VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/reduce-gerund.2015691/

⇱ reduce + gerund ? | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

reduce + gerund ?

akimura

Senior Member
Japanese
Hello,

I have a question about the verb reduce. Can a gerund be an object of this verb?

We can reduce using oil.
​
This usage can be found out there on the web, but it seems that the following type of sentences seems to far more common.

We can reduce the use of oil.
​
Thank you in advance for your help!
No, I don't think so, not when the gerund is a verb as there (with object 'oil'). It sounds too wrong. However, gerundial nouns can be used here: reduce spending on oil.
No, I don't think so, not when the gerund is a verb as there (with object 'oil'). It sounds too wrong. However, gerundial nouns can be used here: reduce spending on oil.
Sorry, where is a gerundial noun in "reduce spending on oil"?
Hello,

I have a question about the verb reduce. Can a gerund be an object of this verb?
We can reduce using oil.
​
This usage can be found out there on the web, but it seems that the following type of sentences seems to far more common.
We can reduce the use of oil.
​
Thank you in advance for your help!
I agree with Entangled; it would have to be We can reduce our use of oil or We can reduce spending on oil.
Sorry, where is a gerundial noun in "reduce spending on oil"?

'Spending' is a noun there. It can take an article - 'reduce the spending on oil' - and it is modified by adjectives - 'reduce unnecessary spending on oil'. Nouns can't take direct objects; 'oil' is the direct object of the verb 'using'; and if that was grammatical it would be modified by adverbs - 'reduce unnecessarily using oil'. This is grammatical with other verbs: 'stop unnecessarily using oil'.
What is not clear to me is where you see a gerundial noun here?

reduce spending on oil

I thought it would

reduce the spending on oil.

It seems like the added preposotion on makes it a gerundial noun in your opinion. However, the verb to spend can easily be used with the preposition on

Things to spend money on.
Didn't see post five. I thought an article is a must in this sentence.
So there are two options we can apply with the verb reduce

1) infinitive - to reduce (Would you advise an individual who thinks he must reduce to do it under a doctor's direction? )
2) a gerundial noun - reduce the spending on something

However, I have found a few examples where I recognize the gerund. What do you think about them?

This approach encourages employees to find ways to reduce spending money while maintaining production or ...

Second, connecting to others through the Internet does not reduce spending time with people in more old-fashioned ways.
As the original poster said, you can find examples of the construction on the Web - 'reduce using energy', 'reduce using fossil fuels' are other examples. But as I said, it sounds too wrong, and that applies to 'reduce spending time', 'reduce spending money'. There are very few Google hits for 'reduce spending time' (look at the page count at the bottom, not the absurd number at the top). The odd native speaker might produce it by accident, but it's not standard.
Ok, thanks. Then the last question (I hope) how can one know that a certain verb can't be used with a gerund but with a gerundial noun? Shall he memorize them or is there any "discerning tool" to be used?

PS shall we say
reduce the spending of/on time?
Last edited:
I don't think Would you advise an individual who thinks he must reduce, to do it under a doctor's direction? is a case of reduce taking an infinitive. To reduce is governed here by advise, which does take an infinitive:

I advise you to listen carefully.
He advised us to eat our supper.

One can follow reduce with a final construction, of course, but that's hardly an infinitive.

His doctor told him to reduce to avoid the risk of a heart attack.👁 Tick :tick:


I actually can't at the moment think of an example where reduce is happily followed by an infinitive; that's not to say there are not any.
So then reduce is the verb which doesn't take gerund or infinitive as an object. As far as I know the English verbs have been classified into 3 groups: 1 – taking am infinitive 2- taking a gerund 3 taking both. Now we need to add one more 4 – taking a gerundial noun. I am serious.
10 [...]
†c.II.10.c With inf. To lead or induce to do something. Obs.
1656 Stanley Hist. Philos. vi. (1701) 257/1 That which moveth the Taste, and reduceth it to act.
[...]
22. a.III.22.a To bring down to a lower rank or position, dignity, etc. Also without const. and with inf.
1751 Harris Hermes Wks. (1841) 180 The articles a and the‥circumscribe the latitude of genera and species by reducing them for the most part to denote individuals.
Source: OED

Is the use of infinitive in the meaning #22 infrequent in English please?
We can reduce using oil.

The first thing I thought about when I read this was it was talking about cooking, reduce and oil are both cooking terms.

Here it would mean:

We can reduce (something), making use of (cooking) oil.

Of course I know nothing about cooking and that might make no sense whatsoever, but that's my grammatical analysis for the day.
I see. But it would be completely different meaning. What do you think about post 12

4 – taking a gerundial noun.???????
I see. But it would be completely different meaning. What do you think about post 12

4 – taking a gerundial noun.???????

In:

We can reduce the use of oil.

the use of oil is a noun phrase which is the direct object.

In my intepretation of:

We can reduce using oil.

the verb is intransitive (perhaps through laziness) and using oil is an adverbial phrase.

The interpretation of using as a gerund doesn't really work here, I think because there is already a perfectly good noun, i.e. use.
10 [...]
†c.II.10.c With inf. To lead or induce to do something. Obs.
1656 Stanley Hist. Philos. vi. (1701) 257/1 That which moveth the Taste, and reduceth it to act.
[...]
22. a.III.22.a To bring down to a lower rank or position, dignity, etc. Also without const. and with inf.
1751 Harris Hermes Wks. (1841) 180 The articles a and the‥circumscribe the latitude of genera and species by reducing them for the most part to denote individuals.
Source: OED

Is the use of infinitive in the meaning #22 infrequent in English please?
Hello Thomas1.

I think meaning 10c is obsolete. I've certainly never heard it.

Meaning 22 is strange too. I've not heard it either. We reduce people to the ranks, or to a lower rank. Thus a friend of mine during his military service was frequently reduced to the permanent rank of Bombadier, but that's another matter.
So there are two options we can apply with the verb reduce

1) infinitive - to reduce (Would you advise an individual who thinks he must reduce to do it under a doctor's direction? )
2) a gerundial noun - reduce the spending on something

However, I have found a few examples where I recognize the gerund. What do you think about them?

This approach encourages employees to find ways to reduce spending money while maintaining production or ...

Second, connecting to others through the Internet does not reduce spending time with people in more old-fashioned ways.
You can reduce the spending on something ... gerund=nouny thing.

You can reduce spending money ... gerund=adjectivey thing or attributive noun. It is a reduction in the proportion of your income that you allocate as "spending money".

You cannot reduce spending money ... gerund= verby thing. That is the expenditure activity.
Back
Top Bottom