Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:en-ing form of. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:en-ing form of, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:en-ing form of in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:en-ing form of you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:en-ing form of will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:en-ing form of, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
It is, for now, a simple demonstration of an alternative presentation, used to illustrate a discussion of WT:RFD#waxing. Though deleted from waxing, it is still available for its intended use in the discussion in the former version and should remain at until the later of termination of that discussion and a successful RfDO.
You can use your user page for demonstration purposes. To demonstrate a proposed format of certain kind of entries, there was absolutely no need to create a template and place it to a discussed entry. Alternatively, you could have placed a demonstration of proposed formatting directly into the discussion, a thing very easy and straightforward to do. You can still do it. This template is unneeded and should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The point is that we shouldn't be reinforcing the pointless distinction in English between the form of a participle and that of a gerund, those being identical in every case in English. Such forms take on predictable transformed meanings in generic noun, adjective, and verb (progressive) use. We have — and use — distinct PoS headers for any non-generic, less predictable meanings. DCDuringTALK18:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Keep and use for all English -ing forms. The current state of the page ploughing is incomplete since it mentions only the present participle and does not mention the gerund. These are two very different forms and it's pure coincidence that they happen to have the same superficial form in English. Nevertheless, since, they do, I can see that it's tidier to mention both forms on a single line ("present participle and gerund of") rather than two separate lines ("1. present participle of"<br/>"2. gerund of"). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The present participle and gerund aren't 'superficially the same' in English, they are identical. The fact that they aren't in other languages has literally zero to do with English. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
They are identical in form; they are not identical in function. There is no participle in the sentence "Ploughing rocky soil is difficult." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Interesting point. I don't like the distinction much. Another thing, is a gerund a verb form? Because if it isn't then we need separate templates to go under the noun and verb headings. Or even the verb and gerund headings. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think the gerund can be considered a verb form. A noun couldn't stand in the empty slot of "_______ rocky soil is difficult". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
It can't always be considered a verb form: in "laboriously ploughing rocky soil (+ finite verb)", it is a verb, because it's modified by an adverb and takes a bare noun as argument, but in "the laborious ploughing of rocky soil", I think it must be considered a noun, because it's modified by an article, adjective, and objective prepositional phrase. It's a very confused form that does not know what it wants to be, syntactically: a noun or a verb. — Eru·tuon08:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Erutuon: In a similar case, we voted to create a PoS heading for English "Prepositional phrase". This enables us to make more concise the entries for such phrases that had both Adjective and Adverb PoS sections. The definitions in the Adverb and Adjective sections differed usually only in the wording required to make them substitutable when used in different syntactic situations. Rephrasing the definitions as prepositional phrases finesses that point, though our PP entries are not consistent in that regard. DCDuringTALK16:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: I wouldn't be opposed to creating a header for "Gerund", to avoid the thorny issue of what part of speech a gerund is. Has that been considered before? — Eru·tuon20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Or Gerund-participle? The lack of a generally accepted name is what has kept me from making such a proposal.
Maybe we have to accommodate popular preconceived notions, defaulting to something conventional, and force those who, like me, prefer the the heading "-ing form" to depend on some JS to display a header that pleases us. We can't get too far ahead of normal users in our headings, whatever we do with categories. DCDuringTALK23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I count only Dan Polansky as being unambiguously in favour of deletion, with Stubborn Pen perhaps also favouring deletion. Aɴɢʀ and DCDuring are clearly in favour of keeping this template in its current form, whereas Purplebackpack89 proposes that it be kept as a redirect to {{gerund of}}. I myself am undecided. Whether one regards the delete:keep ratio as 1:3, as 2:2, or as anything between those two extremes, the result is the same: this template is kept. — I.S.M.E.T.A.08:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Polansky, DCDuring, Purplebackpack89, Mahagaja, Erutuon, I'm so meta even this acronym I'd like to revisit this and propose deleting it. It was RFD'd previously Mar 2014 - Jan 2017, and the consensus was "keep" with low turnout and a split vote. In the intervening two years absolutely nothing has happened with this template and it's used on exactly ZERO mainspace pages. For that reason alone I feel I can probably just speedy-delete it, but since it passed a previous RFD I'd like to make sure others are OK with deleting it. It can trivially be recreated if needed. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I probably would've ignored this discussion if not pinged, but I stand by the reasons younger me had for keeping it. At the very least it should be redirected to a template that does the same thing. Purplebackpack8904:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with what I said three years ago. Rather than deleting this, we should use a bot to put it on all English -ing forms instead of {{present participle of|lang=en}}, since English -ing forms are not only present participles, they are also gerunds. —Mahāgaja · talk10:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested to know how many 21st century entry-level grammars and ESL/EFL texts useparticiple, rather than merely mention the term and put it in a glossary.
The term participle gives short shrift to gerund use of the term formed by adding "ing" to the base form of the verb. Any -ing form can be used as adjective, uncountable noun, and a component of progressive/continuous aspect of verbs. (I don't think it is always possible to use an ing-form as a countable noun, eg, ?cookings, ?freezings, ?snowings, ?drivings, though such use may just be rare for some verbs.) CGEL argues forcefully that there is little to distinguish participle/adjectives and gerund/nouns, not only in form, but also in syntactic properties. (The argument is in the chapter "Non-finite and verbless clauses" §4.3. CGEL refers to the form as gerund-participle, which has the advantage of preserving the connection with the classically derived terms, but presupposes knowledge of those terms.
I don't know which CGEL you're talking about, but I'm astonished that they say there is little to distinguish present participles from gerunds "in syntactic properties". In Singing makes you happy, singing can only be a gerund, while in I gave the singing boy a dollar it can only be a participle. I'm not in favor of displaying "ing-form"; I prefer the current wording "present participle and gerund". It's really only an etymological coincidence that the two forms have become homonymous for all verbs in English. —Mahāgaja · talk14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
There is no question but that there are functional differences at a gross level. It is in complement selection and structure that there is no difference in most cases. I leave it to them to try to convince you. The CGEL I always cite is the Cambridge one, more recent by 17 years than the Longman one. But the Longman CGEL doesn't make the distinction either.
I don't really see the point of entrenching word history when it is no longer relevant to English grammar and is unhelpful to most language learners. Those who like linguistic history or are interested in comparing English to other languages which have gerunds and/or participles and distinct forms thereof can surely manage to deal with the -ing-form display. I don't see why their views should be imposed on all language learners, including those whose first language doesn't have participles or gerunds or confusingly applies the terms to words or forms with different functions. DCDuring (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't much care whether we display only "present participle" or "present participle and gerund", but I don't much like "-ing form". Benwing2 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'd be OK with "gerund-participle" but "-ing participle" doesn't sound much better than "-ing form", and worse than "present participle". I actually think that "active participle" is significantly better than "present participle" because English has two simple participles, ending in -ing and -ed, which are both either present or tenseless participles but differ in being active vs. passive. They can both be made into specifically past participles viz. "having killed" (active), "having been killed" (passive). Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I like gerund–participle best. It provides a bridge from the older terminology ("this is a form that subsumes what is traditionally known as the gerund and the present participle") and suggests that there is similarity between some uses of the gerund–participle form and those of the past participle. -Ing participle seems like a misnomer because some uses of the gerund–participle are not participle-like at all, but nounlike. -Ing form would be my second choice. At least it describes the morphology of the form. — Eru·tuon18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with gerund-participle as the display. What should the name of the template and, especially, its redirects be? I'd like one redirect to be [{temp|ing-form}} because its short.
That still leaves with with the not-so-appropriate PoS, to wit, "Verb". "Participle" would be more accurate and would also work for the -ed forms which can be both verbs and adjectives. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
