On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 10:40:11 AM UTC-4, Aslan Tan wrote:
> The term "gerund" is occasionally used in descriptions of English grammar, to denote the present participle used adjectivally or adverbially e.g. 'take a running jump'. That form,
Actually, "gerund" refers to the noun use. In Chomsky's famously
ambiguous sentence "Flying planes can be dangerous," if you mean
that aviation is a hazardous profession, then it's being used as a
gerund; but if you mean that a plane might fall out of the air onto
you, then it's being used as a participle.
However, there's no reason to use the term for English. It refers
to a specific form in verb conjugation in Latin. That's even more
the case for "gerundive," mentioned below, which I don't think has
been applied to English,
ending in -ing, is identical to that of the English gerund, but it is generally called a gerund when it is used as a noun, not as an adjective or adverb e.g. 'running burns more calories than walking'.
> In Turkish, there are three definitions for the verb forms when it is used as a noun (namely "adfiil" lit. noun-verb), as an adjective (namely "sıfatfiil" lit. adjective-verb) or as an adverb (namely "zarffiil" lit. adverb-verb).
>
> Yet I see alot of people using "gerund" as a translation of "zarffiil" when it can only mean "adfiil" (IMO).
Maybe the term was introduced into the study of Turkish grammar
in the 19th century, when anyone dealing with the "Oriental" languages
had been familiar with Latin and its study since childhood. In those
days, any Orientalist was expected to have mastery of Classical
Arabic, Classical Persian, and (Ottoman) Turkish -- but knowledge
of the modern/spoken languages was not at all part of their domain.
So what you should be comparing is not English grammar, but Latin
grammar: and maybe it would be best to abandon the Latin terminology
entirely but use the Turkish names of the inflections in descriptions
and instruction instead.
> For example the following is quoted from an academic work.
> "In Turkish and Turkic, these relations are often established by adverbs,
> and when this relationship is established, the adverbs become a syntactic form which is
> no longer merely a morpheme. Gerunds (-ınca, -ıp, -arak etc.), one of the morpho syntactic categories that are specific to the Turkic languages, provide that clauses to
> become grammaticalized by the function of the envelope. This study has focused on
> these morpho-syntactic units in general and the following questions were sought during
> the study: Is the gerunds that shows an internal structure / grammar characteristic as
> stable as other internal structure components? If we leave the phonetic variations to an
> edge, is it always the same or similar gerunds used at every turn and stage in Turkish
> history? If there is a dynamism in the use of these suffixes in Turkish, what are the
> reasons for this? How are new gerunds produced in Turkic languages, how do new
> gerund structures come into being? Are there similarities in production processes? Will
> the gerunds lose prestige over time? The database of the study will create the gerunds
> lists in the grammar books prepared on Turkic languages such as Turkish, Azerbaijani,
> Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Uigur, Tuvan, Yakut, Chuvash and will be
> related to the dialects as needed."
>
> (-ınca, -ıp, -arak) suffixes do not make verb forms that can be used as nouns (the "gerund" as called in English).
>
> Is "gerundive" is a better term in English to describe what is called "zarffiil" in Turkish?
>
> See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive
I can't help with the quote because I don't know anything about
Turkish except your very nice alphabet.