Page 1 of 1

There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:45 pm
by digitalen
I wonder if "Jumping" is Gerund" or "participle".
There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

If "Jumping" is "Gerund", is next sentence correct?
There you go again, to jump to conclusions.

Re: There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:24 pm
by Edwin F Ashworth
I don't think it's sensible to analyse

There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

in the same way as a sentence like

John was in the street, walking to the station.

The former readily separates into two components:

There you go again! Jumping to conclusions!

Here, the first string is a comment, a pragmatic marker conveying the opinion of the commenter on the inappropriateness of the reaction of the person addressed (as well as having semantic content, invoking its habitual nature). It could be substituted by 'Typical!' with little change of meaning (though this would probably be ruder, and the 'you' would be better incorporated somehow:

That's typical of you! Jumping to conclusions! or

Typical! You're jumping to conclusions again!

The last variant hints strongly that there is conversational subject deletion of you in the sentence fragments lacking a subject - so the -ing form is a relict present participle. 'There you go again, verbing ...' (usually with words after the -ing form) is a snowclone - a commonly used formula - but is usually restricted to informal conversation.

In 'John was in the street, walking to the station.', 'walking to the station' is post-modifying John; here we might assume that there are two closely linked statements:

'John was in the street. He was walking to the station.' Again, subject deletion, but quite normal in formal writing in this case.

Re: There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:23 pm
by Phil White
There is no way that "jumping" can be interpreted as a gerund in that sentence. In no way can it be said to function as a noun.

As far as I see it, there are two possible analyses, both of which Edwin has touched on. Either we are looking at suppression (deletion, ellipsis) of the Subject and modal verb "you are" or we are looking at the present participle acting adjectivally to qualify "you" (or adverbially to qualify "go", in which case it is an adjunct). None of these options are entirely satisfactory, But idiomatic expressions such as these regularly resist tidy analysis. I can see good arguments for any of the three interpretations.