to make x to making

han   Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:29 am GMT
Hi !
I've a doubt here. For instance, between

"a guide to make you"
and a
" a guide to making you"

is there one that is more grammatically correct? Or maybe both are correct and it's just a difference between UK and USA?
Another Guest   Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:47 am GMT
Well, both are sentence fragments, so grammatical correctness doesn't really apply.
cubeeggs   Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:07 pm GMT
They’re both correct, but the meanings are subtly different. “A guide to make you” implies that the guide itself will “make you,” whereas “a guide to making you” says that the guide is about “making you.”
Uriel   Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:35 am GMT
They are a little different, and the one I would gravitate to is "A guide to making you..."

The reason is that "making you ____" in this phrase is actually being used not as a verb, (like in your other example), but more as a gerund phrase.

This website explains the difference:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/01/

"The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence.
Finding a needle in a haystack would be easier than what we're trying to do.

Finding (gerund)
a needle (direct object of action expressed in gerund)
in a haystack (prepositional phrase as adverb)"

You can also say that something is a guide to make you ____, but that phrasing is different in meaning and function. It's not wrong, just different. The gerund version is very common in pamphlet titles and things like that, which is why I focused on it right away -- that's more like the pattern you commonly see: a guide to birdwatching, a guide to making felt flowers, a guide to drawing the human figure. In all those examples, the word or phrase is actually functioning as a noun. You can use the straight verb, but you use it to mean something very different -- "If it takes a guide to make you see how beautiful this location is in the spring, you really must have no sense of wonder or appreciation at all" or "Kids need a guide to make them stay on the path, and not go wandering off on their own".
han   Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:37 am GMT
Oh, thank you so much for all your input, I really appreciate it^^
Actually it's only recently that I've been noticing all this gerund thing, like also in "we look forward to working with you" or "look forward to hearing from you". I'm guessing that on these examples, the gerund works as the subject of the sentence too? Like looking forward to 'something'?
Uriel   Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:51 am GMT
You've got it! Gerunds are easy to spot in English; they always end in -ing and always act as a noun, which is why they seem to be "something" rather than an actual action -- they kind of describe the state or quality of doing that verb, if that makes sense -- the act of hearing from you.
Another Guest   Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:32 am GMT
<<on these examples, the gerund works as the subject of the sentence too?>>
It should be "in these examples". And no, the gerund is acting as an (indirect) object. The subject of the example that you gave is "we". Or do you mean "would work as the subject"? And I'm not convinced that gerunds always end in "-ing". Note that the converse is definitely not true: words that end in "-ing" are not always gerunds.
Uriel   Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:22 am GMT
Be convinced. It's pretty much the definition of a gerund, as these websites attest:


http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/gerund.htm:

"Every gerund, without exception, ends in ing. Gerunds are not, however, all that easy to identify. The problem is that all present participles also end in ing. What is the difference?

Gerunds function as nouns. Thus, gerunds will be subjects, subject complements, direct objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund :

"In English, the gerund is identical in form to the present participle (ending in -ing) and can behave as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object), but the clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) acts as a noun within the larger sentence. For example: Editing this article is easy."


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerund

ger·und
   /ˈdʒɛrənd/ Show Spelled[jer-uhnd] Show IPA
–nounGrammar.
1.
(in certain languages, as Latin) a form regularly derived from a verb and functioning as a noun, having in Latin all case forms but the nominative, as Latin dicendī gen., dicendō, dat., abl., etc., “saying.”
2.
the English -ing form of a verb when functioning as a noun, as writing in Writing is easy.
Another Guest   Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:21 am GMT
<<Be convinced. It's pretty much the definition of a gerund, as these websites attest:>>
I don't see those as definitive authorities. It seems to me that grammatical categories should be defined in terms of their grammatical function, not their form, especially since this necessitates a special definition just for English. Consider the following examples:

1. I want someone to hear my case. I want someone to give me a _____.
2. I want someone to explain this. I want someone to give me an _____.

What would you put in those blanks? Are they different grammatical objects? Is every form of a verb used as a noun a gerund? Is "building" a gerund? Can you give me a solid definition of what a "gerund" is? Is "realización" a gerund? If so, why is "realization" not?

BTW, one thing that you have to remember with html links is that you can't put any punctuation immediately after the link; you have to put a space afterwards, or else the html parser will interpret the punctuation as being part of the link.
Uriel   Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:11 am GMT
Well, cut and paste if you can't get it to work. And if you want to argue with the dictionary, go right ahead. But gerunds all end in -ing in English.
Another Guest   Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:41 am GMT
I'm not arguing with a dictionary, I'm arguing with you. And even if I were to argue with an inanimate object, you haven't provided any dictionary that has directly contradicted me.
Uriel   Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:57 pm GMT
Yes, I have -- the last example I cited is from a dictionary, and clearly states that a gerund always involves the -ing ending.
Clarke   Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:53 pm GMT
In English, all gerunds end in -ing, which derives from the OE endings -ung and -ing.

Gerunds can be qualified by adverbs, unlike deverbal nouns such as "realisation" (e.g. "thanks for finally realising that..."); and gerunds of transitive verbs can take an object (e.g. "I like eating lobster").

< "The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence. >

It should be emphasised that the gerund does not have to be a grammatical subject. In "I like eating", for instance, it is the object of the verb "like".
Another Guest   Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:08 am GMT
Uriel said:
<<Yes, I have -- the last example I cited is from a dictionary, and clearly states that a gerund always involves the -ing ending.>>
No, it doesn't. In fact, it quite clearly states that "a word that ends in -ing" is ONE meaning of the word "gerund".

Clarke said:
<<Gerunds can be qualified by adverbs, unlike deverbal nouns such as "realisation" (e.g. "thanks for finally realising that..."); and gerunds of transitive verbs can take an object (e.g. "I like eating lobster").>>
In the phrase "thanks for finally realising that", I believe that "realising" is a participle, not a gerund. Your second point is food for thought. Certainly, it is not as simple as you make it out to be, as one can't say "The stealing art took place a month ago", but one can say "The art theft took place a month ago". So, apparently, gerunds of transitive verbs can't always take an object, and deverbal (thanks for providing that term, BTW) nouns can take be modified by nouns much like gerunds can, except that the other noun must precede the deverbal noun while a gerund's object follows it.
Clarke   Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:47 am GMT
< I believe that "realising" is a participle, not a gerund.>

The example was not good; I wanted to keep to your verb ("realise"), but that has its own limitations. Here is a clearer one:

A. Thank you for doing that.

The phrase "doing that" is the complement of the preposition "for", and so = a noun phrase. Hence "doing" is a gerund, not a participle.

<one can't say "The stealing art took place a month ago", but one can say "The art theft took place a month ago". >

Your "stealing" in "the stealing art" is halfway between a gerund (as in "stealing art is a worthy occupation") and what older grammar books would sometimes call a verbal noun (as in "the stealing of the art took place a month ago"). So the gerund "stealing" can take an object, but the verbal noun needs the preposition "of".

"Verbal noun" is a confusing phrase, because people nowadays tend to talk about gerunds as verbal nouns too; but I don't think there's a satisfactory alternative.

(A few centuries ago, that halfway form would not have been as uncommon as it is now; but that's by the by.)