Gerunds: To Use Them or Not to Use Them, That Is the Grammar Question

Most of us don't want to be bothered with grammar terms so I do my best to avoid them. The word "gerund" is a case in point. On the other hand, we writers love words and know they serve a function. So somebody at some point made up the word "gerund" so we could talk about a certain part of speech easily without redefining it every time the subject came up.

So why would the subject come up? It doesn't very often. But writers are often warned to be wary of ugly gerunds because they often make sentences feel awkward or--worse--because they are indicators that their sentences may be getting..well, wordy. Mind you, not all gerunds are ugly, but some of them are.

So what is a a gerund? It's a verb in its "ing" form that doesn't know its place. It is no longer playing the part of a verb but has migrated intead to the position of a noun. So, when we write "I am walking," "walking" is a verb. When we write "Walking is good for you," "walking" is a noun.

There is nothing wrong with either of those examples. Neither is awkward and neither is wordy. But when gerunds start cropping up in "subordinate clauses," or "dependent clauses"--meaning the little phrases that aren't really sentences but get hooked onto your main sentences--they can be a danger signal. But so can "ings" when they are still functioning as part of the verb.

Ask yourself if you really need that "ing." Ask whether its a gerund. Can you make the verb simpler by eliminating the "ing" form and if you did would it change the meaning? If you changed it would you make the sentence move along more quickly? If you changed it would you eliminate a word or two? Could you eliminate the entire clause with the "ing" in it? Or make it into a simple sentence of its own and thus make your sentence simpler and easier to read?

And the last question, do you want to do any of those things? If someone has asked Faulkner if he wouldn't prefer to make a "sentence simpler and easier to read" he probably would have been horrified. He was reproducing what he saw as the way his characters think, not the way they write. It was a choice he made. But I'm willing to bet he knew what a "gerund" is. And when to get rid of one.

By the way, my book The Frugal Editor, isn't really a book about grammar. It's a book about making our books as professional as possible by finding typos, by using better formatting and even by sprucing up our writing skills. It's also about using all of those things to better our chances of selling our books. For great editing is great marketing, especially when it comes to getting a publisher or an agent for our hot-off-the-wordprocessor novel.

Technorati Tags:
gerunds, dependent clauses, , independent clauses, wordiness, faulkner, ing words, ing verbs, ing nouns,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |


-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson edits, consults and speaks on issues of publishing. Find her The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978515870. Learn more about her other authors' aids at www.howtodoitfrugally.com, where writers will find lists and other helps on the Resources for Writers page. She blogs on all things publishing (not just editing!) at her Sharing with Writers blog.

Oh, those hateful "ings!" But look at the good they do!

I hate "ings." It's not that they're wrong. It's that I now they're going to cause me work. That's because they are indicators. (That's not a new grammatical term--or an old one as far as know. It's just a word that means what it's always meant, that they point something out to me!).

They are tell me I've used a progressive tenses that could be simplified. Or they point to passive tenses that would be better activated or of wordy dependent clauses and more.

Mind you, I didn't say I eradicate all I just use the find function in my Word program to see if I could have written crisper copy. Do the same thing with those ugly "ly" things that come on the end of adverbs.

Mmmm. Maybe I should love "ings." At least, unlike the grammar check, they do tip me off!

Have you checked out the other posts on this blog for refreshers on grammar, style choices, editing and more?


-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson edits, consults and speaks on issues of publishing. Find her The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978515870. Learn more about her other authors' aids at www.howtodoitfrugally.com. She blogs on all things publishing (not just editing!) at www.sharingwithwriters.blogspot.com.

A "Secret" Construction That Helps You Vary Sentence Structure and Avoid the Horrible Dangling Participles

This is a continuation of the conversation created by the post a couple of days ago. Just scroll down a bit. (-:


Question: This is a question about dangling participles (and I'm blushing at how guilty I am - but I never knew what they were. ahem!) The reason I do them is because I don't want to start every sentence with 'I' in a query letter or 'he, she, characters name,' in a fiction book - so I use the gerund or dangelly participle to change the sentence structure - Got any tips on how to do that without using the ING, ED, or EN on the end of my words.

Congratulations on being quoted in that book (Dee and Brian Powers' book on promotion) too.

Billie A. Williams, author of The Bread and Breakfast Murders

Answer: Billie, here is one rarely used construction one might use to vary your sentences. Begin your sentence with a "That." I goes something like this. "That Billie Williams didn't know the very boring terms for dangling participles and gerunds doesn't deter her from writing well." You see, the whole "that" clause serves as a subject and there is not an "ing" anywhere.

About that idea that verbs that end in "en" and "ed" might indicate that you have used a dangler and that they should be avoided. Not really. Where would fiction writers (and writer!) be without simple past tense! LOL. Those "ings" are a different story. If you use one, know that it could very well lead you in that dangling participle trap. Doesn't mean that progressive tenses and other uses for "ing" aren't grammatically correct. Just be careful. Double check when you see one. Because they are often associated with danglers, they may give you a clue. We all know those danglers are especially hard to see when they are our own.

BTW, there is a section in The Frugal Editor on dangling participles, gerunds and more. It may shed more light on how to avoid one and use the other less frequently.

PS: This conversation originates two posts down in this blog. Boyd Sutton, editor of the Wisconsin Writers' Journal, weighs in on grammatical terms, some odd uses of prepositions with verbs and more.

-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson edits, consults and speaks on issues of publishing. Find her The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978515870. Learn more about her other authors' aids at www.howtodoitfrugally.com.

Editor Boyd Sutton, Dangling Participles and the Ewwww or Eiew Factor

You will find a conversation between Boyd Sutton, one of my fellows at Word_Mage @ yahoogroups.com and me. He gave me permission to share with you.

Boyd said:

Yep, I caught the grammar vs. grammatical, Carolyn. Good for you. And thanks
for remembering me.

When you started talking about dangling participles I had two reactions. First, my eyes started glazing over. Grammar terms. Eiew! Embarrassment came next. I couldn't define a dangling participle if it were the $1,000,000 question.

But wait! You noted that there was an entire chapter devoted to it in The Frugal Editor. So I went immediately to TFE and found the chapter on DPs and gerunds. Eiew! Another grammar term. But it was a joy to read. You have the same "eiew" response to such terms and made it painless for me.

Now, I have another "editorial" question for you and the gang. What do you call it when people add an unnecessary word, as in, "He dialed up the girl's number." I see this all the time. In my critique group, I just say, "as opposed to 'dialed down' the girl's number?" and they get the point. It also shows up in "conjured up," "winnowed down," and on and on. What's that called? Grammarians (nope, it's not "grammers"), with all their fancy names and terms, must have a high-falutin term for that.

Boyd Sutton, Editor, the
Wisconsin Writers' Journal, www.wrwa.net

From Carolyn:

Boyd, I call it "colloquial." Or on second thought, maybe "redundant." Ha! But then you already read that I'm not much for all those terms that make us nod off when anything remotely related to grammar comes up.

Notice I didn't say "colloquial usage." I have a strong dislike of words that end with "age." Not just because of my age, either. Like "signage." Seems we already have a perfectly good word for that. It's "signs." Seems we're just trying to sound high falutin' with an extra syllable. But "dialed up" adds a whole new word, not just an extra syllable. So in this case, I'd consider another term for your example. Consider "dumbing down." Ahem.

LOL. You asked.
---
Carolyn Howard-Johnson edits and consults on issues of publishing. Find her The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success on Amazon. Learn more about her other authors' aids at www.howtodoitfrugally.com.