How do we analyze a construction like this one...
Hello everyone! A real quick, easy one for you...
1. Having a career in math would be a dream come true.
Simple enough, right? You've got what I believe to be a gerund-participial (or at least that is what the CGEL seems to suggest) followed by "would be," a sort of future, hypothetical, hopeful verb construction (I don't know the technical name for it), and, of course, the complement "a dream come true."
2. Simply having a career in math would be a dream come true.
What do we call this construction now that we've put an adverb in front of it? Is it still a gerund-participial? It's not an adverbial phrase. Thoughts?
Top answer
Mr D What do we call this construction now that we've put an adverb in front of it? Is it still a gerund-participial? I don't see why not.
- Mr D What do we call this construction now that we've put an adverb in front of it?
- Is it still a gerund-participial?
- I don't see why not.
- The phrase 'in math' doesn't disqualify it as a gerund-participial, so I can't see why 'simply' would.
- On the other hand, you're viewing it through the prism of CGEL, so all bets are off.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Mr DWhat do we call this construction now that we've put an adverb in front of it? Is it still a gerund-participial?
I don't see why not. The phrase 'in math' doesn't disqualify it as a gerund-participial, so I can't see why 'simply' would.
On the other hand, you're viewing it through the prism of CGEL, so all bets are off.
CJ
0Mr D CGEL
It's more useful to refer to the names of the authors (Huddleston and Pullum) or add the date (CGEL (2002)) than just write CGEL , which could refer to:
Quirk et al, (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), London: Longman
Huddleston and Pullum (2002), The Camb
0
Related Questions