# Gerund or verbal noun



## ediskvaka

Hi.
How one can differentiate gerund and verbal noun?
Are  _hunting, military scouting, swimming _gerunds?

The phrase is :
They were kept under a very strict discipline and were taught hunting, military scouting, swimming and the use of weapons. 

Thanks.


----------



## ewie

Hi Edi.  For what it's worth I'd call them _nouns that end in '-ing'_ or _nouns formed from verbs._


----------



## ediskvaka

Hi.
Then I do not understand why in the phrase "_Swimming is a good exercise_"  _swimming _is called a gerund in the textbooks.
Thanks.


----------



## Rival

Certainly a gerund is a 'verbal noun', but are there 'verbal nouns' that are not gerunds?  I can't think of any.
.


----------



## Andygc

ediskvaka said:


> They were kept under a very strict discipline and were taught hunting, military scouting, swimming and the use of weapons.


ediskvaka, in English a gerund *is *a verbal noun. Your examples (hunting, scouting, swimming) are verbs in one of their noun forms, and are gerunds.

The other form of verbal noun in English is the "to-infinitive" (eg, _to err_ is human), but that is not a gerund.

Edit

But as etb suggest below, so what?


----------



## entangledbank

Why do you want to know? It makes no difference to the grammar. Among all the many different uses of the _-ing _forms, the only significant grammatical difference is whether it behaves as a verb or as a noun:

carelessly hunting ducks
the careless hunting of ducks


----------



## ediskvaka

As I can read from the textbooks verbal nouns are used with  articles and can be plural.
For example, 
He took part  in the *sittings *of the committee.
The preparations and *unleashing* of two world wars led not to the *strengthening * but to the *weakening* of imperialism's international position.


That is why it is important for me to find out the difference. I want to know if I must use an article and *of* in the possessive case.

Thanks.


----------



## Rival

ediskvaka said:


> Hi.
> Then I do not understand why in the phrase "_Swimming is a good exercise_" _swimming _is called a gerund in the textbooks.
> Thanks.


 
We often use -ing to form a noun from a verb. This noun normally indicates an activity based on the verb.
So, 'Swimming is good exercise', 'Driving is Michael Schumacher's profession', 'Your horrible snoring drives me crazy', 'I like my wife's cooking'.

But, be careful -- gerunds end in -ing, but not all words that end with -ing are gerunds. 
e.g. an interesting book, a boring movie, a satisfying job, a frustrating situation -- all have -ing, but all are adjectives, not nouns, so they are not gerunds.
.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Rival said:


> We often use -ing to form a noun from a verb. This noun normally indicates an activity based on the verb.
> So, 'Swimming is good exercise', 'Driving is Michael Schumacher's profession', 'Your horrible snoring drives me crazy', 'I like my wife's cooking'.
> 
> But, be careful -- gerunds end in -ing, but not all words that end with -ing are gerunds.
> e.g. an interesting book, a boring movie, a satisfying job, a frustrating situation -- all have -ing, but all are adjectives, not nouns, so they are not gerunds.
> .



Yeah.

Also in "he is swimming", it's a present participle, not a gerund.
It's not that _he embodies the act of swimming_ (which then would be a gerund).


----------



## Andygc

ediskvaka said:


> As I can read from the textbooks verbal nouns are used with  articles and can be plural.
> For example,
> He took part  in the *sittings *of the committee.
> The preparations and *unleashing* of two world wars led not to the *strengthening * but to the *weakening* of imperialism's international position.
> 
> 
> That is why it is important for me to find out the difference. I want to know if I must use an article and *of* in the possessive case.
> 
> Thanks.


You treat them like any other noun - the article may or may not be required, the possessive can be formed using *of *or *'s*.

Your examples are correct (except it should be ... preparations for and unleashing of ..)

An example of no article being required:
Spitting is antisocial.

A possessive using _*'s*_
Spitting's danger is the spreading of disease.

I don't understand the point from your textbook - *some *verbal nouns *may be* used with articles and may be plural, but some cannot. 

_To love is normal_ - _to love_ is a verbal noun, it cannot be pluralised and cannot be used with an article. I was trying to think of how to use it in a possessive form, but I have failed.


----------



## Rival

Andygc said:


> _To love is normal_ - _to love_ is a verbal noun, it cannot be pluralised and cannot be used with an article. I was trying to think of how to use it in a possessive form, but I have failed.


 
Thank you. In post #4 I was musing _"... but are there 'verbal nouns' that are not gerunds? I can't think of any."_ and you have just answered my question.
.


----------



## Prower

I remember in another thread which I started we were discussing why* it is not ok to say*

I came here *for fishing*/starting a business/ etc.

*But it is ok to say*

I came here for* the fishing.

*Now it is clear, that a gerund and a verbal noun should be distinguished.


----------



## se16teddy

Compare 
1. _I like singing songs _and
2. _I like the singing of songs_. 

In 1, _singing_ takes an object, and its implied subject is the same as the subject of the sentence - it means _I like it when *I *sing songs_. You could qualify _singing_ with an adverb: _I like singing songs joyfully_; you cannot qualify it with an adjective or an article. I suppose that this is the "gerund" of which ediskvaka writes. 

In 2, _singing_ has an article and cannot have an object (it has an _of _phrase instead). It has no implied subject: probably the singer is* not *the subject of the sentence.  You could qualify _singing_ with an adjective: _I like the joyful singing of songs;_ you cannot qualify it with an adverb. I suppose that this is the "verbal noun" of which ediskvaka writes.


----------



## Prower

se16teddy said:


> Compare


Cool analysis.


----------



## lapdwicks

<<Moderator note: lapdwicks's question has been added to an existing discussion of the same subject - found by following Rule 1: putting the title words in the search box.  Please review the discussion above>>

Dear teachers,

I have been using the words "Gerund" and "Verbal Noun" for the same thing. But, now, having read some threads of this forum, I doubt whether they are the same.

Please explain me whether there is a difference between them and, if so, what they are.

Thanks.


----------



## entangledbank

'Verbal noun' is a generic term for a noun formed from a verb, or related to a verb - various languages have various kinds and numbers of verbal noun. It's not traditionally used of a specific form in English, but if it was, it would be used for what is traditionally called the gerund in English. That is, the _ing_-form of the verb "when used a noun", in some way.

As I keep saying over and over in many threads, the traditional distinction between the _ing_-form called a 'gerund' and the same _ing_-form called a 'present participle' doesn't correspond to the facts of English grammar. The _ing_-form can be used as a noun or as a verb - the traditional term 'gerund' covers most of the noun uses and some of the verb uses.


----------



## lapdwicks

EnglishLearner1990 said:


> <<Moderator note:  The original post by EnglishLearner was a verbatim quote from another site on the internet (for example it can be found on Yahoo Answers) and was not attributed by EnglishLearner1990, and it quoted more that the 4 sentence limit - all in contravention of Forum Rule 4.  I have trimmed it and provided a link to another site (and possibly the original author) to comply with that rule.>>
> 
> Verbal nouns take the form of a gerund, that is, the present participle, but a true gerund still has verbal force.
> 
> 
> <<...deleted>>
> 
> 
> A verbal noun has no characteristics of a verb beyond the -ing form.
> 
> 
> <<...deleted>>.
> The rule would be: if you can make it plural — or if it already is one — it's a verbal noun. If one could change the tense or the word has an object, it's a gerund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I am not a teacher.))




According to your explanation, it seems to me that the fact you want to express is as follows.

_*PAINTING

*_1.  He is *painting* a picture. - *(Present Participle)
*2.  This *painting* is beautiful. - *(Verbal Noun)
*3.  My hobby is *painting*. - *(Gerund)

*Am I correct here.


This is another usage of INGs.

4.  The boy *painting* a picture at that desk is John - *(What is **"painting"** here?)

*Please explain


----------



## lucas-sp

Argh! We can confuse ourselves so much when we start taking these terminological questions too seriously.





> 1. He is *painting* a picture. - *(Present Participle)*


No: in "is painting," "painting" is the present participle being used to form the present progressive tense of the verb "to paint." A better characterization would be: 





> 1. He *is **painting* a picture. - *(verb; present tense, progressive aspect)*


Now for the easy ones:





> 3. My hobby is *painting*. - *(Gerund) *
> 4. The boy *painting* a picture at that desk is John - *(Participle; introducing the participial phrase "painting a picture at that desk") *


Now we get to the really hard one:





> 2. This *painting* is beautiful.


"Painting" can have two meanings here. _Either_ it refers to (A) one entire painting, such as the _Mona Lisa_ or _Sunflowers_ - i.e., to one completed, painted piece of canvas. _Or_ it refers to (B) the specific "painting" that a painter has done at one point in a painting: the way Leonardo da Vinci uses the technique of sfumato on the Mona Lisa's cheeks, or the bold brushstrokes that Van Gogh uses for the blooming flowers in _Sunflowers_.

In that case, we have two possible sentences:

2A. This *painting* [ - John Singer Sargent's _Madame X_ - ] is beautiful.
2B. This *painting* [ - the way Sargent drew one brushstroke around the nose of the woman in the painting - ] is beautiful.

And two possible answers:

2A. "painting" is a *deverbal noun*.
2B. "painting" is a *gerund*, and is thus a *verbal noun*.

In 2A "painting" has lost its verbal meaning. It doesn't strongly connote the action of painting. But in 2B "painting" refers precisely to an action, and has the sense of the act of painting done by the artist. That means it's still a *verbal* noun (a noun formed from the verb that still falls within the horizon of that verb's meaning).


----------



## lapdwicks

It sounds clear enough to understand.

Thanks very much


----------



## WildWest

Can you help me with this?

Imagine that someone (A) works at university as a professor and invites one of his old friends (B) to his home to drink something or  maybe watch TV together.

B: Fine with me. So I will be there at 9 tonight. 
A: Uh, may I do that entertaining later when my work at university is done?

A doesn't want to entertain his friend that night and just means him quitting the job by saying "when my work at university is done".  

That example may sound awful to you, I know, but is "that entertaining" fine here? If not, just tell me if it would be called deverbal noun. 

Additionally, I know I could write this instead, which would fit better compared to the first:

Can we delay it few days later?


----------



## PaulQ

WildWest said:


> Can you help me with this?
> 
> Imagine that someone (A) works at university as a professor and invites one of his old friends (B) to his home to drink something or  maybe watch TV together.
> 
> B: Fine with me. So I will be there at 9 tonight.
> A: Uh, may I do that entertaining later when my work at university is done I finish. (No question mark, it is not a question.)
> 
> A doesn't want to entertain his friend that night and just means him quitting delaying/postponing/avoiding the job by saying "when my work at university is done I have finished here."
> 
> That example may sound awful to you, I know, but is "that entertaining" fine here?


 "That sort of entertaining" would be more natural, but see later.





> Additionally, I know I could write this the following instead, which that, I think, would fit better compared to the first:
> 
> Can we delay it for few days later?


It does indeed sound awful, rude and ignorant.  It is poor as you would never say to someone whom to have invited to your house that you were "entertaining" them. However, from a grammatical point of view, it is OK.

To give a more realistic example: 

"Your duties will include the entertaining of visiting professors. You may reclaim the cost of that entertaining." or "You may reclaim the cost of that entertainment." But not, "You may reclaim the cost of those entertainings." 

To me, it is not a deverbaled noun.


----------



## e2efour

Your sentence sounds odd because of _that entertaining_. It would sound better with _the entertaining_.

This is just a noun made from the verb _entertain_ and I would call it a verbal noun.
Definitions vary, but I prefer to use deverbal for nouns that have lost their verbal sense and are often count nouns (for which the ultimate test is to look in the dictionary). So _painting_ and _wedding_ are deverbal nouns that have been created from the respective verbs _paint_ and_ wed._

What you call this type of noun is not the problem. It is how you use it. So, for example, you cannot say _Following long entertainings, he went to bed.
_It is a noun created from a verb. So is _entertain+ment_, and some people would call this a deverbal noun.

(Let's put off the entertaining/entertainment for a few days.)


----------



## WildWest

Thank you a lot, PaulQ!

By the way, shouldn't we use the verb quit to mean he won't work there anymore? Can you also explain my other mistakes one by one and with simple sentences if possible?


----------



## WildWest

e2efour said:


> Your sentence sounds odd because of _that entertaining_. It would sound better with _the entertaining_.
> 
> This is just a noun made from the verb _entertain_ and I would call it a verbal noun.
> Definitions vary, but I prefer to use deverbal for nouns that have lost their verbal sense and are often count nouns (for which the ultimate test is to look in the dictionary). So _painting_ and _wedding_ are deverbal nouns that have been created from the respective verbs _paint_ and_ wed._
> 
> What you call this type of noun is not the problem. It is how you use it. So, for example, you cannot say _Following long entertainings, he went to bed.
> _It is a noun created from a verb. So is _entertain+ment_, and some people would call this a deverbal noun.
> 
> (Let's put off the entertaining/entertainment for a few days.)



Thank you too, e2efour!

The entertaining looks good, indeed, but why that entertaining doesn't work? Is it because the word that doesn't refer to anything in the conversation?


----------



## e2efour

Apart from the fact that I find it unnatural, it is the case that_ that_ usually refers to something that has already been mentioned.

_Entertaining_ also suggests a process and _that entertaining_ does not seems to me to express _the idea of me entertaining you_ very well.
If he had said _that invitation_, it would have been possible.


----------



## WildWest

e2efour said:


> Apart from the fact that I find it unnatural, it is the case that_ that_ usually refers to something that has already been mentioned.
> 
> _Entertaining_ also suggests a process and _that entertaining_ does not seems to me to express _the idea of me entertaining you_ very well.
> If he had said _that invitation_, it would have been possible.



Thank you. Regardless of this, we only call a word deverbal noun if it can be made plural and derived from a verb, right?


----------



## Loob

WildWest said:


> Thank you. Regardless of this, we only call a word deverbal noun if it can be made plural and derived from a verb, right?


This whole area is fraught with difficulty, WildWest, in that people use the various terms in different ways.

But yes, I would say that a "deverbal noun" is a noun derived from a verb which has moved a long way from its verbal origins - so far away that (a) it represents a concrete "thing" and (b) it can be used in the plural.

I hasten to add that that's *my* interpretation.  Other people's views may differ....


----------



## Keith Bradford

This is silly.  There are thousands of nouns derived from verbs - my *love *for her, a long *walk*, let's have a *look-see, *the *boredom *of reading threads on the gerund...  Can anyone tell me what earthly use it is to give them a fancy name like "deverbalised nouins"?  They're just nouns.

Sorry, it's late in the evening.  Yawn.


----------



## WildWest

Thank you all for your replies!


----------



## ErinJay

ediskvaka said:


> Hi.
> How one can differentiate gerund and verbal noun?
> Are  _hunting, military scouting, swimming _gerunds?
> 
> The phrase is :
> They were kept under a very strict discipline and were taught hunting, military scouting, swimming and the use of weapons.
> 
> Thanks.



I've been freelancing for five years (content writing) and I'm fairly successful with it, and not once have I ever had to understand the difference between a verbal and a gerund. 

College education changed all of that. 

From what I gather, a gerund is just a type of verbal phrase. While some verbals can be used as other parts of speech, a gerund is only used as a noun and it always ends in -ing. Always. 

I hope this helps somehow. I'm currently studying this subject (which is how I ended up here in the first place) and it's confusing as all get out to me.


----------



## moyeea

After reading this…I have learnt a lot.

But one thing confuses me a lot…How to use these things？ Some structure really confuses me！（like  expect something， expect to do something  but can we say ：I expect the cooking of our chief？）

Besides， we often say hear sb doing something （here participle) But can we say:Hear his talking? 

If this kind of words is modified by adjectives, how to express like online shopping(it works as a noun right?) In this way we say spend time on online shopping or in online shopping?

Besides, if there is just a word! Can we use it as a noun? Like hear talking


----------



## Keith Bradford

moyeea said:


> ...can we say ：I expect the cooking of our chief？）



What would be the context?  "Our chief has been captured by cannibals, and they're heating water in a big cauldron.  When the water begins to boil, I expect the cooking of our chief." 

Perhaps you mean: "I look forward to our chief's cooking"?  (= Our chief is going to cook a meal, and I think it will be good.)



> can we say: Hear his talking?



Yes, and many people will say that this is correct.  But most people prefer "hear him talking".



> Can we use it as a noun? Like hear talking


Yes indeed.  "I can hear talking in another room."  This means _I can hear somebody talking... I can hear the sound of voices..._


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> What would be the context?  "Our chief has been captured by cannibals, and they're heating water in a big cauldron.  When the water begins to boil, I expect the cooking of our chief."
> 
> Perhaps you mean: "I look forward to our chief's cooking"?  (= Our chief is going to cook a meal, and I think it will be good.)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and many people will say that this is correct.  But most people prefer "hear him talking".
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "I can hear talking in another room."  This means _I can hear somebody talking... I can hear the sound of voices..._


Thanks very much for your help！

But how to distinguish？ 
Normally we say spend time on something spend time in doing sth

But if there is just a word（which can be used a verbal noun，how can we define…） 
Here is the example：
I spend time on talking
I spend time in talking
I spend time on his talking
I spend time in his talking


----------



## Keith Bradford

Of your four examples, only one is good: I spend time in talking.  However, many people would say simply: I spend time in talking.

The others are either incorrect (spend time on...) or meaningless (how can *I* spend time on/in *his* talking?).  What are you trying to say?


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> Of your four examples, only one is good: I spend time in talking.  However, many people would say simply: I spend time in talking.
> 
> The others are either incorrect (spend time on...) or meaningless (how can *I* spend time on/in *his* talking?).  What are you trying to say?


But that's why… we can say： I still remember the cooking of Tom.
How to use these verbal nouns（which is in gerund form？）


----------



## Andygc

You seem to be trying to have a rule that does not exist. The meanings of words affect how they are used.

I still remember Tom's cooking. Fine - his cooking is something that you experienced in the past, you have stored a memory of it, so it is something you can remember.

I spend time talking. Talking is what I am doing, so I can spend time on it.
I spend time on Tom's talking.  No, I am not doing it, so I cannot spend time on it.
I spend time on (or 'in') listening to Tom's talking.  Now I am doing something - listening - so I can spend time on it.


----------



## moyeea

Andygc said:


> You seem to be trying to have a rule that does not exist. The meanings of words affect how they are used.
> 
> I still remember Tom's cooking. Fine - his cooking is something that you experienced in the past, you have stored a memory of it, so it is something you can remember.
> 
> I spend time talking. Talking is what I am doing, so I can spend time on it.
> I spend time on Tom's talking.  No, I am not doing it, so I cannot spend time on it.
> I spend time on (or 'in') listening to Tom's talking.  Now I am doing something - listening - so I can spend time on it.


Thank you very much!

But I want to know how to use verbal nouns which are in gerund form.

Here are some examples:

I spend time on my talking(verbal noun?)

I spend time in my talking(gerund?)

But if there is just one word;talking how can we tell.

I don't know how to use these verbal nouns.

My teacher told me:spend time in doing something, spend time on sth...but in this way...how to express


----------



## Keith Bradford

moyeea said:


> ...
> Here are some examples:
> 
> I spend time on my talking (verbal noun?)
> 
> I spend time in my talking (gerund?)



No.  Neither of these is English.  We don't use gerunds or verbal nouns in this way, we use present participles: _*I spend time talking.*_


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> No.  Neither of these is English.  We don't use gerunds or verbal nouns in this way, we use present participles: _*I spend time talking.*_


Thank you very much sir.
But can we say I expect reading?

If I want to use deverbal  nouns,  the words must have definitive words like (this a/an the  some adjectives?)


----------



## Florentia52

What would you mean by "I expect reading?" Is there more to the sentence? In what situation would you say it?


----------



## moyeea

Florentia52 said:


> What would you mean by "I expect reading?" Is there more to the sentence? In what situation would you say it?


Maybe it is a little bit odd.

If I want to use verbal nouns, can I say  I prefer the cooking.( verbal noun) I prefer cooking( verbal noun or gerund)?


----------



## Florentia52

moyeea said:


> If I want to use verbal nouns, can I say  I prefer the cooking.( verbal noun) I prefer cooking( verbal noun or gerund)?



Again, we need the complete sentence, and the situation in which you would say it. We do not discuss phrases out of context here.


----------



## moyeea

Florentia52 said:


> Again, we need the complete sentence, and the situation in which you would say it. We do not discuss phrases out of context here.


Ok , sorry about that.

This restaurant is famous. Let's compare.

I prefer the cooking of this chief.

I prefer the cooking.

I prefer cooking.(This one is right or not. it is a gerund or a verbal noun, can it be a verbal noun)?


----------



## Florentia52

"I prefer the cooking of this chef" (I think you mean "chef" and not "chief") is fine, but we might say "I prefer this chef's cooking" instead, depending on what we wanted to emphasize.

"I prefer the cooking" appears to mean nothing. _Which_ cooking?

"I prefer cooking" could be correct, depending on context. For example, "I prefer cooking at home to dining out." By itself, it's rather meaningless.


----------



## moyeea

Florentia52 said:


> "I prefer the cooking of this chef" (I think you mean "chef" and not "chief") is fine, but we might say "I prefer this chef's cooking" instead, depending on what we wanted to emphasize.
> 
> "I prefer the cooking" appears to mean nothing. _Which_ cooking?
> 
> "I prefer cooking" could be correct, depending on context. For example, "I prefer cooking at home to dining out." By itself, it's rather meaningless.


Thanks you very much for your help.

But if everybody knows " the cooking“ refers to can I just say prefer the cooking?

Besides, "prefer cooking at  home" (here should be a gerund  right? because it is modified by"at home") but  if I just say prefer cooking can it refers to a verbal noun?


----------



## Florentia52

I can't think of a context in which "I prefer the cooking" would be correct or meaningful. If you have a specific context in mind, then present it, and we can answer your question. 

"I prefer cooking" could be meaningful, in the appropriate context. For example:

X: What do you do in your spare time? Do you enjoy gardening?
Y: I prefer cooking.


----------



## WildWest

As for the cooking example, would the following be identical in meaning?

"I prefer this chef cooking."


----------



## Florentia52

WildWest said:


> As for the cooking example, would the following be identical in meaning?
> 
> "I prefer this chef cooking."


Would it be identical in meaning to what, WildWest? We've had several sentences about cooking.

"I prefer this chef*'s* cooking" = I prefer her/his cooking to that of other chefs.

You might be able to use "I prefer this chef cooking" to mean "I'd rather have him/her cooking than trying to manage the business end of the restaurant."


----------



## WildWest

Florentia52 said:


> Would it be identical in meaning to what, WildWest? We've had several sentences about cooking.
> 
> "I prefer this chef*'s* cooking" = I prefer her/his cooking to that of other chefs.
> 
> You might be able to use "I prefer this chef cooking" to mean "I'd rather have him/her cooking than trying to manage the business end of the restaurant."



Sorry for not being clear at the first place and thank you for the reply.

I thought that structure was similar to that of the following:

A. I appreciated him trying to be by my side.
B. I appreciated his trying to be by my side.

I once read somewhere that either would work the same way. Only the latter is more formal and grammatically correct.


----------



## Florentia52

WildWest said:


> Sorry for not being clear at the first place and thank you for the reply.
> 
> I thought that structure was similar to that of the following:
> 
> A. I appreciated him trying to be by my side.
> B. I appreciated his trying to be by my side.
> 
> I once read somewhere that either would work the same way. Only the latter is more formal and grammatically correct.


I think Keith Bradford addressed this in #33.


----------



## moyeea

WildWest said:


> Sorry for not being clear at the first place and thank you for the reply.
> 
> I thought that structure was similar to that of the following:
> 
> A. I appreciated him trying to be by my side.
> B. I appreciated his trying to be by my side.
> 
> I once read somewhere that either would work the same way. Only the latter is more formal and grammatically correct.


I think in your example：
trying to be is a gerund， so his/him is the logical subject of the act

Besides， “ his ”is formal “him” is informal


----------



## moyeea

Florentia52 said:


> Would it be identical in meaning to what, WildWest? We've had several sentences about cooking.
> 
> "I prefer this chef*'s* cooking" = I prefer her/his cooking to that of other chefs.
> 
> You might be able to use "I prefer this chef cooking" to mean "I'd rather have him/her cooking than trying to manage the business end of the restaurant."


But why can we say I heard the screaming. Can we just say I heard screaming？

How can we use verbal nouns which are in gerund form？


----------



## Myridon

moyeea said:


> But why can we say I heard the screaming. Can we just say I heard screaming？
> 
> How can we use verbal nouns which are in gerund form？


I heard the screaming.  I heard some specific instance of screaming.  This is a countable "noun" so it needs a determiner like "the."  The screaming of the lambs as they were slaughtered was very loud.
I heard screaming. I heard some noise that sounded like screaming.  This is an uncountable "noun" so no determiner is needed.  Screaming is my favorite noise.


----------



## moyeea

Myridon said:


> I heard the screaming.  I heard some specific instance of screaming.  This is a countable "noun" so it needs a determiner like "the."  The screaming of the lambs as they were slaughtered was very loud.
> I heard screaming. I heard some noise that sounded like screaming.  This is an uncountable "noun" so no determiner is needed.  Screaming is my favorite noise.


But screaming is not a verbal noun？ I didn't find the definition in dictionary. It is not a act or the thing?


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think we may have got in a tangle here.  Personally, I don't use the expression _verbal noun_ and I don't even know what _gerund _means - I must have been absent from school on the day we learnt that.  Let me put this more simply.

The -ing form of a verb (the present participle) may be a *noun *or an *adjective*. Here's an example of it as an adjective:
*
This is Shakespeare writing:*







Here it is as a singular noun:
*This is Shakespeare's writing*:





And here it's a plural noun:  *Here are Shakespeare's writings*.





As you can see, the adjective behaves like any other adjective - _This is Shakespeare writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare happy_. And the rules on nouns are like any other nouns: _This is Shakespeare's writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare's dog_.

The rules about using definite and indefinite articles apply to these nouns like any other nouns.


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> I think we may have got in a tangle here.  Personally, I don't use the expression _verbal noun_ and I don't even know what _gerund _means - I must have been absent from school on the day we learnt that.  Let me put this more simply.
> 
> The -ing form of a verb (the present participle) may be a *noun *or an *adjective*. Here's an example of it as an adjective:
> *
> This is Shakespeare writing:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is as a singular noun:
> *This is Shakespeare's writing*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it's a plural noun:  *Here are Shakespeare's writings*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the adjective behaves like any other adjective - _This is Shakespeare writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare happy_. And the rules on nouns are like any other nouns: _This is Shakespeare's writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare's dog_.
> 
> The rules about using definite and indefinite articles apply to these nouns like any other nouns.


Thank you very much for your help！

I was confused by some “-ing verbs” which work as nouns. 

Just like The skillful defusing of bombs is really incredible.

But how to use these words：
When shall we use articles？
We can say I love baking. Can we say I love the baking of this restaurant？ or just say I love the cooking？ I love everyday cooking？


----------



## Keith Bradford

We can say _I love baking_. 
_I love the baking of this restaurant_ *?*  Better: the baking *in *this restaurant (it's not the restaurant that does the work!)
I love the cooking. "The" is too definite, if you haven't said *which *cooking; but _I always come to this restaurant because I love the cooking_. 
_I love everyday cooking_


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> I think we may have got in a tangle here.  Personally, I don't use the expression _verbal noun_ and I don't even know what _gerund _means - I must have been absent from school on the day we learnt that.  Let me put this more simply.
> 
> The -ing form of a verb (the present participle) may be a *noun *or an *adjective*. Here's an example of it as an adjective:
> *
> This is Shakespeare writing:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is as a singular noun:
> *This is Shakespeare's writing*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it's a plural noun:  *Here are Shakespeare's writings*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the adjective behaves like any other adjective - _This is Shakespeare writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare happy_. And the rules on nouns are like any other nouns: _This is Shakespeare's writing_ is just like _This is Shakespeare's dog_.
> 
> The rules about using definite and indefinite articles apply to these nouns like any other nouns.


Thank you very much for your help！

I was confused by some “-ing verbs” which work as nouns.

Just like The skillful defusing of bombs is really incredible.

But how to use these words：
When shall we use articles？
We can say I love baking. Can we say I love the baking of this restaurant？ or just say I love the cooking？ I love


Keith Bradford said:


> We can say _I love baking_.
> _I love the baking of this restaurant_ *?*  Better: the baking *in *this restaurant (it's not the restaurant that does the work!)
> I love the cooking. "The" is too definite, if you haven't said *which *cooking; but _I always come to this restaurant because I love the cooking_.
> _I love everyday cooking_


Thank you very much for your help！

But can we just use these words without definative words：

I heard a screaming

I heard screaming

I love a baking of this chief（this one is right or not？）


----------



## Keith Bradford

I heard a screaming ?  It's possible, though we'd usually say *I heard a scream*

I heard screaming 

I love a baking of this chef   You've forgotten what I said in #33 - the chef is not being baked by cannibals!  (I hope.)


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> I heard a screaming ?  It's possible, though we'd usually say *I heard a scream*
> 
> I heard screaming
> 
> I love a baking of this chef   You've forgotten what I said in #33 - the chef is not being baked by cannibals!  (I hope.)


No sir， here the chief means the subject of the baking I'm just wondering can we use a instead of the？


----------



## Keith Bradford

No, we can't.  There is no such thing as "a baking", it would be "a cake... a loaf... a pie..." or else the whole combined as "baking".  *I love this chef's baking.* 

(PS - look again at #45 - it's *chef*, not chief.)


----------



## moyeea

Keith Bradford said:


> No, we can't.  There is no such thing as "a baking", it would be "a cake... a loaf... a pie..." or else the whole combined as "baking".  *I love this chef's baking.*
> 
> (PS - look again at #45 - it's *chef*, not chief.)


But why we can say I heard a screaming of this boy？


----------



## Andygc

moyeea said:


> But why we can say I heard a screaming of this boy？


We do not say that. It's "I heard this boy screaming" or "I heard this boy's screaming".


----------



## moyeea

Andygc said:


> We do not say that. It's "I heard this boy screaming" or "I heard this boy's screaming".


But how to use “v-ing”+of？ It must be with articles or “demonstrative pronouns”？ And when can we use it？


----------

