On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that "laundering" in the first sentence cannot be >> considered a participle under any standard analysis. While the word >> "laundering" found in the isolated phrase "laundering money" could be >> a participle, that would mean that the phrase as a whole referred to >> the money, not the laundering thereof. "John, put that cash back! >> That's the laundering money!" > > ...under the assumption that the phrase as a whole was nominal in > nature, that is. It could alternativelybe part of a progressive verb > form, as in "he was laundering money", in which "laundering" is > definitely a participle. Right, here the participial phrase "laundering money" acts as a predicative adjective and refers to the one doing the action, with which "he" is identified. Similar to "The man laundering money was wanted by the police", where the same phrase is used attributively with the same meaning.