2
   

Noun or Verb?

 
 
Chumly
 
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 12:42 pm
Hi-yah,

Would you say that the word "Bonding" as specifically defined below is a noun or a verb? I think it's used as a noun because it's describing the result and not the process. Consider that the process is separately described as "permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts" whereas the result is preliminarily defined as "Bonding".
Quote:
Bonding: a low impedance path obtained by permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts to ensure electrical continuity and having the capacity to conduct safely any current likely to be imposed on it.
If you agree it's used as a noun, then it seems to me the following question is not phrased properly for the correct answer b).
Quote:
The term that refers to the process of joining all non-current carrying metal parts to assure electrical continuity is:
a) grounding
b) bonding
c) thermit welding
d) continuation
I figure the question should read:
Quote:
The term that refers to the result of joining all non-current carrying metal parts to assure electrical continuity is:
a) grounding
b) bonding
c) thermit welding
d) continuation
What'ch'all think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,635 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 12:55 pm
The process is called "welding". The reult is a "weld" (I'm not a welder, but that's common usage, so I'll go with that)--the result might conceivably be called a "welding" too, but I've never heard that. Going by similarity, I'd opt for the process being "bonding" and the result a "bond". That's what you get when you glue two pieces of wood together, but it might not carry over to conductors. But their version of the question sounds like it's right.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 12:57 pm
@MontereyJack,
Nope, you've totally missed the entire point of the thread.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:03 pm
@Chumly,
I agree with your conclusion that the second answer is a more accurate description of bonding as a noun.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:12 pm
And what is the name they apply to the process, which you say is separately described? Is that name, as seems likely, "bonding"? If so, it could apply to either the result or the process.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:14 pm
@Chumly,
They clearly intend to use it as a gerund, but the description you quoted does seem to talk about the result, rather than the process.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:15 pm
@Chumly,
Sure, bonding is a noun, but bond is also a verb (and bonding would be the gerund).

In your version of the question, the other answers don't make sense. I would reword something like this

Quote:
The term that refers to the result of joining all non-current carrying metal parts to assure electrical continuity is:
a) ground
b) bonding
c) thermit weld
d) continuation



engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 02:02 pm
@Chumly,
I'd say "bonding" could be either a noun or a verb, but the way you described it in this context, it is a noun (as you said). I think both questions are technically correctly written. In the first one, "process" is a noun, so saying "bonding" is a "process" is consistent. In the second one, "result" is also a noun, so the same is true.

But based on what you wrote, I agree with you that the second better describes what you mean.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 02:14 pm
Aiden I agree!

Ebrown & Robert & engineer please consider that the following is a legal definition as per The Canadian Electrical Code and must be taken as such. That's why I question if the word "Bonding" can be taken as a gerund or verb. Again within this specific legal context.
Quote:
Bonding: a low impedance path obtained by permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts to ensure electrical continuity and having the capacity to conduct safely any current likely to be imposed on it.
Thus if you accept that the word "Bonding" must be only a verb within the specific legal context given, the question should be phrased with that in mind, or The Canadian Electrical Code's legal meaning becomes mush!

Does that change your perspective gentleman (and that's not to say your initial points were askew)?

Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 02:22 pm
Oops "Thus if you accept that the word "Bonding" must be only a noun..."
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 02:37 pm
Chumly, you say "Consider that the process is separately described as "permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts"". I ask again, what is the word used in that "separate description"? Is it "bonding", or some other term? Does that "separate description" also appear as part of the Code? If so, then the first question seems to exactly reproduce the decription of the process and so is correct. Your rephrasing may also be correct. That both may be correct may also be correct. They're not mutually exclusive.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 02:54 pm
@ebrown p,
There is no inherent reason why all the answers must "make sense" as you opine, because it's the student's responsibility to assess the specific legal definition in the context given, it's an open book exam on the Canadian Electrical Code, and it's the examiners' responsibly (me) only to frame the question apropos to said legal definition, and to provide some way of correctly answering the question.

Are you familiar with the concept of distractors as it relates to multiple choice? BTW I did not write nor do I condone the question as originally written.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 03:14 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
Does that change your perspective gentleman (and that's not to say your initial points were askew)?


The definition you quote uses the word as a noun for the result, the multiple choice question uses it as a gerund.

Both are grammatically correct and I have no opinion on whether it would be better for them to consistently use one way or the other or whether they are in some way obligated to for non-language reasons.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 08:09 pm
@Robert Gentel,
OK cool!

It seems to me it's not a question of the uses of, and various contexts relating to, the general use of the word bonding; it's a question of the specific definition of the word "Bonding" within the narrow confines of a legal definition as supplied by the Canadian Electrical Code (and I would suggest any Canadian Electrical Code Exam questions arising from said definition of the word "Bonding".
Quote:
Bonding
" a low impedance path obtained by permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts to ensure electrical continuity and having the capacity to conduct safely any current likely to be imposed on it.


Especially in light of the fact that there's no good reason to use the word as other than a noun in order to pasre the given question accurately.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 08:14 pm
Thanks very much everyone for your interesting and thoughtful replies!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 12:07 am
@Chumly,
The term that refers to the process is ...
The term that refers to the result is ...

"The noun" could be substituted for "The term" in either sentence and it would still leave 'bonding' as a noun.

The term/noun, 'bonding', refers to ...

Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 05:11 pm
@JTT,
It's not a question of substitution, it's a question of legal context.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:34 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
Would you say that the word "Bonding" as specifically defined below is a noun or a verb? I think it's used as a noun because it's describing the result and not the process.


It doesn't matter whether it describes the process or the result, I believe it's called "Bonding", is it not? The name of both the process and the result is "Bonding". That makes it a noun.

Quote:
Consider that the process is separately described as "permanently joining all non-current-carrying metal parts" whereas the result is preliminarily defined as "Bonding".

The term that refers to the result of joining all non-current carrying metal parts to assure electrical continuity is:
a) grounding
b) bonding
c) thermit welding
d) continuation


If you're looking for a grammatical word to describe the result, that would be the adjective "bonded". But if I understand you correctly, you're not. You're looking for the name that has been given to the whole idea, both the process and the result that comes from the process.


Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 09:51 pm
@JTT,
I'll give your viewpoint consideration, much obliged!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 10:18 pm
@Chumly,
Let me ask, Chumly, for I don't know. How do electricians describe someone doing the process;

He's/She's bonding the system.

He's/She's doing the bonding.

Or maybe because it's part of the whole process of wiring, there is no separate description.

Can I ask one question of my own? I've noticed that two, three, ... gang boxes that are factory welded, ie, one piece, don't need to have a bonding jumper between the grounding screws but ones that are site ganged do need such a bonding jumper. Is that a recent code change or has that been the case for a long time?
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Noun or Verb?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 04:34:28