The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form, ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.

In Turkish, there are three definitions for the verb forms when it is used as a noun (namely "adfiil" lit. noun-verb), as an adjective (namely "sıfatfiil" lit. adjective-verb) or as an adverb (namely "zarffiil" lit. adverb-verb).

Yet I see alot of people using "gerund" as a translation of "zarffiil" when it can only mean "adfiil" (IMO).

For example the following is quoted from an academic work.
"In Turkish and Turkic, these relations are often established by adverbs,
and when this relationship is established, the adverbs become a syntactic form which is
no longer merely a morpheme. Gerunds (-ınca, -ıp, -arak etc.), one of the morphosyntactic categories that are specific to the Turkic languages, provide that clauses to
become grammaticalized by the function of the envelope. This study has focused on
these morpho-syntactic units in general and the following questions were sought during
the study: Is the gerunds that shows an internal structure / grammar characteristic as
stable as other internal structure components? If we leave the phonetic variations to an
edge, is it always the same or similar gerunds used at every turn and stage in Turkish
history? If there is a dynamism in the use of these suffixes in Turkish, what are the
reasons for this? How are new gerunds produced in Turkic languages, how do new
gerund structures come into being? Are there similarities in production processes? Will
the gerunds lose prestige over time? The database of the study will create the gerunds
lists in the grammar books prepared on Turkic languages such as Turkish, Azerbaijani,
Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uigur, Tuvan, Yakut, Chuvash and will be
related to the dialects as needed."

(-ınca, -ıp, -arak) suffixes do not make verb forms that can be used as nouns (the "gerund" as called in English).

Is "gerundive" is a better term in English to describe what is called "zarffiil" in Turkish?

See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:

> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,

Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
you, then it's being used as a participle.

However, there's no reason to use the term for English. It refers
to a specific form in verb conjugation in Latin. That's even more
the case for "gerundive," mentioned below, which I don't think has
been applied to English,

ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.

> In Turkish, there are three definitions for the verb forms when it is used as a noun (namely "adfiil" lit. noun-verb), as an adjective (namely "sıfatfiil" lit. adjective-verb) or as an adverb (namely "zarffiil" lit. adverb-verb).
>
> Yet I see alot of people using "gerund" as a translation of "zarffiil" when it can only mean "adfiil" (IMO).

Maybe the term was introduced into the study of Turkish grammar
in the 19th century, when anyone dealing with the "Oriental" languages
had been familiar with Latin and its study since childhood. In those
days, any Orientalist was expected to have mastery of Classical
Arabic, Classical Persian, and (Ottoman) Turkish -- but knowledge
of the modern/spoken languages was not at all part of their domain.

So what you should be comparing is not English grammar, but Latin
grammar: and maybe it would be best to abandon the Latin terminology
entirely but use the Turkish names of the inflections in descriptions
and instruction instead.

> For example the following is quoted from an academic work.
> "In Turkish and Turkic, these relations are often established by adverbs,
> and when this relationship is established, the adverbs become a syntactic form which is
> no longer merely a morpheme. Gerunds (-ınca, -ıp, -arak etc.), one of the morpho syntactic categories that are specific to the Turkic languages, provide that clauses to
> become grammaticalized by the function of the envelope. This study has focused on
> these morpho-syntactic units in general and the following questions were sought during
> the study: Is the gerunds that shows an internal structure / grammar characteristic as
> stable as other internal structure components? If we leave the phonetic variations to an
> edge, is it always the same or similar gerunds used at every turn and stage in Turkish
> history? If there is a dynamism in the use of these suffixes in Turkish, what are the
> reasons for this? How are new gerunds produced in Turkic languages, how do new
> gerund structures come into being? Are there similarities in production processes? Will
> the gerunds lose prestige over time? The database of the study will create the gerunds
> lists in the grammar books prepared on Turkic languages such as Turkish, Azerbaijani,
> Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uigur, Tuvan, Yakut, Chuvash and will be
> related to the dialects as needed."
>
> (-ınca, -ıp, -arak) suffixes do not make verb forms that can be used as nouns (the "gerund" as called in English).
>
> Is "gerundive" is a better term in English to describe what is called "zarffiil" in Turkish?
>
> See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive

I can't help with the quote because I don't know anything about
Turkish except your very nice alphabet.

23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T. Daniels şunları yazdı:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>
> > The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
> Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
> ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
> that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
> gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
> you, then it's being used as a participle.

What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb there. What is it called in that case?

>
> However, there's no reason to use the term for English. It refers
> to a specific form in verb conjugation in Latin. That's even more
> the case for "gerundive," mentioned below, which I don't think has
> been applied to English,
> ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.
>
> > In Turkish, there are three definitions for the verb forms when it is used as a noun (namely "adfiil" lit. noun-verb), as an adjective (namely "sıfatfiil" lit. adjective-verb) or as an adverb (namely "zarffiil" lit. adverb-verb).
> >
> > Yet I see alot of people using "gerund" as a translation of "zarffiil" when it can only mean "adfiil" (IMO).
> Maybe the term was introduced into the study of Turkish grammar
> in the 19th century, when anyone dealing with the "Oriental" languages
> had been familiar with Latin and its study since childhood. In those
> days, any Orientalist was expected to have mastery of Classical
> Arabic, Classical Persian, and (Ottoman) Turkish -- but knowledge
> of the modern/spoken languages was not at all part of their domain.
>
> So what you should be comparing is not English grammar, but Latin
> grammar: and maybe it would be best to abandon the Latin terminology
> entirely but use the Turkish names of the inflections in descriptions
> and instruction instead.

Yes, you are right. But the confusion seems to stem from the fact that English monomorphic -ing suffix is used polyfunctionally (as seen in your examples above).

> > For example the following is quoted from an academic work.
> > "In Turkish and Turkic, these relations are often established by adverbs,
> > and when this relationship is established, the adverbs become a syntactic form which is
> > no longer merely a morpheme. Gerunds (-ınca, -ıp, -arak etc.), one of the morpho syntactic categories that are specific to the Turkic languages, provide that clauses to
> > become grammaticalized by the function of the envelope. This study has focused on
> > these morpho-syntactic units in general and the following questions were sought during
> > the study: Is the gerunds that shows an internal structure / grammar characteristic as
> > stable as other internal structure components? If we leave the phonetic variations to an
> > edge, is it always the same or similar gerunds used at every turn and stage in Turkish
> > history? If there is a dynamism in the use of these suffixes in Turkish, what are the
> > reasons for this? How are new gerunds produced in Turkic languages, how do new
> > gerund structures come into being? Are there similarities in production processes? Will
> > the gerunds lose prestige over time? The database of the study will create the gerunds
> > lists in the grammar books prepared on Turkic languages such as Turkish, Azerbaijani,
> > Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uigur, Tuvan, Yakut, Chuvash and will be
> > related to the dialects as needed."
> >
> > (-ınca, -ıp, -arak) suffixes do not make verb forms that can be used as nouns (the "gerund" as called in English).
> >
> > Is "gerundive" is a better term in English to describe what is called "zarffiil" in Turkish?
> >
> > See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive
> I can't help with the quote because I don't know anything about
> Turkish except your very nice alphabet.

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T. Daniels şunları yazdı:

This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
ancient Akkadian language!

> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:

> > > The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g.. 'take a running jump'. That form,
> > Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
> > ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
> > that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
> > gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
> > you, then it's being used as a participle.
>
> What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb there. What is it called in that case?

In that sentence, "laughing" modifies "She." I suppose you might
call it an adjectival use of the -ing form.

> > However, there's no reason to use the term for English. It refers
> > to a specific form in verb conjugation in Latin. That's even more
> > the case for "gerundive," mentioned below, which I don't think has
> > been applied to English,
> > > ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.
> > > In Turkish, there are three definitions for the verb forms when it is used as a noun (namely "adfiil" lit. noun-verb), as an adjective (namely "sıfatfiil" lit. adjective-verb) or as an adverb (namely "zarffiil" lit.. adverb-verb).
> > > Yet I see alot of people using "gerund" as a translation of "zarffiil" when it can only mean "adfiil" (IMO).
> > Maybe the term was introduced into the study of Turkish grammar
> > in the 19th century, when anyone dealing with the "Oriental" languages
> > had been familiar with Latin and its study since childhood. In those
> > days, any Orientalist was expected to have mastery of Classical
> > Arabic, Classical Persian, and (Ottoman) Turkish -- but knowledge
> > of the modern/spoken languages was not at all part of their domain.
> > So what you should be comparing is not English grammar, but Latin
> > grammar: and maybe it would be best to abandon the Latin terminology
> > entirely but use the Turkish names of the inflections in descriptions
> > and instruction instead.
>
> Yes, you are right. But the confusion seems to stem from the fact that English monomorphic -ing suffix is used polyfunctionally (as seen in your examples above).

If you don't use the term, you can't be confused by it.

English has very little inflectional morphology. It has fairly strict
syntax instead. It is unfortunate that hundreds of years ago, people
thought every language should be described as if it were Latin
(which has almost as much inflection as Turkish, but it's inflectional
rather than agglutinative so you don't really see all the endings).

> > > For example the following is quoted from an academic work.
> > > "In Turkish and Turkic, these relations are often established by adverbs,
> > > and when this relationship is established, the adverbs become a syntactic form which is
> > > no longer merely a morpheme. Gerunds (-ınca, -ıp, -arak etc..), one of the morpho syntactic categories that are specific to the Turkic languages, provide that clauses to
> > > become grammaticalized by the function of the envelope. This study has focused on
> > > these morpho-syntactic units in general and the following questions were sought during
> > > the study: Is the gerunds that shows an internal structure / grammar characteristic as
> > > stable as other internal structure components? If we leave the phonetic variations to an
> > > edge, is it always the same or similar gerunds used at every turn and stage in Turkish
> > > history? If there is a dynamism in the use of these suffixes in Turkish, what are the
> > > reasons for this? How are new gerunds produced in Turkic languages, how do new
> > > gerund structures come into being? Are there similarities in production processes? Will
> > > the gerunds lose prestige over time? The database of the study will create the gerunds
> > > lists in the grammar books prepared on Turkic languages such as Turkish, Azerbaijani,
> > > Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uigur, Tuvan, Yakut, Chuvash and will be
> > > related to the dialects as needed."
> > >
> > > (-ınca, -ıp, -arak) suffixes do not make verb forms that can be used as nouns (the "gerund" as called in English).
> > >
> > > Is "gerundive" is a better term in English to describe what is called "zarffiil" in Turkish?
> > >
> > > See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive
> > I can't help with the quote because I don't know anything about
> > Turkish except your very nice alphabet.

Op 24/09/2022 om 17:59 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T. Daniels şunları yazdı:
>
> This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
> ancient Akkadian language!
>
>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>
>>>> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
>>> Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
>>> ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
>>> that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
>>> gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
>>> you, then it's being used as a participle.
>>
>> What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb there. What is it called in that case?
>
> In that sentence, "laughing" modifies "She." I suppose you might
> call it an adjectival use of the -ing form.

In other languages cq ordinary grammars they'd consider it a plain
adverb to "came", not an adjective to "she". "Laughing she"?

--
guido wugi

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 3:12:08 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 24/09/2022 om 17:59 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> >> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T. Daniels şunları yazdı:
> > This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
> > ancient Akkadian language!
> >>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> >>>> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
> >>> Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
> >>> ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
> >>> that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
> >>> gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
> >>> you, then it's being used as a participle.
> >> What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb there. What is it called in that case?
> > In that sentence, "laughing" modifies "She." I suppose you might
> > call it an adjectival use of the -ing form.
>
> In other languages cq ordinary grammars they'd consider it a plain
> adverb to "came", not an adjective to "she". "Laughing she"?

"She was laughing." Predicate adjective.

Let's get away from the confusing lexical item.

"She entered laughing" vs. "She entered laughingly" (whatever that
would mean).

As I keep pointing out, "part of speech" isn't a useful concept for English..

On 25/09/2022 8:12 a.m., wugi wrote:
> Op 24/09/2022 om 17:59 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>>> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T.
>>> Daniels şunları yazdı:
>>
>> This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
>> ancient Akkadian language!
>>
>>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>>
>>>>> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English
>>>>> grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or
>>>>> adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
>>>> Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
>>>> ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
>>>> that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
>>>> gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
>>>> you, then it's being used as a participle.
>>>
>>> What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb
>>> there. What is it called in that case?
>>
>> In that sentence, "laughing" modifies "She." I suppose you might
>> call it an adjectival use of the -ing form.
>
> In other languages cq ordinary grammars they'd consider it a plain
> adverb to "came", not an adjective to "she". "Laughing she"?

It's a participle, not an adjective, and it's not attributive to "she".
If it has a relation to "she", it's predicative: [she was] laughing.
This is actually a kind of subordinate clause whose subject is
understood as the same as the subject of the main clause.
She came in carrying a toaster.
accompanied by her corgis.
ready to talk business.

On 2022-09-23, Aslan Tan <aslanski2009@gmail.com> wrote:

> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form, ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.

Modern grammars of English no longer distinguish between the present
participle and the gerund.

* Quirk et al., _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_,
1985, calls it the "-ing participle" or "-ing form".
* Huddleston/Pullum, _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_,
2002, calls it the "gerund-participle".

In both, the authors argue that it is not possible to clearly
delineate "participle" from "gerund" use.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:08:06 PM UTC-7, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 25/09/2022 8:12 a.m., wugi wrote:
> > Op 24/09/2022 om 17:59 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> >> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> >>> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibarıyla Peter T.
> >>> Daniels şunları yazdı:
> >>
> >> This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
> >> ancient Akkadian language!
> >>
> >>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English
> >>>>> grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or
> >>>>> adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
> >>>> Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
> >>>> ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
> >>>> that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
> >>>> gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
> >>>> you, then it's being used as a participle.
> >>>
> >>> What about "She came in laughing."? "laughing is used an adverb
> >>> there. What is it called in that case?
> >>
> >> In that sentence, "laughing" modifies "She." I suppose you might
> >> call it an adjectival use of the -ing form.
> >
> > In other languages cq ordinary grammars they'd consider it a plain
> > adverb to "came", not an adjective to "she". "Laughing she"?
> It's a participle, not an adjective, and it's not attributive to "she".
> If it has a relation to "she", it's predicative: [she was] laughing.
> This is actually a kind of subordinate clause whose subject is
> understood as the same as the subject of the main clause.
> She came in carrying a toaster.
> accompanied by her corgis.
> ready to talk business.
>
It's quite versatile:
Carrying a toaster, accompanied by her corgis and ready to talk
business she came in ("she went in"" sounds better)

Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 6:30:36 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
>> 23 Eylül 2022 Cuma tarihinde saat 22:14:17 UTC+3 itibar?yla Peter T. Daniels ?unlar? yazd?:
>
>This is interesting -- Eylül looks like a month name borrowed from the
>ancient Akkadian language!

It is. Via Arabic and Syriac:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eyl%C3%BCl
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%88%D9%84#Arabic

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com