Which one is correct?

Question

1. Sending messages was once possible.2. Sending messages were once possible.

RandomGuy · Accepted Answer

Sending messages was once possible.

The subject is the gerund-participial clause sending messages. Clauses functioning as subject are always singular.

Deadrat · Answer

Aspara Gus, Jester's gerund is a noun phrase.  A clause has a subject and a verb, so I don't understand how a clause could function as a subject. Noun phrases may be plural:  "Both sending and receiving messages were once possible."

Dabat · Answer

Should be 1. You're talking about the sending of messages. And not the messages themselves.

RandomGuy · Answer

deadrat Jester’s gerund is a noun phrase. A clause has a subject and a verb

Sending messages was once possible.

Sending is actually a verb here, not a noun. Notice its direct object messages, and also that it can be modified by an adverb but not an adjective: actually/~~actual~~ sending messages (compare the noun phrase the actual/~~actually~~ sending of messages). A clausal adjunct is also possible: sending messages on this site. Thus, sending messages has the structure of a clause, not a noun phrase.
Although it has no grammatical subject, it’s understood as if it did, like imperatives. And as it happens, gerund-participials often don’t have the subject missing: It's annoying, his/him/he/John acting like he knows what I'm talking about.

deadratI don't understand how a clause could function as a subject

Here are some more examples:

That he was lying is obvious.
Whom he reported it to is a mystery.
How she never breaks is beyond me.
For us to turn back now would be a mistake.

deadrat plural: "Both sending and receiving messages were once possible."

What I said before about clauses functioning as subject holds true. Here the subject has the form of a coordination construction rather than of a clause. It is this construction that is plural, not the clauses themselves.

Deadrat · Answer

Sorry, Gus, part of this is semantics. "sending" here is a gerund, a verbal form of a noun. It can take an object or a verb modifier, but it doesn't have a subject. Back in the day, this would be called a non-finite verb phrase. Modern grammarians on the other hand would say that the construction doesn't need a subject so it's a type of clause.

The same with your example "John, acting like a know-it-all, ...." John isn't the subject of the participial; he's modified by it. John will be the subject of a completed sentence -- "John, acting like a know-it-all, talked for hours."

Likewise "It is annoying" takes the form

Subject (noun=it) Verb (=is) Subjective-Complement (adj=annoying)
The idiomatic "It" is the subject of the sentence, not the subject of the participial.

This structure differs from the one in which annoying is a verb in the progressive form: "It is annoying him"

The construction "the actual sending of messages" is grammatically parallel to "sending messages." Both are nouns.

I take your point on coordinate constructions.

And of course, you're absolutely right: clauses function perfectly well as subjects. My excuse is that It's late here.

RandomGuy · Answer

deadratThe construction "the actual sending of messages" is grammatically parallel to "sending messages."

It clearly isn’t. In sending messages, sending is a transitive verb. There is no such thing as a transitive noun. Further, it can’t take a determiner, so we can’t have *the sending messages.

You need to recognize the difference between gerund-participle verb-forms (sending messages) and gerundial nouns (the sending of messages). I’ve grown sick of this topic from discussing it numerous times in the past year or so, so I’ll let The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language do the rest of the talking:

http://www.docdroid.net/vbyg/gerund.pdf.html

deadrat John isn't the subject of the participial; he's modified by it.

No. My example is subject + predicate (with no intervening comma). There is, however, a superficially similar construction where the gerund-participial is a post-head modifier, so that there may be ambiguity between the two structures, as in:

I resented the old man constantly questioning my motives. [clause or NP]

In the clause reading the underlined expression means “the fact that the old man constantly questioned my motives”; in the NP reading it means “the old man who constantly questioned my motives”.

Gerund-participials don’t modify pronouns, so him constantly questioning my motives is unambiguously a clause. Likewise, John constantly questioning my motives can only be a clause since you can’t (with irrelevant
exceptions) have a restrictive clause after a proper noun.

Deadrat · Answer

Gus, thanks for the reference and for your forbearance in discussing the topic with someone who missed the previous discussions. At the risk of being pedantically annoying (or perhaps I mean annoyingly pedantic), I distinguish between a grammatical analysis of a sentence and a linguistic analysis of its components. If you're trying to find the subject of the whole sentence, you need to look for something that takes charge of the verb. Ultimately, that's something like "sending" that acts like a noun, even when it takes on verblike characteristics in its own sphere.

Cambridge University (Peace be upon that venerable institution!) is no match for the plasticity of English. Here's a determinative applied to a gerund-participle:

"The governor's arrogance won him no friends, but it was the suborning perjury that earned him a criminal indictment."

The definite article tells which particular malfeasance is involved, and it won't do to declare that the form required is "suborning of perjury" because the statute defines the crime without the preposition.

Take the sentence

"My family members' departures were unnoticed; their returnings home, remarkable."

Is "returnings" g-participle or g-noun? It's number argues for noun (and is necessary to indicate separate returns), but its adverbial modifier of location argues for verb.

RandomGuy · Answer

deadratIf you're trying to find the subject of the whole sentence, you need to look for something that takes charge of the verb. Ultimately, that's something like "sending" that acts like a noun

It’s important to note that it’s not a matter of sending itself ‘acting like a noun’, but of sending messages, i.e., like my link said, the functional resemblance is at the level not of words but of larger constituents that they head. Thus the subject of Sending messages was once possible is sending messages, not just sending. Moreover, the subject function is not just filled by noun phrases but also by various clause types, as I showed before.

If sending is a noun in the OP’s sentence, then so should be turn in To turn back now would be a mistake. But they’re not nouns; they’re non-finite verbs heading non-finite clauses.

deadratit won't do to declare that the form required is "suborning of perjury" because the statute defines the crime without the preposition.

I would argue that the suborning perjury is a hybrid noun phrase, one with a verb phrase as head.

But that example is hardly relevant anyway, since gerund-participials with the definite article are rare and pretty much obsolete. I’d say your example is at best of marginal acceptability in the present-day language, and the sending messages is just flat-out wrong.

deadratbut its adverbial modifier of location argues for verb.

1. their returnings home
2. They returned home.

There are strong grounds for analyzing home as a preposition here (Prepositions and PPs), functioning as goal complement. On this view, [1] is unremarkable since nouns take PP complements (and modifiers) all the time. And that the noun is taking a complement type normally licensed by a verb, as in [2], is easily explained by the fact that it’s derived from a verb. The g-noun ‘inherits’ the property of taking a goal complement. Similarly, like the past participle verb-forms they are derived from, past participial adjectives often take by phrase complements: He seemed too embarrassed by their behavior to acknowledge that he was their son.

Which one is correct?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions