I saw this sentence somewhere. I know it’s right, but I can’t explain why to use the -ing form here twice:
There was no mistaking the smell. Burning. There was a fire somewhere.
I saw this sentence somewhere. I know it’s right, but I can’t explain why to use the -ing form here twice:
There was no mistaking the smell. Burning. There was a fire somewhere.
Think of another way of saying the same thing. So: “there was no doubt about the smell.”. I do not think you would have a problem with that. Perhaps you may feel the need to suggest that “there was no doubt” is somehow short for “there was no <room for> doubt..”. But I do not think anyone actually inserts those two word silently as she listens.
In the same way, mistaking is a noun, just as doubt is. It is a type of verbal noun, often called a ‘gerund’. In this case, it is active and transitive. So, even though it is a kind of noun, it can have the word smell as its object.
Burning is also a verbal noun. In this context it is intransitive: it has no object. The writer could have written “the smell of burning. But this would have lost the immediate striking effect. S/he does this by throwing the idea of burning at you straight after the idea of smell. As before, we do not find ourselves having to make up extra phrases in our heads (such as: ‘... of something burning’). The juxtaposition is sufficient.
If I were editing, I might have suggested a full colon after ‘smell’ rather than a full stop.