a song which they're thinking of using as a jingle

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
jingle
a short song or tune that is easy to remember and is used in advertising on radio or television
• I wrote a song which they're thinking of using as a jingle.
OALD

I can't comprehend this... What is the object of the preposition "of" -- "using as a jingle" or "which"?
Thank you.
 
  • sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Then, "a song" is the object of "using", right?
    Sorry, but no.

    As above, "using" is a gerund. Gerunds (nouns) cannot have objects.
    I wrote a song which they're thinking of using as a jingle.
    or in AE
    I wrote a song that they're thinking of using as a jingle.
    "song" is the direct object of "wrote" (a verb)

    I suggest you review the concept of the "gerund phrase" such as here: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/gerundphrase.htm
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Vik, it might be worth looking at how this would read if you made it two stand-alone sentences, instead of a main clause and a relative clause:
    I wrote a song which they're thinking of using as a jingle.
    >
    I wrote a song. They're thinking of using the song as a jingle.

    Does that help?:)
     

    NLmarkSE

    Senior Member
    Dutch (the Nederlands)
    Unrelated, but you should also add a comma before which. (if you're going with "that", then don't use a comma)
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Unrelated, but you should also add a comma before which. (if you're going with "that", then don't use a comma)
    I disagree with that, but as you say, NL, it's a red herring anyway....

    I've just realised I didn't directly answer Vik's post 3. To my mind, which is the direct object of using:).
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Thanks to all of you.

    Gerunds (nouns) cannot have objects.
    From the first example at your link: "Eating ice cream on a windy day ..." -- isn't "ice cream" the object of "eating"?
    Unrelated, but you should also add a comma before which. (if you're going with "that", then don't use a comma)
    Like Loob, I disagree, too. Compare:
    My new song, which they're thinking of using as a jingle, is one of my best ones.
     

    NLmarkSE

    Senior Member
    Dutch (the Nederlands)
    You have to use "that" or ", which". But sdgraham informed me over pm that this is only a requirement in AmE.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    You have to use "that" or ", which". But sdgraham informed me over pm that this is only a requirement in AmE.
    It's something about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. But I can't see any non-restrictive clause in the example in question to use ", which":confused:
     

    NLmarkSE

    Senior Member
    Dutch (the Nederlands)
    It's something about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. But I can't see any non-restrictive clause in the example in question to use ", which":confused:
    "which they're thinking of using as a jingle" is a non-restrictive clause. Therefore, you use a comma. "that they're thinking of using as a jingle" is a restrictive clause and does not require a comma. At least in US English.
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    NL, post 11 is taking the thread off-topic again:eek:.

    Vik, US grammarians Strunk & White decreed that in restrictive relative clauses people should not use "which" but should only use "that".

    BrE-speakers, most of whom have never heard of Strunk & White, merrily continue using both "which" and "that" in restrictive relative clauses. So (as far as I can judge from previous threads) do many AmE-speakers.

    None of this helps Vik in his quest to understand the structure of the original sentence:mad:.
     
    Last edited:

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Indeed, these are quite off-top...
    None of this helps Vik in his quest to understand the structure of the original sentence:mad:.
    But fortunately, you and Graham told already the objects of what "song" and "which" are, with which I'm quite happy:)
     

    Sepia

    Senior Member
    High German/Danish
    OMG! You realla made this complicated - while there would be a much simpler way of explaining this. There is not only one way of explaining grammar.

    But if VikNikSor is happy, I'll leave it.

    Are you, VikNikSor?
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    To my mind, which is the direct object of using:).
    That is right. 'Using' is a gerund. A gerund is a verbal noun, which means that it combines the functions of a verb and a noun.
    As a verb, it can have an object, as in 'singing this song'.
    As a noun, it can be either a subject, as in 'Singing this song brings a smile to one's face'; or an object, as in 'I enjoy singing this song'.

    The word 'singing' (like 'using' and other words formed the same way) can be a participle as well as a gerund. A participle is a verbal adjective, which means that it combines the functions of a verb and an adjective, as in 'She walked down the garden singing this song'. Here, 'singing' is both an adjective agreeing with 'she' and a verb taking the object 'this song'.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    That is right. 'Using' is a gerund. A gerund is a verbal noun, which means that it combines the functions of a verb and a noun.
    As a verb, it can have an object, as in 'singing this song'.
    As a noun, it can be either a subject, as in 'Singing this song brings a smile to one's face'; or an object, as in 'I enjoy singing this song'.

    The word 'singing' (like 'using' and other words formed the same way) can be a participle as well as a gerund. A participle is a verbal adjective, which means that it combines the functions of a verb and an adjective, as in 'She walked down the garden singing this song'. Here, 'singing' is both an adjective agreeing with 'she' and a verb taking the object 'this song'.
    Thank you.
    OMG! You realla made this complicated - while there would be a much simpler way of explaining this. There is not only one way of explaining grammar.

    But if VikNikSor is happy, I'll leave it.

    Are you, VikNikSor?
    Can't you believe it?:D
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top