Monocomplementive, tran-sit I vc The railings

breeding; their calling him a liar the youth's choice of
a calling in life.
Compare the participle-adjective conversional pairs: ani­
mals living in the jungle living languages; a man never
daring an open argument a daring inventor; a car passing
by a passing passion.
120
Having recourse to the evidence of the analogy type, as a counter-thesis against the attempted demonstration, one might point out cases of categorial ambiguity, where the cat­egory of the qualifying element remains open to either in­terpretation, such as the "typing instructor", the "boiling kettle", or the like. However, cases like these present a triv­ial homonymy which, being resolved, can itself be taken as evidence in favour of, not against, the two ing-forms differ­ing from each other on the categorial lines. Cf.:
the typing instructor—>the instructor of typing; the in­structor who is typing; the boiling kettle -> the kettle for boiling; the kettle that is boiling
At this point, the analysis of the cases presenting the clear-cut gerund versus present participle difference can be considered as fulfilled. The two tVzg-forms in question are shown as possessing categorially differential properties estab­lishing them as two different verbids in the system of the
English verb.
And this casts a light on the categorial nature of the half-gerund, since it is essentially based on the positional verbid neutralization. As a matter of fact, let us examine the follow­ing examples:
You may count on my doing all that is necessary on such
occasions. You may count on me doing all that is neces­
sary on such occasions.
The possessive subject of the ingAorm in the first of the two sentences is clearly disclosed as a structural adjunct of a nounal collocation. But the objective subject of the ing-lorm in the second sentence, by virtue of its morphological consti­tution, cannot be associated with a noun: this would con­tradict the established regularities of the categorial compat­ibility. The casal-type government (direct, or representative-pronominal) in the collocation being lost (or, more precisely, being non-existent), the ing-iovm of the collocation can only be understood as a participle. This interpretation is strong­ly supported by comparing half-gerund constructions with clear-cut participial constructions governed by perception verbs:
To think of him turning sides! —To see him turning
sides! I don't like Mrs. Tomson complaining of her loneli­
ness. 1 can't listen to Mrs. Tomson complaining of her
121

loneliness. Did you ever hear of a girl playing a trombone? —Did you ever hear a girl playing a trombone?
On the other hand, the position of the participle in the collocation is syntactically peculiar, since semantic accent in such constructions is made on the fact or event described, i.e. on the situational content of it, with the processual sub­stance as its core. This can be demonstrated by question-tests:
(The first half-gerund construction in the above series) —¥ To think of what in connection with him? (The second half-gerund construction) —> What don't you like about Mrs. Tomson? (The third half-gerund construction) -» Which ac­complishment of a girl presents a surprise for the speaker?
Hence, the verbid under examination is rather to be in­terpreted as a transferred participle, or a gerundial partici­ple, the latter term seeming to relevantly disclose the es­sence of the nature of this form; though the existing name "half-gerund" is as good as any other, provided the true character of the denoted element of the system is understood.
Our final remark in connection with the undertaken ob­servation will be addressed to linguists who, while recog­nizing the categorial difference between the gerund and the present participle, will be inclined to analyse the half-gerund (the gerundial participle) on exactly the same basis as the full gerund, refusing to draw a demarcation line between the latter two forms and simply ascribing the occurrence of the common case subject in this construction to the limited use of the possessive case in modern English in general. As regards this interpretation, we should like to say that an appeal to the limited sphere of the English noun possessive in an attempt to prove the wholly gerundial character of the intermediary construction in question can hardly be consid­ered of any serious consequence. True, a vast proportion of English nouns do not admit of the possessive case form, or, if they do, their possessive in the construction would create contextual ambiguity, or else some sort of stylistic ineptitude. C/.:
The headlines bore a flaring announcement of the strike being called off by the Amalgamated Union. (No normal possessive with the noun strike); I can't fancy their daughter entering a University college. (Ambiguity in the oral posses­sive: daughter''s — daughters'); They were surprised at the head
122
of the family rejecting the services of the old servant. (Evad­ing the undesirable shift of the possessive particle -'s from the head-noun to its adjunct); The notion of this woman who had had the world at her feet paying a man half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame. (Semantic and styl­istic incongruity of the clause possessive with the statement)
However, these facts are but facts in themselves, since they only present instances when a complete gerundial con­struction for this or that reason either cannot exist at all, or else should be avoided on diverse reasons of usage. So, the quoted instances of gerundial participle phrases are not more demonstrative of the thesis in question than, say, the attributive uses of nouns in the common form (e.g. the in­quisitor judgement, the Shakespeare Fund, a Thompson way of refusing, etc.) would be demonstrative of the possessive case "tendency" to coincide with the bare stem of the noun: the absence of the possessive nounal form as such can't be taken to testify that the "possessive case" may exist without its feature sign.