0

Basically what't the difference between these two forms in all regards? What do I use? From my native language I've got this habit to always go gerund.

user54276
  • 13
  • Sense verbs can swing either way, as it turns out, and there's rarely any consistent difference in meaning, beyond individual fiat. – John Lawler Oct 16 '13 at 18:45
  • This is not just an issue with the gerund. 'It is moving', and 'it moves' are two legitimate forms of the present tense, as are 'I am running' and I 'run'. The choice of which to use is determined by context. 'I am running as I speak', but 'I run on Saturdays'. Continuity plays a part, but that's not the entire story. – WS2 Oct 16 '13 at 18:58
  • Moving is not a gerund here. – Mynamite Oct 16 '13 at 22:38

1 Answers1

3

You happened to pick a particularly ornery example for talking about the difference. It's easier to explain with a sentence in the past tense, and with a telic verb - one which has a 'built-in' end state. So let me start with a different example.

1a. I saw him make a ham sandwich.
1b. I saw him making a ham sandwich.

In 1a, the action of making the sandwich is understood in perfective aspect. That is, it is seen 'from the outside', as a whole, without beginning-middle-end. You saw him finish making the sandwich.

In 1b, the action is imperfective--you saw only the 'inside' of the process, not its beginning or end.

The difference is much less distinct with move, because intransitive move may be used in both telic and atelic senses. In the telic sense it means "change location"; in the atelic sense it means "be in motion". So if the context implies that move is being used in an atelic sense, the contrast between imperfective and perfective tends to be neutralized. To coerce different senses, we really have to provide a goal that will mark the end of the action: a destination.

I saw him move to the sideline. You saw him arrive at the sideline.
I saw him moving to the sideline. You saw him on the way to the sideline - he may not have actually arrived there.

Casting these in the present sounds odd, as Armen Ծիրունյան remarks, because we don't usually use the 'simple present' to report single events (except in the fairly case of 'historical present', used mostly in jokes and sportscasts). Ordinarily, the simple present is used of habitual actions. But we can imagine a context in which that works - a TV color man analyzing a US football player's habitual actions. In that case, the perfective/imperfective contrast works just fine:

I see him move to the sideline on every play, then take off downfield.
I see him moving to the sideline on every play; if he gets there unnoticed, he takes off downfield.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 68,905