Talk:Gerundive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Le Sigh, this page is false

The author of this page has confused two very similar Latin forms. The gerundive is indeed the verbal adjective, formed off of the fourth principle part with the normal 1st-2nd declension adjective endings (-us, -a, -um). The gerund (the verbal noun with similar, but different endings) can do everything the gerundive can do. Both forms retain their verbal force, and so can be modified by adverbs and can control a noun. When the gerund or gerundive controls a noun, Latin prefers to use the gerundive. Thus, "cupidus Carthaginis delendae est" means "he is desirous of destroying Carthage." Because of the gender endings, we know that cupidus (the undisputed nominative) must be the subject of "est," which cannot take the feminine "-ae" as a mate. Therefore, this is a gerundive, as opposed to a passive periphrastic, which follows:

The passive periphrastic consists of the gerundive plus a form of the verb esse (to be). When these two are paired, then the notion of obligation or necessity comes into play. The trick is that, in Latin, forms of the verb esse can be left out when they are contextually understood (English is the same, I saw "When roll empty lift lever to refill" in a toilet paper dispenser today and understood what it meant). Thus, "agenda" in the sense of "Things that must be done" is actually "agenda sunt."

I would have put this in the article itself, but I don't know anything about the formatting, and I really need to get back to translating Cicero. I hope this has been helpful.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.174.58 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with this - the page has been drastically modified since I last visited, and was it not for the fact that I do not want to get into an edit war I would just revert it to the version from a few months ago. A gerund-IVE is an adject-IVE, derived from a verb, signifying that the action represented by the verb should be done to the noun to which the adjective applies. This is definitely what it means when referring to Latin, and since English linguistic vocabulary was created by classical scholars, I would be very surprised if it means anything different when referring to other languages.

Many of the authors of this article have obviously got confused with the gerund, which is named similarly, and even looks similar in Latin, but has a very different meaning. I have never heard of a French or Spanish gerundive (although I concede that I have not spent enough time studying Spanish to be authoritative on the subject): the French example is a gerund, and the Spanish example is a participle - if it were a gerund, it would mean "Michael should be studied". It does not help that in French, Spanish, English (and doubtless many other European languages) the gerund is the same as the (masculine singular form of the) present participle.

The new Esperanto examples are also participles. There IS a gerundive in Esperanto, it is actively used (particularly in the word 'bedaǔrinde' meaning 'regrettably' - the adverb formed from the gerundive of the verb 'bedaǔri' : 'to regret'), and it is formed by adding the ending '-inda', or '-inde' for the derived adverb. I have also heard of a "strong gerundive" for things that must be done, rather than those that just ought to be, ending in '-enda', but have not seen it used outside grammar texts or other examples. The '-inta', '-anta', and '-onta' forms are all participles (past, present and future, respectively), NOT GERUNDIVES!!!

I am afraid I don't know any Tigrinya, so I can't comment on that section. However, the English translation of the example given does not look like a gerundive to me. Gingekerr 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For a reference for my definition of the gerundive, see [1] Gingekerr 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I ought to add that my not having seen the '-enda' Esperanto gerundive does not necessarily mean that it is defunct, as my Esperanto is mainly colloquial.Gingekerr 17:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to fix things, but your first sentence seems blatantly false; it looks like you actually completely disagree with the previous comment. (Incidentally, the current text of the Latin section is based largely on what the previous comment said.)
Also, I'm sorry, but you seem to be very confused about French and Spanish; neither language has a gerund, and Spanish doesn't have a present participle. The French gérondif and Spanish gerundio are both verbal adverbs (though the Spanish gerundio resembles English's present participle, which is a verbal adjective, in many of its uses). BTW, the French gérondif is not identical to the French participe présent; the gérondif is formed the particle en plus the participe présent. (So e.g. faisant is a participe présent, while e.g. en faisant is a gérondif.)
Ruakh 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my!! Perhaps aggreement can be reached on a few points:

  • The Tigrinya examples contain verbs in a certain tense. This tense is called by all grammars of Tigrinya (in English or French) (that I am familiar with) the gerundive tense This "tense" is never called an adjective, nor is it used as an adjective, either predicatively or attributively. I note three sources:
  • Tigrinya Grammar, ed. by John Mason (1996) p.50 The gerundive is the tense customarily used to express completed action. It can be used in the main clause of a sentence as the equivalent of the English present perfect. ... p.51 many actions that would be expressed in English by using a series of coordinate clauses are expressed in Tigrinya with the gerundive as a kind of subordinate clause, followed by the main verb.
  • Documents Tigrigna, by Wolf Leslau (1941) (in French) This is a classic work on Tigrinya grammar. It uses the same term, gerundif (sp?), if memory serves, but unfortunately, I cannot consult my copy now.
  • Wikipedia Here the terms gerund and gerundive are reported as being used synonymously.
  • The Esperanto suffix complexes -int-, ant-, -ont-, -it-, -at-, -ot- all form participles from verbs. When -a is added, the participles are used adjectivally, when -e is added, they are used adverbially. The suffixes -ind-. -end-, and -ebl- when followed by -a are used adjectively, when followed by -e are used adverbially, and when followed with a tense ending (-is, -as, -os) are used verbally. Most often followed by -a or -e, they are generally thought as forming adjectives. Note that:
  • Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (the largest dictionary of Esperanto in Esperanto) (1970) has the following definition for gerundio: (in grammar) 1 (in Latin) A declinable infinitive, viewed as the nominal form of the verb. 2 (in the Romance languages, English, and Esperanto) A type of unchangeable participle carrying the sense of a dependent clause.: in the sentence aŭdinte lin, li foriris (having heard him, he left) the word aŭdinte is a gerundio. This is my translation of the given definition, I'll be happy to provide the Esperanto text if the is any call. (Aside from this entry in PIV I do not recall either the term gerundive nor the term gerund being used in Esperanto, especially with regard to Esperanto.)
  • Although not a high frequency item, the suffix -end- was made official by the Akademio de Esperanto in 1953. This academy is regarded as a quite conservative body and generally trails usage by decades.
  • While, unfortunately, I don't have a citation available, it is occasionally noted that the suffixes -ind-, -end-, and -ebl- are all synonyms of the future and present passive participlesuffixes -ot- & -at- with a modal sense added in, of goodness, requirement, and possibility respectively.
  • A sample linguistics dictionary, Dictionary of Languages and Linguistics, by David Crystal (1992) redirects the reader to parrticiple for both gerund and gerundive. There it says: a gerund is a noun derived from a verb, (a verbal noun), such as "amandum" loving; two such forms are illustrated in "Seeing is believing." A gerundive is an adjective derived from a verb, such as "amandus" loveable; an english example would be "crumbling ruin". ...

Now for the hard part. It may be felt that some of the above authors (which ones they are depending on one's POV) misuse the term gerundive in a way they ought not do. Should Wikipedia take a stance on that? or should it simply report the range of ways that the term is used?

In my own experience, use of the word gerund is confused in English, sometimes referring to a noun, but sometimes to an adjective or adverb. So I avoid it like the plague. The terms verbal noun, and adjectival or adverbial participle strike me as far more clear. Similarly, aside from when referring to the Tigrinya tense, I avoid the term gerundive. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I see no reason for this article to be about the term "gerundive". Rather, this article should be about concepts that fit under the heading "gerundive" and do not fit better under some other heading (i.e., in some other article). Gerund and participle are comparatively well-defined terms, and there's no reason for this article to cover gerunds or participles in even the most cursory way; we can give disambiguation links to other article as the need arises.
Per WP:NPOV, we must strive for a neutral point of view by describing different points of view that exist, and giving some idea of who supports each, without taking a stance. We cannot say, "The term gerundive is also used sometimes — incorrectly — to refer to the gerund", but we can say, "The term gerundive is also used sometimes to refer to the gerund; some linguists consider this usage to be improper.[insert ref here]".
Ruakh 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points! Most interesting is the part that reads: and do not fit better under some other heading (i.e., in some other article). I'm not sure of he distinction between term and heading, unless, perhaps, it is that a term has both a form and a meaning, while a heading has only a form, and that the fit better clause is to be used limit the focus of the article to some subset of the range of phenomena referred to by the term (used in the heading). There seems to be a tendency to argue: my limitation (=restricted definition?) is right and yours is not. Now perhaps someone is, in fact, right or more right, but to me it suggests the flavor of a perscriptive clash, which is partly why I mentioned POV.

How does one come to agreement on what "fits better"? Isn't there a danger that chipping away at the content of an article by subtracting with other articles may leave a distorted view of what to think when one thinks of the "heading"? O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You raise good points. I think the only solution is to try to be respectful of other editors and of other viewpoints, to rely heavily on reputable sources and cite them, and to use our best collective judgment. If that fails, then I don't see a better way. Ruakh 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If you find me straying from this advice, please feel free to let me know. There is my talk page, and the email link on my user page. Whichever is faster, if either, depends on the rest of my life outside the computer. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 19:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam delendum est.

Spam delendum est. Spam is to be deleted. 205.188.117.65 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that's cute. :-)
I'm not sure it should be added to the article, though, since it seems to be snowcloning off of "Cartago delenda est," which is already in the article. Besides, what the article really needs is not more examples of the Latin gerundive, but more information about it. Sadly, I don't know enough about Latin to be able to provide that. I don't even know what kind of information might exist about it (not counting conjugation information, which IMHO isn't terribly encyclopedic anyway). Ruakh 06:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto gerundive?

I think this might be a hoax. I've never seen it mentioned or used outside this article, in any text. I've always seen this construction made using the -u ending, e.g. "por konkludi, mi kredas ke oni destruu Kartagon." Twin Bird 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That statement was included by Gingekerr when he first started the article (see the diff). From his user-info, he doesn't seem like the hoax-perpetrating type, but it's possible he was mistaken. I know nothing about Esperanto myself, and Google isn't helping much, so I can't help answer this question. (The good news is that Gingekerr's last contribution was less than a month ago, so it seems likely that if you leave a note on his talk-page, he'll eventually see it and get back to you.) Ruakh 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll back that up about Gingekerr not being a "hoax-perpetrating type" - Nippoo 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The above coments predate my edits as 67.136.141.50 on 2006-05-04. Later (2006-8-28) I left an explanitory comment on Twin Bird's talk page, which may have been the wrong place to put it. I had hoped to resolve the issue at hand re Esperanto, but I must have bungled procedure, if nothing else. (I'm a novice at Wikipedia.) Sorry. Perhaps I should have left a comment here. So if there is still a dispute, someone pleas bring me up to speed. --Oryanw 00:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Your edits look good. :-) I think this article has serious problems, though; it looks like the word gerundive has a completely different meaning for each language it's applied to, not even counting that it's also used as a synonym for gerundial. I think we might need to reevaluate the article's structure; we might have to reduce the lead text to "In linguistics, a gerundive is any of various verb forms that exist in various languages" and give language-specific explanations in a number of sections. Ruakh 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I quite agree. In your proposed lead text do you think that "verb forms" is general enough to include the de-verbal adjectives. Would perhaps "verb forms and derivations" be better — or is that redundant? A second lead paragraph might summarize the historical reasons you have given for such a variety of senses. And a third lead paragraph might loosely categorize the various senses, but I suppose that would be premature at this point. p.s. I appreciated your earlier comments. The diversity of senses was rather puzzleing. --Oryanw 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So far as I know, the term gerundive refers exclusively to verb forms (albeit usually non-finite verbs), never to de-verbal adjectives, so that shouldn't be an issue. Ruakh 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In that case it seems to me that perhaps the whole section on Esperanto should be removed. I was apparently misled by the wording of the original article and the glosses to the Latin forms which could be read adjectivally. Between languages the line between verbs and adjectives wanders like a river on a flat plain. What one languages says with an adjective, another says with a verb etc.
Of course, as I mentioned in my note on Twin Bird's talk page, the -enda and -inda forms can be re-verbalized: rompi (transitive verb inf) "to break", rompenda (adj. predicate or atributive) "which must be broken", rompendi (intransitive verb inf) "to be in need of breaking, as a must". rompendi might be considered an extension of rompi, but it is a fully conjugatable independent verb; I hesitate to call it a form of rompi.
Despite the translational similarity (in the glosses) between these Esperanto adjectives and the Laten forms cited in the article, if 'gerundives' by definition are never de-verbal adjectives, then I think these forms are simply not gerundives.
The best one could say is that certain kinds of Latin gerundives (according to the given examples) may be translated with de-verbal adjectives in Esperanto. If you think that is worth saying here, I'll try a rewording. But I wonder, if it might not be viewed as a bit off-topic?? --Oryanw 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I revised and extended this chapter hoping to support your (Ruakh) suggestion above. --Oryanw 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tigrinya

Ruakh: I like your rewrite of earlier today. I have adjusted the literal translation in the Tigrinya section and added to your in-line comment. Tigrinya tenses are said to be more aspect oriented, compared with more time-orientation in English. --Oryanw 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help; your e-mail, especially, was very helpful in sorting out the situation with Esperanto. It's very daunting to rewrite an article that's mostly about languages one doesn't speak (I know French and Spanish, but not Latin, Esperanto, or Tigrinya); I only hope people who know more about these languages will come put in their two cents! Ruakh 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] propaganda

I'd be interested to know what the "phrase containing a feminine form of propagandum, the gerundive of propagare, to propagate" is, especially since it makes perfect sense to interpret the word as a neuter plural. Also, at least in the way I was taught, one usually uses the masculine nominative singular (propagandus) to refer to an adjective - especially when dealing with gerundives when the neuter nominative/accusative singular could be confused with the gerund.Gingekerr 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know Latin — be it Classical Latin, which I think is what you're thinking of, or New Latin (a.k.a. Modern Latin), which is where the word actually comes from. Nonetheless, I can be of help, by citing sources that presumably do know Latin. If we believe Dictionary.com, AHD4 gives the etymology as follows:
Short for New Latin Sacra Congregātiō dē Prōpagandā Fidē, Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith (established 1622), from ablative feminine gerundive of Latin prōpāgāre, to propagate. See propagate.
link
For a change, the OED isn't so informative, though you might be interested in its note that the word is "Sometimes erroneously treated as a plural (= efforts or schemes of propagation) with singular propagandum, app. after memorandum, -da." So, you're not alone.
Ruakh 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this - perhaps it should be incorporated into the article (the Latin section is currently the only one which is any good) Gingekerr 17:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have just added it Gingekerr 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the External links

I just added a range of external links to definitions found with Google. They are, of course, of mixed quality, but seem to fall into two main groups: 1) those focusing on Latin, describing an adjective or participle bespeaking necessity, obligation, worthyness, or fitness; and 2) those focusing on modern languages, describing adverbs or parts-of-speech used adverbially, bespeaking simultaniety. Please feel free to edit or get rid of these links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oryanw (talk • contribs) .

I fear that the inclusion of some of the external links might be begging the question; in particular, Gingekerr objected to the use of the term gerundive to refer to the French gérondif and Spanish gerundio, and indeed the links you supplied do not apply the term gerundive to these constructions. Indeed, one of the Spanish links applies the term gerund instead, and acknowledges the existence of the term gerundive but does not apply it to the gerundio.
Even so, if we're in the process of re-evaluating what should be included in this article (and it looks as though we might be), it can only help to include a range of external opinions; thanks for providing them.
Ruakh 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
My oversight. Sorry. Just added patches to try to stop the begging (not sure I succeeded, but at least things are more explicit); also added links to the SIL French-English glossary which appears to recognize two meanings of gerundive in English, corresponding to two menings of gérondif in French, the latter meaning being synonymous with gerund
This latter synonymity confuses me, if gerund means verbal noun, since it seemed to me that the two sense we have been discussing are a) adjectival (mustness, etc), and b) adverbial (simultaneity). O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I find the whole thing confusing. I think part of the problem is that different people viewed different attributes of the Latin gerund and gerundive as being the defining attributes, and so applied the terms gerund and gerundive differently to different languages. The gerundio is apparently cognate with one or the other, or perhaps with both, so it's not really surprising that one or the other term got applied to it; and similarly with the gérondif. The fact that gerundives don't exist in English (by most definitions, at least; I have heard the term applied to present participles) has probably exacerbated this confusion, as it's not like you can point to English sentences and say "the gerund is this; the gerundive, this." Other complicating factors are that the Latin gerund and gerundive are similar in form; that gerundive can be used as an adjective meaning gerundial; and that by some accounts (such as 68.231.174.58's, above), the two forms are somewhat interchangeable in Latin. Ruakh 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Just added links to usages for Rigvedic, Amharic, Tigrinya, Yoruba. Two problems bedevil in digging these up: 1) weeding out the many sites that are just quoting this article in Wikipedia, and 2) many sites mention formation of "gerundives" without discussing meaning. I tended to ignore most pdf files. The whole External links section, as it stands now probably belongs on the Talk page and not in the article. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 02:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Tigrinya section

The relavent considerations for Tigrinya and related Semitic languages differ from those for the other languages already`discussed in the article. I think that the only relavent consideration is that "gerundive" is the well established name of a tense (referring to the recent or still relavent past), whch has the capacity to head subordinate clauses that are sometimes translated with adverbially used participles. Perhaps the name is inappropriate and should be changed, but I think that it is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy to attempt that here. Of course, Gingekerr is quite right that this "Gerundive tense" is not, and does not resemble, the older gerundives which I would describe most generally as: noun modifiers formed from verbs and carring a sense of mustness or appropriateness. (Am I ok there?)

Therefore, it seems to me that at least two distinct pheniomena go by the label gerundive, and both should be mentioned in any article headed gerundive --with at least a short descripton. If the discussion of Tigrinya "gerundives" were lengthy enough, it would merit going into a separate article. I don't know what the heading of that would be, unless perhaps Gerundive (Tiginya) or Gerundive (Ethiopic) or Gerundive (Semitic). (I don't know how widespread the Tigrinya-like usage is.) But so far I think the Tigrinya section is far too small for that. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Esperanto section

I thint the situation here is quite different from that in the Tigrinya section. Neither the term gerundive nor any of its buddies (gerondif, gerund, gerundial, gerundio, ...) is (in my experience) a commonly used, or well established, term for describing any part of Esperanto grammar. This gives the Esperanto section quite a different status. The Esperanto section adds completeness and interest to the article, but does not have the same presence-endam (;-)) as the Tigrinya one. The same reasoning applies any of the Esperanto candidate-gerundives that have been discussed.

Therefore, I think that (diectly contrary to the situation in the Tigrinya section) the only relavent consideration here is consistancy with (all?) the other sections, the primary one being of course Latin. The ending complexes, -enda and -inda attach only to (transitive) verb stems and form modifiers of nouns expressing mustness or worthyness. Thus, they resemble the Latin forms discussed in both sound and function:

  • Kartago estas detruenda. -- must be destroyed.
  • Drako dormanta neniam estas incitinda. -- is never worth teasing.

On this basis I am inclined to agree with Gingekerr to the extent of saying that I think it is legitimate to describe the resulting forms detruenda and incitinda as "gerundives" similar to Latin gerundives. I don't think that it is relavent that these forms are traditionally called adjectives: they modify nouns. I also don't think that it is relavent that they are not traditionally called participles: they are formed from verbs -- I think tradition maybe somewhat arbitrary here.

That leaves (participial) forms like vidinte (having seen) and vidante ([while] seeing). If these are to be called "gerundives", they are of a very different kind from -enda and -inda. This kind resembles most the French example. It resembles the Tigrinya example too, but the Tigrinya "gerundive" is a finit verb also capable of heading an independent clause.

In conclusion, I think that if the French (and Spanish) section is maintained as exemplifyinjg a second kind of "gerundive", then it is legitimate and possibly appropriate to suggest that Esperanto has this second kind of gerundive too. But if not, then probably not. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 04:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the French and Spanish section

Do I think the French and Spanish section belongs here? It is not clear to me how widespread the use of the term gerundive is for them. Perhaps, it should be maintained, but with an alert to the reader that some term other than gerundive would be more clear. However, I don't know what other term would be appropriate and less ambiguous. I think that would have to be answered before expelling the secton. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 04:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Verbose list of annotated External links

I copied the external links here, provisionally leaving behind only some of those concerned with Latin, Tigrinya and the SIL French-English bilingual glossary. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To definitions and glosses of gerundive (and gérondif and gerundio) on line

[edit] French/English Glossary of Linguistic Terms by the Summer Institute of Linguistics

  • (re gerundive1) = fr:gérondif1 [2]
  • (re gerundive2) [3] = fr:gérondif2 = en:gerund
  • (re gerund) [4] = en:gerundive2

[edit] Focused on Latin

[edit] Focused on Rigvedic

  • [5] Rigvedic has forms with affixes ya and tva functioning as future passive participles (gerundives); e.g., vac-ya- "to be said," kar-tva- "to be performed, done." The Atharvaveda has, additionally, forms with -(i)tavya (hims-itavya- "to be injured") and -aniya (upa-jiv-aniya- "to be subsisted upon").

[edit] Focused on French

[edit] Focused on Spanish

  • (re gerundio) (in Spanish) states "El gerundio funciona como adverbio, ... El gerundio expresa acción simultánea (Hablaba comiendo) o duración ..." (The gerundio functions as an adverb ... The gerundio expresses simultaneous action or duration ...)
  • (re gerundio) a short gloss translating it as gerund in English

[edit] Focused on Semitic

  • contains the gloss: "... the gerund(ive) = gerondif = converb "any adverbial derived from a verb ..."

[edit] Amharic

[edit] Tigrinya
  • (re gerundive) Department of Linguistics, UCSD states In Tigrinya, the past tense is usually rendered by the gerundive form: s biru and not the perfective s br .
  • (re gerundive) [6] lists tense paradigms
  • see also references on Talk page

[edit] Focused on Yoruba

  • (re gerundive) Brian D. Joseph mentions: consisting of a verb plus an active participle (also known as the gerundive) ((Google produced 153 hits for "yoruba gerundive")


[edit] A proposal to restructure the artcle

A gerundive is a modifier with verbal characteristics formed from a verb. It may consist of, or be similar to, a participle. There are two basic kinds of gerundive:

  • the classical gerundive in Latin (or other languages with a similar modifier that modifies nouns and indicates necessity, worth, or fitness. This may be identical to, or similar to, present or future passive participles;
  • the "gerund"-like gerundive which modifies a verb or clause, and indicates simultaneity. This may be identical to, or similar to, past or present active participles

[edit] Classical gerundives

[edit] In Latin

(the current section I suppose)

[edit] In Rigavedic

In Rigavedic the future passive participle is the gerundive, for example: vac-ya- "to be said," kar-tva- "to be performed, done." See [link]

[edit] In Esperanto

The term gerundive is not normally used in Esperanto grammars. However, Esperanto does have two forms built on a verb stem which are similar in appearance, meaning, and use to the Latin examples above.

(last version of the Esperanto section that discussed -enda and -inda)

[edit] "Gerund"-like gerudives

(Note: while it *might* be ok to eliminate the French, Spanish and Esperanto sections below, I don't think that it would be reasonable to do without the Tigrinya section. Unfortunately, the usage in the Tigrinya grammatical tradition is mysterious without mention of the usage of gerondif in French.)

These are not verbal nouns, as they are used adverbially, and may be gerund-like only in form.

[edit] In French and Spanish

(gerondif in French (??) (gerundio in Spanish) (??)

[edit] In Esperanto

The active participles may bear an adverbial ending and be used like the French gerondif example above. (+current Esp. section)

They may also bear an adjective ending and be used like the Spanish gerundio above (+example)

[edit] In Tigrinya

(the present section) O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gérondif and gerundio

So I decided to look up gérondif in the various French-only online dictionaries accessible from http://www.lexilogos.com/francais_langue_dictionnaires.htm. Most of the dictionaries there give two separate senses for the term, one for the Latin gerundive (to which one dictionary adds the Spanish gerundio), one for the French gérondif (which is generally en plus the present participle, though most of the dictionaries hasten to point out that the present participle alone can sometimes serve as a gérondif, and one mentions a past proposal to always refer to present participles as gérondifs). No dictionary that I can find makes any effort to link the two senses or imply that there's a general definition that could apply to other languages (the one that mentions Spanish ties this specifically to the Latin sense). I therefore don't think we can take for granted that the term gerundive applies to the French gérondif, but a case could potentially be made (on the basis of that one dictionary) for applying it to the Spanish gerundio.

Similarly, I looked up gerundio in the various Spanish dictionaries linked from http://cvc.cervantes.es/oteador/default.asp?l=2&id_rama=520&ct=catalogo88; they all pretty much give the definition of the Spanish gerundio, without stating whether gerundios are specifically a Spanish thing. (The definitions would all cover the French gérondif.) Since none of the definitions mentions Latin aside from giving the Latin word gerundium as the etymon of the Spanish word gerundio, this isn't an argument for counting French gérondifs or Spanish gerundios as gerundives, either.

Ruakh 05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerund vs. Gerundive

@The gerundive is preferred to the gerund when it has a direct object:

Actually, the core difference is that the gerundive expresses a necessity (or sometimes a possibility) of the performance of the action the verb indicates, while the gerund is the action the verb indicates as a noun.

Gerundive
ceterum censeo Cartaginem esse delendam.
itaque Galli nobis cauendi sunt.
eundumst mihi!
Gerund
ars amandi
amor ambulandi
but not: ambulandum amo
instead: ambulare amo

Note that in languages like Japanese with its almost reverse Polish notation-like grammar, there's no need for a gerund in this case:

aruku-no daisuki

Of course, when translated in Latin, no gerund appears either, but remember, in Japanese this is a genetive. Shinobu 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I screwed up a while back; an anonymous editor with IP address 68.231.174.58 posted a knowledgeable-sounding comment saying that the existing text was wrong. I don't know Latin, and after a while of no-one addressing the comment one way or the other, I "corrected" the article to reflect what (s)he said. It's pretty clear now that that was a mistake on my part; I apologize. I'll see about recovering the previous text of the Latin section. Ruakh 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I took a stab at undoing the damage. Please feel free to make further edits. Ruakh 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

@can do everything the gerundive can do: I think he meant to say that they are inflected the same way and take the same forms in the same cases. Even so it's not entirely true: the gerund doesn't take the nominative, and, since it is essentially a noun, doesn't correspond in gender with anything.

@When the gerund or gerundive controls a noun, Latin prefers to use the gerundive: this is statistically speaking true, I guess, because when something has to be done, there is usually something that it needs to be done about. But there it ends, you can easily think up counterexamples.

Gerundive without a noun
mihi eundumst!
Gerund with a noun
amor Viam Appiam perambulandi / ineundi

Which is a very silly example (love of walking along the Appian Way), but hey, I'm sure a lot could be said about it, and it's just an example. Shinobu 12:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/r/Talk%7EGerundive_0204.html"