atw: Re: Time for another debate?

Hi Howard,
 
I could be wrong, but I think you are assuming what you want to prove by
claiming that "entering transactions" is a noun phrase. A  noun phrase has a
noun as its head word ("entering" in this case, as you have interpreted it),
but isn't that the very thing we are arguing about, namely, is "entering" a
noun or a present participle in a chapter title such as "Entering
transactions"?
 
 In the sentence "Last week she was entering transactions; this week she is
deleting them", "entering transactions" is hardly a noun phrase. It is part
of a verb phrase. "Entering" here is clearly a present participle. And it is
not being used adjectivally. We are not in any way describing, defining or
evaluating transactions.
 
Of course, if you interpret the sentence as meaning "Last week, she was
engaged in the entering of transactions;..." (an ugly nominalisation) then
"entering would be a noun (a good old gerund, in fact).  But now you have
radically changed the sentence. The original is clearly about the action of
entering; the latter is about the function of entering. 
 
Maybe when you see a chapter title like "Entering transactions" you
automatically interpret it as saying "The entering of transactions". I
don't. I interpret "entering" as having to do with actions, not having to do
with an abstract noun. And this interpretation seems to tie in with the
conventional wisdom (I use the term loosely) in our profession that suggests
that a chapter a title should include a word that indicates that the chapter
is about doing things. Which is exactly the the issue I raised at the start
this thread. It seems that many in our profession interpret "Entering" in
"Entering transactions" as a having to do with doing. That's why they want
it in the title.  My side gripe, apart from the superfluousness of the word,
was that folk in our profession like to call these introductory words
gerunds. A gerund, as we all agree is a noun. So something has to give.
Either "Entering transactions" fails the requirement of indicating action
(since "entering" is a gerund and hence a noun"). Or "entering" is not a
gerund (since it is not a noun but an action word). We can't have it both
ways.
 
Cheers
 
 
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 2:18 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Time for another debate?


Oh sorry, I obviously read your original post a bit carelessly (and I wasn't
even drinking claret). 
 
On the topic of gerunds, etc, I'm a bit reluctant to get into detailed
discussion as this isn't a linguistics list, but since you ask I'll have a
go. It'd probably be more accurate to say that 'entering transactions' is a
noun phrase. It can be used as the subject of a verb (e.g. in 'entering
transactions is a key activity') or in many other ways just like a noun.
However, you can also analyse the internal structure of the phrase and it's
clear from the meaning that 'transactions' is the direct object of
'entering', which is a non-finite form of the verb 'enter' and can have
objects like a regular (finite) verb. If 'entering' were adjectival (which
is what's usually implied when the term 'present participle' is used), then
it would modify the meaning of 'transactions' and the whole phrase would be
about transactions rather than the process of entering them. (This
interpretation might be appropriate, for example, if you were using the
phrase to distinguish transactions going into a system (the entering
transactions) from those going out, say.)
 
So just as you can form a noun (the gerund 'entering') from the verb
'enter', you can form a noun phrase from the phrase 'enter transactions', by
again adding the -ing and importing the direct object unchanged. You can
also form a noun phrase from something much more complicated, such as 'enter
complex transactions received from an external system', in the same way.
 
Traditional grammar of the sort I learnt at school seems to try always to
bring everything down to the level of individual words, but in practice
language doesn't work like that. We naturally construct sentences out of
whole phrases just as much as we do out of words, and sentences are often
better analysed into phrases first. Another well-known example is a phrase
like 'the man next door's dog' - here the 's needs to be viewed as an
inflection applied to the whole phrase 'man next door', as the dog obviously
doesn't belong to the door. 

So do I consider the word 'entering' in 'entering transactions' a noun? That
was your question and I haven't answered it. I'm not sure if I can, but I
hope what I've said indicates that I think it's of little interest in
analysing the structure of the sentence. 
 
Does all this have anything to do with your original question? Well,
probably not.
 
But at least you got a debate - of sorts.
 
Howard

Other related posts: