Talk:greenlining

greenlining
Gerund? It doesn't have a plural or anything to distinguish it meaningfully from the verb. Or am I wrong on this, in which case every single present participle, even e.g. "defragmenting", should have a noun section of this kind? Seems silly. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: The reason you don't find a plural is that greenlining is usually used with a definite article, i.e. "the greenlining of ...".  As for your second sentence, a) not every present participle is used as a noun in common parlance, and b) the ones that are SHOULD have noun definitions  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, all -ing forms are both gerunds and present participles. What seems silly is calling them all present participles alone when actually they're both. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Angr, but it might not be practical if we do it this way. After all, the same form can also be used as an adverb: Sitting here, I can't help but wonder.... 16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that in the sense you described, sitting is a verb Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when do verbs modify clauses like adverbs? 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when does your case show an -ing-form modifying a clause? Consider: "Sitting there, I viewed the car." and "Sitting there, the car was viewed by me." In the second case, the natural, native interpretation is that it was the car that was "sitting". DCDuring TALK 16:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And in that case, "was sitting" is the present progressive form of sit. But we've gone off-topic.  The topic is that this and other gerunds should be kept if used in common parlance (and therefore attestable)  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that sitting is an adverb in "Sitting here, I can't help but wonder." I think "sitting here" is an adjective (as all participles are) modifying "I"; after all, sitting is describing a property of the speaker, not the manner of her wondering (or the manner of her inability to help wondering). It's like disappointed in "Disappointed, he went back home" or "He went back home disappointed", which are different from "He went back home disappointedly." I have no particular objection to listing both the present participle and the gerund under a ===Verb=== header (categorized as verb forms); I merely object to persistently omitting the gerund sense from -ing forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether in the example above "sitting" is an adjectival participle or an an adverbial participle. Same goes for something like this: "She fell, screaming, down the rabbit hole." I think the best way to analyze it is as an adverb that describes the subject's state while performing the action. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another clear example of why it must be an adverb is "It is not good to eat walking.", because the subject that "walking" would refer to is not even mentioned in the sentence. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also fairly easy to see by adding "while". "While sitting", "while walking" and so on. This makes it more obvious that we're dealing with a subordinate clause that expresses time or circumstance, which behaves syntactically as an adverb within the overall sentence. A good way to see this with any phrasal part of speech or subordinate clause is to replace it with an interrogative for which the phrase is the answer, or alternative a demonstrative. In this case, the question must be "when" (in the meaning of "in what case/circumstance" or "at what time"), and the demonstrative can be either "then" (in that case) or "now" (at this time). For Angs example with "disappointed", the question is "how", and the demonstrative is "so", "thus" or "like that". These are all clearly adverbs, which means that the original phrase must be as well. 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget, this RfD is about a noun sense, not an adjective or adverbial sense. This and other gerunds can function as both noun and verb senses, and definitions should be created accordingly  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is confusing word class and function. The existence of the adverbial usage of Thursday in "He left Thursday" does not require us to have an adverb PoS section in [[Thursday]]. Just because we are confused on this doesn't mean we should confuse our users. DCDuring TALK 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe walking or Thursday are adverbs in those senses...walking is a verb and Thursday is an object (consider the the proper way to say those things are "It is not good to eat while you are walking" and "He left on Thursday". In either case, this RfD is not about an adverb, but a noun, and no one has yet to give a valid reason why the word is used improperly as a noun and/or should be deleted.  I have no intention of adding an adverbial sense, even if I did believe one existed  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was such a word as Thursdaywalking, it could be a gerund. However, the word would have to exist before it could be classified. bd2412 T 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was concerned with CodeCat's introduction of the idea of an -ing-form of a verb generating an adverb PoS because it might be construed as adverbial. I don't recall anyone else introducing or advocating that idea.
 * As to the matter at hand, if an -ing-form of a verb can be found in the plural (rantings) or modified by a determiner (much ranting), we have been declaring it to be a noun even if, as in the case of ranting there is no distinct meaning in the alleged noun, apart from aspect. I think the noun PoS is a distraction. IMO, we would be better off creating and applying a template for English ing-forms that conveyed the idea that such forms were both nominals (gerunds) and participles (inflected forms of verbs also serving as modifiers of nouns).
 * Further, just as the PoS header "Prepositional phrase" eliminated the need to have essentially duplicative definitions under "Adjective" and "Adverb", a PoS header for -ing-forms would also eliminate duplication, though at a price of causing occasional users confusion not guaranteed to be meliorated by a linked definition in Appendix:Glossary. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Having a gerund template is probably a good idea, so long as we count definite and indefinite articles as determiners Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some count the articles as determiners. I was focused on the uncountable senses that -ing-forms can have, which are associated with determiners like much and little. Some define determiners broadly to include the articles, others chop determiners into many classes, based on various differences in their usage properties. It's not a debate I'd care to pursue until it proved important lexicographically. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If "a" or "the" is used properly in front of a word ending in -ing, it is a noun and that sense should be kept Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In "feed the starving", "starving" is an adjective. --WikiTiki89 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's a noun, because it is preceded by a definite article, and there is no noun for it to modify. Its Dutch equivalent has singular and plural forms ("starving" is implicitly plural), and can have genders. It's a noun. 03:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't we had this discussion hundreds of times? It's an adjective used in place of a noun. Whether you call it a noun or noun is irrelevant, it's still an adjective. Any adjective can be used this way. --WikiTiki89 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * CGEL calls it a "fused-head" construction, something both determiners and adjectives are capable of, which behaves as a nominal. DCDuring TALK 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the important point here is that it's not a gerund, but a participle. --WikiTiki89 04:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, here, and here greenlining is a gerund, not a participle. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. --WikiTiki89 02:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This should be closed as keep as it has run for ~3 months and no one other than the nominator has expressed a deletionist opinion. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)