Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stripes1776; IronJack
Chesterton also said that his chief objection to a quarrel is that it usually ends a good argument. But I am not really looking for either. You may have a good point.

I'm just inquisitive about how language works and how its structural rules may be deciphered. IronJack had an interesting take on the subject,

The infinitive "to be washed" serves as a noun form, receiving the action of "needs." It isn't a true object of the transitive, but that's only because of the dual nature of the verb. If you ask yourself the question, "What does the laundry need?" the answer can be "Washing" or "to be washed." In the latter example, the infinitive is a verb construct that serves as a noun, nearly the same as the gerundized "washing."

but I need a little help, Jack, with the sentence I've italicized, specifically "isn't a true object of the transitive" and "dual nature of the verb." I'm having trouble tracking the distinction between the infinitive object and the gerund object.

154 posted on 02/24/2007 3:00:03 PM PST by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: rhema
I'm having trouble tracking the distinction between the infinitive object and the gerund object.

The infinitve and the gerund don't HAVE an object; they ARE objects. Both are verb forms of "wash" that serve as nouns. To answer your question simply, there IS no distinction, at least in grammatical function.

169 posted on 02/24/2007 4:53:39 PM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson