Topic: -ing vs -ed verb forms

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

Quote Post 1

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Anyone?

Quote Post 2

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

I think you may know my opinion is that there isn't even a choice of the first over the second.

Quote Post 3

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Why?

Quote Post 4

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

I think it differs based on the POV you use. I found that when in 1POV, ing verbs make sense when the 1POV character is speaking or thinking. Otherwise, stick with ed verbs.

Quote Post 5

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Norm d'Plume wrote:

Why?

The same reason an author will avoid passive verbs and useless, vague, or weak adverbs.  It weighs down the narration.

The very same reason an author actively will surely clearly avoid using passive verbs that come to his imagination when writing, weighing down the ongoing narration, making for his reading audience a boring lot of superfluous information, crunching out facts, and sweeping tidbits  of floating debris washing overboard a Titanic, sinking fast, and on and on, ad infinitum till one falls off into sleep under the hypnotic power of same-sounding  -ing words.

Quote Post 6

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Matthew Abelack wrote:

I think it differs based on the POV you use. I found that when in 1POV, ing verbs make sense when the 1POV character is speaking or thinking. Otherwise, stick with ed verbs.

You mean to say that mediocre narration comes naturally to a "real" person rather than to a competent author?

Quote Post 7

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Norm d'Plume wrote:

Why?

The same reason an author will avoid passive verbs and useless, vague, or weak adverbs.  It weighs down the narration.

The very same reason an author actively will surely clearly avoid using passive verbs that come to his imagination when writing, weighing down the ongoing narration, making for his reading audience a boring lot of superfluous information, crunching out facts, and sweeping tidbits  of floating debris washing overboard a Titanic, sinking fast, and on and on, ad infinitum till one falls off into sleep under the hypnotic power of same-sounding  -ing words.

LOL. I can't tell if you like them or hate them. However, I freely acknowledge that the preceding sentence doesn't need the first instance of "them."

I can just feel the royalty checks rolling in.

Quote Post 8

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Okay?  Or annoying?

(1) She wore a shiny necklace.   =  She wore a necklace that shined in the moonlight.

(2) She wore a necklace, shiny  =  She wore a necklace, shining in the moonlight.

#2 with a dangling participial phrase announced by a comma eliminates a "that" where there may already be too many, but it has an annoying quality of a misplaced adjective.

These can be re-written: She wore a diamond necklace, and its reflected light of the moon brightened her face.

There's much to those hard, to-the-point -ed verbs and participles versus lazy descriptive -ing participles.

Quote Post 9

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Dirk, in  your example, the -ing verb is preferable. I think what you need to avoid are the was/were...ing verbs. She was standing in the rain vs she stood in the rain.

Quote Post 10

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Janet, what makes the -ing verb preferable on this example?

Quote Post 11

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Norm d'Plume wrote:

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

I'm more likely to be arrested by the verb police, but here's my opinion in any case.

For the example you give, it depends. To me, the -ing verbs in the first example indicate a 'continuous' action, where in the second example, it reads/makes the action more 'abrupt'. I'd probably go for a combination - the ship plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker (given the speed of the ship and the immobility of a rather big structure from the sound of it, the 'abrupt' version works for the ship and the more 'continuous' action works better with the picture I have of the fireballs IMO).

This could be wrong, but it makes sense to me and would be what I'd do. smile

*greets family and waits patiently for verb police to arrive*

Quote Post 12

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

janet reid wrote:
Norm d'Plume wrote:

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

I'm more likely to be arrested by the verb police, but here's my opinion in any case.

For the example you give, it depends. To me, the -ing verbs in the first example indicate a 'continuous' action, where in the second example, it reads/makes the action more 'abrupt'.

So you'd rather have:  dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, and was plowing into the superstructure . . .

by what logic in grammar justifies substitution , and was with a mere comma? or that a -ing participle means, like past-progressive with "was",  continuing action?  A participle is just a participle. Sloppy, lousy, lazy writing.

Quote Post 13

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Dirk, in  your example, the -ing verb is preferable. I think what you need to avoid are the was/were...ing verbs. She was standing in the rain vs she stood in the rain.

Sure, but that does not give any reason for preferring [comma] participle rather than the verb itself not in past-progressive tense like dove which preceded it in simple past tense. 

Like our other Janet, are you thinking one can merely replace the was before the  -ing word with a comma?

Quote Post 14

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:
Norm d'Plume wrote:

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

I'm more likely to be arrested by the verb police, but here's my opinion in any case.

For the example you give, it depends. To me, the -ing verbs in the first example indicate a 'continuous' action, where in the second example, it reads/makes the action more 'abrupt'.

So you'd rather have:  dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, and was plowing into the superstructure . . .

by what logic in grammar justifies substitution , and was with a mere comma? or that a -ing participle means, like past-progressive with "was",  continuing action?  A participle is just a participle. Sloppy, lousy, lazy writing.

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Quote Post 15

16 Reply by Janet Taylor-Perry (edited by Janet Taylor-Perry 2015-12-28 01:21:47)

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Dirk, in  your example, the -ing verb is preferable. I think what you need to avoid are the was/were...ing verbs. She was standing in the rain vs she stood in the rain.

Sure, but that does not give any reason for preferring [comma] participle rather than the verb itself not in past-progressive tense like dove which preceded it in simple past tense. 

Like our other Janet, are you thinking one can merely replace the was before the  -ing word with a comma?

No, I'm not. She laughed hard, shaking her shoulders. Shaking makes this an adjective clause. She laughed, shook her shoulders. This is just bad grammar.  Shook here is a verb showing action. If you use a participle like this at the end of a sentence, it needs to be -ing. At the beginning, either can be used so long as the -ed verb describes rather than showing action. At the beginning, -ing should show action.

Shaking her head, she laughed loudly.
Drenched in booze, the man staggered across the room.

And, yes, I put it in simple terms rather than using English class jargon.

Quote Post 16

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

janet reid wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:

I'm more likely to be arrested by the verb police, but here's my opinion in any case.

For the example you give, it depends. To me, the -ing verbs in the first example indicate a 'continuous' action, where in the second example, it reads/makes the action more 'abrupt'.

So you'd rather have:  dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, and was plowing into the superstructure . . .

by what logic in grammar justifies substitution , and was with a mere comma? or that a -ing participle means, like past-progressive with "was",  continuing action?  A participle is just a participle. Sloppy, lousy, lazy writing.

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Yes, that does clarify but does not make your logic any better. How exactly is , setting better than and set?  It does not create the progressive action you say it does inasmuch as and set is third in a list of four events sequentially happening.  That is a functional purpose of simple past tense and word order. This happened, and that happened, then the other thing happened. always denotes a progression of events.

Quote Post 17

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

So you'd rather have:  dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, and was plowing into the superstructure . . .

by what logic in grammar justifies substitution , and was with a mere comma? or that a -ing participle means, like past-progressive with "was",  continuing action?  A participle is just a participle. Sloppy, lousy, lazy writing.

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Yes, that does clarify but does not make your logic any better. How exactly is , setting better than and set?  It does not create the progressive action you say it does inasmuch as and set is third in a list of four events sequentially happening.  That is a functional purpose of simple past tense and word order. This happened, and that happened, then the other thing happened. always denotes a progression of events.

Setting, shows a continuous action. Set, if the fourth action in a series, NEEDS the , and set.

Quote Post 18

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Dirk, in  your example, the -ing verb is preferable. I think what you need to avoid are the was/were...ing verbs. She was standing in the rain vs she stood in the rain.

Sure, but that does not give any reason for preferring [comma] participle rather than the verb itself not in past-progressive tense like dove which preceded it in simple past tense. 

Like our other Janet, are you thinking one can merely replace the was before the  -ing word with a comma?

No, I'm not. She laughed hard, shaking her shoulders. Shaking makes this an adjective clause. She laughed, shook her shoulders. This is just bad grammar.  Shook here is a verb showing action. If you use a participle like this at the end of a sentence, it needs to be -ing. At the beginning, either can be used so long as the -ed verb describes rather than showing action. At the beginning, -ing should show action.

Shaking her head, she laughed loudly.
Drenched in booze, the man staggered across the room.

Of your examples, I would not author either of them.  As to style, it is as taken as good form to avoid -ing words as it is to avoid passive tense and weak, vague, or useless adverbs and adjective for the reason that it weighs down the narration and numbs the mind when done to excess.  In Dirk's example, my toleration for -ing words is one per page, probably lower than for most people, but in one sentence he had three in rapid succession. That is bad writing yet easily fixable.   

The alternate choice in your example is either putting the participial phrase at the beginning of the sentence as Dirk did and like you did in the second version, or and shook her shoulders. However, in the scenario Janet R created, laughed and shaking her head are simultaneous actions so only the first choice is logical - there being no reason at all to dangle that phrase at the end of the sentence.

Quote Post 19

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Yes, that does clarify but does not make your logic any better. How exactly is , setting better than and set?  It does not create the progressive action you say it does inasmuch as and set is third in a list of four events sequentially happening.  That is a functional purpose of simple past tense and word order. This happened, and that happened, then the other thing happened. always denotes a progression of events.

Setting, shows a continuous action. Set, if the fourth action in a series, NEEDS the , and set.

Yes, isn't that what I said?  But I said more: delete all unnecessary participles (like , setting) and replace them with active verbs ( , and set).

Quote Post 20

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Norm d'Plume wrote:

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

In this example, the second. End of conversation.

Quote Post 21

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

So you'd rather have:  dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, and was plowing into the superstructure . . .

by what logic in grammar justifies substitution , and was with a mere comma? or that a -ing participle means, like past-progressive with "was",  continuing action?  A participle is just a participle. Sloppy, lousy, lazy writing.

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Yes, that does clarify but does not make your logic any better. How exactly is , setting better than and set?  It does not create the progressive action you say it does inasmuch as and set is third in a list of four events sequentially happening.  That is a functional purpose of simple past tense and word order. This happened, and that happened, then the other thing happened. always denotes a progression of events.

I'll give you that much, this isn't the best example to show what I'm trying to say. But always saying this happened, and then this happened, and happened, and happened to denote a series or progression of events will get boring very quickly and there are instances where 'happening' will work better. But that's just me.

Quote Post 22

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

janet reid wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
janet reid wrote:

Just before you start throwing insults at me, just get my sloppy and lousy writing down correctly! I am guilty as charged, I'm lazy. But you know that already! wink

This is what I'd rather have with the complete set of changes I would've made:

As each remaining shield failed, the ship dove down at the palace at maximum thrust. It plowed into the superstructure, setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

This is somewhat different to what you had, and can still be wrong, lazy, and sloppy, but is more what I meant at least.

Yes, that does clarify but does not make your logic any better. How exactly is , setting better than and set?  It does not create the progressive action you say it does inasmuch as and set is third in a list of four events sequentially happening.  That is a functional purpose of simple past tense and word order. This happened, and that happened, then the other thing happened. always denotes a progression of events.

I'll give you that much, this isn't the best example to show what I'm trying to say. But always saying this happened, and then this happened, and happened, and happened to denote a series or progression of events will get boring very quickly and there are instances where 'happening' will work better. But that's just me.

Still friends? ;-)

More than two "happenings" in a paragraph is pushing reader tolerance -- of this reader's tolerance, at least.  However, a rapid succession of events as in Dirk's sample has an internal logic most people get -- if done once in a paragraph.  Describing action in words will never compare with the visual arts for action/adventure, but some authors do well enough, but those same authors, drawing heavily on plot development for the novel's raison d'etre , do not do so well in theme development and other elements of literary fiction and the narration necessary for that.  There's a reason Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Homes is the most filmed character.

I don't understand the resistance to dropping -ing words on TNBW, especially that sloppy dangling [comma] participial phrase. It's use, like the passive tense, marks a major difference between fiction and nonfiction of the technical, bureaucratic, and essayist-journalist sort. I have four -ing words in the above paragraph, for example.

Quote Post 23

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Norm d'Plume wrote:

One of my reviewers has recommended that I avoid verb forms that end with -ing and write the sentence using -ed verb endings.

Here is an example with -ing verbs:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowing into the superstructure,
    and setting off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Here it is with -ed:

    As each remaining ship’s shields failed, it dove down at the palace at maximum thrust, plowed into the superstructure,
    and set off enormous fireballs that shook the bunker.

Verb police, please weigh in.

In this example, the second. End of conversation.

I hear "April" speaking.

Quote Post 24

Re: -ing vs -ed verb forms

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Still friends? ;-)

More than two "happenings" in a paragraph is pushing reader tolerance -- of this reader's tolerance, at least.  However, a rapid succession of events as in Dirk's sample has an internal logic most people get -- if done once in a paragraph.  Describing action in words will never compare with the visual arts for action/adventure, but some authors do well enough, but those same authors, drawing heavily on plot development for the novel's raison d'etre , do not do so well in theme development and other elements of literary fiction and the narration necessary for that.  There's a reason Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Homes is the most filmed character.

I don't understand the resistance to dropping -ing words on TNBW, especially that sloppy dangling [comma] participial phrase. It's use, like the passive tense, marks a major difference between fiction and nonfiction of the technical, bureaucratic, and essayist-journalist sort. I have four -ing words in the above paragraph, for example.

I'm afraid I can't be friends with someone that has no tolerance for more than two -ings in one paragraph tongue

Four in one paragraph, I wouldn't have picked it up if you haven't mentioned it! (There's no hope for me in other words)

I don't think it's so much as a resistance to dropping -ing words than an insistence that it does have its place in writing. There's a subtle difference.

For Dirk's given examples, dropping the -ing words seems to be best. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have other instances where it would work better to keep them. Like I've said, and probably not very clearly, but sometimes an -ing has a 'continuance' to it that would otherwise read too abrupt. I would dig out an example if I wasn't so lazy.

Janet TP also has a good point, combining -ing with was/were is even worse.

But now I'm repeating myself and I'm not sure Dirk is any closer to the answer he was hoping for. *steps to the side*

Quote Post 25