4

Are they interchangeable? If so, can I apply it for every sentence that conveys the similar meaning like "a toy that is moving" to "a moving toy"? I've never seen someone ask about it or feel the need to address it. I once asked someone about this and they said it's a little complex.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
16

Taking your two examples exactly as written...

  • "The killing machine" would be a machine that can kill.
  • "The machine that's killing" would be a machine that is currently killing.

When a compound noun contains an -ing verb it is a gerund and normally denotes either its purpose (for example, a carving knife or a printing press), or some action that it carries out whilst in use only (for example, a spinning top). Only when you use an -ing verb as a verb is it denoting an action in the continuous tense.

You could say "the machine that kills" and that would mean a machine that is capable of killing, but it doesn't quite carry the idea that killing is its intended purpose quite like "the killing machine". It could just mean a machine for some other purpose that is deadly.

Improve this answer
11
  • A couple of minor technicalities with this answer, the first definition also encapsulates the second. "The killing machine" could be the machine that is killing right now, and it could also be a machine which is unable to kill, such as a broken killing machine or e.g. a gun without bullets. Or a gun which has shot the last living thing, which is still a killing machine but now defunct. The gerund could indicates its purpose, despite it being unable to fulfil its purpose.
    – Robert Frost
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 14:08
  • 3
    There's also the figurative sense in that you might describe something that isn't a literal machine as a "killing machine". E.g. a vicious animal or a well trained and/or armed fighter. "The machine that's killing" is not a common phrase in that way.
    – Darrel Hoffman
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 14:43
  • 5
    A "killing machine" could also be a machine whose purpose is to kill, whether it is able to or not.
    – jpaugh
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 17:28
  • Just to further complicate things, with a bit of poetic licence, as in the lyrics of Deep Purple's "Highway Star", killing machine can be a term of admiration... the best, or ultimate kind, of something. So if killing is an extreme, irrevocable action, then a killing machine is "better" than some other machine that doesn't reach this extreme.
    – Dominic Cronin
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 18:21
  • 1
    For example, the Terminator is a "machine that kills", whereas Rambo is a "killing machine". (to be fair, the Terminator would probably qualify as both)
    – Blackhawk
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 18:49
2

Purpose

If the purpose of the machine is to kill, then it is a Killing Machine.

If the purpose of the machine is to not kill, but kills anyway (due to defective design, manufacture or maintenance, or incompetent users), then it's a machine that kills (and makes lawyers rich).

Improve this answer
3
  • This is the better answer, methinks, because I think the purpose of the machine is fundamental.
    – Tony Ennis
    Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 3:26
  • @TonyEnnis I cover the purpose aspect quite extensively in my answer. But the direct answer to the OP's question is the difference between two constructions, and purpose plays no part in the difference.
    – Astralbee
    Commented Jan 22, 2023 at 19:30
  • @Astralbee while you are grammatically correct in a reductionist manner, language is more than reductionist grammar. For example, Destructor (the use of which is considered a war crime across the galaxy) is a killing machine, whereas automobiles are machines that kill.
    – RonJohn
    Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .