# Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court



## Sutemi

"Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court."

The point here is that can you have triple gerunds? Or long string of gerunds? "Failing" in this case is a preposition, so it needs to be followed by a gerund. After "admit", you also need a gerund. So is the sentence correct?

There is no source, I just made up the sentence.

P.S. I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with a long string of continuous gerunds. Just for the heck of it.


----------



## PaulQ

Your example looks like a headline in a newspaper; headline have their own rules that are usually designed to pack the maximum information in the minimum space. It could also be a terse answer:

Motorist: " Why are you doing that?! Shouldn't you simply fine me?"
Policeman: "Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court." i.e. "You have failed to admit to the offence of speeding, I therefore cannot give you a fine and your case must be heard in court."

PS 
Here is a headline with Gerund and strings in it: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/gerund_mickens_suspect_in_stri.html (I couldn't resist that one.  What a strange name!)


----------



## Copyright

I'm not a rules guy, but your rule strikes me as wrong, e.g. He was arrested for failing to stop. 

Your sentence is wrong for me for a couple of reasons: 1) It should begin with "Failing to admit to speeding," and 2) that phrase needs to be followed by the person, not the case -- the case wasn't failing to admit speeding.

_Refusing to admit to speeding, the man was jailed and is awaiting trial. _


----------



## perpend

The sentence in the OP is correct, Sutemi.

"failing" is not a preposition in that case.


----------



## wandle

What an excellent example: you have put three ing-forms together in a way that makes good sense.
However, I disagree with PaulQ's explanation of it.


PaulQ said:


> Motorist: " Why are you doing that?! Shouldn't you simply fine me?"
> Policeman: "Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court." i.e. "You have failed to admit to the offence of speeding, I therefore cannot give you a fine and your case must be heard in court."


'Failing *x*' in this kind of phrase is equivalent to a connditional clause. It means 'if *x* is not forthcoming'.

Hence 'Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court' means 'Unless you admit to speeding, the case will go to court'.


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> What an excellent example: you have put three gerunds together in a way that makes good sense.
> However, I disagree with PaulQ's explanation of it.
> 
> 'Failing *x*' in this kind of phrase is equivalent to a conditional clause. It means 'if *x* is not forthcoming'.


Come on wandle! Absent context, you can't disagree! The best you can say is, "*It is also possible that *'Failing *x*' in this kind of phrase is equivalent to a conditional clause."

Anyway, I thought of a string. Context: a man out fishing receives a text message asking him how he is, he replies: "Missing fishing wishing raining stopping."


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

The sentence _Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court _strikes me as ungrammatical because I can hardly imagine a case which admits speeding.
I forget the labeling of this type of error, but isn't it similar to the one we find in "Walking to school it began to rain"?

GS


----------



## Sutemi

Yes Giorgio. That's a classic example of a shortened sentence that has a confusion in the subject. Maybe "_Failing admitting speeding, his/her case will go to court" _would  create less confusion. However, I think that there isn't too much  confusion in this case and the sentence is readable.



perpend said:


> The sentence in the OP is correct, Sutemi.
> 
> "failing" is not a preposition in that case.



Thank you, but I disagree.


> _prep_: _(used to express a condition)_ in default of failing a solution this afternoon, the problem will have to wait until Monday


Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/failing

Barring the possible subject confusion, I certainly see "failing" as a preposition in this case.



> I'm not a rules guy, but your rule strikes me as wrong, e.g. He was arrested for failing to stop.
> 
> Your sentence is wrong for me for a couple of reasons: 1) It should  begin with "Failing to admit to speeding," and 2) that phrase needs to  be followed by the person, not the case -- the case wasn't failing to  admit speeding.



1) I think that "failing" is a preposition here, so it needs to be followed by a gerund.
2) Yes, this is correct. "His/her case" would be better, but I think the sentence still functions well the way it is.

What do you think?


----------



## perpend

What if it were "Failing admitting perjury ...", Sutemi?


----------



## wandle

> 'Failing x' in this kind of phrase is equivalent to a conditional clause. It means 'if x is not forthcoming'.


_Pace_ PauQ, I stick with this view. 'Failing *x* in this kind of phrase does mean 'if *x* is not forthcoming'.
That is because the present participle does not express completed action. Thus it cannot mean that the failure is final.


----------



## Sutemi

perpend said:


> What if it were "Failing admitting perjury ...", Sutemi?



That's fine. "Perjury" is a noun and "speeding" functions as a noun. Both are fine in this case because an object is needed.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I feel that I'm walking on thin ice here


----------



## wandle

'Failing' is not a preposition, but a participle. 'Failing *x*' is a participial phrase.
Every participial phrase is equivalent to a clause.
The phrase 'failing admitting perjury' is equivalent to the clause 'if you fail to admit perjury'.


----------



## Sutemi

Actually I don't think that there is any subject confusion in the sentence.

As I quoted before:


> _prep_: _(used to express a condition)_ in default of failing a solution this afternoon, the problem will have to wait until Monday


Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/failing

No one thinks that the problem is trying to solve itself. I think the word "failing" has a special characteristic in this case, meaning something general like wandle said 'if *x* is not forthcoming'. It doesn't matter what who or what the subject is in the main sentence.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Sorry, I think the whole sentence was wrong from the start, not only for the reasons given above (hanging participle) but simply because it doesn't sound like English.  What a native speaker would say is:

Failing an admission of speeding...
In the absence of an admission of speeding...
Failing you admitting speeding...


----------



## Sutemi

Keith Bradford said:


> Sorry, I think the whole sentence was wrong from the start, not only for the reasons given above (hanging participle) but simply because it doesn't sound like English.  What a native speaker would say is:
> 
> Failing an admission of speeding...
> In the absence of an admission of speeding...
> Failing you admitting speeding...



I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but what about the example that Free Dictionary gives?


> _prep._ In the absence of; without: Failing new evidence, the case will surely be lost.


Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/failing

I don't think this is about hanging participle, because it doesn't apply in this structure because of the preposition. How come the example given in the Free Dictionary is right and mine is wrong? I don't get it, sorry. I object to the notion that there is a hanging participle, and I do think it sounds like English.


----------



## Keith Bradford

_Failing _+ noun is OK; _failing _+ present participle isn't OK.

But honestly, I don't make the rules, I just tell you what I see.  To my ear, "_Failing admitting speeding..._" isn't English.


(PS.  Add to my list of preferable alternatives: "If you don't admit...")


----------



## wandle

Sutemi said:


> what about the example that Free Dictionary gives?
> 
> 
> 
> prep. In the absence of; without: Failing new evidence, the case will surely be lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/failing
> I don't think this is about hanging participle, because it doesn't apply in this structure because of the preposition. How come the example given in the Free Dictionary is right and mine is wrong? I don't get it, sorry. I object to the notion that there is a hanging participle, and I do think it sounds like English.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with The Free Dictionary. 


> Failing new evidence, the case will surely be lost.


'Failing new evidence' is not a hanging participle, but an absolute participial construction, equivalent to the clause: 'If new evidence is not forthcoming'.


----------



## wandle

Keith Bradford said:


> _Failing _+ noun is OK; _failing _+ present participle isn't OK.
> But honestly, I don't make the rules, I just tell you what I see.  To my ear, "_Failing admitting speeding..._" isn't English.
> (PS.  Add to my list of preferable alternatives: "If you don't admit...")


Personally, I would prefer 'Failing an admission of speeding ...' every time, but I think the example given is a valid illustration of a possibility worth considering.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

This seems to me to be an area of the grammar in which ungrammaticality is fairly likely even for those who speak English as a mother tongue. For such people grammatical mistakes occur mostly not in simple sentences but in complex ones. Nobody would make a simple sentence like "*An explanation was smiling", but in the series of transformations leading to "*Smiling, an explanation was offered", the speaker lost control of the grammar and put the smile on the face of the explanation.

Thank you, Keith, for helping me recall the name of the mistake: _dangling modifier_. 

Our friends who don't have English as a mother tongue will be able to find some more cases here:

1. Having plenty of time, a movie was suggested
2. Marooned on the island, no hope remained
3. Being only four years old, my mother forgave me
4. Being a grandfather himself, the baby looked pretty cute to Witherspoon

Best.

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sutemi said:


> "Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court."
> 
> The point here is that can you have triple gerunds? Or long string of gerunds? "Failing" in this case is a preposition, so it needs to be followed by a gerund. After "admit", you also need a gerund. So is the sentence correct?
> 
> There is no source, I just made up the sentence.
> 
> P.S. I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with a long string of continuous gerunds. Just for the heck of it.


Hello Sutemi,

How can you at once 1. talk of 'failing admitting speeding' as a triple gerund, and then 2. say that *failing* is a preposition (ie. not a gerund)?

When used as a preposition, *failing *is usually followed by a noun other than a gerund -* Failing an admission of speeding, the case will go to court *would be idiomatic in my view.


----------



## Sutemi

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Sutemi,
> 
> How can you at once 1. talk of 'failing admitting speeding' as a triple gerund, and then 2. say that *failing* is a preposition (ie. not a gerund)?
> 
> When used as a preposition, *failing *is usually followed by a noun other than a gerund -* Failing an admission of speeding, the case will go to court *would be idiomatic in my view.



That's because I use "gerund" and "ing-form" interchangeable. Which is wrong and I see that now.
I understand that a preposition is usually followed by a noun, but still it doesn't the away the fact (I assume it's a fact) that you can say "failing admitting speeding".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sutemi said:


> That's because I use "gerund" and "ing-form" interchangeable. Which is wrong and I see that now.
> I understand that a preposition is usually followed by a noun, but still it doesn't the away the fact (I assume it's a fact) that you can say "failing admitting speeding".


I think you need to be careful what you assume to be 'facts'.


----------



## Sutemi

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you need to be careful what you assume to be 'facts'.



Thank you for the words of wisdom my friend


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Could you find an example in the British Corpus of a gerund after failing, the preposition?  I couldn't.

It's always difficult on the forum when people talk about facts when the 'facts' seem to be anything but.


----------



## Sutemi

Thomas Tompion said:


> Could you find an example in the British  Corpus of a gerund after failing, the preposition?  I couldn't.
> 
> It's always difficult on the forum when people talk about facts when the 'facts' seem to be anything but.





> We use the Gerund after prepositions.


Source: http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/gerund_prepositions_verbs.htm



> List of English prepositions - Single Word - _failing_


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_prepositions

It clearly says that after a preposition, you put the verb in the gerund.
It also clearly says that "failing" is a preposition in the English language.
Is it clearer now? If not, then, honest to God, I don't know how to explain it any better than this.


----------



## Loob

I'm puzzled that this thread has lasted this long.

"Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court." seems completely wrong to me.

"Failing" isn't a preposition, to my mind, whatever wikipedia might say**; and even if it were, I'm not sure the sentence would work.

That said, if Sutemi's question is really:





Sutemi said:


> [...]can you have triple gerunds?


 my answer is "yes, I don't see why not".

Though I can't think of an example at the moment....

------

_**__ EDIT: I subsequently had a re-think about this: see post 37 below._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sutemi said:


> Source: http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/gerund_prepositions_verbs.htm
> 
> 
> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_prepositions
> 
> It clearly says that after a preposition, you put the verb in the gerund.
> It also clearly says that "failing" is a preposition in the English language.
> Is it clearer now? If not, then, honest to God, I don't know how to explain it any better than this.


The problem is that the language can't be constructed like building bricks.

I'm quite prepared to accept that_ failing_ can mean very much the same as_ in the absence of_ or_ without_; so I'm happy to accept that it can perform the function of a preposition.

It's true that if you can use a verb form after a preposition, that verb form is usually a gerund - eg. _Without explaining this thoroughly I'm not going to be able to make my point.
_
But there are some prepositions and prepositional phrases after which a verb form cannot easily be used:_ failing_ and _in the absence of _are two examples, it seems to me.

That's how I see it.  This all means that the form of the sentence in the OP is, I agree with Loob, 'completely wrong'.


----------



## SevenDays

If we start by calling "failing" a preposition, then what follows must be in "ing" form to function as complement of that preposition; it's what traditional grammar calls "gerund." At first glance, "admitting" meets that requirement; that is, "admitting" can function like a noun. However, here, "admitting" has its own complement, "speeding," which makes "admitting" a verb. And that's a problem; "admitting" behaves in two ways: as a *noun* (complement of the preposition "failing") and as a *transitive verb* (with "speeding" as its complement). Insisting that "admitting" is a gerund (noun) and not a verb still poses a problem, because then we would have a "noun" ("speeding") complementing another "noun" ("admitting"), which is not something that nouns normally do. *Failing an admission of speeding* has everything in its proper place: the noun "admission" as complement of the preposition "failing," and a prepositional phrase as modifier of that noun (prepositional phrases commonly function as modifiers of nouns). Can you have triple gerunds? Yes, but I would place them in commas so that they are isolated and not able to take complements (which would render them verb-like): *He admits to lying, cheating, stealing*. The other solution is simply to call these words "ing," and so you could have three consecutive "ing" words (*I wasn't expecting going shopping*) without worrying how each "ing" word functions in the sentence.          
Cheers


----------



## lucas-sp

1. Well, gerunds can have complements, right? "Eating apples is good for your health," for instance.

And gerunds can have complements that are gerunds: "Curbing spending is a main stated aim of the Republican Party."

Presumably, gerunds could have gerunds for complements that themselves have complements, and those complements could have gerunds: "Slowing increasing spending will be necessary if we want to sustain fiscal growth."

In other words, I don't think there's a problem with stacking three gerunds, and it doesn't make any of them into finite verbs. It is _very inelegant_ - English doesn't like phrases like this that are very rhyme-y and jangly, and the stacking of all the words in the same form makes their relationship hard to understand. I'm willing to say that they could always be re-written in more satisfying ways, which will make them relatively rare in the wild (see also: three-infinitive stacks, which are less jarring to the ear but also look ugly: "to start to try to learn to bake pavlova").

2. Whether "failing" is a preposition or participle is unimportant. It's certainly acting as an absolute modifier, as wandle points out (post #17). On another note, prepositions don't "take gerunds," they take nouns (and gerunds are nouns).

3. We haven't yet seen a three-gerund-stack in this thread (except perhaps my execrable "slowing increasing spending"). "Failing admitting speeding" only has two gerunds; Paul's "Missing fishing, wishing raining stopping" has two participles and three gerunds.


----------



## Sutemi

Thank you all so much for the replies so far. It seems that the problem may not be that "failing admitting speeding" is wrong, but that it seems unnatural, not English and - as Lucas pointed out - inelegant.
I'd also like to apologise for confusing all ing-forms as gerunds. Honestly, I thought that ing-form automatically makes any word a gerund. I will not make this mistake again.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, lucas.

gerunds can have complements 
prepositions don't "take gerunds," they take nouns (and gerunds are nouns)

Bestest.

GS


----------



## wandle

It does seem to me that we have reached a sad stage in the decline of English grammar if people can seriously regard the word 'failing' as a preposition.

That 'theory' seems to me the sort of desperate expedient someone might hit on in an exam when asked to explain a phrase such as 'failing new evidence' when they do not know that is a participial absolute construction, analogous to 'God willing' or 'other things being equal'. 

The only difference in this case is that the participle 'failing' has been placed first for the sake of emphasising (a) that it is the most important idea and (b) the conditional sense of the phrase ('should new evidence fail to appear' or 'if new evidence does not emerge').


----------



## Sutemi

wandle said:


> It does seem to me that we have reached a sad stage in the decline of English grammar if people can seriously regard the word 'failing' as a preposition.
> 
> That 'theory' seems to me the sort of desperate expedient someone might hit on in an exam when asked to explain a phrase such as 'failing new evidence' when they do not know that is a participial absolute construction, analogous to 'God willing' or 'other things being equal'.
> 
> The only difference in this case is that the participle 'failing' has been placed first for the sake of emphasising (a) that it is the most important idea and (b) the conditional sense of the phrase ('should new evidence fail to appear' or 'if new evidence does not emerge').



I'm confused. Many sources say that "failing" is (also) a preposition:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/failing_2
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prepositerm.htm (*Deverbal Prepositions)
*http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wordlist/prepositions.shtml
http://www.thefreeresource.com/prep...ions-and-a-list-of-prepositions-with-examples

I don't know what to believe anymore.


----------



## wandle

Deverbal Prepositions? Now I have heard everything. Not even the term 'deverbal' makes sense.
It does demonstrate the lengths human ingenuity can go in creating alternative explanations instead of the real one.

It is depressing to see self-respecting participles solemnly listed in those links as prepositions. 
The root cause of the error seems to me be a simple failure to understand the phrase as a phrase equivalent to a clause, and as a result to treat 'failing' as if it could be understood as a single word.
In the field of translation, this type of error is seen when people try to translate word for word.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sutemi said:


> I'm confused. Many sources say that "failing" is (also) a preposition:
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/learner-english/failing_2
> http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prepositerm.htm (*Deverbal Prepositions)
> *http://www.enchantedlearning.com/wordlist/prepositions.shtml
> http://www.thefreeresource.com/prep...ions-and-a-list-of-prepositions-with-examples
> 
> I don't know what to believe anymore.


As you say, lots of dictionaries class it as a preposition, so I'd believe them.  I don't know if we have people here who will say that_ without _is not a preposition.  We shall see perhaps.

It occurs to me that the gerund after_ failing _might almost work if it was made specific to a person: _Failing his admitting to speeding _is much more acceptable than the phrase in the OP.  I'm not saying it's better than the simple and clear_ If he doesn't admit to speeding. 

_


----------



## lucas-sp

There's nothing wrong with "deverbal" - it just means "coming from a verb." Lots of words in English have come from verbs but have meanings that cannot be exactly reduced to the underlying verb. For instance, look at "sheet metal siding": "siding" is a deverbal noun, coming from the verb "to side," but when we hear "sheet metal siding" we don't "unpack" the word "siding" into a phrase with a finite use of the verb "to side."

Other examples of deverbal prepositions include "concerning," "following," etc. Perhaps you can notice how these words take up new, not-quite-verbal-anymore, uses when you look at a sentence like "Following the movie, we had coffee." It's very hard to "unpack" "following" into a relative clause with the verb "to follow." The point is that it takes on a new use that's not entirely reducible to its use as a verbal word like a participle or gerund. (For a deverbal noun, try "His work gained a large following.")


----------



## Loob

Sutemi said:


> I'm confused. Many sources say that "failing" is (also) a preposition:
> [...]
> 
> I don't know what to believe anymore.


Having pondered some more and read later posts, I think I should modify my comment in post 26. 

I think I'd accept "failing" as a preposition in more-or-less set expressions like *Failing all else*.  So instead of saying _"Failing" isn't a preposition, to my mind_, I should probably have said _To my mind, "failing" is a preposition only in a restricted set of contexts_.

I'm sorry to have contributed to your confusion, Sutemi.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> There's nothing wrong with "deverbal" - it just means "coming from a verb."


'Verbal' means 'coming from a verb'. For example, a gerund is a verbal noun. 
'Deverbal' does not make any sense that I can see. 'De-' is used as a prefix with the sense of 'remove', as in 'decorticated', 'deracinated' etc.

A 'deverbed' preposition would be one with the verb removed, but that still makes no sense, unless you started from a preposition which contained a verb. 

Words like 'siding' and 'following' in those examples are gerunds with a derivative meaning: the product or result of the action, rather than the action itself. This is normal. They are still verbal nouns.

Words like 'following' and 'concerning' are different from 'failing' as in 'failing new evidence'. 

I can see an argument for calling 'following' and 'concerning' in such contexts prepositional participles (not sure if I agree), but not 'deverbal' anything, since the sense of the verb has to remain, or they will lose their semantic meaning.


----------



## cyberpedant

The digital OED has this:
failing,* prep.*
[The *pr. pple.* of fail v., used either with intrans. sense in concord with the following n. or pron. (failing this = ‘if this fail’), or in trans. sense with the n. etc. as object (failing this = ‘if one fail this’).] 
 [my emphasis]
In default of.

The citations go back to 1810 and include Wordsworth and Carlyle.


----------



## Sutemi

Loob said:


> Having pondered some more and read later posts, I think I should modify my comment in post 26.
> 
> I think I'd accept "failing" as a preposition in more-or-less set expressions like *Failing all else*.  So instead of saying _"Failing" isn't a preposition, to my mind_, I should probably have said _To my mind, "failing" is a preposition only in a restricted set of contexts_.
> 
> I'm sorry to have contributed to your confusion, Sutemi.



No problem Loob. I'm more intrigued than confused, I must admit.
Too bad I'm not able to edit OP. I'd like to change all "gerund" into "-ing-form".
But I still think that you can say "failing admitting speeding", even though it's not the first option a native speaker would choose. But we can have alternative, but still correct, ways to say things. At least it seems that the opinions are somewhat divided.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> Other examples of deverbal prepositions include "concerning," "following," etc. Perhaps you can notice how these words take up new, not-quite-verbal-anymore, uses when you look at a sentence like "Following the movie, we had coffee." It's very hard to "unpack" "following" into a relative clause with the verb "to follow." The point is that it takes on a new use that's not entirely reducible to its use as a verbal word like a participle or gerund.


In a sentence such as 'Following the movie, we had coffee', I would prefer to see the participial phrase as being in apposition to the sentence and equivalent to a 'what is more' clause.

For comparison, 'What is more, the new tablet will brush your teeth and comb your hair.' Here 'what is more' means 'additionally to what has already been said'. It does not say that the tablet is more, but that these further functions of it represent an addition to those mentioned already.

Similarly 'Following the movie, we had coffee' does not say that we or the coffee followed the movie. It is equivalent to 'What followed the movie, we had coffee' meaning that the action of having coffee followed the movie.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> 'Verbal' means 'coming from a verb'. For example, a gerund is a verbal noun.
> 'Deverbal' does not make any sense that I can see. 'De-' is used as a prefix with the sense of 'remove', as in 'decorticated', 'deracinated' etc.
> 
> A 'deverbed' preposition would be one with the verb removed, but that still makes no sense, unless you started from a preposition which contained a verb.


Sorry, you've got some terminology confused here. Gerunds and participles (and infinitives etc.) are _verbals_ - they are still forms of the verb from which they are formed. Other words, like "dedicatee" and "walk" (as in "his walk") are _deverbals_ - they come from the verb but have moved away from it semantically and in terms of use. The "de-" in "deverbal" shouldn't suggest that something has been "un-verbed"; instead, it suggests this motion away from the original locus of the verb's use and meaning (like the "de-" in "derived").

Actually, "siding" and "following" (in the sense given above) are no longer verbals, but are deverbals. Their use and meaning have wandered a bit away from those of the gerund-participles "siding" and "following" (which obviously look the same). Remember, just because two words look the same and sound the same _doesn't mean they are the same_. So "Siding with his wife in the argument, the customer demanded to see a manager" contains a participle, but "Buy our new aluminum siding!" contains a deverbal noun.

In a way, "failing" is a very good example of this. We can use "Failing an admission of guilt, the case will go to trial." But nobody today would use "If an admission of guilt fail..." I don't even think most English-speakers would understand the latter sentence. This is, to me, evidence that the word "failing" has moved away from the verb "to fail," which really doesn't mean "to be lacking/absent" any more.

I'm sure that this explanation won't satisfy everyone. But honestly, when every dictionary lists "failing" as a preposition and when deverbals are a recognized phenomenon in linguistics, fighting against these classifications seems kind-of pointless.


----------



## lucas-sp

Sutemi said:


> I'd like to change all "gerund" into "-ing-form".
> 
> But I still think that you can say "failing admitting speeding", even though it's not the first option a native speaker would choose. But we can have alternative, but still correct, ways to say things. At least it seems that the opinions are somewhat divided.


The sentence we began with was: "Failing admitting speeding, the case will go to court." The problem is that "failing admitting speeding" is very unclear. It leaves us with questions particular to this specific phrase (who's doing the "admitting"?), and with questions that will accrue in all cases where there is more than one -ing form (are these adjectives or nouns or verbs or what?). Articles and prepositions can help clear this up, as can changing to other forms of the verb: "Failing an admission of speeding," "Failing his admitting speeding," etc.

Is "failing admitting speeding" possible? I'd say yes. It's even understandable. But it's _very_ inelegant. I don't think it would be the 18th option a native speaker would choose. It's awkward enough to be completely inadvisable.

And as to the new question: *Can you stack -ing words?*

Yes. Obviously. I will repeat my earlier caveats: A) it will sound jangly and B) the relationship between the words will be hard to discern. But there are examples where stacked -ing words can be used to great effect: I'm thinking, for instance, of the title of Eve Sedgwick's _Touching Feeling_. Note that in this title it's precisely _because _the relationship of the words is hard to discern (is "touching" a participle, a deverbal adjective meaning "moving," or a gerund?) that the overall combination is effective.


----------



## wandle

Turning to my faithful Chambers, I find:


> *failing *
> _prep._ in default of.


I still disagree. 

I am not inclined to use 'verbal', 'adverbial' etc. as nouns. 
Let us say 'adverb' when we mean 'adverb', 'adverbial phrase' when we mean 'adverbial phrase' etc.
Using 'deverbal' to mean 'derived from a verb' when 'verbal' means 'derived from a verb' seems (a) unnecessary and (b) a recipe for confusion.

'Siding' as in 'railway siding' is, as mentioned above, still a verbal noun. It is the gerund of the verb 'to side'.
It is an example of the derivative use which refers to something which results from the action of the verb rather than the action itself. This is very common. Many gerunds have these two senses: the action of the verb (an abstract notion) and something produced by it (often a concrete thing).


----------



## Sutemi

Thank you for the comprehensive and well-demonstrated reply Lucas. Now things are much clearer to me. I'm ok with the fact that the sentence is correct even though it's something we should avoid saying/writing at all cost. This makes perfect sense.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> 'Siding' as in railway siding is, as mentioned above, still a verbal noun. It is the gerund of the verb 'to side'.
> It is an example of the derviative use which refers to something which results from the action of the verb rather than the action itself. This is very common.


That's exactly right, wandle. The meaning has de-rived - it moved a little bit beyond where it used to be. Similarly the word has become de-verbal - it moved a little ways away from the verb it used to be wholly a part of.

While you're in your Chambers you might want to check what it says about "verbal" and "deverbal." They are commonly used as nouns in linguistics. Although it's easier to see that a noun like "runner" is a deverbal because it's changed its form more explicitly, sometimes deverbals can have the same form as verbals ("siding" looks like a gerund-participle, "walk" looks like a bare infinitive). It all has to do with the vicissitudes of use.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Sutemi said:


> [...]But I still think that you can say "failing admitting speeding", even though it's not the first option a native speaker would choose.


If you were to say it, Sutemi, I think you'd immediately reveal yourself not to be a native speaker. That's the criterion I often apply when deciding whether or not something can be said.


----------



## Loob

Sutemi said:


> [...]
> Too bad I'm not able to edit OP. I'd like to change all "gerund" into "-ing-form".
> But I still think that you can say "failing admitting speeding", even though it's not the first option a native speaker would choose. But we can have alternative, but still correct, ways to say things. At least it seems that the opinions are somewhat divided.


I think you've raised a very interesting question, Sutemi.

For me, "failing + ING-form" is not possible: so I couldn't say "failing admitting guilt".

Others have said that, for them, "failing an admission of guilt" is possible.  It isn't for me - so I suspect my use of "failing" as a preposition is much more restricted than that of others...

EDIT: cross-posted with TT, with whom I agree.


----------



## wandle

'Deverbal' is not in my Chambers and is not going to enter my vocabulary either, except when necessary to argue against it.
It reminds me of - whose signature is it?





> Inflammable means flammable? What a country!


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> 'Deverbal' is not in my Chambers and is not going to enter my vocabulary either, except when necessary to argue against it.


Wasn't there a thread recently on "pissing into the wind"?  You can find "deverbal" on Wikipedia here. Here's an OED example:





> 1934   R. C. Priebsch & W. E. Collinson _German Lang._ ii. iii. 225   The suffix _-ēn_ had two specific functions: (_a_) to form durative deverbals, e.g. _hangēn_ ‘to be hanging’.


You could consider "deverbal" to be jargon, but apparently linguists consider it to be helpful and useful.


----------



## gramman

I'm committing a cardinal forum sin here by posting without having read the entire thread  , but I wanted to throw out (up?) an idea based on lucas-sp's earlier suggestion about placing a gerund in front of _increasing spending_. Couldn't you combine that sequence with words like _avoiding_, _barring_,_ denying_, _offering_, _providing_, etc? As lucas noted, inelegant, but …





> Rick Davis reminded him that he actually supported increased spending while _denying increasing spending_. — Debate Liveblogging, Round 2 on firedoglake.com. (Yes, my friends — as some politicians like to say  — it's not only blogging, it's _live_ blogging.)


I suppose one is tempted to say that _increased_ should be used in all these. My reason for bringing this up is that these, I would think, lack the special status of _failing_ described by others. Again, forgive me if I missed something relevant in the first _twenty_ posts.  Those familiar with my posting will know that I could have read every word in the thread twice and still remain virtually clueless.


----------



## lucas-sp

Loob said:


> For me, "failing + ING-form" is not possible: so I couldn't say "failing admitting guilt".


Interesting. Do you have an a priori objection to "failing X-ing," or can you just not think of any example where it would be the best or only way (or even _a_ good way) to phrase an idea?

I think TT's point is the most well-taken: since there are almost always going to be better ways to express an idea, a native speaker would use those much more naturally. (It doesn't help that "failing X" is difficult to pull off in contemporary English anyway!)


----------



## Loob

lucas-sp said:


> Interesting. Do you have an a priori objection to "failing X-ing," or can you just not think of any example where it would be the best or only way (or even _a_ good way) to phrase an idea?
> 
> I think TT's point is the most well-taken: since there are almost always going to be better ways to express an idea, a native speaker would use those much more naturally. (It doesn't help that "failing X" is difficult to pull off in contemporary English anyway!)


No, no _a priori_ objection, lucas: just a feeling that I can't imagine a situation in which I'd say it.

I think that you, TT and I are singing from the same hymn-sheet - except that, as I said before, I suspect my usage of prepositional "failing" may be narrower than that of others.


----------



## lucas-sp

gramman said:


> I suppose one is tempted to say that _increased_ should be used in all these.


Excellent find! Now we have an honest-to-goodness example of a three-gerund stack found "in the wild," as it were. It has to be "increasing," by the way, because he's not denying that spending has increased, he's denying that he himself has been increasing spending.

(To show more clearly that "denying increasing spending" is a three-gerund stack, we could write it as "while denying _his_ increasing _of _spending.")

I confess, though, that looking at this phrase makes my eyes water somewhat. Using a "that"-clause here would be much easier to read.


----------



## Loob

Sutemi said:


> Thank you for the comprehensive and well-demonstrated reply Lucas. Now things are much clearer to me. [...]


Yes, lucas's post 43 was excellent!


----------



## wandle

> You could consider "deverbal" to be jargon, but apparently linguists consider it to be helpful and useful.


It would be nice to think that all specialist terms served a useful purpose. However, Wikipedia has this:


> Verbal nouns (VNs) and deverbal nouns (DVNs) are both nouns formed from verbs (formally, lexicalized nouns derived from or cognate to verbs), but are distinguished syntactic word classes. DVNs differ functionally from VNs in that DVNs operate as autonomous common nouns,[1] while VNs retain verbal characteristics.


Putting the above jargon into English, a deverbal noun is defined as a verbal noun without the verbal element.
This seems about as sensible as speaking of 'a zero article' when no article is present.

The risk of using such terminology, apart from obfuscation, is that it takes on a life of its own and is used to justify positions which become divorced from reality. In particular, by creating artificial categories it leads to the denial of real connections within language. 

That is just what has happened with 'failing'. It has become separately categorised and now people deny that it is a participle, even though the most natural explanation of 'failing new evidence' is that it is a participial absolute construction. This keeps the word connected to its root instead of cutting it off.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I think you've raised a very interesting question, Sutemi.
> 
> For me, "failing + ING-form" is not possible: so I couldn't say "failing admitting guilt".
> 
> Others have said that, for them, "failing an admission of guilt" is possible.  It isn't for me - so I suspect my use of "failing" as a preposition is much more restricted than that of others...
> 
> EDIT: cross-posted with TT, with whom I agree.


Would you object to the sentence below, Loob? It's from the BNC (the British Corpus).

_Failing a settlement, a dispute would be passed on to a binational panel, on which non-NAFTA members could serve to enhance their impartiality_. Keesings Contemporary Archives 1992

There are plenty of similar prepositional uses of _failing_ in the BNC.


----------



## gramman

>>an honest-to-goodness example of a three-gerund stack found "in the wild" 

It's not difficult to find more from seemingly reputable authors. As I  understand it, we are excluding phrases like "is/are/to be xxxxxing  increasing spending" because the first of those three is not a gerund.  I'm not much of a grammarian, so some or all of these may not fit that  criterion.


… a strong attempt at _avoiding increasing spending_ in the MLS could lead to the league’s demise — The International Journal of Sport Finance 
_Avoiding increasing spending_ on Internet marketing (beyond budgeted amounts in a financial year) — United States Sports Academy (a bulleted point, if that matters) 
Only the unemployment rate and percent of elderly in the population mattered, _suggesting increasing spending_ was simply a response to need. — European Sociological Review, published on oxfordjournals.org. (You need to pay to get the whole article, but here's a Google link.) 
 Yeah, I realize that you _increasing_ and _increased_ aren't interchangeable and there are times when the gerund is required, but I figure I'd look to use _increased_ when possible in these sentences to avoid the awkwardness you've noted.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> Putting the above jargon into English, a deverbal noun is defined as a verbal noun without the verbal element.
> 
> [...] In particular, by creating artificial categories it leads to the denial of real connections within language.


That doesn't follow. One word "derives" from another; nobody uses this fact (or the de- prefix) to suggest that the two words no longer have any relationship to each other. The deverbal (noun, adjective, preposition, etc.) just goes a little bit farther away from the verb from which it stems.

Nobody is using the term "deverbal" to suggest that "failing" has nothing to do with "to fail," or that the "runners" of a sled has nothing to do with "to run," or that "informative" has nothing to do with "to inform." The point is quite simply that they are used in ways that are not entirely reducible to the use/meaning of the verb from which they derive. Nothing "cuts" these words off from the verbs around which they're centered. For example, that's why they're called de*verb*al nouns and not just "nouns."

If anything is "obfuscatory," it's an insistence on obliterating the distinction between different uses of words. For instance, the word "failing" clearly does two different things in these sentences:

Failing any test will result in your expulsion from the course. ("failing" = gerund, verbal noun, still very much keeps its feeling of connoting an action)
Failing any test, how can we ever hope to tell humans from Cylons? ("failing" = deverbal preposition - why not? - rather than bringing the action of "failing" to mind, it suggests "in the absence of" or "without")

Sometimes multiplying the terms we use to characterize language can help bring these differences and particularities to light. Nobody is occluding the link between "failing" and "to fail"; instead, I think the various ways in which "failing" comes from "to fail" are more evident and more richly characterized when we notice the differences between words that look the same, but that are not the same.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> Would you object to the sentence below, Loob? It's from the BNC (the British Corpus).
> 
> _Failing a settlement, a dispute would be passed on to a binational panel, on which non-NAFTA members could serve to enhance their impartiality_. Keesings Contemporary Archives 1992
> 
> There are plenty of similar prepositional uses of _failing_ in the BNC.


I honestly don't think I would say it myself, TT.

But I've already accepted that others' use of "failing" as a preposition is broader than mine...


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> The deverbal (noun, adjective, preposition, etc.) just goes a little bit farther away from the verb from which it stems.


As I understand the Wikipedia definition, 'deverbal' means 'without verbal function', not 'with less verbal function'.


> DVNs differ functionally from VNs in that DVNs operate as autonomous common nouns,[1] while VNs retain verbal characteristics.
> For example, gerunds are verbals, not deverbals; compare:
> * Fencing is fun. (verbal – an activity; replaceable by the infinitive "to fence")
> * The white fencing contributes to the neighborhood character (deverbal – a common noun, replaceable by other nouns like "bench")





lucas-sp said:


> Failing any test, how can we ever hope to tell humans from Cylons? ("failing" = deverbal preposition - why not? - rather than bringing the action of "failing" to mind, it suggests "in the absence of" or "without")


Calling 'failing' a preposition here is denying that it is a participle.
However, in my view, the truest and most natural reading is the one that does not deny that it is performing a genuine verbal function as a participle. This keeps the connection with the root verbal idea alive and well and functioning in reality.
'Failing any test' in this context means 'if any test fails to materialise', just as 'failing all else' means 'if all else fails'.


----------



## gramman

Most of this is way over my head, but how would _excepting_ and _excluding_ (as prepositions) fit into this analysis? Is a consideration of them useful in any way?


----------



## wandle

gramman said:


> Most of this is way over my head, but how would _excepting_ and _excluding_ (as prepositions) fit into this analysis? Is a consideration of them useful in any way?


I see these not as prepositions at all, but as genuine partciples retaining their verbal function.
They could operate either (a) in the ordinary way, agreeing with a noun, or (b) in apposition to the sentence, representing what I have termed a 'what is more' clause (that is, a clause _of the same type_ as 'what is more': as in post 41).


----------



## wandle

As regards the viablity of 'failing admitting speeding', I initially welcomed it as an excellent example of multiple ing-forms. Later I commented that I would always prefer 'failing an admission of speeding' but added that it was a useful possibility to consider. It has certainly prompted discussion.

Now I have come to regard it as an invalid expression, not because of the number of  ing-words, but because of the difference in meaning between 'admitting' and 'admission'.

What is required to avoid a court appearance is not the process or activity of admitting, but the completed admission: the result of admitting. Only if that end result fails will the motorist have to go to court.


----------



## lucas-sp

There are two issues here: first, the question of stacking -ing words; second, the question of the best characterization and use of the word "failing." Maybe a moderator would be kind enough to split the thread?


wandle said:


> 'Failing any test' in this context means 'if any test fails to materialise', just as 'failing all else' means 'if all else fails'.


Just to point out two obvious things.

1. "Failing any test" fails the participle-unpacking test. Although I'm loath to suggest that "any participial phrase can become a subordinate clause" (since I think that participles and finite verbs can do different things), it is generally accepted that a sentence like "John, dangling off the building, tried to pull himself up to safety" could be re-written as "John, as he dangled off the building..." In other words, the preposition can be replaced by a finite verb form - its definition and use are _contained in_ the definition and use of the finite verb. This doesn't work with "Failing any test"; even if we rewrite it as "If any test fails to materialize" it has suddenly taken on a definition - "fail to materialize" - _that is not one of the definitions of "fail."_ This is a sign that "failing" as a preposition has taken on a meaning/use that is not entirely that of the verb from which it is derived.

2. Is "Failing any test" an absolute participial phrase? I think not. The form of an absolute phrase is "noun + participle + modifiers." Obviously here the "failing" comes _before the noun_. It is, so to speak, pre-positioned. So "Any test having failed to materialize" is an absolute phrase; "Failing any test" is a prepositional phrase. I believe the key move here is that by which the participle drifts to the _front_ of the phrase. At that point it begins to act eccentrically in comparison to other verbals. Syntax and use demonstrate that "failing" is, well, a preposition.

Compare this to gramman's "excepting" and "excluding"; think about "according to" or "depending on" or "concerning"; and then consider the bizarre case of "notwithstanding." ("Notwithstanding" can be prepositional or post-positioned; its function remains closer to the participle from which it is derived.) These are all clearly deverbal prepositions. "All the students excluding Mary were permitted to go on the field trip" is either "All the students who excluded Mary were permitted..." or "All the students with the exception of Mary were permitted..." Clearly, the two "excluding"s look the same, but function in very different ways. 

(I know we can fudge this one and say "All the students - if we for the purposes of our analysis exclude Mary - were permitted..." _but notice that the "unpacking" of the participle operates in an entirely different way._ Neither the students nor Mary are _doing_ any "excluding"; instead Mary is _being excluded _- which is itself not one of the definitions of "to exclude.")

I really think all of this comes from a resistance to the term "deverbal." Again, it does not mean "non-verbal" or "un-verbal"; it means "verbal in a slightly different way," "a verbal that orbits its verb eccentrically," "a deviating or deriving verbal."

Before we reject new ideas out of hand (or try to propose our own), we should try to understand them a little better, and on their own terms.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> Calling 'failing' a preposition here is denying that it is a participle.


No. Calling "failing" a preposition here is _showing how its use diverges both from standard uses and meanings of participles and from the meaning and use of the verb "to fail." _​The goal is to provide a more accurate characterization of the word "failing," and to illuminate the ways a language grows and changes (one form of a word taking on meanings and uses that are not authorized by its origin). There is no conspiracy theory which would seek to hide the fact - itself pretty darn evident - that "failing" derives from the present participle of the verb "to fail."


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I really think all of this comes from a resistance to the term "deverbal."


No such thing. My view is based on a natural reading of the phrase, long established, and many times considered, beforehand.


> Before we reject new ideas out of hand (or try to propose our own), we should try to understand them a little better, and on their own terms.


A functional and connective interpretation of language appeals more to me than artificial categorisation and the word-for-word approach underlying the re-categorisation of 'failing'. I am not an enemy of categorisation as such, though it can easily be taken too far.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Turning to my faithful Chambers, I find:
> 
> 
> 
> *failing *
> _prep._ in default of.
> 
> 
> 
> I still disagree.
Click to expand...

What has happened in the above definition? 'Failing' has been represented by a prepositional phrase, 'in default of'.
However, this does not establish that 'failing' is a preposition.
Any participle can in principle be replaced by a prepositional phrase, provided a suitable noun is available and provided it is understood that the phrase expresses the verbal idea. 
Thus 'pursuing' equals 'in pursuit of', 'holding' equals 'in retention of', 'remembering' equals 'in mind of' etc. etc. 
Some verbs do not have a readily available noun, some have nouns with an existing specific meaning, in which case no easy substitution is available, but the principle holds good.

What this substitution shows is not that the participle is a preposition, but that a prepositional phrase can do the work of a participle: that is, express its verbal function.

That is what 'in default of' is doing in the above example. The prepositional phrase 'in default of new evidence' is equivalent to the participial phrase 'failing new evidence' which is equivalent to the adverbial clause 'if new evidence fails [to materialise]'.


lucas-sp said:


> even if we rewrite it as "If any test fails to materialize" it has suddenly taken on a definition - "fail to materialize" - that is not one of the definitions of "fail." This is a sign that "failing" as a preposition has taken on a meaning/use that is not entirely that of the verb from which it is derived.


No. The words 'to materialise' or similar are included simply to ease understanding. The clause works perfectly well in the form 'if new evidence fails'.


----------



## lucas-sp

I don't think the dictionary is suggesting that "failing" is a preposition _because_ it can be replaced by a prepositional phrase. I think it's just _defining_ the preposition "failing."

"Failing" is a preposition because it links its object to the rest of a sentence _by going before it_.

If you look at a list of prepositions, you'll see lots that are derived from verbs. To say that they are now prepositions (or, in many cases, that they are now prepositions _as well as_​ gerund-participles) is not to deny their verbal heritage, but to describe their actual function. Would you also claim that words like "communication" or "pleasingly" are also not nouns or adverbs because they come from verbs?


----------



## SevenDays

It seems to me that if "failing" has no subject of its own, if no subject for it can be recovered from the sentence, then it's functioning as a preposition. If "failing" has a genuine verbal function as participle (going by the traditional term) or gerund-participle (for those who see no viable distinction between the two terms), then "failing" needs a subject, because all verbs need subjects. In _failing any test, how can we ever hope to tell humans from Cyclons?_, nothing can function as subject of "failing;" nobody is _doing_ the "failing," because the meaning here is "in the absence of." On that basis, "failing" is classified as a preposition. In _failing any test will result in your expulsion from the course_, "failing" has a subject: "your" (_your failing any test_....), and that makes "failing" a gerund (or gerund-participle). The key, as far as I can tell, is whether a given "ing" word its own subject; if it doesn't, it's a preposition. That's what I also see in _saving any last-minute editorial changes, the book goes to the printer as scheduled_, where "saving," with no subject of its own, functions as a preposition.
Cheers


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I don't think the dictionary is suggesting that "failing" is a preposition _because_ it can be replaced by a prepositional phrase.


Not said or implied by me. I called it a definition. 
I simply pointed out that the definition does not justify that conclusion (which some might be tempted to draw).


> "Failing" is a preposition because it links its object to the rest of a sentence _by going before it_.


This would mean that in 'He walked home, humming a tune', 'humming' is a preposition.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> It seems to me that if "failing" has no subject of its own, if no subject for it can be recovered from the sentence, then it's functioning as a preposition.


In 'failing any test', the subject is 'any test'. It means 'if any test fails' in the sense: 'if no test should materialise or prove adequate'. 


> That's what I also see in _saving any last-minute editorial changes, the book goes to the printer as scheduled_, where "saving," with no subject of its own, functions as a preposition.
> Cheers


Here I would see 'saving any last-minute editorial changes' as a participial phrase agreeing with an implied subject.
_[I say], saving (i.e. 'reserving' - keeping back from the scope of this statement) any last-minute editorial changes, [that] the book goes to the printer as scheduled._


----------



## PaulQ

It would appear to me that *failing *is

A noun – His greatest failing is obstinacy. – [weakness]
A participle – The pump was failing. [to cease to function]  Failing the exam for the third time, he left the college. [to not pass]
A gerund – Your failing this exam will result in rustication. [the act of failing]
A preposition, - Failing a better result, you will be rusticated. [absent]
An adjective – the failing pump threatened the ship. [in the process of ceasing to function]

There is nothing rare about words that have many functions.


----------

