English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

> ‘Helms too they chose’ is archaic. Some (wrongly) class it as an ‘inversion’, since normal order is ‘They also chose helmets’ or ‘they chose helmets too’. (Real mod. E. ‘They also picked out some helmets and round shields’.)

But this is not normal order, and if mod. E. has lost the trick of putting a word desired to emphasize (for pictorial, emotional or logical reasons) into prominent first place, without addition of a lot of little ‘empty’ words (as the Chinese say), so much the worse for it.

Cerberus

In Dutch and German, in subordinate clauses, the finite verb and something that follows it are inverted.

@Færd Ah, sometimes this is the case, but not often.

tchrist

Those who classify Helms too they chose as inversion do so wrongly, said the Professor.

Færd

1:59 AM

Ah, I see.

Cerberus

@tchrist If by that you mean Lawler's chair, I am not at all convinced.

tchrist

No, a higher authority of greater scholarship.

16

A: Is this correct: "Aloof the hallow things shall always be"?

Yes, this is the poetic device known as hyperbaton. It is quite common. See also its treatment here, which discusses the devices of lyric poetry, including in Le Guin and Tolkien. Speaking of whom, in Letter #171, J.R.R. Tolkien, responding to criticism of his ‘archaic’ style, wrote the follow...

Færd

Redefining things is easier than fighting over old definitions.

tchrist

With all due apologies, I’m going to assume that he better knew what he was talking about than most people.

Mitch

@Færd easier

Færd

2:03 AM

Yes, not necessarily better.

Cerberus

@tchrist I think Tolkien is making a different argument there.

tchrist

He might be. Do tell.

I confess to not understanding the difference between hyperbaton and anastrophe myself.

Cerberus

@Færd I disagree completely: unnecessarily using the same word to mean something related but different, results in confusion. It is better to invent a new word instead.

Mitch

new words sound weird

but using old words wrong also sounds weird too

we're screwed basically

Færd

@Cerberus That could be, but sometimes you may want to unchain an elegant or handy word from its previous limits.

Mitch

2:07 AM

figurative usage is OK, depending on how far from literal you go

otherwise it's just a mistake

Cerberus

@tchrist I'm not entirely sure I understand his argument.

But he says "But this is not normal order"; he seems to be saying that the example (or something else?) is not inversion because the other order is not normal.

Færd

I think nowadays some revolutionary grammarians are redefining things instead of inventing new ones.

Pullum

Horrible.

I'm not a fan.

2:10 AM

And I don't know naught to judge anything.

Cerberus

The result is a grammar of English that is entirely incompatible with grammars of other languages, and with scholarship from different, but related disciplines.

Mitch

every language has its own grammar

what do you mean by incompatible?

Cerberus

@Færd I will admit that it is sometimes a good idea. But not often.

And not the way Pullum &co. do it.

@Mitch Absolutely!

tchrist

From goo.gl/ysF9rp

p 187

Cerberus

@Mitch If you start with situation A: a similar construction occurs in two languages, and in both it is called X. Then you push people into situation B: nothing changes, except that there are now two different names (X and Y) for the construction in the first language, and the dominant one (Y) of the two names is different from the name (X) for the construction in the second language (which didn't change).

You have gone from one name in two languages, to confusion between two names in language 1, and incompatibility between languages 1 and 2.

For example, the gerund in English and Latin.

tchrist

2:17 AM

English is already on its own in a lot of ways for naming of the same things.

Cerberus

> The killing of dinosaurs shocks me.

> Killing dinosaurs shocks me.

Both used to be called gerunds; although they are in English two different kinds of gerunds, they also share essential qualities.

tchrist

Both are noun phrases, but only the second has a verb.

Cerberus

In Latin, a very similar construction is also called a gerund in English (and Latin, and German, Dutch, etc.).

tchrist

Yet in Spanish and Portuguese and Italian, the gerund can only be used adverbially.

Not nominatively.

Cerberus

If you change the name for the first subtype, you now have people confused who speak in English about the English gerund, because you have redefined the word; and you are now incompatible with English descriptions of the Latin construction, and with Dutch descriptions of the English construction, etc. etc.

tchrist

2:21 AM

Does it not to you seem useful to distinguish things that act like nouns by taking determiners including articles, adjectives, and prepositional phrases from things that act like verbs by taking adverbs and object complements?

But remember, you cannot talk about the gerund in ES/PT/IT if you hope to talk about it in English or Dutch.

The same word "gerund" means something completely different in the two language groups.

Or three, if we wish to consider Pullumese.

Can you show a source that called the deverbal noun use a gerund?

I mean, sure, perhaps in grammar school I was confused about the two, but I don't know that that was the instruction or just me being dim.

@Cerberus In other words, I don't remember being taught that those were different before college.

> Killing dinosaurs is wicked, and reluctantly killing them little better.

Mitch

@Cerberus sure, but gerund in German and English works close enough

tchrist

I’m pretty sure those are examples of the things I was taught were English gerunds.

Mitch

and isn't there another word for the English thing?

tchrist

> The Taming of the Shrew

> Shrew Taming for a Happier Marriage

Those ones, I'm not so sure about.

Certainly I do not now think of them as "gerunds", but it has been a long time since I hadn't gone to college yet.

Mitch

> carthago delenda est

> quod erat demonstrandum

tchrist

2:29 AM

Now we're going to get into adverbial troubles.

Cerberus

@tchrist Yes, but by using names for the subtypes, rather than changing the name of one of the subtypes altogether.

Mitch

> de gustibus non disputandum

um... hacienda

agenda

tchrist

Those are not actually "gerunds", although they are what led to Romance gerunds.

Mitch

addendum

Cerberus

@tchrist Yes, and that is unfortunate, but we can't change it. But let's create even more confusion and incompatibility when it isn't necessary (to some extent it is necessary).

tchrist

2:30 AM

Those are all gerundives.

And they are what gave all the Romance -ando gerunds, which are adverbs only.

But they were not gerunds (nouns) in Latin.

Cerberus

@Mitch Umm you mean the German gerund, described in English? (I don't' think it exists.) Or the English gerund, described in German? (I hope they call it a gerund. I think we did in school.)

@Mitch Neither of those are gerunds. They're both gerundives.

tchrist

tojaso

Mitch

I don't know enough to distinguish

tchrist

Gerundive

Gerundive (/dʒɛrˈʌndɪv/) is a term in Latin grammar for a verb form which functions as an adjective. Traditionally, the term has been applied to verbal adjectives and nouns in other languages. In Classical Latin the gerundive is distinct in form and function from the gerund and the present active participle. In Late Latin these differences were largely lost, resulting in a form derived from the gerund or gerundive but functioning more like a participle. This adjectival gerundive form survives in the formation of progressive aspect forms in Italian, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In French the...

Cerberus

@tchrist Why do you say that? Why didn't Latin gerunds lead to Romance gerunds?

tchrist

2:33 AM

Because they didn't.

Cerberus

@Mitch A Latin gerund means "doing" and it is a substantive noun; a gerundive means "[something] to be done", and it is an adjective.

tchrist

> This adjectival gerundive form survives in the formation of progressive aspect forms in Italian, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.

Cerberus

But...

Mitch

but back to the problem before, "present active participle" is a reasonable alternative to the 'fluid' usage of 'gerund'

Cerberus

Nooo.

A participle is an adjective externally.

A gerund is a noun externally.

tchrist

2:34 AM

> I am singing.

Cerberus

Both are verbs internally (at least partly).

tchrist

> I am singing songs.

> Estoy cantando canciones.

Cerberus

Looks more like a gerund to me.

tchrist

I was taught that the Latin gerundive not the Latin gerund produced the Romance gerunds, but I cannot tell you why.

Cerberus

Because there is no agreement between it and its object.

tchrist

2:35 AM

They don’t inflect.

Right.

Cerberus

Latin gerunds don't inflect.

Gerundives do.

Mitch

the '-ing' (EN) and '-end' (L) and whatever it is in German (I forgot) are 1) all cognate and 2) not that different meaning wise.

tchrist

Adverbs don't inflect, but adjectives do.

Mitch

so understandable that the labels are similar.

Cerberus

Both can be used to create a construction like that, though.

@Mitch Yes, but both Latin and English distinguish between adjective (gerundive and participle) and substantive (gerund) use.

And German doesn't have a gerund, as far as I know.

The -end forms in German and Dutch are present participles only.

tchrist

2:38 AM

Modern Romance requires the infinitive not the gerund for the substantive use.

Mitch

but a present participle isn't that different from a gerund

tchrist

A gerund isn't strong enough to be a substantive. It is a modifier.

There, see? :)

Why is this so damned fuzzy?

I'm thinking the problem is trying to apply Latin names to languages those terms were not invented for.

Cerberus

@tchrist Sï, io lo so.

tchrist

> Several Romance languages have inherited the form, but without case inflections. They use it in primarily in an adverbial function, comparably to the Latin ablative use. The same form may be used in an adjectival function and to express progressive aspect meaning. These languages do not use the term present participle. Grammars of these languages written in English may use the form gerund.
Italian gerundio: stem form + -ando or -endo
Spanish gerundio: stem form + -ando or -iendo
Portuguese gerúndio: stem form + -ando or -endo

Cerberus

@Mitch Well, both in English and in Latin, they (partly) overlap in form. But they're still not the same, they can be and are distinguished.

tchrist

2:41 AM

That's a bit untrue. There is a present participle, but it is little used. It is the -ante/(i)ente forms, which do match number.

And it is often what turns into a noun: un hablante is a speaker.

But it is not productive. These are all locked in. You can make new ones and people will know what you meant, but it really is not done much.

Cerberus

@tchrist Why is that the problem here?

I think gerund works well enough for English, and you can distinguish subtypes.

Why change it?

tchrist

Because IT/ES/PT use "gerundio" to mean something that is only ever an adverb, never a noun or "participle".

Cerberus

Oh, in those languages.

Well, the Latin gerund is often used in the ablative with an adverbial meaning.

Corresponding nicely with the Romance use.

At least to some degree.

tchrist

"I am speaking" => "Estoy hablando" uses a gerund which doesn't have concordance, and which is not a participle. "Una lengua es hablada" is a past/passive participle with concord.

Cerberus

You could say dicendo sum in Latin, if there weren't a more idiomatic way of doing so.

tchrist

2:44 AM

So it is super confusing that what we are not supposed to call a gerund in one language we have to call it in the other one, and vice versa.

Cerberus

If the Romance gerund were derived from the Latin gerund, it would make perfect sense to me.

tchrist

But doesn't it bother you that they call that a gerund not a participle in "I am speaking"?

Mitch

they don't call that a gerund, do they?

tchrist

THEY DO!

Cerberus

@tchrist No, because the same construction is (roughly) possible in Latin with the gerund.

Mitch

2:46 AM

it looks like a gerund, or rather a gerund looks like it, but they don't call it a gerund.

(in english)

tchrist

The call the -ando a gerund.

The -ing form.

Mitch

wait are we talking English or Romance?

Cerberus

> Quaerendo hostes socius inventum est.

This is 100% idiomatic.

tchrist

I just think that whatever term we use, it should be the same.

Cerberus

And I can't think of a different way of saying this in Latin when the subject of the main verb is not the "subject" of the action described by the gerund.

tchrist

2:48 AM

If Estoy comiendo is a verb plus a gerund, but I am eating is a verb plus a participle, then people are really messing with your head for no good reason.

Because whatever they are, they are the same thing.

Cerberus

I think you should examine my examples more closely.

tchrist

ok

May we please call eating a gerund then in English I am eating?

Or saying in I am saying if you prefer.

It certainly is such in Estoy diciendo.

There is something about how English talks about gerunds and participles that simply does not make sense to me.

It never has.

Cerberus

> Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.9.9

nes autem eius partes atque omnia membra tum fa-

cillume noscuntur, cum totae quaestiones scribendo

explicantur; est enim admirabilis quaedam continuatio

tchrist

Sure.

Cerberus

Totae questiones scribendo explicantur: this is what I meant.

tchrist

2:51 AM

That would be -endo in modern Romance.

Cerberus

Yes.

And it is a gerund here.

So you see the Romance construction is not entirely incompatible with the Latin?

tchrist

¿Qué estás escribiendo?

=What are you writing?

That's a gerund not a participle, right?

Why do we have to change its name from "gerund" to "participle" for the English translation when it is the same @$%#* thing?

This is my enigma.

It’s ok if you don't have an answer. God knows I never have had one.

Cerberus

You are correct that it would seldom be used with be in Latin.

But: neither would the present participle.

Latin doesn't have a progressive tense.

tchrist

> Escribiendo a mi amigo, le he explicado todo.

Writing to my friend, I have explained everything to him.

Cerberus

However, to the extent that it does, it would use a gerund construction or a gerundive construction: the two are mostly interchangeable.

tchrist

2:56 AM

That's still a gerund.

In Romance.

Cerberus

@tchrist Latin could use a gerund there.

Not a gerundive.

tchrist

But I'm for some reason told that I must translate "gerund" to "participle" and this bothers me. It makes no sense to me. I don't understand it.

But Latin would not use a participle there any more than modern Romance does, right?

Cerberus

Because a predicative participle and a gerund in the ablative have roughly the same function and meaning.

tchrist

So why do anglophones call that a participle when it is a gerund?

Cerberus

@tchrist In that sentence? It could use a participle or a gerund.

tchrist

2:58 AM

How would the participle run?

Cerberus

> Scribens amico meo explicavi omnia.

tchrist

I ask because it is going to take a dative.

Yes, ok.

Cerberus

In this case, a gerund would be very unlikely, because there would be pseudo-agreement:

> ?Scribendo amico meo explicavi omnia.

tchrist

What is pseudo-agreement?

A garden path for the the wrong matching up?

Cerberus

Which leads one to assume a gerundive...which in turn is impossible hear, because then it would be the friend who was writing.

A gerund is a noun. It does not agree with anything.

But it is neuter, so its ablative ends on -o.

So it would look as though it agreed with amico meo, the dative.

tchrist

3:01 AM

Ok then, yes, I see what you mean.

Cerberus

But, with amicae meae, it would be possible, I believe. You would be emphasising the continuous/progressive aspect of the writing (scribendo), if you used a gerund.

> Scribendo amicae meae explicavi omnia.

This is at least not wrong.

Maybe it is less idiomatic than the participle.

The participle scribens agrees with the subject, "I".

tchrist

See, the Romance gerund never agrees with anything.

Cerberus

Neither does the Latin gerund.

tchrist

Its participles do.

Cerberus

And yet you can use it to mean the same thing, do you see it?

tchrist

3:04 AM

Well you've shown me an -ens participle phrase that can work like a gerund phrase.

Cerberus

Yes.

So, if the Romance gerund came from the Latin gerund, then it would be no wonder that the Romance gerund and the English participle can be used the same way.

Since the Latin gerund and the Latin participle can be used in the same way, too.

tchrist

But why isn't that called a gerund in English?

Cerberus

Good question.

tchrist

This is what keeps bugging me.

Cerberus

Because English has a different history.

tchrist

3:07 AM

I never paid much attention to English grammar when I was taught it before 12. Then I started learning Romance at 13 and gradually added more and more languages in that group, but looking back at the English terms they no longer make sense to me for the gerund/participle situation.

But "participle" and "gerund" are both Latin words not German ones.

Cerberus

When a name was needed for I left, looking for my dog, the word "participle" was probably chosen because it resembles most closely that construction which is most commonly used in Latin in such sentences.

Even though the gerund is to some extent also possible in Latin.

tchrist

> Salí buscando mi perro.

I went out looking for my dog.

Cerberus

In other Germanic languages, it's also called a participle.

Yes.

But English stuck with the Germanic languages in this case.

They don't have gerunds, I believe.

So you couldn't call it a gerund in those languages.

Where English uses the gerund, Dutch and German use the infinitive.

But they use it seldom.

They just use a different construction altogether.

> Speaking is silver, being silent is golden.

> Spreken is zilver, zwijgen is goud.

Dutch infinitives.

> I enjoy speaking to my mother.

tchrist

ia802601.us.archive.org/22/items/historicaldevelo00rust/…

Cerberus

> I houd ervan om met mijn moeder te spreken.

Infinitive with om...te (like "to").

Om is not compulsory.

tchrist

3:15 AM

> The English language of to-day has in the so-called Gerund a form by the help of which the Englishman is able to express his thoughts with much brevity and precision, giving his speech a great deal of vivacity and energy.

ha

Cerberus

Hah.

tchrist

You can tell the writer was completely German, writing in English.

Cerberus

We only have the infinitive in Dutch.

@tchrist When was it written?

tchrist

> the modern use of the Gerund in the English language.
To judge the extension the Gerund has got by degrees,
it is but natural to find out the realm of the like- called form in the original stage of the English language , viz. , in Anglo-Saxon. In comparing the Anglo -Saxon Gerund with
the English, nothing is more evident than the fact, that
both forms have no connection whatever with each other. The Anglo - Saxon Gerund is really an inflected Infinitive,
preceded in the dative case by the preposition „to u. As the

It was written a million years ago.

Cerberus

The style is just a bit old fashioned (but good).

tchrist

3:16 AM

1874

Cerberus

That explains it, doesn't it?

tchrist

I’m pretty sure I remember learning that the Modern English -ing form derives from two different historical progenitors that fused.

Cerberus

@tchrist It's roughly the same in Latin: the gerund is not used in the nominative, nor in the accusative (except after a preposition). The (undeclensible) infinitive is used in its stead.

@tchrist Probably from infinitive and present participle?

tchrist

Romance needs an infinitive.

Cerberus

But it has it.

tchrist

3:19 AM

I should find something written within the last century, or at least by a native speaker of English. :)

> Compared with the frequent use of to-day, its use iu the days of the middle ages was much less common,
and tracing farther back, we find that the Gerund was not
used with the same variety of meanings. In the early period
of Old-English, that is to say in the 13th century, it is neither
connected with an object nor with an adverb.

Ahah, he thinks of an adverb too!

> The Gerund has sometimes been regarded as a derivative
from the present participle. It may be given here simply
as a notice, what is to be proved afterwards : The origin of the Gerund has nothing to do with the latter form, although
the modern language offers cases, where the discrimination
between Gerund and present Participle is hard exough.

> The termination in „ung" begins to change. With the same writer , or with contemporary writers , we find „ung" and „mg", even the same word with „ung" and „ing".

Cerberus

Ah, yes, I remember now. Of course.

tchrist

> It is during this revolution that the verbal substantive changed its termination from „ung" into „ing". W

Cerberus

German -ung and Dutch -ing and suffixes added mostly to verbs, to create nouns that resemble the English gerund.

tchrist

> What has been the cause for accepting this latter ending? The ter- mination „ingu was not at all a new one. We meet with substantives ending in „ing" in the earliest periods of AngloSaxon.

Cerberus

> te wegen "to weigh"
> een weging "a weighing"

I think Dutch -ing is also very old.

tchrist

3:24 AM

That was the original use in English, too, a substantive one.

Cerberus

Yes, I remember now.

tchrist

>The Anglo-Saxon suffix „ing", having firstly the
meaning af „the son of" is used to form Patronymics. From
the idea of infant this suffix has accepted the meaning of
„little", employed now to form diminutives. Such Patronymcs
are found in the song of Beovulf: Sverting, Scylding, Scylfing
etc. Moreover „ing" denotes, a state of being. Cf. Beovulf
vers 2002: Gemeeting. vers 2618: gadeling, vers 2343: adeling.

Cerberus

Wolfling, etc.

tchrist

Sverting

Cerberus

The l was probably generalised later?

tchrist

3:25 AM

> It might be the place here to speak about an etymology
, mentioned above (pag. 6) as a false one. Generally
in grammars of the English language the Gerund of to-day
is asserted to be a derivative from the Present Participle.
From this asertion, if true, we must infer that the formation
of the latter form preceded that of the former. But some
pages' reading in writings from the 13th and 14th century
will show, that at all events it can be proved, that about
this time the present participle is always employed with the

Cerberus

I believe such examples also exist in Dutch and German for -ing.

tchrist

Yes, that -ende thing.

> the verbal substantives end in ing, the present participles in inde :

Cerberus

Right.

tchrist

> The fruit of this little excursion through the mentioned
writings is the proof that in fact the present participle, by
the influence of the verbal substantive in „ing", accepted also the ending „ingu
, so that in Maundeville's manuscript from
the end of the 14th century the present participle is found
to end in „ingu or „yng". — We found the very reverse of
what is generally asserted

Cerberus

Oh, it is nigh bedtime.

tchrist

3:27 AM

me too

Stupid homeless marijuana tourists from Alabama caused our latest blazing inferno. So angry.

Cerberus

@tchrist I think this should remove your surprise and dismay.

tchrist

It helps.

Cerberus

As to why looking for my dog, I left is called a participle and not a gerund.

Incidentally, I don't think you could use the Germanic (semi-?)gerund on -ung/-ing in an adverbial way without a preposition.

tchrist

It looks like the -ing was the gerund/substantive, not the -inde participle.

Cerberus

Yes, originally.

But then the form of the present participle changed to become -ing at some point.

tchrist

3:30 AM

Somehow the present participle fused with the gerund or became it.

Cerberus

Yes.

But it wouldn't be fair to say that the present participle disappeared.

tchrist

Aw.

I wanted it to go away. :)

But it can't, so long as we have barking dogs instead of dogs barking.

We should just call them all ingers.

Cerberus

If the same construction continued to be used—a construction that used to be with -inde was now written with -ing without changing in any other respect—, then it isn't fair to say that a different construction was created.

@tchrist Yes, that is another strong argument.

@tchrist I think we did that in school.

Our book said "-ing forms".

tchrist

That road does not lead to my confusion.

Cerberus

Why not?

tchrist

3:33 AM

Because I don't have to sort stuff out between things that are gerunds or not.

Oh I have to do my nightly catherding.

Cerberus

I'm not sure I understand, but goodnight.

tchrist

But good night.

Lorin was at the door.

He leapt at the glass door from the outside because there were moths dancing in the light from the inside.

Startled me.

2,000 evacuated from Nederland.

Cerberus

Oh, dear, have the dikes ruptured?

I hadn't noticed.

tchrist

Rednecks.

Cerberus

Nothing on the news.

tchrist

3:48 AM

Uncertainty and fear in Nederland

It's up to 600 acres now. 3 homes lost, 2000 evacuated, 0% containment, high winds, single digit humidity, and fucking stoners from Alabama arrested for arson.

Because they were twentysomething homeless transients who had an illegal campfire that they did not put out. They just left their damned squatter's campsite with it smouldering, and of course it lit.

They come from all over the country to smoke pot and do nothing.

Then they let themselves get interviewed on TV saying how near to its origin they had been. Riiiiiiiight.

> Through much of the afternoon, the sun shined weakly through a thick orange haze, which shifted later through shades of grey and white as the day wore on.

Aye, that it did.

One of the homes destroyed was one of the firefighters'.

It killed his dog, but his wife escaped.

These were the stoners.

> This isn't the first run-in with law enforcement for the pair: Kuykendall was arrested four years ago and later convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl, according to Alabama criminal records, and the Cullman Times newspaper reported Suggs was arrested in 2012 for unlawful possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.

Cerberus

4:03 AM

Forest fires?

Sounds pretty bad.

tchrist

Yes, nasty. And they were just idiots.

It hit 102 degrees today.

Cerberus

4:26 AM

Ugh.

Mazura

6:54 AM

Is there a military term for baiting a sniper? Like what dude does in Saving Private Ryan? Or rather, something like, luring enemy fire away from your main force?

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…