Seeing the tiger, the man ran away.
I'd like to know whether 'seeing' is gerund or participle? may be explained.
-
In 'Seeing the tiger, the man ran away' 'seeing the tiger' describes an event happening. This is a verbal usage; the -ing form is the participle. In 'Seeing the tiger proved impossible because of the dense jungle', 'seeing the tiger' is behaving far more like a noun, both in role ('observation of the tiger proved impossible') and grammatical function (seeing the tiger is the subject).– Edwin AshworthCommented Jun 16, 2015 at 19:14
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
It is a participle. A participle functions (externally) like an adjective; the word seeing describes and modifies the man in your example, so it is a participle.
Separating the participle from the noun it modifies by a comma, as in your example, is called apposition.
A gerund functions like a noun; if it were a gerund, then it would be hanging in the air in your example. You can test this by replacing it with a somewhat similar noun:
The action of seeing the tiger, the man ran away.
This doesn't work. (And don't add prepositions before the gerund to make it work: that's cheating!)
Tiger-aware, the man ran away.
As you see, it works if you replace it with an adjective, so it is a participle.
answered Jun 15, 2015 at 3:10
Cerberus - Reinstate MonicaCerberus - Reinstate Monica
62k6 gold badges152 silver badges236 bronze badges
This participle construction is a shortening for a clause with when/as.
1 - When/as he saw the tiger, the man ran away.
2 - when seeing the tiger, ...
3 - Seeing the tiger, ...
Temporal or causal clauses can be shortened by using participle constructions. Occasionally other kinds of clauses, too.
-
Upon seeing the tiger: this is a gerundial construction, but it can just as easily be converted into a conjunctive construction such as your when seeing the tiger. I don't think this kind of conversion proves much? Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 4:16
-
@Cerberus - Do you really think "The seeing of the tiger + the man ran away" go together?– rogermueCommented Jun 16, 2015 at 4:27
-
By adding "upon" you change the first part to a gerund construction. But generally such a sentence part is seen as an adverbial clause shortened by means of a participle construction. This is frequent with adverbial clauses of time (when/as/while), of manner/circumstance and of cause. Sometimes you even find conjunctions with participle constructions.– rogermueCommented Jun 16, 2015 at 5:46
-
With all due respect, but I think you missed my point. You converted a participial construction into a when seeing construction. I converted a gerundial construction into exactly the same. So you can convert either construction into a when seeing construction, which means that the conversion cannot be used to prove anything. Agreed? (What is more, the participial construction isn't really a shortening of anything: it's just a different construction. But I don't think you meant that "shortening" literally.) Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 12:01