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.

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.