verbs ending in -ED and -ING treated as adjectives?

[sg2019]

I am testing the effect of an intervention on learning certain English nouns, verbs, and adjectives.

If I have to count the verbal frequency of the verb "to captivate" in the used text, should my count include "captivated" and "captivating" that are adjective forms of the verb "to captivate"?

For instance, I do not include "sculptor" for sculpt, instead, I count it as a word family.
For adjectives that are verbs ending in -ED and -ING, however, I think I should count them as an exposure to the verb since verbs usually come in -ED and -ING suffixes?

What do you think

[sg2019]

Why would you worry about such things....how does this improve your language ?

This is a research experiment and I have to worry about these details to find reliable results.

[Serpent]

They can be either used as attributes in a sentence (participles), or they can be part of the predicate (verbs). Some participles have developed a separate meaning that the verb lacks (adjectivization). You need to differentiate somehow... are you working with a large corpus of text?

Not to mention they can also turn into nouns

[Iversen]

Basically the problem is to draw a line between inflected forms and derived forms. The first category should not add to a word count, whereas the second one should. And I would tend to keep the participles as forms and not as derived words because the two participles can be formed in a fairly consistent way from all regular English verbs. I had to take this decision when I long ago decided to find out how many (head)words I knew in my languages, and the consistency criterion is luckily one that can be applied uniformly in almost all my languages. And there is nothing that dictates that certain forms of a verb can't be adjectival - on the contrary.

But what about using the consistency criterion on irregular verbs? A verb like "to be" has forms based on a number of different roots, and the vowel of the past tense or the past participle of the strong verbs can be difficult to guess unless you know a lot of language history. Here it may be necessary to use another criterion, namely "do I really want to smash my system just because of a few misbehaving verbs?". And once you have decided that it would be too much of a problem you can choose to extend the consistency criterion even to those verbs where it doesn't really apply, i.e. you accept the participles of ALL verbs as forms of one single headword.

In contrast: consider the aspect pairs of verbs in the Slavic languages. There are some rules of thumb that permit you to guess how one verb is formed from the other, but basically it is a combination of semantics and fossilized habits that has made one derivation the preferred one. And therefore it is most convenient to say that there are two related verbs (or in some cases more than two).

[Cainntear]

The problem is that "I am fading" and "the picture has faded" both include a participle inflected from the verb "to fade", but "the faded picture" contains an adjective derived from the verb. The picture has faded -> verb; the faded picture -> adjective... but how would you define "the fading light"? Adjective or participle?

[SGP]

The problem is that "I am fading" and "the picture has faded" both include a participle inflected from the verb "to fade", but "the faded picture" contains an adjective derived from the verb. The picture has faded -> verb; the faded picture -> adjective... but how would you define "the fading light"? Adjective or participle?

These two terms aren't (necessarily / automatically) mutually exclusive.

This is some #Key Phrases Based Input that whoever is interested in this topic may want to consider doing some additional research on. And yes, it does contain some #Double Entries. But they are still worded differently, because of the #Additional Research-Related Merits of Rephrasing the Very Same Thing in Multiple Ways:

- Participial adjectives

- Participles that are used as adjectives, but they slightly differ from "normal" adjectives

- Grammar terms that represent more than one category of words or meanings

- Partial Overlap of Different Grammar Terms. This of course represents an idea rather than a (AFAIK) fixed phrase. So when doing some research, it could be very helpful not to look for that very wording (P.O.o.D.G.T.), but for anything related to the main idea.

- Out of the Box Thinking.

Why would you worry about such things....how does this improve your language ?

This is a research experiment and I have to worry about these details to find reliable results.

In addition to what I wrote above (in this very post):
Yes, your question is about English. But possibly it still could be of some benefit to keep in mind that in Arabic, too, there are words that could serve more than one purpose. Sometimes remembering how anything is expressed in a certain language could add some clarity to understanding another language's Grammar Counterpart. Yes, even if they don't fully overlap.

Examples:

- The masdar المصدر ("verbal substantive"). It can be used for both of the passive المفعول به and the active الفاعل. So it could either represent someone/something doing an action, or someone/something to whom/what an action is being done.

- It also can be used for any of the past, present and future الماضي، والمضارع / الحال، والمستقبل.

- The same applies to the singular, dual, and plural المفرد والمثنّى والجمع. A masdar can represent any of these.

- Finally, it could refer to any of these combinations of grammatical genders, numbers, and active / passive. I feel like including the complete list, because it just might cause you to realize a "hidden" English connection that we all aren't aware of. . And I do mean it. To some (including myself), any particular language isn't something that exists "in isolation", but it exists in synergy with many others. I really like looking at them that way. One could be surprised how learning about some aspects of e.g. French / Swahili / Chinese grammar could contribute to one's Icelandic / Russian / Haitian Creole learning process.

So that is the list of all those possible combinations:

الفاعل، الفاعلان، الفاعلون، الفاعلة، الفاعلتان، الفاعلات، المفعول به، المفعولان بهما، المفعولون بهم، المفعولة بها، المفعولتان بهما، المفعولات بهن

- Many words can be a noun اسم, an adjective (صفة، نعت), or an adverb (صفة, but an-nasb النصب case).

[sg2019]

They can be either used as attributes in a sentence (participles), or they can be part of the predicate (verbs). Some participles have developed a separate meaning that the verb lacks (adjectivization). You need to differentiate somehow... are you working with a large corpus of text?

Not to mention they can also turn into nouns

Thank you. Yes I am working on a large text and I detected all those words.

Could you please explain your point more? I only need to decide whether to statistically consider them as verbs?

[zenmonkey]

Why not just count lexemes?

[sg2019]

Basically the problem is to draw a line between inflected forms and derived forms. The first category should not add to a word count, whereas the second one should. And I would tend to keep the participles as forms and not as derived words because the two participles can be formed in a fairly consistent way from all regular English verbs.

Ouh I see, thanks for your response and for these new terms (inflection/derivation). I will definitely need to mention these two in my explanation.
Ps. I sent you a private question entitled "can I use The Cosmic Microwave Background (CBM) image as a visual referent for the word "cosmos?". I hope you could have time to check your inbox and answer it someday. If not, that's okey, I understand.

[sg2019]

Many words can be a noun اسم, an adjective (صفة، نعت), or an adverb (صفة, but an-nasb النصب case).

True. Thank you for your detailed feedback. For Masdr example, my example is the word orbit which is both noun and verb. It appeared as a noun 20 times and as a verb 11 times, which could be confusing while refining the materials in my statistical analysis software but now I think I have handled it.
Thank you again