-6

There are washing clothes in the tub. - MEANS - There are clothes being washed in the tub.

There is a washing man in the tub. - CAN IT MEAN - There is a man being washed in the tub.

user1425
  • 4,410
  • 11
  • 49
  • 74
  • 4
    This is exactly the same as your previous question where you selected - in my opinion anyway - an incorrect answer. No wonder you're confused. A reading man/a man reading – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 07:21
  • It's not the same question. "Washing clothes" legitimately means OR CAN mean "clothes which is being washed". While "a reading man" can't mean "a man who is being read". You are neglecting the semantics of the verbs READ and WASH. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:35
  • 2
    I'm afraid you've been grossly misled. You're correct that 'a reading man' doesn't mean "a man who is being read". But without any convoluted context, it means absolutely nothing. Interestingly "a well-read man" means someone who has read a lot, or is highly educated. This is why this site is so helpful - you get to ask questions to native speakers who know idiomatic meanings of words and phrases that may not make sense if you were to analyse them grammatically. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 07:41
  • I am afraid but "a reading man" doesn't mean absolutely nothing. We don't need a convoluted context to prove that. "A reading man is a free man". A reading man is a man who is into reading. But that's not the point I meant to make. The point is that you shouldn't compare "reading" with "washing" as they have different semantics. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:45
  • 2
    Sorry, I didn't realise you were here to learn 16th century English. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 07:48
  • I didn't think that you thought that Edgar Dale lived in the 16th century. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:58

1 Answers1

3

Based on this and your previous, almost identical question, it seems the root of your questioning is about whether a verb like 'washing' can go before the noun instead of after.

As I previously explained, when you put an -ing verb in front of the subject noun it usually becomes an adjective that describes the noun. In some cases, the adjective-noun combination may form a recognisable compound noun. As a verb it denotes the action they are performing:

  • There is water running (water is presently being run)
  • There is running water (water that normally runs or is able to be run)

Neither of your examples in this question are particularly idiomatic, for a couple of reasons.

First of all 'washing clothes' is just simply not said. Clothes don't wash themselves! So 'washing' wouldn't be ascribed to them as an adjective the same way it is to a 'washing machine' (also a compound noun), because that is a machine that washes.

A 'washing man' isn't really idiomatic either. It isn't incorrect - a man that is washing could, I suppose, be described as a 'washing man'. But it sounds like that's all he is - that 'washing' is a primary attribute of his. All you're really saying is that there is a man, he's in the tub, and what is he doing there - he's washing. Using it as a verb makes infinitely more sense.

The answer that you selected as correct on your previous question told you that the verb 'reading' was an adjective no matter which side of the noun it was on - that is just incorrect.

Astralbee
  • 100,700
  • 2
  • 111
  • 222
  • You say "'washing clothes' is just simply not said. Clothes don't wash themselves!" OK. But "a breaking glass" is said and it doesn't mean that the glass is being broken by itself. How can you explain that "washing clothes" is not said but "a breaking glass" is said? I heard the sound of a breaking glass. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:39
  • 1
    @user1425 That's a good example, well done. That particular combination is idiomatic. But it doesn't mean that every combination of adjective-noun works the same way. I couldn't claim to know why 'breaking glass' is used... perhaps because "glass shatters", but do "clothes wash"? I don't think so. They have to be washed. Arguably, glass can shatter by itself due to things like temperature changes or invisible stress. But whatever the reason - some things are just idiomatic. These are exceptions that prove the rule. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 07:47
  • I must say that some natives accept the fact that "washing clothes" can mean "clothes that are being washed". If glass shatters due to temperature changes it doesn't mean that it shatters by itself. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:56
  • Here is another one for you which is idiomatic "cooking food". – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 07:59
  • @user1425 LOL no that is not at all idiomatic. Not as a compound noun, anyway. "Drinking water" is though! It seems to me that you are not looking for an answer to your question from a native speaker - rather you are searching for validation for something you already believe to be correct. I have no desire to be part of that. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 08:01
  • It's up to you. But do you bet that "The smell of cooking food was good" is not idiomatic? Will you dare to claim that it's not idiomatic? – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 08:11
  • 3
    @user1425 You're very much missing the point, possibly because it isn't what you want to hear. My point, throughout all of this, is that combinations of words can have an idiomatic meaning to native speakers. Like "washing machine" very specifically means a machine that washes your clothes. A 'car wash' is a machine that washes, but we wouldn't call it a 'washing machine'. You are right - 'breaking glass' and 'glass breaking' are interchangeable. But far more often than not, changing a verb to an adjective in the way your examples show either changes the meaning or makes no sense. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 08:17
  • What point am I missing? You said that "cooking food" is not idiomatic. But it is. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 08:26
  • @user1425 "Drinking water" is a compound noun. It means water than can be drunk. Drinkable water. But what is 'cooking food'? Food that can be cooked? I think you can cook almost everything. What would you call salad - non-cookable food? Uncooked food? No, uncooked would mean it has not yet been cooked, but should be. It's a minefield. You can't make a rule about these things, it's a fool's errand. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 08:54
  • If "Drinking water" means water than can be drunk. Then "a breaking glass" means a glass that can be broken. So, you tell me what this sentence means. Or do you claim it's not idiomatic "The smell of cooking food was good." I think you don't realize the depth of this topic. – user1425 Apr 28 '23 at 09:12
  • 2
    @user1425 No!! That's the exact leap of logic I'm telling you not to make. – Astralbee Apr 28 '23 at 09:17