He quickly dragged a comb through his hair.

'He quickly dragged a comb through his hair.' -> http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/drag_1?q=drag

drag = to pull somebody/something along with effort and difficulty

Jak przetłumaczyć to zdanie? 'Szybko przeciągnął grzebieniem po włosach' ? Ale co to ma wspólnego z wysiłkiem lub trudnością? Coś mi tutaj to tłumaczenie nie pasuje.

nie wiem, co to ma wspolnego z trudnoscia, bo mam za malo wlosow, ale moze ktos inny sie wypowie?

Szybko rozczesał włosy grzebieniem. ? Może "drag" znaczy tu "rozczesać"? Włosy rozczesuje się zwykle z trudem.

w polskim 'przeciagnac' tez jest element trudu, tak sie po prost mowi

It's a wonderfully descriptive choice of verb, here the verb is almost working like an adjective. As such, I'll forgive the nominalisation. This in effect means 'combed', but how it was combed is key.

'Dragged' in this context refers to speed and imprecision. It's as if someone combed their hair and only had half a second to do so.

Combed may inherently suggest neatness and doesn't refer to speed. Brushed may inherently suggest spending a long time to do this.

There is no nominalisation there. 'Comb' refers to an actual object; it is not a derivative of the verb 'to comb'

:sighs: the text is about combing his hair. If combing is the operative activity (which it is) and this is then represented as a noun and another weak verb is then instead. Then it's a nominalisation.

If you remove 'comb' then the sentence makes no sense. At all. Hence 'comb' really is the basis of the activity I. E. The verb.

If you can cite me a dictionary definition where 'drag' means comb, i'll stand corrected.

I'm waiting. ...

The noun 'comb' does not represent the activity of combing. If it did, a sentence like "I have bought a comb' would contain a nominalisation too.
'drag' is not a weak verb, like 'give' or 'get'.

I'm still waiting

don't show so openly that you didn't understand what I wrote. I have presented my arguments and now it is your turn to deny them. 'I'm still waiting' adds nothing to this discussion.
You obviously have a misconception about nominalisations.

He hurriedly combed his hair

Nothing that I say will convince you - you are so entrenched that you are correct that it's worthless arguing.

But before I give it one more go, to say "don't show so openly that you didn't understand what I wrote" you have some gall.

To have previously accused me of making an error twice, for me to show that YOU are wrong, and then for you not to "deny them" (go back to our first meeting), and then accuse me of misconceptions ... wow. Just, wow.

Anyhow. One more go.

Bryan Garner: nominalizations: “verbs that have been changed into nouns.”
Verb: to comb.
Noun: a comb.
Nominalisation: comb.

US Government (PlainLanguage.gov) "A hidden verb is a verb converted into a noun. It often needs an extra verb to make sense"

Sentence: He quickly dragged a comb through his hair
Sentence without noun: He quickly dragged through his hair
Does it make sense? No.
Do we need the noun for the sentence to make sense? Yes.
Can the noun be converted into a verb (is it a hidden verb)? Yes.

If the noun was converted into a verb, would it make sense?
Sentence: He quickly combed (through) his hair.
Does the verb carry the meaning of the sentence? Yes.

Therefore does the original noun really convey the meaning of the sentence? Yes
Does "The noun 'comb' ... represent the activity of combing"? Yes.
Is it a nominalisation? Yes.

I can't be clearer. I can't.
One of the greatest (legal and other) analysts of the English Language and the US government.

I'm still waiting on that dictionary definition ....

"I have presented my arguments and now it is your turn to deny them. "

Sorry. Will do now.

"I have bought a comb' would contain a nominalisation too."

This is the stupidest thing I've read on here. The operative verb is "buy". Hence, the present perfect using "buy" (a strong verb which tells us EXACTLY what the person is intending to do, it does not hide the main message) is perfectly OK.

How do you recognise a 'weak verb'? To me, you are working under the logical fallacy that if a verb VB is followed by a noun that can be converted into a verb, the verb VB must be a weak verb. That is untrue.

Compare the following:
I gave my friend a yellow comb because she didn't have one.
I gave my hair a good comb before we left.

To you, both sentences probably contain nominalisations; to me, only one does. I'll leave it to you to work out which one and why.

You're unbelievable - clearly the alpha male. No reasoning with mg even when mg provides the most useless example which defeats the point you're trying to raise.

I gave my friend a yellow comb because she didn't have one. - No, there's no nominalisation here.
I gave my hair a good comb before we left. - Yes nominalisation here.

Not going to discuss this further. Your wrong, shown to be wrong, defended yourself with a worthless argument, sidestep what I say (again) and then are wrong again.

I know you don't have a CPE, you know I'm a teacher of 10 years' standing. Who are you by the way?

He quickly dragged a YELLOW comb through his hair.

Nominalisation or no nominalisation?

I have 20+ years of experience as an English teacher, translator, translator trainer, academic, etc.

:yawns:

It was wrong of me to call you out, not very sportsmanlike - quite happy to admit I'm wrong when I am.

OP has been answered, this discussion is way off the OP, and after you bang your head on a brick wall it starts to hurt after a while...

"after you bang your head on a brick wall it starts to hurt after a while..."

I didn't know that until you started posting here.

You're in danger of making yourself look bad now. I'm trying to help you here, honestly.

You combine analytical ineptitude with phraseological fluency. Dangerous if you are losing, because you are never going to admit that.

You carry on. I'm enjoying this. I've tried to be delicate, but you're more of a fool with every post you make on this topic. Sounding clever doesn't mean you are (comment above). The example you gave above is evidence enough.

'more of a fool' is not an argument in a discussion about linguistics.
I have given you examples that show you are wrong about the very concept of nominalisations, but all you give is expletives.
EOT for me, but if you have a pal you talk about nominalisation with, why don't you get a second opinion?

we've been shown here a bad example of the implementation of the application of nominalisation :-)