confusion

Question

Hi dear teachers, - Running marathons is fun. (In this sentence, the subject is the gerund 'running' and it's acting as a noun. And 'marathon' is the object of the gerund phrase (running marathons). So, how should I see this (marathon) in the phrase 'running marathon'? Should I see this as an adjective, which is qualifying/modifying the 'gerund' which is acting as a noun?Thank you.

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

Gerunds have some of.the properties of both nouns and verbs

In your sentence, 'running' is like a noun in that it is the grammatical subject of the verb 'is'
It is like a verb in that it has 'marathons' as its object.

RandomGuy · Answer

Laboriousthe subject is the gerund 'running' and it's acting as a noun

No. The subject of the main clause is the gerund-participial clause running marathons, not just running. Running functions as head of the subordinate clause, just as ran is head of the verb phrase in I ran a marathon.

Consider this:

1. [Running marathons] is fun. [gerund-participle]
2. [Aerobic exercise] is fun. [noun]

The bracketed parts both function as subject of the main clause. In [1], the bracketed part is a clause, with the verb running as its head; in [2], the bracketed part is a noun phrase with the noun exercise as head. The similarity between the verb-form running and the noun exercise is simply this: they head expressions with the same function (subject).

LaboriousSo, how should I see this (marathons) in the phrase 'running marathons’? Should I see this as an adjective, which is qualifying/modifying the 'gerund'

Absolutely not! Adjectives can’t be objects, and objects never modify anything. You should see marathons as a noun (phrase) functioning as object of the verb running. That is all.

Laborious · Answer

Dear fivejedjon and Aspara Gus, I'm obliged to both of you, for your replies.

Dear Aspara Gus, I'd like to ask some more questions which relate to your post, please.

Aspara GusNo. The subject of the main clause is the gerund-participial clause running marathons, not just running. Running functions as head of the subordinate clause, just as ran is head of the verb phrase in I ran a marathon.

You said the subject of the main clause was the gerund-participial clause running marathons, not just running.
Is it ('running marathons') a clause? Shouldn't it be called a 'phrase' or more precisely 'a gerund phrase'?

Further you said that 'running' functions as head of the 'subordinate clause'. Could you please highlight the 'subordinate clause' which I had in my sentence?

Aspara GusConsider this:1. [Running marathons] is fun. [gerund-participle]2. [Aerobic exercise] is fun. [noun]The bracketed parts both function as subject of the main clause. In [1], the bracketed part is a clause, with the verb running as its head; in [2], the bracketed part is a noun phrase with the noun exercise as head. The similarity between the verb-form running and the noun exercise is simply this: they head expressions with the same function (subject)

Again, you said that in [1], the bracketed part (running marathons) was a clause. But isn't it true that a clause has a subject and a verb. So, If it (running marathons) is a clause, where is the subject, please?

Also, is it never possible to use something (a word or phrase) as an adjective with (before or after) a gerund?

Please help me, teachers, as the concept of 'gerunds' has become more confusing to me now.

Thank you.

RandomGuy · Answer

LaboriousCould you please highlight the 'subordinate clause' which I had in my sentence?

running marathons

LaboriousAgain, you said that in [1], the bracketed part (running marathons) was a clause. But isn't it true that a clause has a subject and a verb. So, If it (running marathons) is a clause, where is the subject, please?

Not all clauses have an overt subject. Take the imperative clause Watch out!, for example. Even traditional grammar calls that a clause.

Running marathons has the structure of a clause, and although it has no overt subject, it is understood as if it did. Furthermore, it can take the usual clause modifiers, such as adverbs (running marathons regularly), it can contain auxiliaries (having been running marathons), and it can be negated (not running marathons). So that’s why it’s best seen as a clause.

LaboriousAlso, is it never possible to use something (a word or phrase) as an adjective with (before or after) a gerund?

Sure it’s possible, but only with gerundial nouns, since adjectives don’t modify verbs. An example of this would be Many of the victim's friends witnessed the brutal killing.

LaboriousPlease help me, teachers, as the concept of 'gerunds' has become more confusing to me now.

Blame the traditional definition of “gerund” for misleading you in the first place. I hope it’s clear now that not all gerunds are nouns.

Laborious · Answer

Dear Aspara Gus, I really have no words to express my thanks to you. I was probably misled by the information that by adding an "ing" to any verb, we can change it into a gerund or present participle and that a gerund functions just like nouns do. So, that's the reason why I thought that we could have an adjective with any gerund, which is not true If I have understood you correctly.

So, the only possibility where we can use an adjective with a gerund is with the 'gerundial nouns'. Right AG?

RandomGuy · Answer

LaboriousSo, the only possibility where we can use an adjective with a gerund [as a modifier of a gerund] is with the 'gerundial nouns'. Right AG?

Right.

confusion

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions