# He is <scaring, scary>. He scares easily.



## quietdandelion

The way he talks to me is pretty scary/scaring.


Do both "scary" and "scaring" fit in the above context and mean pretty much the same? Thanks.


----------



## dn88

I think so, but "scary" would be preferable.


----------



## tepatria

We wouldn't use scaring in this context. He was scaring me with how he talked would be fine. Scarey is the word for your sentence.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think that "scaring" would work there. "Scary" describes a characteristic of the person's personality or appearance. "Scaring" would describe an action, as in "Stop that, you're scaring me!", but that doesn't make sense in your sentence.


----------



## dn88

I think it works and sounds somewhat slangy - which makes the sentence grammatically incorrect.


----------



## quietdandelion

Thanks, my helpful friends.
I still don't get it.
Are the following right?

The movie is scaring.
A caterpillar is scaring.

If yes, could I use "scary" instead in the above two samples?


----------



## dn88

quietdandelion said:


> Thanks, my helpful friends.
> I still don't get it.
> Are the following right?
> 
> The movie is scaring.
> A caterpillar is scaring.
> 
> If yes, could I use "scary" instead in the above two samples?



Use "scary" for safety. It's really correct here.


----------



## Outsider

quietdandelion said:


> Are the following right?
> 
> The movie is scaring.
> A caterpillar is scaring.


If I heard those sentences, my reaction would be to ask "Scaring who?" The verb "to scare" is transitive. It requires an object.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Outsider said:


> If I heard those sentences, my reaction would be to ask "Scaring who?" The verb "to scare" is transitive. It requires an object.


Correct, Outsider,

The word "scary" functions as an adjective that modifies the noun "way"
The *way* he talks to me is pretty *scary*.​
The word "scaring" is the progressive form of the verb "to scare." One would use it in several progressive tenses such as "is scaring," "was scaring," "had been scaring," "has been scaring" "could have been scaring," "would have been scaring," "should have been scaring" and dozens of others. It is also a transitive verb which requires an object. 

Regards,

Alan


----------



## twen

SCARING:

progressive tense requires form of be:
*is* scaring +direct object
(*am/are/was/were*)
The moving curtains are scaring me.

gerund is using the word as an activity (noun)

Scaring children is not nice.  (the action of scaring children)

SCARY is an adjective:

Scary children are not nice.  (children who scare)

This movie is scary.


----------



## virgilio

quietdandelion,
                    Both are possible. I think "scary" is more commonly used in the sense you seem to mean.
"scaring" - present participle of the verb "to scare" - is an adjective (as are all participles) and so there's no reason why that should not be used instead of "scary".
As for popular style, I think that I have heard both used in the UK, though I seem to hear "scary" more often in that type of context. 

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## quietdandelion

Thanks, my kind and helpful friends.
I get it now.


----------



## elroy

As a predicative adjective, only "scary" works for me.  "Frightening," yes.  "Scaring," no.


----------



## la grive solitaire

I completely agree. I'd only use either *scary* or *frightening*.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

virgilio said:


> quietdandelion,
> Both are possible. I think "scary" is more commonly used in the sense you seem to mean.
> "scaring" - present participle of the verb "to scare" - is an adjective (as are all participles) and so there's no reason why that should not be used instead of "scary".
> As for popular style, I think that I have heard both used in the UK, though I seem to hear "scary" more often in that type of context.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


With all due respect to you Virgilio, participles are not always ajectives. The *Wikipedia* has an interesting article on participles in which you can find the following:





> The present participle in English is active. It has the following uses:
> 
> forming the *progressive aspect*: _Jim was *sleeping*_.
> modifying a noun: _Let *sleeping* dogs lie._
> modifying a verb or sentence: _Broadly *speaking*, the project was successful._


There is also an *interesting article* on the a web page posted by the highly-regarded Purdue University in the United States that covers the verbals: particles, gerunds, and infinitives, as they apply to Standard American English. 

The word "scary" in the sentence:
The way he talks to me is pretty scary​is an adjective, and it modifies the noun "way." The verb "to scare" requires a subject, and if the subject is the speaker of the above sentence, it would be more clearly, more gracefully, more elegantly, and much more correctly worded this way: 
The way he talks to me is scaring me a great deal.​
Regards,

Alan


----------



## nichec

"Scaring" is not listed as an adjective in Cambridge Dictionary.

http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=70187&dict=CALD

Though 'scare" is, in dictionary.com

adj.   Serving or intended to frighten people: _scare stories; scare tactics._


----------



## virgilio

AlanOldStudent,
                      Thanks, Alan, for your reply. I think the difference seems to be that the descriptions given by the authorities which you cite are descriptions and not definitions. My seven categories of syntax (I call them "my" categories but in reality I along with many others inherited them from generations of past syntax and grammar giants and my very modest contribution has been to fine-tune them a little for a generation which seems to have largely forgotten them), my seven categories of syntax - noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjunction - are mutually exclusive, whereas the terms used by your authorities seem to me not to be.
  To put the matter another way, I am trying to *define* what function each word has in a sentence, whereas some others seem to me to prefer to *describe* some interesting points about those words.  
My category "adjective" automatically excludes all the other six, whereas - if I have understood you correctly - for you a word like "scaring" can kind of hover between being one thing and being another, being an adjective sometimes and other times something else.
My only criticisms of this are (a) that it fails as a definition and (b) it *unnecessarily* complicates an essentially simple principle.
You yourself acknowledge that the _verb_ "to scare" would require a subject. In this example "scaring" then is not a verb. So, if it aint an adjective, what the heck is it?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## elroy

virgilio said:


> You yourself acknowledge that the _verb_ "to scare" would require a subject. In this example "scaring" then is not a verb.


 I don't follow the logic.  It requires a subject; therefore it is not a verb? 

It is indeed a verb.  It is part of a verb phrase, _is scaring_, in which _scaring_ is the main verb and _is_ is an auxiliary verb.


----------



## i heart queso

I think they meant the verb scare requires an *object*.


----------



## virgilio

Thank you, i heart queso.  Your clarity of intuition is much appreciated.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

elroy,
       Thanks for your reply. I did not actually write, as you suggest "It requires a subject; therefore it is not a verb?" but rather "the *verb* "to scare" *would* require a subject" (please note the words in bold type). Alanoldstudent said as much in his posting and I thought he was right. Since however in the sentence on offer the subject of the principal clause "way" is plainly the subject of the verb "is", we are still left with the adjective "scaring".
In some languages, such as Japanese, for example, no separate verb "to be" is necessary, for every adjective (as symbolic logic tells us) implies its own existential verb. Arabic also - from what I have seen, although you will know better than I do - can also express these epithets without the use of the verb "kaana" (sorry, I haven't got an Arabic font on this machine).
However in those languages which do separate the verb (admittedly an empty verb without its adjective) from the adjective, the dominant word (in this case "scaring") surely remains adjective.
Incidentally, if you know of any good Arabic fonts available for free download, I'd be grateful for website details. Thank you.

Best wishes
Virgilio

PS: I suppose "kaana" should really be "kauna".


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

elroy said:


> I don't follow the logic.  It requires a subject; therefore it is not a verb?
> 
> It is indeed a verb.  It is part of a verb phrase, _is scaring_, in which _scaring_ is the main verb and _is_ is an auxiliary verb.


This is just between you and me, Elroy.  *I-Hart-Queso* is quite correct. I actually meant to say that the verb "to scare" needs an object. Don't let anyone else know I misspoke!

This is what I should have said:


> The word "scary" in the sentence:
> The way he talks to me is pretty scary​is an adjective, and it modifies the noun "way." The verb "to scare" requires an *object*, and if the *object* is the speaker of the above sentence, it would be more clearly, more gracefully, more elegantly, and much more correctly worded this way:
> The way he talks to me is scaring me a great deal.​



Regards,

Alan


----------



## elroy

Hi virgilio, 





virgilio said:


> elroy,
> Thanks for your reply. I did not actually write, as you suggest "It requires a subject; therefore it is not a verb?"


 No, you did not write those specific words, but you did write "You yourself acknowledge that the _verb_ "to scare" would require a subject. In this example "scaring" *then *is not a verb." which suggested to me that your conclusion that _scaring_ is not a verb was based on the fact that the verb _to scare_ "would require a subject."  I see that I misunderstood what you were saying.  I suppose you were differentiating between the infinitive _to scare_ and the present participle form _scaring_ in terms of transitivity.  I do not agree with your analysis.   Whether you use _scare _or _scaring_ plus an auxiliary, an object is required.  _Scaring_ simply cannot function as a predicative adjective.  It is not the case that every present participle form can function that way. 


> Since however in the sentence on offer the subject of the principal clause "way" is plainly the subject of the verb "is", we are still left with the adjective "scaring".


 No, we are not.  The complete verb phrase is _is scaring_, composed of the main verb _scaring_ and the auxiliary verb _is_.  Do you truly believe that _scaring_ is always an adjective?  Would you classify it as one in _Scaring a child is mean_? 


> In some languages, such as Japanese, for example, no separate verb "to be" is necessary, for every adjective (as symbolic logic tells us) implies its own existential verb. Arabic also - from what I have seen, although you will know better than I do - can also express these epithets without the use of the verb "kaana" (sorry, I haven't got an Arabic font on this machine).
> However in those languages which do separate the verb (admittedly an empty verb without its adjective) from the adjective, the dominant word (in this case "scaring") surely remains adjective.


 Without going into detail about Arabic syntax, I emphatically disagree with you.  _Scaring_ is not categorically an adjective.  English simply requires the use of the present participle plus a form of the verb _to be_ to express a progressive action.  In other languages, this is expressed using the simple present.  Surely the action word is a verb in both cases.  The function of _is_ in this context is not merely copular; _scaring_ is not a description or a modification of the subject - it expresses an action. 


> Incidentally, if you know of any good Arabic fonts available for free download, I'd be grateful for website details. Thank you.


 I do not, but if I come across any I'll send you a PM.  


> PS: I suppose "kaana" should really be "kauna".


 "Kaana" is right. 


Alan Oldstudent said:


> I actually meant to say that the verb "to scare" needs an object.


 No problem.  The misunderstanding seems to have been cleared up anyway.   Our point of disagreement with Virgilio is that he does not believe that the transitivity of the verb _to scare_ can be applied to the present participle form _scaring_ when it is part of a verb phrase (actually, even when _scaring _functions as part of a participial phrase or a gerund phrase, it is still transitive).

I do not know why, but you just cannot say _The cat is scaring_.  You can, however, say _The cat is frightening_.  Theoretically you should be able to say both, but language is not always logical, I guess.


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:


> I do not know why, but you just cannot say _The cat is scaring_.  You can, however, say _The cat is frightening_.  Theoretically you should be able to say both, but language is not always logical, I guess.


My (perhaps simplistic) analysis would be that "frightening" can be both a verb and an adjective, while in the case of scares the corresponding verb form is "scaring", and the adjective is "scary".


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Outsider said:


> My (perhaps simplistic) analysis would be that "frightening" can be both a verb and an adjective, while in the case of scares the corresponding verb form is "scaring", and the adjective is "scary".


Your analysis is not simplistic. It is simple in the best sense of the word. It gets to the essence of the matter. I think you and Elroy are spot on.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## quietdandelion

Outsider said:


> If I heard those sentences, my reaction would be to ask "Scaring who?" The verb "to scare" is transitive. It requires an object.


I ran across the following in a dictionary by chance:

*He scares easily.*

Would your reaction be to ask "scaring whom?" Mine would.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

quietdandelion said:


> I ran across the following in a dictionary by chance:
> 
> *He scares easily.*
> 
> Would your reaction be to ask "scaring whom?" Mine would.


That sentence is incorrect. It should be "_He is easily scared_." (Passive voice). However, I have heard that enough so that it does not sound as weird as to me as "_The way he talks to me is pretty scaring_." With all due respect to Virgilio, I do not think one would hear very many sober native speakers of either British English or certainly Standard American English say that.

My wife, who is a retired English teacher (British English) says that it would be correct to say "_The way he talks to me is pretty scary_" but never "_the way he talks to me is pretty scaring_." She says that it would be much more usual to hear "_The way he talks to me is pretty frightening_" in the UK. In North America, either "scary" or "frightening" would be the norm.

I am a medical editor and transcriptionist (my line of work for the last 20-plus years), and I would change "_scaring_" to "_scary_" in that sentence if it were to come across my desk.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## quietdandelion

Thank you, Alan, for the informative and amusing reply.
I totally agree with what you said in the above post except that "He scares easily" is incorrect. For curiosity's sake, why does it sound incorrect to you?


----------



## dn88

*He scares easily.*

The sentence above is correct, even according to dictionary.com.

The verb "scare" seems to work with object or without it (_transitive_ or _intransitive_).


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

quietdandelion said:


> Thank you, Alan, for the informative and amusing reply.
> I totally agree with what you said in the above post except that "He scares easily" is incorrect. For curiosity's sake, why does it sound incorrect to you?





dn88 said:


> *He scares easily.*
> 
> The sentence above is correct, even according to dictionary.com.
> 
> The verb "scare" seems to work with object or without it (_transitive_ or _intransitive_).



Hi QuietDandilion,

In light of what dn88's citation and reasoning, which is further augmented *by this link*, I am going to have to change my opinion and say "_he scares easily_" is correct for the reasons stated above.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## virgilio

quietdandelion (and Alan),
                    dn88 is quite right. The intransitive use of "to scare"  is quite common. What really surprises me is that Alan, for whose linguistic skill I have great respect, should have failed to notice one of the glorious features of English, namely that the speaker can use most verbs transitively or intransitively at will, leaving the hearer's  intuition to quickly work out which of the two is being used. This feature is much less noticeable in some other European languages, such as German and Italian.
  This transitive/intransitive switch is one of the things we English do all the time. It's part of our culture.
"He scares easily" means, of course, "he is easily scareable".
Perhaps Alan hasn't seen the western films which I have but I'm sure that I have heard characters in those films (probably the 'baddies') say things like: "I don't scare easy!"

Best wishes,
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

elroy,
       Many thanks for your detailed and interesting reply.
You write:"I suppose you were differentiating between the infinitive _to scare_ and the present participle form _scaring_ in terms of transitivity"

Not so. If you tell me that you or people in your environment prefer always to keep the verb "to scare" transitive, so be it. That's a matter of style and preference for those concerned. It happens to be the case, however, that I have heard the participle "scaring" used by British English people plainly in the sense of "frightening" or "scary".
That being so, it would strike me as less than democratic on your part to put those fellow-countrymen of mine in the wrong, simply on account of any pre-conceived notion that "Whether you use _scare _or _scaring_ plus an auxiliary, an object is required", as you put it.
You go on to ask:"Do you truly believe that _scaring_ is always an adjective?  Would you classify it as one in _Scaring a child is mean_?"

Once more, I *did not say* that *the word* "scaring" was always an adjective, for that word is not always a present participle. You go on to cite an excellent example of where that word is a gerund."_Scaring a child is mean". _What I do maintain is that whenever it is a present participle, it is always an adjective, for all participles are adjectives.
You go on to add:"English simply requires the use of the present participle plus a form of the verb _to be_ to express a progressive action. In other languages, this is expressed using the simple present. Surely the action word is a verb in both cases."
I could agree with most of this. You might have included the verbs "to continue" and "to go on" along with "to be" for expressing progressive action.  But that is not what we were talking about. We were talking about adjectives rather than progressive forms of verb tenses. 
I agree that "to be + present participle" is one way of analysing the progressive form of some verb tenses but that says nothing about whether the verbal element contained within that participle is transitive or intransitive. That can safely be left to different English-speaking communities to work out for themselves according to their several style preferences..

My personal interest in style and whether this community always says one thing or that community always says another is slight. For me that's about as interesting as whether the fashionable people are this year wearing ties or open-neck shirts or about as interesting as watching paint dry. As far as language is concerned my own principal interest - for what it may be worth - is in syntax, which - as far as I can see - seems to be universal and unchanging. It's analogous to the difference between fashion and clothes.
Everyone except the dedicated  nudist sees the need to wear clothes (and given the shape and general proportions of the human body all tailors and dressmakers will find themselves following certain unaltering patterns) but that doesn't mean that we have to worry about always wearing the current fashions. So too with language. It may interest some folk to catalogue which of the several modes of expression offered by syntax this or that group within a single-language culture selects for its own purposes but not me.
Let's keep the thing democratic.
There's probably much more in Heaven and Earth than is contained, as the poet said, in all our philosophies put together.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

virgilio said:


> quietdandelion (and Alan)....What really surprises me is that Alan, ........., should have failed to notice .........


Hi Virgilio,

I'm hardly ever surprised when I find that I'm wrong about something in the English language.



virgilio said:


> ...Alan, for whose linguistic skill I have great respect, .........



Thanks for the kind words. Our differences of opinion expressed on this forum sharpen our skills and give us an opportunity to challenge our possibly incorrect notions. And those who are learning English as a second or third language can learn much from such exchanges. Moreover they also teach us native speakers a few things by their questions, observations, and on occasion their corrections. We are all students here.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Outsider

quietdandelion said:


> I ran across the following in a dictionary by chance:
> 
> *He scares easily.*
> 
> Would your reaction be to ask "scaring whom?" Mine would.


That's an unaccusative use of the verb "to scare". However, in the sentences under discussion in this thread, the verb was not supposed to be unaccusative, was it? I mean, it was supposed to relate to "the act of scaring", not to "the act of being scared". 

Context is everything.


----------



## quietdandelion

Outsider said:


> That's an unaccusative use of the verb "to scare". However, in the sentences under discussion in this thread, the verb was not supposed to be unaccusative, was it? I mean,* it was supposed to relate to "the act of scaring", not to "the act of being scared". *
> 
> Context is everything.


Well put, Outsider.
But what do you mean by "an unaccusative use of the verb ...?" Is it the same or different from "an intransitive use of the verb ... ?"

Furthermore, if it is "*the act of being scared*," I would use past participle, not present participle. For example,

I am scared by what you stated.
I am scared by a caterpillar.

But are the following sound right to you?

I am scaring by what you stated.
I am scaring by a caterpillar.


----------



## Outsider

Let's see...


He is scaring me. --> Transitive use of the verb "to scare", in the sense of "to frighten". Means "he frightens me".

He is scary. --> Adjective "scary". There is no transitive verb here.

He scares easily. --> Whom does he scare easily? As I understood, the intended meaning of the verb was not "to frighten", but rather "to get/be frightened". "He is easily frightened."
So here we have the same verb, representing an action performed by its subject in sentence 1, but an action performed _on_ its subject in sentence 3. When a verb has this kind of double meaning, we call the function illustrated by sentence 3 "unaccusative": the verb is formally intransitive, but semantically it describes an action or state in which its subject is the patient, rather than the agent. In a way, "to scare" (transitive) and "to scare" (unaccusative/intransitive) are two different verbs that happen to look the same. Previous thread on unaccusative verbs.

This, however, still does not make the sentence "*He is scaring", where the meaning of the verb "to scare" is not unaccusative, legitimate.


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            Never heard the phrase "unaccusative verb". Any sense it may be accepted by some as having can only be very esoteric.
Are you aware, by the way, of this element of flexibility in many English verbs and their offshoots in the matters of transitive/intransitive and active/passive. The transitive/intransitive flexibility is so widespread as to need little or no comment but English gerunds are often active/passive neutral:
e.g.
These windows want washing.
This meat needs cooking longer.

One of the glories of English: so little is spelled out by the language, so much left to the hearer's intelligence and intuition. It worked very well, until Education came along and spoiled it.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:
			
		

> Never heard the phrase "unaccusative verb".


Well, _I_ have never heard of "scaring" being an adjective. 

I looked it up in a couple of dictionaries. None list "scaring" as an adjective. They do list "frightening" as an adjective.


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            Well then, those dictionaries seem not yet to have caught up with UK English usage. In today's world especially by the time a dictionary is published, the chances are that it will be already slightly obsolescent. There's the advantage for a grammarian of sticking to 'dead' languages.
Anyway, if one present participle (frightening) can be considered by the "conoscenti" to be an adjective why on earth can't another - particularly as that is the syntax function of all participles anyway? The mind boggles at such finickiness.
Such eclectic and subjective pronouncements are altogether too _précieux_ for my taste.  I'll go on sticking to syntax; the world of fashion is far too fickle for me.

Best wishes,
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> Well then, those dictionaries seem not yet to have caught up with UK English usage.


Can you give a couple of independent examples of "scaring" being used as an adjective in contemporary UK English?


----------



## Klystron29

Hi quietdandelion,
Your Profile says that you are learning English so I would think that, by now, you have had very much information.
In colloquial British English we do say "The way he talks to me is pretty scary". I have never heard "The way he talks to me is pretty scaring".
Regards.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Hi Virgilio


virgilio said:


> Well then, those dictionaries seem not yet to have caught up with UK English usage. In today's world especially by the time a dictionary is published, the chances are that it will be already slightly obsolescent. There's the advantage for a grammarian of sticking to 'dead' languages.


You seem to be searching for certainty. One thing about dead languages is that they don't change. On the other hand, living languages do change. The advantage of studying dead languages is the insight they give us into literature, culture, and history. To look to dead languages for certainty in the proper use of living languages is folly, in my opinion.

Grammar and syntax are not some God-given edict on what is allowable or not allowable. They are the products of social, cultural, and linguistic evolution. Standard American English and Standard British English grammars are an attempt to describe the common practice of the best, most cultured, and most careful speakers and writers. That's why English teachers encourage us to read good writing. That's why we study the writing of such people as Jane Austin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, John Mortimer, John Steinbeck, James Baldwin, etc.


virgilio said:


> Anyway, if one present participle (frightening) can be considered by the "conoscenti" to be an adjective why on earth can't another - particularly as that is the syntax function of all participles anyway?


Forget the cognoscenti (who you mean by that puzzles me). Just consider what is common practice. Do you really say that the best writers and speakers of British English use "scaring" as an adjective? In fact, does any native English speaker in the UK use "scaring" as an adjective?

You know, grammar is not something deduced from first principles like Euclidean geometry. Grammar is a description of the method by which people use language in communication. 

So the reason "scaring" is not an adjective is that the best speakers and writers of English use "scary" or "frightening" as the adjective, not "scaring." That's why you can't cite any examples of it from respected users of the language.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## panjandrum

Scaring, as an adjective, is not at all a new form.
It is an old form, no longer used.
The most recent OED example is 1879.
There are no examples in the British National Corpus.

I found one example (of 156) in the Time Magazine corpus, from 1978:
It all seemed " beautiful but a little *scaring* " to Italian Tenor Luciano Pavarotti.

There is no rationale to the way English adopts and accepts words.
Scary, we have accepted as the normal adjective, not scaring.

Frightening is the equivalent from fright.  We also use frightful.
Like scaring, unsuccessful in the linguistic fight for survival are frighty and frightsome.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

panjandrum said:


> Scaring, as an adjective, is not at all a new form.
> It is an old form, no longer used.
> The most recent OED example is 1879.
> There are no examples in the British National Corpus.
> 
> I found one example (of 156) in the Time Magazine corpus, from 1978:
> It all seemed " beautiful but a little *scaring* " to Italian Tenor Luciano Pavarotti.
> 
> There is no rationale to the way English adopts and accepts words.
> Scary, we have accepted as the normal adjective, not scaring.
> 
> Frightening is the equivalent from fright.  We also use frightful.
> Like scaring, unsuccessful in the linguistic fight for survival are frighty and frightsome.


Hi Panjandrum,

That's very interesting. Thanks for digging it up.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            Your ask:"Can you give a couple of independent examples of "scaring" being used as an adjective in contemporary UK English?" but what would you accept as "independent" examples?  Will you perhaps accept as such an independent example your own "He is scaring me" which you go on to describe as "Transitive use of the verb "to scare", in the sense of "to frighten".
The present participle "scaring" there has unquestionably the syntax function of adjective. That adjective describes the  condition of "he" in your sentence, as I think must be fairly obvious. Where then is the problem?
Is it perhaps that the adjective appears to have an object (me)? Participles are adjectives, derived from verbs, and containing within them an element of the verb from which they are derived - in much the same way as an orange-flavoured jelly contains an element of orange somehow inside it - but without being an orange.
Or a child might seek to impress school-friends and teacher alike by claiming to possess a 'magic matchbox, which can pick up paper clips or pins from the teacher's desk. Of course, the child has secreted a tiny magnet inside the matchbox but *on the outside* the thing is a matchbox.
Like such a 'magic' matchbox, a participle is *on the outside* - which is what decides how it can fit into a sentence - an adjective. It simply will not fit into any sentence as anything else. On the inside it contains an element of the verb from which it is derived and sometimes that element is strong enough to pick up objects (and other adverbs) even through the outer casing of the adjective in which it is encased.
Syntax - the thing I personally am talking about - is concerned with *how words can fit into sentences* - and there are certain rules about how they can and how they can't. When you are trying to fit A into B, what matters is not what A may contain but what are  the exterior dimensions and configuration of A. Ask anyone loading suitcases into the boot of a car.
 So it is with syntax.
A participle may 'contain' verbal forces within it  but the only way it can fit into a sentence is as an adjective. In the same way an infinitive is *on the outside *a substantive and can fit into a sentence only as a substantive, though containing within it verbal forces often capable of attracting objects even through the outer shall of that substantive. Spanish even recognises this fact by treating it as a masculine substantive, as does French and Italian, while German, Latin and Greek infinitives are neuter substantives.
People with little or no interest in the science of syntax may, of course, be deceived by instances of powerful interior verbality of some participles, infinitives and English gerunds and mistake them for verbs, mistaking their emotional reaction to those words for the syntax structure which they demonstrate and perform.
When you ask for examples of present participles used as adjectives, the very multiplicity of examples which ought to make reply overwhelming tends to make reply all but impossible. Where do I start? How long have we got? is a question that springs to mind, for they come at us from all sides every day.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

The information given by Panjandrum above has settled the matter to my satisfaction.


----------



## JamesM

Virgilio said:
			
		

> Your ask:"Can you give a couple of independent examples of "scaring" being used as an adjective in contemporary UK English?" but what would you accept as "independent" examples? Will you perhaps accept as such an independent example your own "He is scaring me" which you go on to describe as "Transitive use of the verb "to scare", in the sense of "to frighten".
> The present participle "scaring" there has unquestionably the syntax function of adjective. That adjective describes the condition of "he" in your sentence, as I think must be fairly obvious. Where then is the problem?
> Is it perhaps that the adjective appears to have an object (me)? Participles are adjectives, derived from verbs, and containing within them an element of the verb from which they are derived - in much the same way as an orange-flavoured jelly contains an element of orange somehow inside it - but without being an orange... (etc.)
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


I'm not quite sure what ALL the verbiage above was attempting to prove, but in "he is scaring me", "scaring" is not an adjective. It's the second component of the present progressive "is scaring". 

I swim --> I am swimming.
You hit --> You are hitting (me).
He scares --> He is scaring (me).

You must be confusing these constructions with something like:

She is striking.

Note that "striking" is an adjective here, but its function switches to present progressive if you add "me" - "She is striking me."  


All the rest may apply, but I don't have the time right now to untangle it enough to determine whether it does or it doesn't. However, I'm pretty sure adjectives don't enter into it.


----------



## virgilio

Alan,
      You write;" I found one example (of 156) in the Time Magazine corpus, from 1978:
It all seemed " beautiful but a little *scaring* " to Italian Tenor Luciano Pavarotti.

There is no rationale to the way English adopts and accepts words."

Whatever happened to that great US virtue of democracy?  If I or one of my friends or even a stranger on the street uses "scaring" where you would expect "scary" - which has indeed happened -  is my or their evidence to be dismissed because our output doesn't happen to be published by Time Magazine or by any equally exalted organ.

Regards
Virgilio


----------



## panjandrum

virgilio said:


> Alan,
> You write;" I found one example (of 156) in the Time Magazine corpus, from 1978:
> It all seemed " beautiful but a little *scaring* " to Italian Tenor Luciano Pavarotti.
> 
> There is no rationale to the way English adopts and accepts words."
> 
> Whatever happened to that great US virtue of democracy?  If I or one of my friends or even a stranger on the street uses "scaring" where you would expect "scary" - which has indeed happened -  is my or their evidence to be dismissed because our output doesn't happen to be published by Time Magazine or by any equally exalted organ.
> 
> Regards
> Virgilio


Alan did not write.
panjandrum wrote.

On the basis of this one example, unique in a hundred years of English usage US and UK, I will not advise anyone to use scaring in this way.

It would be careless, indeed negligent, if this forum were to suggest otherwise.

Anyone who wishes to promote scaring (adjective) is of course free to do so - but must acknowledge that this is a minority pursuit.


----------



## virgilio

JamesM,
           It was kind of you to give the matter the time that you could spare to show me where I was wrong. If you can stand a little more verbiage, why do you rule out the specific function which I gave to the *single word* *"scaring"* but fail to offer any alternative function for the *single word* *"scaring"*.
You say instead that "scaring" is the "second component of the present progressive "is scaring"". No doubt but what precisely is the syntax function of the single word "scaring".
I know what it's a part of; what I want to know is what it *is*.
If  a metal component fell from the engine of your car and you called in a mechanic and asked him "what's this?", would you be totally convinced of his competence, if his reply was, "Oh, I'll tell you what that is. It's..er.. it's part of the engine! That's what that is." I think not. Nor am I.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Alan,
      Sorry. I attributed a view to you unjustly, as Panjuandrum has just pointed out.
My sincere apology.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Panjandrum,
               Thank you for your reply and correction. You conclude:" Anyone who wishes to promote scaring (adjective) is of course free to do so - but must acknowledge that this is a minority pursuit"
That depends surely on where you live and even on which people comprise your circle of friends and even your neighbours. I think we should let people choose their own adjectives. Dictionaries - however excellent - are there for people, not people - however humble - for dictionaries.
Or is that a minority view too on this forum, I wonder.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

Perhaps we have here a lack of understanding between those who classify words according to morphology, and those who prefer to classify them based on syntax (form versus function?). Still, the fact remains that "He is scary" is what most people would say nowadays, while "He is scaring" does not seem to be used by the large majority of English speakers. 
I think that whatever distinguishes these two words with such different fates deserves a name, but at this moment I don't intend to discuss what that name should be.


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

virgilio said:


> Alan,
> Sorry. I attributed a view to you unjustly, as Panjuandrum has just pointed out.
> My sincere apology.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


No problem, Virgilio,

You can tell the difference between me and panjandrum if you just remember that he is the handsome devil with red hair, whereas I'm the old geezer with a white beard.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
I think you're right about the morphologists and the syntacticians to some extent.
Re:" I think that whatever distinguishes these two words with such different fates deserves a name, but at this moment I don't intend to discuss what that name should be."
I wouldn't waste any time on it. Why bother giving such a trivial thing a name? In the famous words of Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca", it doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway.

With very best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## panjandrum

virgilio said:


> Panjandrum,
> Thank you for your reply and correction. You conclude:" Anyone who wishes to promote scaring (adjective) is of course free to do so - but must acknowledge that this is a minority pursuit"
> That depends surely on where you live and even on which people comprise your circle of friends and even your neighbours. I think we should let people choose their own adjectives. Dictionaries - however excellent - are there for people, not people - however humble - for dictionaries.
> Or is that a minority view too on this forum, I wonder.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


Virgilio:
You have not been able to demonstrate that scaring (adjective) is routinely used anywhere.
I am content to let people choose their own adjectives, but I will also insist on the responsibility of this forum to advise general readers that the use of scaring as an adjective is unusual and atypical.

Are you prepared to advise students of English from around the world that they can safely use scaring as an adjective in exam conditions?  

I am not.


----------



## quietdandelion

virgilio said:


> Outsider,
> Your ask:"Can you give a couple of independent examples of "scaring" being used as an adjective in contemporary UK English?" but what would you accept as "independent" examples? Will you perhaps accept as such an independent example your own "He is scaring me" which you go on to describe as "Transitive use of the verb "to scare", in the sense of "to frighten".
> The present participle "scaring" there has unquestionably the syntax function of adjective. That adjective describes the condition of "he" in your sentence, as I think must be fairly obvious. Where then is the problem?
> Is it perhaps that the adjective appears to have an object (me)? Participles are adjectives, derived from verbs, and containing within them an element of the verb from which they are derived - in much the same way as an orange-flavoured jelly contains an element of orange somehow inside it - but without being an orange.
> Or a child might seek to impress school-friends and teacher alike by claiming to possess a 'magic matchbox, which can pick up paper clips or pins from the teacher's desk. Of course, the child has secreted a tiny magnet inside the matchbox but *on the outside* the thing is a matchbox.
> Like such a 'magic' matchbox, a participle is *on the outside* - which is what decides how it can fit into a sentence - an adjective. It simply will not fit into any sentence as anything else. On the inside it contains an element of the verb from which it is derived and sometimes that element is strong enough to pick up objects (and other adverbs) even through the outer casing of the adjective in which it is encased.
> Syntax - the thing I personally am talking about - is concerned with *how words can fit into sentences* - and there are certain rules about how they can and how they can't. When you are trying to fit A into B, what matters is not what A may contain but what are the exterior dimensions and configuration of A. Ask anyone loading suitcases into the boot of a car.
> So it is with syntax.
> A participle may 'contain' verbal forces within it but the only way it can fit into a sentence is as an adjective. In the same way an infinitive is *on the outside *a substantive and can fit into a sentence only as a substantive, though containing within it verbal forces often capable of attracting objects even through the outer shall of that substantive. Spanish even recognises this fact by treating it as a masculine substantive, as does French and Italian, while German, Latin and Greek infinitives are neuter substantives.
> People with little or no interest in the science of syntax may, of course, be deceived by instances of powerful interior verbality of some participles, infinitives and English gerunds and mistake them for verbs, mistaking their emotional reaction to those words for the syntax structure which they demonstrate and perform.
> When you ask for examples of present participles used as adjectives, the very multiplicity of examples which ought to make reply overwhelming tends to make reply all but impossible. Where do I start? How long have we got? is a question that springs to mind, for they come at us from all sides every day.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


Well put and done! Virgilio, my role model.
I totally agree with what you described in the above. I have studied and taught English grammar for more than twenty years, and I can sense those things you explained. I know they are true partly because I have learned them from grammar books and partly because I have thought about them for so long. Sometimes I dare not venture to reveal what I have found about English grammar because they are premature. After reading this post of yours, I'm really happy because my conceptions match yours.
Some fish waits for me to fry right now! Talk to you some other time.
Keep writing more because you're not so much an expert of linguistics as a guru.

Best regards,


QD


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Here's the *conjugation of the verb* "to scare."

Regards,

Alan


----------

