their) painting, which is a "gerund" or verbal noun. If you have asked them to paint the outside of your house, you will want to know how long the painting (of the house) will take (e.g. one week). So it is clear that gerunds (or at least some of them) can take _the._
Similarly, in _His style of running is extraordinary = his style when running is extraordinary_ we again hav e a gerund/verbal noun).

Deverbal nouns formed from, for example, -ing are usually count nouns and the result of the -ing action from which they were originally formed (e.g. building, filling etc.) They are occasionally non-count (clothing, stuffing). They are *not* so-called gerunds or participles, so do not really belong to any discussion of these terms.

I can understand that you may find it difficult to know whether or not an -ing noun is a deverbal, but the best test I can think of at the moment is that deverbals nearly always take a plural "s" (which _taming_ cannot). When I see the word building (=house), the idea of a verb never enters my head.


----------



## yakor

If you use "of" after "painting" you deal with the deverbal noun. Gerunds (verbal nouns) take only the direct object. To me it is not clear at all that gerunds could take the prepositional objects and be modified the articles.
The paintiong of something could take two weeks. (the real noun)Compare.."The voyage took two weeks"


----------



## e2efour

We seem to be going round in circles!

_The painting of the house_ can mean two things:
a) A portrait of the house (deverbal count noun).
b) The process of painting the house (gerund or verbal noun).


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> _His style of running is extraordinary = his style when running is extraordinary_ we again hav e a gerund/verbal noun).


When he doesn't run, his style of running is still extraordinary.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> I can understand that you may find it difficult to know whether or not an -ing noun is a deverbal, but the best test I can think of at the moment is that deverbals nearly always take a plural "s" (which _taming_ cannot). When I see the word building (=house), the idea of a verb never enters my head.


There are many uncountable nouns and nouns that could have the meanings that are not countable (choice could be countable and uncountable (instead of choosing), but it is still the noun). "the timing of" is a typical noun using. It calls the action when one tames at all, not is taming from one to two o'clock.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> We seem to be going round in circles!
> 
> _The painting of the house_ can mean two things:
> a) A portrait of the house (deverbal count noun).
> b) The process of painting the house (gerund or verbal noun).


It means that your explanation about deverbals doesn't work? To me, the real. usual noun could  call the process of doing something at all, not in a concrete time. (sleep, choice, love)There are a lot of deverbals, that doesn't have -ing form. (the big/great thirst of knowledge)
==============
Also, what about "The bread is cut by knife" "knife" is a prepositional object of "cut", but "cut" is not the adjective, but the part of the simple  verbal predicate "is cut".


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> If you use "of" after "painting" you deal with the deverbal noun. Gerunds (verbal nouns) take only the direct object. To me it is not clear at all that gerunds could take the prepositional objects and be modified the articles.
> Examples of gerunds followed by a preposition:
> _I hate listening to pop music.__
> She enjoys the singing of the choir_._
> Singing in the rain is bad for you.__
> We’re fed up with his quarrelling with everyone. _
> ​
> The painting of something could take two weeks. (the real noun) Compare.."The voyage took two weeks"
> Painting here could be a deverbal, but it can also be a verbal noun (the action or process of painting). There is a difference between someone finishing a painting (deverbal) and house painters finishing their painting (verbal noun). These are two completely different meanings of painting. If it's a deverbal, you can destroy it, make a copy of it, give it to someone, etc.
> 
> It means that your explanation about deverbals doesn't work? To me, the real. usual noun could call the process of doing something at all, not in a concrete time. (sleep, choice, love)There are a lot of deverbals, that doesn't have -ing form. (the big/a great thirst for knowledge)
> I thought we were talking about deverbal nouns in –ing.
> 
> Also, what about "The bread is cut by knife" "knife" is a prepositional object of "cut", but "cut" is not the adjective, but the part of the simple verbal predicate "is cut".
> I don’t understand how this is relevant.


 
Verbal –ing forms (i.e. gerunds and verbal nouns) can be followed by prepositions and preceded by the definite article, an adjective or an adverb. This is not true in every case for the other -ing form (participle). Do you disagree with this?


----------



## lucas-sp

> There is a difference between someone finishing a painting (deverbal) and house painters finishing their painting (verbal noun). These are two completely different meanings of painting.


That's really important. Let's look at two completely different, but equally grammatically-correct sentences:

*He's finishing his painting of the house. *= He, the artist, is currently putting the finishing touches on a painting, an object that he has produced. That painting depicts a certain house, but at no point did any paint actually go on the house; all the paint went onto the canvas that he's working on. "Painting" is a deverbal noun.

*He's finishing his painting of the house.* = He, a house painter, is currently completing the final part of the big project that he is working on. That project is to put a new coat of paint on the exterior of a physical house. "Painting" is a verbal noun/gerund. (This sentence is a bit stilted to me as a younger American, but it is correct English.)

Prepositions, possessives, and articles are red herrings; they can't always help you figure out whether a word is a verbal or a deverbal noun. Only meaning - the way a word is used - can do that.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Examples of gerunds followed by a preposition:
> _I hate listening to pop music.__
> She enjoys the singing of the choir_._
> Singing in the rain is bad for you.__
> We’re fed up with his quarrelling with everyone. _


To be followed by the prepositions doesn't mean to take the prepositional objects.


----------



## e2efour

Can you give an example?


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Verbal –ing forms (i.e. gerunds and verbal nouns) can be followed by prepositions and preceded by the definite article, an adjective or an adverb. This is not true in every case for the other -ing form (participle). Do you disagree with this?


Participles are another story. We talk about gerunds and deverbals.
I'm not sure that I get you. Why did you write "gerunds and verbal ing nouns". Are they not the same thing? I'm confused. 
What is the difference between them? Also, what is the difference between verbal nouns and deverbal nouns?(I don't mean the nouns ending with -ing)


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Can you give an example?


See your examples.

Examples of gerunds followed by a preposition:
_I hate listening to pop music.
She enjoys the singing of the choir_._
Singing in the rain is bad for you.
We’re fed up with his quarrelling with everyone. __pop music is a direct object of the phrasal gerund.
"singing" is a deverbal noun here, you can break it by turning off the radio."singing" is "sounds" the choir make.  If you think it is the gerund, could you tell me which is the difference between "(the choir's singing" and "the singing of the choir")?
What is the difference between "the painting of the house" (painting is uncountable here) and "painting the house"?
rain is not the object of singing. 
_


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> I'm not sure that I get you. Why did you write "gerunds and verbal ing nouns". Are they not the same thing? I'm confused.
> What is the difference between them? Also, what is the difference between verbal nouns and deverbal nouns?(I don't mean the nouns ending with -ing)


A deverbal noun is a *count noun* (often ending in -ing) formed from a verb (e.g. _discovery. building_). (Unfortunately some people call such nouns verbal nouns.)
A verbal noun is nearly always a type of gerund (e.g. the crowning of the queen).
The other type of gerund, which is not a verbal noun, is as in _He kept on banging his head against the wall._
But the modern name for verbal nouns and gerunds is the gerund-participle or the -ing form of the verb.

The advantage of using _the verbal -ing form_ is that you then don't have to say whether something is a participle, a gerund or a verbal noun, which can sometimes be somewhat difficult.


----------



## lucas-sp

Okay, let's just clear up some confusion here, because there are way too many definitions and misconceptions.





e2efour said:


> A verbal noun is nearly always a type of gerund (e.g. the crowning of the queen).
> The other type of gerund, which is not a verbal noun, is as in _He kept on banging his head against the wall._


No, the gerund is always a verbal noun.

There are two kinds of verbal nouns in English: gerunds ("Scott loves fishing") and infinitives ("Scott loves to fish").

Let's look at "He kept on banging his head against the wall." The difficulty with this sentence is that it is difficult to determine whether "banging" is a gerund or a participle. That's why many grammarians would call "banging" a gerund-participle, or the -ing form of the verb. Doing so best describes the way that English speakers use such words; we use them in certain situations without really thinking about whether they are nouns or modifiers.





> A deverbal noun is a *count noun *(often ending in -ing) formed from a verb (e.g. discovery. building).


Again, no. Not all deverbal nouns are count nouns, although they can be count nouns. ("Love" is a non-count deverbal noun, for instance; of course a different meaning of "love" is also a count deverbal noun.) The difference is that deverbal nouns have moved quite strongly away from their verbal origins: they are modified by adjectives and not adverbs, for instance, and they don't take direct objects. So compare:

The house-painter finished _carefully painting_ the house. = gerund/verbal noun
The artist finished his _careful painting_ _of_ the house. = deverbal noun

The difference between gerunds and deverbal -ing nouns is a matter of degree, and probably taste. In some situations it will be impossible to determine conclusively whether something "is" a gerund or a deverbal noun. *Instead of worrying too much about these terminological issues, non-native learners of English should spend their time learning what various words ending in -ing mean in specific contexts, observing what native speakers do with these words, and thus getting a feeling for **how to use these words correctly.*

In other words: We native speakers know what we mean with these -ing words, and we know how to use these -ing words. But we often have no idea of whether an -ing word we're using perfectly correctly and perfectly meaningfully "is" a gerund, a participle, or a deverbal. The question of what these words "are" is only important to linguists.


----------



## yakor

Hi, lucas! Could I send you the PM a little later? I'm afraid about confusion about -ing form in this thread.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> We seem to be going round in circles!
> 
> _The painting of the house_ can mean two things:
> 
> b) The process of painting the house (gerund or verbal noun).


What is the difference between the "gerunds" "painting" in  _The painting of the house_ and "painting" in Painting the house?


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> What is the difference between the "gerunds" "painting" in  _The painting of the house_ and "painting" in Painting the house?


"Painting the house": "painting" here will always be the gerund-participle / the -ing form of the verb "to paint." All by itself, it's impossible to tell whether the word "painting" "is" a gerund or a participle, but we know that it's not a deverbal because "painting" is taking a direct object.

"The painting of the house": "painting" really looks like a deverbal here; it feels a lot like the object "a painting."


----------



## yakor

Yes, "gerund" is"ing" form of the verb as well as "participle". No problems.
I'm not sure that I get the meaning "The painting of the house" It means the act of imaging something on the house? While "painting the house" you "image the house on the paper"?


----------



## lucas-sp

No, "painting the house" (gerund) is "the action/act/process of painting the house": "Painting the house will take five hours."

"The painting of the house" (deverbal noun) is "the object produced by painting the house on canvas": "We hung the painting of the house over the fireplace in the living room."


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> No, "painting the house" (gerund) is "the action/act/process of painting the house": "Painting the house will take five hours."


What you want to say by "no"?? I don't see any negation in your answer. When you are painting the house you imagine,feature or make the picter of the house on the paper or somewhere else. You disagree? What is it you disagre with?
Also, I don't ask about the first meaning "the painting of the house" when it is the object and you could take it and hang on the wall. It's clear. I mean that I'm not sure that I get the first meaning. Read the post e2e #23
_The painting of the house_ can mean two things:
a) A portrait of the house (deverbal count noun).
b) The process of painting the house (gerund or verbal noun).                 
Painting the house=The painting of the house?


----------



## e2efour

_Painting the house _can mean
a) creating a picture of the house.
b) putting paint on the house (i.e. covering the outside with paint).

_The painting the house _is not a possible English phrase.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> the meaning "The painting of the house" means the act of imaging something on the house? While "painting the house" you "image the house on the paper"?





lucas-sp said:


> No, "painting the house" (gerund) is "the action/act/process of painting the house": "Painting the house will take five hours."
> 
> "The painting of the house" (deverbal noun) is "the object produced by painting the house on canvas": "We hung the painting of the house over the fireplace in the living room."





yakor said:


> What you want to say by "no"?? I don't see any negation in your answer. When you are painting the house you imagine,feature or make the picter of the house on the paper or somewhere else.


I'm sorry, yakor, but I didn't quite follow the contrast you made in post #38. It was confusing. Up until that point we were focusing on the difference between "painting a house" (putting paint on the outside of a house) and "a painting of a house" (an art object on paper or canvas that depicts a house). In your post #38 I thought you had swapped those two meanings, because I didn't quite understand what you had written.

But in fact, "painting the house" is always ambiguous - you could either be making a picture of the house on paper or canvas, or applying coats of paint to the exterior of the house. If that's what you were trying to say, I agree with you.

Now, as to "the painting the house": no, that's not possible, as e2e4 said. Once a gerund takes the first step towards deverbalization, it can take a definite article like "the," it can no longer take direct objects*, and it is modified by adjectives instead of adverbs. So maybe we should distinguish between a "pure" gerund like "Painting the house took five hours," a slightly deverbal gerund like "The painting of the house took five hours," and a much more deverbal deverbal like "He produced a beautiful painting of the house."

*Or, it takes direct objects in a different way: "skeet-shooting," "trash-talking," etc.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> _The painting the house _is not a possible English phrase.


Yes, because the articles are not used before transitive gerunds. So, transitive gerunds couldn't become deverbal nouns. Deverbal nouns could only come from the intransitive gerunds.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Yes, because *the articles are not used before transitive gerunds*. So, transitive gerunds couldn't become deverbal nouns. Deverbal nouns could only come from the intransitive gerunds.


That's not true. The question of transitivity/intransitivity doesn't enter into it at all. And we've seen transitive gerunds take articles before, in "The Taming of the Shrew."


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> That's not true. The question of transitivity/intransitivity doesn't enter into it at all. And we've seen transitive gerunds take articles before, in "The Taming of the Shrew."


I think the word "taming" is still not a noun of the dictionary because the verb "tame" is still not considered as the intransitive verb. Only transitive.
I wonder if one could use "taming" in,"This animal doesn't lend oneself to the taming" (or something like that)(in sense "this animal is too hard to be tamed.(a hard nut to crack). Do you see that "taming" is used in intransitive meaning too sometimes?
"To tame is a task of a tamer" I'm sure all "ing" nouns that mean things or process came from intransitive sense. (other (de) verbal nouns too)
"to tame" - make someone manageable, "He is good in a taming".(it doesn't matter who he tames)


----------



## lucas-sp

No, "tame" in "the taming of the shrew" is transitive. Its object is "the shrew." But because "taming" is acting as a _slightly_ deverbalized (but not fully lexicalized) form, it takes a prepositional object instead of a direct object.

Transitivity/intransitivity has _nothing_ to do with this.

PS. Native speakers don't like to use transitive verbs intransitively, so "He's good at taming" isn't something a native speaker would say or write without an added reason. We would naturally add something else in there so that "taming" had an object: "He's good at taming wild birds," or "He's good at lion taming."


----------



## yakor

You think it came from the intansitive verb, it is the reason that "taming" is not still deverbal. (only slightly as you say) All deverbals are from intransitive verbs, because they are as real, pure nouns has no direct object. They take the preposition complement, that is not the direct object. 

the thirst for power  and the thirst of power have different sense. (thirst is always intransitive)


----------

