-1

I can't distinguish the meanings of gerunds.

  1. Eating (gerund) (=the action of eating)
  2. Eating slowly (gerund) (=the action of eating slowly)

Do they refer to the same activity? (That is, is eating slowly eating?) Or eating and eating slowly refer to two different activities?

I think eating and eating slowly refer to two different activities because maybe I heard someone saying just walking and walking quietly are different. And we say the fact that we eat and the fact that we eat slowly are two different facts. That's why I'm thinking two gerunds (eating and eating slowly) refer to two different concepts.

I think it's quite far from examples of nouns. Because yellow stone and hard stone can refer to the same thing but eating slowly and eating delightfully, I think, refer to two different concepts.

If eating and eating slowly can refer to the same concept, eating slowly is eating and eating delightfully is eating so eating slowly can be eating delightfully, which is, I think, wrong.

And as someone said in the comment, "eating is fun" and "eating slowly is fun" are definitely different.

Actually that means a lot to me. Compare:

  1. Walking slowly is for her. (because walking slowly makes less noise)
  2. Walking is for her (because she wants me to lose weight)
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the same activity." Obviously, everyone who eats slowly is also eating, but one can also eat quickly, and "eating" and "eating slowly" mean different things. You seem to be getting caught in the white horse paradox. –  Jan 28 '24 at 03:57
  • @alphabet Yes, I think I'm caught in that paradox. –  Jan 28 '24 at 04:09
  • A gerund is only a gerund in context. Eating is only a gerund in some cases, and we have no context in #1. Who says it's a gerund? That's eating at me. – Yosef Baskin Jan 28 '24 at 05:19
  • Eating slowly is fun does not mean the same as Eating is fun. –  Jan 28 '24 at 05:23
  • @TinfoilHat That's a good point. Do you think two gerunds (eating slowly and eating) are different too? –  Jan 28 '24 at 05:24
  • 1
    @YosefBaskin Sorry, I should have said "under the circumstance where "eating" should be a gerund." –  Jan 28 '24 at 05:25
  • My example shows gerunds (traditional grammar terms — verbs behaving like nouns). –  Jan 28 '24 at 05:33
  • 2
    This whole conversation is ignoring the function of adverbs. "Slowly" is an adverb. Adverbs by definition change the meaning of other words. "Eating slowly is fun," is not the same meaning as, "Eating is fun," but the word "eating" in both sentences does mean the exact same thing. It's the adverb that changes the meaning, not "eating" itself. –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:14
  • @RMac Why I'm confused is adjectives which are called modifiers like adverbs change the meanings of nouns but nouns can refer to the same thing. "Red eye" and "big eye" have a different meaning but can refer to the same thing, my eye. So I'm just wondering if a gerund and a gerund modified by an adverb can have a different meaning but the same referent –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:21
  • Yes of course they can. That's literally the function of an adverb: to modify a verb, adjective, or another adverb. It changes the meaning without changing the object or subject. –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:30
  • @RMac But the surprising fact is "eating" and "eating slowly" refer to different things. –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:35
  • Of course they do. "Eating slowly" is eating, except slowly. This is the function of an adverb: to modify (elaborate on) the verb. Why do you find this surprising? –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:36
  • @RMac Because a yellow stone and a big stone can refer to the same thing but eating and eating slowly can't refer to the same thing. That's why I'm surprised. –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:42
  • 1
    You've got gerunds 100% wrong. If it’s a noun, it takes adjectives ɴᴏᴛ adverbs objects, and there is no gerund involved because it’s acting as a noun ɴᴏᴛ a verb: Healthy eating is important to your health. ←That was ɴᴏᴛ a gerund!! In contrast, if it can’t take adjectives but only adverbs and objects, then it’s acting as a verb ɴᴏᴛ a noun, which is the thing that makes it a gerund: Eating food slowly can aid your digestion. ←That was a gerund not a noun! Unless it’s acting as a verb, it is ɴᴏᴛ a gerund. You’re confusing nouns and verbs here, not to mention form and function. – tchrist Jan 28 '24 at 07:52
  • Eating slowly or fast describes how one might eat. Eating normally does too. If ever there was taking the cake with a tempest in a teapot, this question could be it. Gerunds act as nouns. – Lambie Jan 28 '24 at 14:42
  • I prefer Quirk's analysis of ing-forms which posits a gradience model. The term 'gerund' is largely unhelpful as it is used in conflicting ways. 'Eating slowly' is more verby than 'eating is fun'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 28 '24 at 14:43
  • Does this answer your question? "...his parents' dream of *him* achieving a Cambridge degree." What is the function of "him" here? Or When is a 'gerund' supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner?? – Edwin Ashworth Jan 28 '24 at 14:47
  • Please stop reposting your same poorly received questions all over the SE network. – tchrist Jan 28 '24 at 14:55
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? Concepts of action – tchrist Jan 28 '24 at 18:22

4 Answers4

3

This is not a philosophical question.

Slowly is an adverb and has nothing really to do with the gerund. It's a whole separate part of speech. The addition of this adverb does change the meaning of the sentence overall. However it does not change the meaning of the gerund, except when taken in the context of the whole sentence.

"Eating" means "eating" in both sentences.

And of course adverbs change the meaning of the sentence. That's sort of the point of adverbs.

0

This is more of a philosophical question. What makes two actions different or the same?

“Eating slowly” can be considered a hyponym of just “eating”.

Michael Lorton
  • 145
  • 2
  • 1
    If "eating slowly" is a hyponym, it's possible to say eating slowly is eating, isn't it? –  Jan 28 '24 at 04:05
  • @user7168 — yes, in a formal sense. Often, in casual speech, the use of a specific word disclaims the more general sense, most famously in the line “I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.” – Michael Lorton Jan 29 '24 at 17:03
0

ETA: Clarification for points made in the comments.

In the spirit of the white horse paradox a philosophical dialog as introduced by alphabet in the comments, one can say that a white horse can exist as a function of white and a function of horse. As such, it represents the intersection of the two functions which the speaker in the dialog considers to be unique.

  • All white horses are white.

  • All white horses are horses.

  • Not all horses are white.

  • Everything white is not a horse.

  • Only a white horse is a white horse.

In English, gerunds and infinitives are verb forms that can take the place of a noun in a sentence. Since gerunds describe the action of the verb in a continuous form, and infinitives:

…are a special form of verbs that can be used as a noun, adjective, or adverb…usually made by adding the word to before the base verb…[T]hey can be useful when discussing actions without actually doing the action…

(emphasis added). Then, using the concept of a (split) infinitive rather than a gerund may be more instructive in this situation because it allows for conjugation which is necessary to observe the verb form as an independent entity. The validity of using split infinitives in formal writing is not within the scope of this question, but their existence is particularly useful to demonstrate the effect of the white horse paradox as it applies to verbs that can function as nouns in a sentence.

niu.edu defines a split infinitive as:

When an adverb appears between to and the verb itself, we get a split infinitive.

Using the concept of eating:
A) Slowly, he began to eat the hot stew.
B) He slowly began to eat the hot stew.
C) He began to eat the hot stew slowly.
D) He began slowly to eat the hot stew.
E) He began to eat slowly the hot stew.
F) He began to slowly eat the hot stew.

Although there are differences of emphasis among the first four examples, the action to eat is modified, but not necessarily transformed, by the adverb slowly. It is not until we consider example E that the possibility for the paradoxical effect to apply as the original question describes for the gerund form, where (eating slowly) could be a distinct action separate from (eating). The syntax reads a bit awkward which serves to compound eat slowly as a singular thought.

When we get to example F, it is unquestionable that the concept to slowly eat is distinct from to eat as a philosophical construct. Such is the power of the infinitive form. Perhaps, however, some of the luster is lost in conjugation, where different syntax may be preferred:

  • I slowly eat. / He slowly eats. / They slowly eat.
  • I slowly ate.
  • I am slowly eating. / They are slowly eating.
  • I was slowly eating. / They were slowly eating.

Moreover, describing the functions, as in the white horse paradox:

  • All white horses are white./All acts of slowly eating (to slowly eat) are eating.

  • All white horses are horses./All acts of slowly eating (to slowly eat) are slower.

  • Not all horses are white./Not all acts of eating are slow.

  • Everything white is not a horse./Not all slow actions are eating.

  • Only to slowly eat is to slowly eat.

As the question is philosophical in nature, one’s take on these assertions must be personal. Perhaps, this is helpful: Someone’s personal understanding of this concept is unlikely to have an impact on normal conversation (except on the rare occasion where it happens to be the topic of conversation).

Glaadrial
  • 101
  • 1
  • 1
  • Though, I'm a little uncertain. You said all acts of slowly eating (to slowly eat) are eating. But I think it's not. Just to eat and to eat slowly seem two different things... –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:53
  • Compare: To eat is my hobby, to eat slowly is my hobby. If I say to eat slowly is my hobby, it doesn't necessarily mean to eat is my hobby. It can mean just doing something slowly is my hobby. –  Jan 28 '24 at 06:58
  • That's not really the point of the white horse paradox. What that paradox is about is the fact that, while white horses are horses, "white horse" and "horse" are still different. –  Jan 28 '24 at 07:08
  • @alphabet I'm sorry but did you comment to me or Glaadrial? –  Jan 28 '24 at 07:20
  • @Prettiestguyever: That section tries to provide a point for point comparison with the white horse paradox. This is a philosophical question and the answer can only be personal. I see a distinction between eating slowly and drinking slowly, for example, despite the shared modifier. For me, if your hobby is eating slowly, and my hobby is eating quietly, I would consider our hobbies to share a connection. If our hobbies were eating slowly and drinking slowly, I wouldn’t feel the same connection. In the dialog at the WHP link, one speaker shares your view, I think. –  Jan 28 '24 at 07:24
  • @alphabet: my take on the link was that it was about the way that the tools of the language lend themselves to ambiguity in a way that English has to try to replicate. RE: the actual topic, I read it as a dialog that expresses a complete concept through the use of a difference in POV. There is also a counterpoint made separately at a different time on the same topic. –  Jan 28 '24 at 07:31
0

Eating (gerund) (=the action of eating)

Eating slowly (gerund) (=the action of eating slowly)

Do they refer to the same activity? (That is, is eating slowly eating?) Or eating and eating slowly refer to two different activities?

You are overthinking this.

Eating (as a gerund) describes carrying out the action of masticating and swallowing a substance. Gerunds are a form of the verb and thus are modified by adverbs. Slowly, quietly, thoughtfully, furiously, etc, are adverbs that merely describe the manner in which doing the action defined by the gerund is carried out.

*Eating the bread [slowly, quietly, thoughtfully, furiously, etc] describe the manner in which doing a specific action is carried out.

Adverbs may be omitted without significant loss of meaning.

Eating (as a verbal noun) describes an instance of mastication of a substance that is then subjected to a peristaltic wave. Verbal nouns are a form of noun and nouns are modified by an adjective. Verbal nouns are often replaceable by a common noun.

The [slow, quietly, thoughtful, furious, etc] eating of the sacrifice was a significant part of the ceremony. -> The [slow, quiet, thoughtful, furious, etc] consumption of the sacrifice was a significant part of the ceremony.

You agree that "eye" is a noun.

You agree that an eye is an eye, be it red, large, damaged, etc. It's condition does not change the meaning of its noun: it merely adds information.

The red eye = the eye that is red.

You agree that "eating" can be a gerund. Gerunds are verbal yet can be the a subject of a verb. Gerunds are modified by adverbs. The manner in which doing the action of the gerund is performed does not change the meaning of the gerund: it merely adds information.

Slowly eating the bread will avoid indigestion. -> Eating the bread in a manner that is slow will avoid indigestion.

Eating (gerund) (= carrying out the action of eating)

Eating slowly (gerund) (= carrying out the same action of eating but performed slowly.)