The Difference Between The Gerund and The Infinitive in Romanian and English

The aim of this post is to present the various points of view concerning non-finite forms and especially the differences between finite and non-finite forms. The category of representation is based on the opposition of predicative and non-predicative forms. A. Smirnitsky in his book “the morphology of the English language” put forward the idea that the finite and non-finite forms have much in common as categorical forms of representation, characterizing the verb as a whole. The main difference between the members of the opposition is in the degree of representation of the verbal process. In some cases the verbal form is represented as a pure process in time, in some other cases additional meanings are imposed on the process (nominal forms). Prof. Srnirnitsky suggested that the category of representation should consist of three categorial forms: verbal predicative representation, substantival representation (participle). The substantival representation further subdivided into: maximum (the gerund which combines features of both noun and verb), and minimum (the infinitive which combines features of both noun and verb). The difference consists in the degree of substantival representation. In substantival representation and adjectival representation the verbal signification of process is primary and substantival adjectival representation of a process as an object is secondary. A similar point of view was put forward by M. Blokh: “Non — finite forms of the verb are intermediary in many of the lexico — grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of the speech. Their mixed features are revealed in the principal spheres of the part — of— speech characterization, i.e. in their meaning,structural making combinability, and syntactic functions. The processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival — adverbial interpretation: they render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They do not express either grammatical time or mood as in the case of finite verb categories. They can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in the sentence),” And they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence)”. In this way, M. Blokh, like A. Smirnitsky thinks that the non-finite forms posses features of nouns, adjectives and adverbial modifiers, but their fundamental grammatical meaning is that of expressing process. It should be mentioned that M. Blokh has come to the conclusion that the non-finites are part of the verb system and form a specific verbal subclass (a category, constituted by the opposition of both finite and non-finite forms). The functions of the two members of the opposition are strictly differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate and “the opposition between the finite and non — finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category”. The opposition expresses “verbal time and mood: while the time — mood grammatical signification characterizes the finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the verbid has no immediate means of expressing time- mood categorical semantic and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition”. Also like A. Smirnitsky, M. Blokh expresses practically the same point of view as to the difference between the gerund and the infinitive: “Observations of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear — cut semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substantive nature that the infInitive, i.e. of a nature nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable components of the English verbal system”2. Blokh also singles out a special lexico-grammatical category of processual representation: “The three stages of this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and static (the verbal noun and its phrase)”. The category of processual representation underlies the predicative differences between various situation- naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization. He also identifies another category within the framework of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis — the category of modal representation, quoting L.S. Barkhudarov, who marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, the infinitive having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive function.3 Concerning the gerund and participle categorical forms, they are differently interpreted by various linguists: some linguistic schools think that all the verbal forms ending in — ing should belong to — ing forms. Thus, Blokh mentions the fact that “in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of descriptive linguistics the two forms are recognized as one integral V — ing.” To this points of view many other linguists have adhered. Other scholars think that present participle and gerund represent different homonymous non-finite categorical, each of which is fulfilling quite specific functions. Among the second group of linguists discrepancies have appeared as to how to differentiate between the functions of the gerund and participle and their depending on their formal combination with certain syncategorematic lexical units. Ganshina M.A., Vasilevskaya N.M. also consider that the characteristic traits of the noun — finite forms consists in the fact that they have a double nature, nominal and verbal. Their tense distinctions, “are not absolute, but relative”; “the form of a verbal does not show whether the action it denotes refers to the present, past or future; it shows only whether the action expressed by finite verb or prior to it.” It should be mentioned that all the non-finite forms can form predicative constructions, i.e. constructions consisting of two elements, a nominal (noun or pronoun) and a verbal (participle, gerund, infinitive); the verbal element, i.e. in a relation of the sentence. In most cases, predicative constructions form syntactic units, serving as one part of the sentence. As a result of our research we came to state the following conclusions. In the linguistic literature there are many interpretations of the non-finite forms of the verb, namely the Gerund and Participle I. It has been found out that there are a lot of definitions covering different proprieties of non-finite forms of the verb. Every definition is good in its own way, each discovering certain features of the non-finite forms of the verb. Each linguistic has something that is important from his point of view, each definition trying to be objective. Among linguistic who dedicated their study to the non-finite forms of the verb, namely the Gerund and the Participle I we can name: M. Blokh states that non-finite forms of the verb are the forms af the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-gramatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech; according to the opinion of P.G.Perrin, although the Participle I and Gerund are identical in form, they can be distinguished by the way they are used in sentences, the Participle I is a modifier (a dancing figure) and a Gerund as a noun (dancing takes still). Our investigation proves that these two non-finite forms of the verb in Modern English are very important as they are frequently used both in formal and informal speech. Their use in predicative construction is particulary important as these constructions constitute a specific feature of Modern English. In this study we also focused our attention at the difficulties that these forms present in the Romanian language. Analyzing the non-finite forms in Rornanian we noticed that the category of represented by infinitivul, participial, gerunziul and supinul and in some cases “conjunctivul”. The extended infinitive in Modern Romanian may correspond to the English Gerund, half-Gerund or gerundial participle in translation. While comparing English, French and Romanian we always expect great similarity because they are related languages. Confronting the participle and gerund, perfect forms in English and Romanian it was observed that they are relatively more often used in English that in Romanian, where predicative forms are used. Rornanian prefers past perfect forms when the English gerund is accompanied by lexical anteriority means (after). Both in English and Romanian the adjectival and adverbial features of Participle I and gerunziul are manifested in their syntactic functions as attributes and adverbial modifier. Here we can mention that both the Participle I and gerunziul (and also English Gerund) express a durative action, an action in progress or development, expressed purely grammatically. The present paper came to state that all the constructions of Participle I in English usually have identical equivalents in Romanian. These construction in English and Romanian are used both aspectually and metasemiotically. Another fact that should be mentioned is that the continuous forms in English and old Rornanian texts and the imperfective forms in Romanian completely coincide in their aspectual meaning with the present participle (also the gerund) gerunziul. In the case of the English Participle I and Romanian gerunziul we have practically a difference of terms and there is a complex coincidence in their grammatical meanings. English and Romanian are examples of two different types of languages: English belongs to the Germanic group of languages, while Romanian belongs to the Romance group. Still the two languages, besides the differences they mirror in their language system, share some common resemblances. Thus it is very important both for a linguist on the bases of a comparative study to identify and acquire these facts so as to get a profound understanding of the real nature of both and to get an overal picture of the regulations for the correct and adequate ways of expression proper to each language. The field of our investigation is Grammar and namely Non-finite Forms of the verb. The finite and non-finite forms have much in common as categorial forms of representation, characterizing the verb as a whole. In some cases the verbal form is represented as a pure process in time, in some other cases additional meanings are imposed on the process (nominal forms). Thus the aim of our work is, on the one hand, to investigate the main peculiarities of Gerund, trying to define its basic functions, the place within the system of the English verb, on the other hand bringing under comparison the Gerund form of the English and Romanian languages, to investigate the ways by which the English Gerund is translated into Romanian. The problem is quite vexed but interesting and actual one. An important fact is that in the English grammar Participle I has the functions attributed to the so called Romanian Gerunziu. What is interesting is the fact that the English grammar lacks “Modul supin”, which functions the English Gerund takes. For the realization of this purpose it is necessary: - to analyze and examine English works on the problem; - to compare and analyze the Gerund forms of both languages. The following methods of investigation are used in order to accomplish the main task: - critical analysis of the investigated material - comparative method. The present work consists of tree chapters. Chapter I describes the different points of view concerning Non-Finite forms of the verb. In Chapter II we represent the main peculiarities of Gerund forms in English and Romanian. And we shore how the non-finite forms function in a sentence, namely in both languages, English and Romanian. In Chapter III our task is to emphasize the importance and function of the aspect expressed by the Present Participle in both languages. As a result of our research we came to state the following conclusions. In the linguistic literature there are many interpretations of the non-finite forms of the verb, namely the Gerund and Participle I. It has been found out that there are a lot of definitions covering different proprieties of non-finite forms of the verb. Every definition is good in its own way, each discovering certain features of the non-finite forms of the verb. Each linguistic has something that is important from his point of view, each definition trying to be objective. Among linguistic who dedicated their study to the non-finite forms of the verb, namely the Gerund and the Participle I we can name: M. Blokh states that non-finite forms of the verb are the forms af the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-gramatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech; according to the opinion of P.G.Perrin, although the Participle I and Gerund are identical in form, they can be distinguished by the way they are used in sentences, the Participle I is a modifier (a dancing figure) and a Gerund as a noun (dancing takes still). Our investigation proves that these two non-finite forms of the verb in Modern English are very important as they are frequently used both in formal and informal speech. Their use in predicative construction is particulary important as these constructions constitute a specific feature of Modern English. In this study we also focused our attention at the difficulties that these forms present in the Romanian language. Analyzing the non-finite forms in Rornanian we noticed that the category of represented by infinitivul, participial, gerunziul and supinul and in some cases “conjunctivul”. The extended infinitive in Modern Romanian may correspond to the English Gerund, half-Gerund or gerundial participle in translation. While comparing English, French and Roarnanian we always expect great similarity because they are related languages. Confronting the participle and gerund, perfect forms in English and Romanian it was observed that they are relatively more often used in English that in Romanian, where predicative forms are used. Rornanian prefers past perfect forms when the English gerund is accompanied by lexical anteriority means (after). Both in English and Romanian the adjectival and adverbial features of Participle I and gerunziul are manifested in their syntactic functions as attributes and adverbial modifier. Here we can mention that both the Participle I and gerunziul (and also English Gerund) express a durative action, an action in progress or development, expressed purely grammatically. The present paper came to state that all the constructions of Participle I in English usually have identical equivalents in Romanian. These construction in English and Romanian are used both aspectually and metasemiotically. Another fact that should be mentioned is that the continuous forms in English and old Rornanian texts and the imperfective forms in Romanian completely coincide in their aspectual meaning with the present participle (also the gerund) gerunziul. In the case of the English Participle I and Romanian gerunziul we have practically a difference of terms and there is a complex coincidence in their grammatical meanings. Bloch M. A course in theoretical Enlish Gammar. M.,1983, p.102