Possessive before a gerund.

Share on Facebook

paco2004

#87563 Wed, 06 Apr 05 08:48 PM

OED

The gerund still retains one feature of the verbal noun, namely, that of admitting of a preceding possessive case or possessive pronoun, as in "after John's behaving so strangely", "upon my readily granting it". In the literary language this construction is regularly retained with a pronoun, and very generally with a single personal substantive; but, with names of things, and phraseological or involved denominations, the sign of the possessive began to be dropped already by 1600. "By each at once her choppy finger laying upon her skinny lips" [Shakespeare ]. No other treatment is now possible in such constructions as "in default of one or other being accepted", "on the general and his staff appearing", "in the event of your expectations not being at once realized", "in consequence of much snow having fallen".

And, in current spoken English, the 's is commonly omitted with all nouns. "I insist upon Miss Sharp appearing" [Thackeray: Vanity Fair xi. 348], where "Miss Sharp's'" would now sound pedantic or archaic. Even a pronoun standing before the gerund is put in the objective, in dialect speech, and, when the pronoun is emphatic, this is common in ordinary colloquial English. "Papa did not care about them learning" [Thackeray ]. "But who ever heard of them eating an owl?" []. "That is no excuse for him beating you"[Reade (1863)]. So "What is the use of me speaking?".

In such constructions the objective noun or pronoun seems to stand in simple apposition to the gerund, the two forming a kind of combined object of the preposition, reminding us of the Greek infinitive with an accusative after a preposition as in "µet? t? pa?ad????a? t?? ???????" (=after John being delivered up). But in Eng. there has probably been analogical influence from the construction of the present participles. Cf., for instance, "John was digging potatoes" -> "Who saw John digging potatoes?", and "Who ever heard of John (= John's) digging potatoes?".

paco2004

Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004

Senior Member (4,095)

In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.

Possessives, Prepositions, Constructions, Nouns, Pronouns, Gerunds, Dialects, Accusative

Skater

#87854 Thu, 07 Apr 05 05:23 PM

Thanks. I hadn't thought of checking the OED on a grammatical point.

As I don't have the Chicago Manual of Style or any similar American reference work near to hand, I did a quick Internet search ("Chicago Manual of Style" + gerund + possessive) to see if I could find anything citing the Chicago Manual on this point. I didn't find an exact match specifically quoting the manual but did come across a number of sites (submission guidelines for various American academic institutions or scholarly publications, for example) citing it generally, and every single one of them said the gerund requires a possessive in this context.

I quess this may be one of those points on which someone, faced with a somewhat haphazard historical British usage, has imposed a more logical and consistent rule on American English (as Webster did with spelling -- often with reference to Latin, in which, incidentally, the gerund would always take the possessive). The OED does, however, seem to draw a distinction between "current spoken English" and written English, so presumably the possessive rule is still the correct one -- it's just that speakers "commonly" overlook it.

I don't agree, by the way, that the possessive sounds "pedantic or archaic." The same observation could be made about many examples of careful use of language, but if one's brain processes language according to a set of logical rules, it is actually quite difficult and awkward to stray just because one is speaking instead of writing.

Skater

Joined on Thu, Mar 31 2005

New Member (18)

American English, Possessives, Numbers, Gerunds, Spelling

paco2004

#87928 Thu, 07 Apr 05 08:22 PM

Hello Skater

I'm sorry but may I ask you whether you are a native speaker? As an ESL, I myself like the possessive form better than the objective form. "The teacher dislikes the child('s) whispering to his classmate" is "The teacher dislikes that the child is whispering to his classmate" rather than "The teacher dislikes the child who is whispering to his classmate". As a 'that' clause behaves like a noun, the possessive form seems more consistent grammatically. Further more the possessive form's being more consistent could be proved when one supposes a passive sentence : "The child('s) whispering to his classmate is hated by the teacher". In this case, many would agree with that the possessive form is better than the objective form. So to my brain, the possessive form sounds to be a construct logically more reasonable. But, we should know a language is what is spoken by native speakers and they do not necessarily speak the best reasonable way. So I think we ESL students should follow the way the majority of native speakers are speaking, even if we do not think the way is not logically best reasonable.

paco

paco2004

Possessives, Clauses, Nouns, Gerunds, Passive Sentences

MrPedantic

#87979 Fri, 08 Apr 05 12:16 AM

...whether they just don't fuss about grammar...

BrEs on the whole tend to take the Marlon Brando approach to fussing – 'What are you fussing about?' 'What have you got?' – but I'd say that this particular usage (object pronoun + ING) isn't among the more fussed-about. (Which is surprising, in many respects.)

I find myself that sometimes 'possessive + ING' does seem to suit the sentence; but at other times, 'object + ING' feels more accurate. For instance, in our example, I find a difference between these two:

1. The teacher dislikes the boy whispering to his classmate.
2. The teacher dislikes the boy's whispering to his classmate.

In #1, it seems to me that what the teacher dislikes is 'the-boy-whispering-to-his-classmate'; whereas in #2, it's 'the boy's whispering-to-his-classmate'.

In other words, #2 emphasises the 'whispering'; but in #1, the object of dislike is the whole picture: 'the-boy-whispering'. I would read the ING in #2 as a gerund, and the ING in #1 as a participle.

(I'd be interested to know why a participle string shouldn't follow the object. In Latin or Greek, for instance, the participle would simply be put into the accusative case.)

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,167)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Grammar, Possessives, Difference Between, Nouns, Pronouns, Gerunds, Accusative

paco2004

#87989 Fri, 08 Apr 05 01:14 AM

Hello Mr P

Thank you for the useful comment.

I'd like to confirm my knowledge about this matter of 'SVO doing' on this occasion.
Let me passsivize a sentence, say, "His teacher hates him whispering to classmates"
(1) His whispering to classmates is hated by his teacher.
(2) Him whispering to classmates is hated by his teacher.
(3) He whispering to classmates is hated by his teacher.
I think only (1) is grammatical. Am I right?

paco

paco2004

Possessives, Gerunds

paco2004

#87991 Fri, 08 Apr 05 01:31 AM

Mr P
In other words, #2 emphasises the 'whispering'; but in #1, the object of dislike is the whole picture: 'the-boy-whispering'. I would read the ING in #2 as a gerund, and the ING in #1 as a participle.
(I'd be interested to know why a participle string shouldn't follow the object. In Latin or Greek, for instance, the participle would simply be put into the accusative case.)

English is basically a Teutonic language and as a basic rule of Teutonic languages, an adjective usually pre-modifies a noun. An example sentence : "I hate my wife shopping a lot". I think this was originally rather "I hate [my wife (on shopping a lot)]". If this analysis is right, the 'shopping' in the example sentence is not a true present participle such as seen in 'shopping wives', but rather a 'gerund-derived' present participle.

paco

paco2004

Possessives, Nouns, Gerunds, Accusative

MrPedantic

#87993 Fri, 08 Apr 05 01:39 AM

Hello Paco

Yes, #1 is fine; #2 isn't; #3 is a little strange (it reads like a literal translation).

I wonder now though whether 'hate' is a good example. For instance, no one would object to:

1. We watched him cooking the dinner.
2. I noticed the blackbirds singing.
3. I smelt the food cooking.
4. I saw him running.

'Hate', 'like', etc seem to be neighbours to this select band:

5. I don't like him doing that.

Whereas some such construction as this might be more offensive to mis-SVO-doing-ists:

6. We don't need him coming round here and asking awkward questions.

What do you think?

MrP

MrPedantic

Possessives, Constructions, Gerunds, Translation

paco2004

#88005 Fri, 08 Apr 05 02:15 AM

Hello Mr P again

(1) We watched him cooking the dinner.
(2) I don't like him cooking in my kitchen.

Yes I feel some structural difference between (1) and (2).
Maybe we can paraphrase (1) to "We watched him be cooking the dinner".
But we can't rephrase (2) to "I don't like him be cooking in my kitchen".
The object of 'like' should be an inseparable 'him-cooking-in-my-kitchen'.

paco

paco2004

Possessives, Difference Between, Gerunds

Skater

#88160 Fri, 08 Apr 05 03:36 PM

Thanks, All.

First, I am a native English speaker (from California, but now living in London).

Second, in "We watched him cooking the dinner," "him" is clearly the intended object of "watched," and "cooking the dinner" is a participial phrase modifying "him." That is, "cooking" is not used as a gerund in that example, but a participle. In the line of "The teacher disliked the pupil('s) whispering to his classmate" examples, it is clear that "pupil" is not the intended object of "disliked," so the direct object can only be "whispering" (as a gerund, modified by "pupil's") or the phrase "pupil whispering to his classmate," but it is still my belief that in standard American English we do not use phrases with a participle and an accusative subject, certainly not in formal writing. I know it occurs in speech, but that does not make correct.

Skater

American English, Possessives, Gerunds, Direct Objects, Accusative

1 2 3 4 5