Only nouns can be physical.
A gerund is any of various nonfinite verb forms in various languages; most often, but not exclusively, one that functions as a noun. In English, it has the properties of both verb and noun, such as being modifiable by an adverb and being able to take a direct object.
I agree that it's not as physical as, say, "silicon", but saying that it's not physical seems to imply that it's something purely conceptual like "hope".
Damn it, I know a gerund is a noun but I hoped nobody would notice if I oversimplified.
I would say that it
is equally conceptual as 'hope'.
I peeked and coalboat is right here.
On the literal side, the topic refers to a concept and action which exists only in the physical world. It is physical in the same way "eating" is - requiring both physical actors and objects.
In the spirit of the game, I believe it was the right answer since it points in the right direction of the answer. To have said it isn't physical would have been inaccurate and needlessly obtuse.
I disagree that "the concept of eating" is physical. The verb 'eat' refers to a physical action, but in this context, we would be referring to it purely conceptually.
To put it in perspective, 'hope' also requires both physical actors and objects, but it wouldn't be considered physical. It seems kind of
autistic to call this physical when it clearly, as can be seen from all subsequent questions, wasn't what the questioner
meant by that.
Keep in mind that I would not likely have said "no", but, say, "in a sense", or "not in the way you mean".
Author
Topic: What Am I (Read 173780 times)