'-ing' forms

Level: beginner

We can use the -ing form of a verb:

as a noun:

I love swimming.
Swimming is very good for your health.
You can get fit by swimming regularly.

as an adjective:

The main problem today is rising prices.
That programme was really boring.
He saw a woman lying on the floor.

-ing forms as nouns

-ing nouns are nearly always uncount nouns. They can be used:

as the subject of a verb:

Learning English is not easy.

as the object of a verb:

We enjoy learning English.

Common verbs followed by an -ing object are:

admit like hate start avoid
suggest enjoy dislike begin finish

as the object of a preposition :

Some people are not interested in learning English.

-ing form as a noun: ReorderingHorizontal_MTY0Mzg=

-ing forms as adjectives

The -ing adjective can come:

in front of a noun:

I read an interesting article in the newspaper today.
We saw a really exciting match on Sunday.

after a link verb like be, look or sound:

Your new book sounds very interesting.
The children can be really annoying.

after a noun:

Who is that man standing over there?
The boy talking to Angela is her younger brother

especially after verbs of the senses like see, watch, hear, smell, etc.:

I heard someone playing the piano.
I can smell something burning.

The commonest -ing adjectives are:

amusing
boring
disappointing

interesting
surprising
tiring

worrying
exciting
frightening

shocking
terrifying
annoying

-ing form as an adjective: ReorderingHorizontal_MTY0Mzk=

**Patterns with -ing forms**

Because an -ing noun or adjective is formed from a verb, it can have any of the patterns which follow a verb. For example:

it can have an object:

I like playing tennis.
I saw a dog chasing a cat.

it can be followed by a clause:

I heard someone saying that he saw you.

-ing form as a noun or adjective 1: GapFillDragAndDrop_MTY0NDA=
-ing form as a noun or adjective 2: GapFillTyping_MTY0NDE=

Average

Do you need to improve your English grammar?

Join thousands of learners from around the world who are improving their English grammar with our online courses.

Find out more

Hi I'm in a doubt due to the right usage of both these phrases below: "Do not allow him to work wearing sunglasses" "Do not allow him working wearing sunglasses" Which one of those is correct? Or both are incorrect? an' why? Thank you. Greetings.

Hi Emmanuel,

The first one is correct! After allow with an object (e.g. him), it needs to + infinitive verb (e.g. to work).

You can use the -ing form after allow, but without an object. For example:

We don't allow smoking anywhere in the building.

Does that make sense?

Jonathan

The LearnEnglish Team

Thanks a lot for your answer. It is more clear to me now! Greetings!

Hello LearnEnglish Team, Could you please tell me when exactly is the right time to use GERUNDS ? Is it true that GERUNDS are used when we want to talk about an action in an abstract way? If so, could you please tell me what they mean by "an abstract way" and give me some sentences as examples ? Thank you.

Hello Parikenan,

There are many situations in which we use gerunds, but essentially they are nominalised verbs -- in other words, they are formed from a verb, but act as a noun in a sentence.

I'm afraid what exactly 'talking about an action in an abstract way' means. If you have any more details about that, or an example, we can try to help you more.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello again Kirk, You are right, Kirk. "There are many situations in which we use gerunds, but essentially they are nominalised verbs -- in other words, they are formed from a verb, but act as a noun in a sentence." But before I got the answer from you about GERUNDS, I had been struggling with my own assumptions about the gerunds. I found "talking about an action in an abstract way" when I was reading an article about gerunds on the internet. Unfortunately there were no details explanation about it, but I got some examples related to it. 1. Gordon loves dancing. 2. Dancing makes Gordon. happy. 3. Gordon's main interest in life is dancing. And I have another example from the other source, Someone said, "I enjoy doing A Level." ( She said that while talking with someone else on the telephone from her home, She was not at her school doing the A Level at that moment ). So, from those examples above, I assumed that using gerunds is just like "giving comments" ( I assumed it from the verb that are followed by the gerunds, such as ENJOY, LOVE, IMAGINE, SUGGEST, etc. That are different from the verbs like NEED, WANT, AGREE, DECIDE, etc, which are usually followed by the infinitive ). But then I am confused with this sentence, Let's go shopping. (I assumed, it is not just a comment, but it is almost ready to do the action 'to go' at least with gestures ) Why don't we just say, Let's go to some shops ? That was my wrong assumption about gerunds before I finally got the answer from you, Kirk. I understand that we can use GERUNDS in many situations. Thank you very much, Kirk.

Hi Parikenan,

I'm glad that you feel my comment helped you, though really I don't think I can take any credit!

Best wishes,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello Kirk, That is right. Before I got the answer about gerunds from you, I was confused about this sentence, Let's go shopping. Can "Let's" be followed by the gerund "shopping" ? But, after reading your answer, where you mentioned that "There are many situations in which we use gerunds, but essentially GERUNDS ARE NOMINALISED VERBS", then I realized that we use the gerund "shopping" because of the verb "go", it has nothing to do with "Let's" that comes first before "go" in this sentence. Thank you very much.

Hello LearnEnglish Team, I am struggling with two sentences below. Which one is grammatically correct ? ‘What would happen if you call your teachers “mom” ?’ or ‘What would happen if you called your teachers “mom” ?’ Thank you very much.

Hello Parikenan,

Even though what most English textbooks teach is the second one, which is often called a second conditional form, both of them are correct.

The difference is that in the first sentence, the speaker considers the action of calling the teacher 'mom' more realistic in some way. Perhaps the people he or she is speaking with have already said they plan to call their teachers 'mom' and he or she is asking what they think would happen if they really did this.

In the second one, this same action is much more hypothetical. Perhaps it's the first time they've even considered this idea. This is the meaning that the past subjunctive form lends in this and many other situations.

Does that make sense?

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you very much, Kirk. It is very clear now.

Hi LearnEnglish Team, I am having struggle with the phrase "to mean" in the sentence below, If a policeman says to someone, “Stop!” the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand that the policeman to mean “You stop!” Is "to mean" in the sentence above the same as "means" ? If so, can we replace "to mean" with "means" ? And can we use the form to create sentences like, Mr. John to need my help. Bill to go swimming. My teacher to tell me to do my homework.

Hello Parikenan,

Your sentence is not quite right. The phrase is 'understand something to mean' (without 'that'). The phrase is just another way to say 'means'. For example:

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand him to mean “You must stop!”

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop' to mean “You must stop!”

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

You are right, Peter. I had added the word "that", because of my ignorance, that makes the sentence wrong. Thank you very much for the correction and the explanation. If I am not mistaken with your explanation, I assumed your answer works like this below, The first sentence : ...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand him, who said 'Stop' (that means "you must stop!”). Or in my short sentence, ...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand him. The second sentence : ...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop', which was said by the policeman (that means “You must stop!”). Or in my short sentence, ...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop'. How about my opinion, Peter?

Hello again Parikenan,

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand him, who said 'Stop' (that means "you must stop!”).

This sentence is not correct. It's not clear who the relative pronoun refers to and the structure is not clear and is not natural English.

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand him.

This sentence is correct grammatically, but it no longer includes any reference to the particular sentence the policeman is saying, so it's more general now.

The second sentence :

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop', which was said by the policeman (that means “You must stop!”).

Here, you need to change the sentence as follows:

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop', which was said by the policeman to mean “You must stop!”.

Or in my short sentence,

...the person the policeman is talking to will probably understand 'Stop'.

This is grammatical, but it is more general as it does not tell us how the person understands this, only that they do understand it.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

OK, Peter. It is clear now. I completely understand what you mean. Thank you very much for you explanation.

Hi LearnEnglish Team, Could you help me with this sentence, please ? 1. Write all the sentences below with adverbs of frequency, telling how often each person works. 2. Write all the sentences below with adverbs of frequency, which is telling how often each person works. Do they both sentences have the same meaning ? If they don't have the same meaning, how can the phrase "telling how often each person works." after the comma as in the sentence number 1 be created ?

Hello Parikenan,

Sentence 1 is correct and 2 is not. In 1, 'telling how ...' is a participle phrase acting as a reduced relative clause -- it means the same as 'which tell how often ...'. Although our participle clauses page doesn't discuss reduced relative clauses much, it's a similar idea that I think you might find useful.

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you very much, Kirk. It is very clear now.

Hello LearnEnglish Team, Could you please help me with my two sentences below, 1. "To write a report of something that happened in the past, you need to add a subject to every clause and use past tense verbs." 2. "To write a report of something happening in the past, you need to add a subject to every clause and use past tense verbs." Do they both sentences have the same meaning?

Hello Parikenan,

They do have the same meaning, but I'd recommend you use the first one because it sounds more natural.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you very much, Kirk. It is clear now.

Kirk, what if I omit the word "that" from the sentence to reduce or to make the sentence sorter ? "To write a report of something that happened in the past, you need to add a subject to every clause and use past tense verbs." so that the sentence becomes like this, "To write a report of something happened in the past, you need to add a subject to every clause and use past tense verbs." Does it work, Kirk ?

Hello Parikenan,

I'm afraid you can't omit 'that' in this case. This is because the antecedent of 'that' is the subject of the verb 'happened' in the relative clause. In a case like this, the relative pronoun cannot be omitted.

When 'that' is the object of the verb (rather than the subject), then it can usually be omitted. For example: 'Laura likes the book that I got for her' can also be said or written as 'Laura likes the book I got for her' because 'that' is the object of the verb phrase 'I got'.

Does that make sense?

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello LearnEnglish Team, I am copying Sakura30's question. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) directed and produced by Alfred Hitchcock. Gibson: You didn’t happen to find anything in this brush, did you? Bob: Nothing much. Gibson: Yeah but enough to justify somebody kidnapping your child to keep your mouth shut. Can I replace "somebody kidnapping your child ...." in the narration above with "somebody's kidnapping your child ...." ?

Hello Parikenan,

It is certainly grammatically possible to use the possessive here, but it is a form which is slowly disappearing from modern English and I think in this context it is quite unlikely to be used.

I don't have any frequency analyis to support this, but my sense is that the possessive form in such constructions is very rare with indefinite pronouns (somebody, anybody etc).

I noted that you reposted your question. Please post questions once only. It may take us a few days to answer as we are a small team here but please be patient. Posting the same question more than once only delays the process as we have to check and delete the repeat post.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you very much for this very clear explanation, Peter. And I am very sorry for my not being patient. I have reposted my question because I thought my first question was lost in the wrong place, so The LearnEnglish Team can't see my question. I, on the other hand, really wait for the answer. So Thank you very much again, Peter.

Hi LearnEnglish team, I'm having trouble understanding the difference between Begin to do and Begin doing. They begin talking to each other They begin to talk to each other Is there any difference? Thank you so much

Hi Alexandre,

Traditionally, begin to do is used when describing a particular action:

I jumped over the side of the boat and began to swim to shore.

Begin doing is tradionally used with a more general meaning:

I began swimming when I was five years old.

However, this distinction is disappearing in modern English. I think most people today use the two forms interchangeably. In your example I don't think there is any difference between them.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, I’m having trouble figuring out who was justified of what in the following sentence. This is a scene from the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) directed and produced by Alfred Hitchcock. Gibson: You didn’t happen to find anything in this brush, did you? Bob: Nothing much. Gibson: Yeah but enough to justify somebody kidnapping your child to keep your mouth shut. Thank you so much in advance for your kind support!

Hello Sakura30,

Here the idea is that since Bob's child has been kidnapped, he must have found something significant in the brush. In other words, the kidnapping doesn't make sense if Bob really found nothing in the brush.

So here 'justify somebody kidnapping your child' means something like 'explain why somebody would kidnap your child'.

Does that make sense?

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Dear Kirk Thank you so much for your reply. Please excuse me to ask a little further. If I were to rewrite the above sentence, which would it be? ”Yeah, (it must have been nothing much,) but (something which is) enough to justify somebody kidnapping your child to keep your mouth shut) ” meaning that it was a good reason for somebody to kidnap the child. Or “Yeah, but (there was) enough (of something inside for you) to justify somebody kidnapping your child” meaning that Bob knows why his child was kidnapped. What I’m confused here is, who was Justified? Is it Bob or the Somebody(kidnapper)? Thank you again, for your kind attention Sakura30

Hello again Sakura30,

I'm afraid it's difficult for me to say which one is meant without knowing more about the film, but what I understood when I first read it was the first explanation.

I don't get the sense that anyone is justified (in the sense of being right) here. I think 'justify' means something like 'give a reasonable explanation for' in this case. In other words, the kidnappers had a reasonable reason for kidnapping Gibson's child (assuming that they are more concerned about their self-interest than Gibson's or his child's), but this doesn't mean it was justified -- it is, after all, a crime.

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Dear Kirk, Thank you! It makes so much sense now! Have a wonderful day. Sakura30

Could you please explain how can we use "meant to or meant to be " ? i am perplexed .

Hello sejal thakur

This means 'to be intended to'. If you look at the third entry (INTEND) for 'mean' in the Cambridge Dictionary (follow the link), you'll see a light blue box with this definition and some example sentences. There's also another explanation on this grammar page.

Best wishes

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, When do we use "of"? what is the rule of using "of" with "-ing" words? For example: "visiting of parents is allowed in the afternoon" vs "visiting parents is allowed in the afternoon". Thank you.

Hello ryuo,

In your examples, there is a big difference in meaning:

visiting parents means people are coming in order to visit their parents. You might say this if the parents are in hospital, for example.

visiting of parents suggests that it is the parents who are doing the visiting. You might say this if the parents have a child in hospital, for example.

More generally, the phrase with of shows a possessive relationship, while in the phrase without of we have a direct object. Which is the better option really depends upon the particular example, the context and the speaker's intention.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, please help me. I don't understand why in the next sentence "I love watching my son play football" the verb play is without s.

Hello Tossa,

The verb watch is an example of a verb of perception. These verbs describe something we see, hear, feel etc. They have three common constructions:

verb of perception + object + bare infinitive

I heard her sing a song.

This means that the speaker heard the whole song from start to finish.

verb of perception + object + -ing form

I heard her singing a song.

This means that the speaker heard part of the song; she was in the middle of singing it.

verb of perception + object + past participle

I saw her arrested by the police.

This has a passive meaning: she was arrested by the police.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Thank you, it is helpful to me.

Please confirm 1. In sentence "what is the meaning", is meaning a Verbal noun, It doesn't seem a gerund or Is meaning a base word (noun) not derived from verb mean? 2. Are there any ing words which are noun in their base form.

Hello John Mccan

That is a question that a historical linguist or lexicographer might be able to help you with, but I'm afraid I'm not completely sure. My sense is that the noun 'meaning' is not a gerund because its meaning is far from a verbal noun.

There are many similar words or words that end in 'ing' which do not seem to be derived from verbs -- a few examples are 'acting', 'advertising', 'fundraising', 'evening', 'timing', 'gaming', 'handwriting', and many more.

That's not a very precise explanation, but I hope it helps you.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, could you help me... In this sentence, She told me that you sent her an email telling her that you would like to have more pen pals from the US. what is the function of the -ing form of the word telling? I am confused...

Hello cindymaria

That is an '-ing' form used to create a reduced relative clause. It could also be written 'an email that told her that ...' -- 'telling' replaces 'that told'. This is an advanced use that is not explained on this page, but I'm sure you can find more information about it if you do an internet search.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hi! Can the sentence "She enjoys cooking." be transformed in the passive voice "Cooking is enjoyed by her."

Hello Micicia,

Grammatically, yes. However, it seems a very odd sentence and I cannot think of a context in which you would want or need to say this.

Peter

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello Could you please help me with my question? I would like to know if the following sentences are correct: He analyzed it interesting. (to mean he analyzed something in an interesting way.) He did/expressed/used it interesting. (to mean he did/expressed/used it in an interesting way.) I know that I can use "interesting" after link verbs and also sentences like "I found it interesting" are correct. But do my examples make sense? And if they are wrong please tell me how I can express the same meaning correctly. Thank you in advance.

Hello Sep80

Those sentences are not correct in standard British English. Some people might understand your meaning, but I think many might not. I think the simplest way to express your ideas is in the way you have explained them already: 'He analysed it in an interest way', or for the second one you could also say 'He did/said something interesting'.

All the best

Kirk

The LearnEnglish Team

Hello, Is the -ing form of the verb, ‘laugh’ in the sentence below a noun? If yes, kindly give me the reason. If no, what is it? Sentence: What are you laughing about? Thanks, Jonathan

admit	like	hate	start	avoid
suggest	enjoy	dislike	begin	finish

'-ing' forms

-ing forms as nouns

-ing forms as adjectives

Patterns with -ing forms

Online courses

**Patterns with -ing forms**