In your second example, the object of the verb like is the
gerund clause singing loudly, which serves as the NP object of the
verb here. The head of that
clause is the verb singing as modified by the adverb loudly. Like an infinitive clause, a gerund clause is a non-finite verb
clause that can serve as an NP when embedded. Which
of the two possible verb forms you choose doesn’t matter in
this case, as these are equivalent in meaning:
- I like singing loudly.
- I like to sing loudly.
Had your verb been a transitive one, you could have added object
complements to your clauses:
- I like calling her loudly.
- I like to call her loudly.
Those admit some adverbial motion, but only within the non-finite verb clause:
- I like loudly calling her.
- I like to loudly call her.
You can even have a different subject in that clause than you had
in the main sentence:
- I like her calling me loudly.
- I like for her to call me loudly.
Notice how when the to-infinitive clause has a difference
subject, you need to stick a special for-complementizer
there when using the clause as an NP as we do here.
about these potentially curious complementizers in this answer by
or in these lecture notes from his website, or in the notes from this
more technical linguistics lecture on the structure of
I fear that until you move on from simplistic analysis focussing merely
on parts of speech to higher level analysis of grammatical
structures and how these embed as syntactic constituents, you
will often find yourself stuck with seeming paradoxes that
cannot be resolved so long as parts of speech are all you think of.
That’s because human language uses these syntactic
structures, so no analysis of the former can exempt the
latter and survive.
Embedded deep structures are a
fundamental part of how human language works.