Verbs versus verbals

Question

I wanted to tell him to leaveIt has been frustrating living in the shadow of Victoria.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In a different post, I received answers to the analysis of these sentences, and they confused me about whether verbals become a part of the verb or the object of the verb(s). A gerund is a noun, so I assume it is never a part of the verb as a whole; it would be the object or complement, for example.Why is the verbal (infinitive) 'to tell' in the first sentence above the object of the verb 'wanted' and the verbal (present participle) 'frustrating' is a verb?I believed that a verbal, whether or not it has one or more auxiliary verbs preceding it, is not a verb. This would mean that 'frustrating' must be the object of 'has been' which would make sense because it seems like a predicate adjective. However the analysis I received stated that frustrating was a part of the verb (has been frustrating). Please help.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hope you understand what I am trying to ask. Thanks in advance.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

Hi, Eddie,
I struggled with the same question. I guess anybody can make up a term. Some stick; some don't. CJ seems to talk about the function of a word vs. its identity, or something like that. I think it's all a matter of definition, and who's got the clout. The only thing I'm sure of is the infinitive and the present and past participles. This is what they are, not what they do. It bugs the **** out of me that when the past participle functions as an adjective, it's still a participle, but when the present participle functions as a noun, it's no longer a participle.

As to your specific question, I've settled for the time being on the notion that when the so-called "principal parts of the verb" are used [together with auxilliaries] in the formation of bone fide tenses, they are verbs. When those same principle parts are used in a grammatically correct sentence in some other way, they are verbals. Exactly how this term applies to gerunds and to the infinitive when not used in the formation of a tense, I'm too tired right now to even think about. I know it will only make me mad. (I'd like to think that they're verbals.)

Best wishes, - A.

Edit. I think I've also agreed with myself for the time being that verbals may take objects.

One of your other questions, I think an infinitive, like a prepositional phrase, can function as a noun (object). Why do you say that "frustrating" is a verb? That would be true only in a case like "The government has been frustrating the efforts of private industry." Present perfect progressive tense! How about them apples? In your example, it's a predicate adjective.

Eddie88 · Answer

Hi, thanks, Avangi,

I am glad to see I am not the only one pondering over this conundrum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I know for certan can hopefully clear up a problem of yours, however.

It bugs the **** out of me that when the past participle functions as an adjective, it's still a participle, but when the present participle functions as a noun, it's no longer a participle.

A participle is always an adjective, regardless of its tense. When you see the ing form of a verb it can be one of two things;either a gerund (noun) or a participle (adjective).

Here is an example to show that there is a difference between the two.

Pesent participle (always an adjective)- 'Watching how her older sister handled the ball, Diane began to realise how much pratice must go in to developing such skill.'

This is a participle phrase describing Diane; it does not take the place of a noun

Gerund (always a noun)- 'By watching how her older sister handled the ball, Diane began...'

In this case, it is now taking the place of a noun. It is the object of the preposition 'by.'

So as you can see, there is a slight difference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And thanks, I agree with you that a verbal is a verb when it has auxiliaries preceding it; let's hope we are right.

Eddie88 · Answer

Oh, and if you hear an answer from a discerning figure like CJ, please let me know.

Thanks.

Avangi · Answer

My problem with the gerund goes back to the duality of identity and function. I have to admit this denies the nature of language and how it actually develops, but I think of the principle parts of the verb as primary - the source, so to speak. A brick is always going to be a brick, no matter what you build with it. I suppose in fact the gerund came first, and out of that grew the verb. But I'm stuck with this idea in my head that the present participle is what that thing is. Whatever use you want to put it to is okay. Whatever else you want to call it is okay. But it will never stop being a present participle. I may be husband to three different wives, but I'll always be my mother's son. Hey, I just got stuck with the wrong idea. I'm workin' on it.
CJ's integrity is 100% reliable, btw.

Eddie88 · Answer

It seems as though you are looking at this from a different angle from me. And, yes, CJ has provided me with great answers in the past. It would be great to know what he thinks on the subject.

My key problem appears are when I try to identify the parts of the sentence.

It had been frustrating living in the shadow of Victoria.

If I invert the sentence to omit the dummy 'it', it appears like this:

Living in the shadow of Victoria had been frustrating.

Three questions arise from this:

1)Is frustrating a gerund or present participle? It seems to describe the subject (particple), but it also takes the place of a gerund; that is, the complement.

2)Is frustrating a verb now instead of a verbal (complement) because of the auxiliary verbs? So what function does it perform? Complemet, object, verb, etc?

3)I wanted to tell him to leave- Does the infinitive 'to tell' become a part of the verb in this sentence? Why/why not?

I may post this question like this hoping I receive an answer.

Avangi · Answer

Perhaps you'd get a better feel for it if you accept the fact that the verb "to frustrate" is only transitive. Did you read my previous post? It can't be a verb until you add an object. "Living in the shadow of Victoria had been frustrating me." Now it's a verb, past perfect continuous tense. Otherwise, it's a predicate adjective, or complement, or whatever they're currently calling it. "Living was ****!" "Living was frustrating." "Living had been frustrating." "Living is frustrating." Where's the verb? "Living frustrates me." (Simple present tense) "Living is frustrating me." "She is frustrating me." (Present continuous tense.) "She had been frustrating me." (Past perfect continuous.)

If you want "had been frustrating" to be a verb in the sentence, "Living in the shadow of Victoria had been frustrating," please tell me what verb tense it is and what the object is! How about, "Victoria's plans had been frustrated!" ? "Frustrated" is a verb, past perfect tense, passive voice.

Cheers! - A.

Eddie88 · Answer

Thanks!

'Living in the shadow of Victoria had been frustrating me." Now it's a verb, past perfect continuous tense'

That actually kind of answers the question!

It is clear to me now that it is a verb when it has an object and is a verbal if does not.

However, I have one question:

Victoria's plans had been frustrated!" ? "Frustrated" is a verb, past perfect tense, passive voice.

How is this passive voice?

Thanks.

CalifJim · Answer

Eddie88How is this passive voice?

A form of be (been) followed by a past participle (of a transitive verb) (frustrated) makes a passive.

is seen, was thrown, has been taken, can be done, could have been known, were developed, have been sealed, were sung, may be reviewed, will have been brought, is being sought, should be forgotten, are spoken, am defeated, must have been lost, are being told, ...

CJ

Eddie88 · Answer

Thanks,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never heard of this before. I always just looked out for the preposition 'by' as that normally takes the subject after it, making it the passive voice.

1)In the bold above, I have a reduced relative clause, which can also be called a present particple clause, correct? Is a comma necessay here? Is there a rule?

2)So how would the sentence I asked you about (the passive voice sentence) be written in the active voice?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And CJ could you please answer my other post; I replied to you.

This will probably be the last post I'll be writing for a quite a while as I'll be on holiday, so I won't be bugging you for a while.

Thanks again!

CalifJim · Answer

... takes the subject after it, making it the passive voice.

1)In the bold above, I have a reduced relative clause, which can also be called a present particple clause, correct? Yes. Is a comma necessay here? I'd say so. Is there a rule? Probably, but I myself don't know the rules very well when it comes to punctuation!

... written in the active voice?

Passive: Victoria's plans had been frustrated.

Active: Someone (or Something) had frustrated Victoria's plans.

please answer my other post Done.

I'll be on holiday Have a good time!

CJ

Verbs versus verbals

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions