I appreciate your taking the time or you taking the time
sandee98
This one always confuses me...
I'm never sure if it's.....
I appreciate your taking the time
I appreciate you taking the time
:))))
Sanee
You can e-mail me at sand...@dplus.net
murr...@compmore.net
In article <01bda0d3$59ae9840$3fb974d1@sandee98>,
I would use the first one by itself or with a prepositional follower, i.e.:
I appreciate your taking the time. (After another speaks of effort/time
expended) OR
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my post.
I would the second in much the same way, but would tend to use it WITH the
prepositional follower, preferring "your" otherwise.
Please not that "I appreciate your taking YOUR time" and "I appreciate you
taking your time" are very effective sarcastic plumber expedients (there WERE
all those posts about PLUMBER'S BUTT[personally, i liked the one about that
girls lap much more]).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <01bda0d3$59ae9840$3fb974d1@sandee98>,
"sandee98" <sand...@dplus.net> writes:
>I'm never sure if it's.....
>
>I appreciate your taking the time
>I appreciate you taking the time
I don't know what the linguists are going to say our intuitive grammars do, but
since we're reduced by the fact that we must deal with this at a conscious
level in order to exchange messages on the internet, here's my analysis:
In grammar as traditionally taught, "taking" is the thing that is appreciated.
Therefore it is modified by a possessive pronoun--it is "your taking" just as
it would be "I appreciate your thoughts.
This is the construction I would recommend for formal writing.
In speech, "you taking the time" is probably heard more often than the
"correct" "your taking". I think this could result from one of two analyses:
1) "taking" is analyzed as a verb, not as a gerund, with "you" being its
subject; or
2) the pronoun, following the verb immediately and in the position where an
object is likely to show up, is analyzed as the object of "appreciate".
Since "I appreciate him taking the time" is heard often, but "I appreciate he
taking the time" never, I imagine that the second analysis is the one actually
made.
Gary Williams
Scott Burright
On 26 Jun 1998, sandee98 wrote:
> This one always confuses me...
> I'm never sure if it's.....
>
> I appreciate your taking the time
> I appreciate you taking the time
Lest another gerund war start, I'll focus on the word "appreciate." I
don't like this usage of it, especially in formal writing. I would use
"appreciate" to mean "to accurately judge the value or import of
something." To express gratitude, I would just say "thank you."
Thank you for taking the time to read this drivel.
--Scott Burright
Stan Brown
[posted and emailed]
Someone claiming to be sand...@dplus.net (sandee98) wrote in
<01bda0d3$59ae9840$3fb974d1@sandee98>:
>This one always confuses me...
>I'm never sure if it's.....
>
>I appreciate your taking the time
>I appreciate you taking the time
Read the article "fused participle" in MEU2.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Scott Burright wrote:
>
> On 26 Jun 1998, sandee98 wrote:
>
> > I'm never sure if it's.....
> >
> > I appreciate your taking the time
> > I appreciate you taking the time
>
> don't like this usage of it, especially in formal writing. I would use
> "appreciate" to mean "to accurately judge the value or import of
> something." To express gratitude, I would just say "thank you."
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read this drivel.
>
> --Scott Burright
Hnnn.
A Yank who doesn't appreciate 'appreciate'.
Do you also just ask questions, without requesting permission
first?
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"Ciri sa-bumi, cara sa-desa" - Old Sundanese saying.
English translation: "People all over the world are basically
about the same, but the way they go about doing things depends
upon the village they come from."
PMReichold
In article <6n0c3v$b7$2...@news.cudenver.edu>, will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU (Gary
Williams, Business Services Accounting) writes:
>Since "I appreciate him taking the time" i
Some people say "I appreciate him FOR taking the time"
C
Hope that helps.
Mike Reichold RN,C
Clearwater, FL. USA
PMRei...@aol.com
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance."- Roger Zelazny
PMReichold
In article <3594174D...@highway1.com.au>, Iskandar Baharuddin
<bren...@highway1.com.au> writes:
>Do you also just ask questions, without requesting permission
>first?
>
>
If you don't ask permission, no one can turn you down. :)
Truly Donovan
On 27 Jun 1998 04:57:45 GMT, pmrei...@aol.com (PMReichold) wrote:
>In article <6n0c3v$b7$2...@news.cudenver.edu>, will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU (Gary
>Williams, Business Services Accounting) writes:
>
>>Since "I appreciate him taking the time" i
>
>Some people say "I appreciate him FOR taking the time"
There's no telling what some people might do.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
cw...@gmx.net
On 26 Jun 1998 08:14:59 -0600, "sandee98" <sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>This one always confuses me...
>I'm never sure if it's.....
>
>I appreciate your taking the time
>I appreciate you taking the time
While the former version is the one that is grammatically correct, the
latter one is that which most people will, I suspect, prefer in casual
language. Some people, however, believe that the latter form is
slightly different in meaning from the former insofar as it puts a
particular emphasis on the pronoun. Thus, whereas "Do you mind my
opening the window?" is just the grammatically correct form, "Do you
mind me opening the window?" might imply "Do you mind me rather than
anyone else opening the window?".
Please send replies [also] by e-mail
P&DSchultz
cw...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> On 26 Jun 1998 08:14:59 -0600, "sandee98" <sand...@dplus.net> wrote:
>
> >This one always confuses me...
> >I'm never sure if it's.....
> >
> >I appreciate your taking the time
> >I appreciate you taking the time
>
BOTH versions are grammatically correct. The first employs a gerund
phrase, and the second employs a participle phrase (specifically, a
clause with a non-finite verb). The first enjoys a higher status for
no reason except that it does. (At least in general, in North America,
I believe.) For that reason, it should be chosen as the "correct"
answer when this choice appears on a grammar test.
//P. Schultz
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <359A65...@erols.com>,
the lovely and talented P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
<j. lyle wrote:
<
<> ... thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
<
<Exactly. Which is why putting "your" and not "you" in front of
<it cannot be logically defended as the only "grammatical" form.
"Do you resent him?"
"I do not resent him. I resent his taking the last of the ice cream."
If "his" is replaced with "him," how could anyone make
sense of this exchange?
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* ... Some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant
Fedor Bromson
P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
No reason? Here's a reason: Most people prefer and use a simpler, more
consistant grammar than the few folks like you who have studied the
subject.
Person A: I appreciate something.
Person B: What do you appreciate?
Person A (good answer): Your attitude and your taking the time.
Person A (bad answer): You attitude and you taking the time.
You can probably explain why the above is not applicable, but I will
insist that the typical American's grammar-processor applies the
same rule to "you taking" here that it does to "you attitude" and so
both sound incorrect, despite what any ivory-tower dweller might say.
P&DSchultz
Right. And by your logic you would say, "I don't want your hanging
around here because I don't like your." Or is that too ivory-tower
for you?
//P. Schultz
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Person A: I appreciate something.
> Person B: What do you appreciate?
> Person A (good answer): Your attitude and your taking the time.
> Person A (bad answer): You attitude and you taking the time.
>
> You can probably explain why the above is not applicable, but I will
> insist that the typical American's grammar-processor applies the
> same rule to "you taking" here that it does to "you attitude" and so
> both sound incorrect, despite what any ivory-tower dweller might say.
With all due respect, Fedor, that's simply not true.
Neil, I'm sure, can explain in more detail.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Iskandar Baharuddin
Bin thinkin' 'bout this.
Mebbe the problem is, the English words for words iz too
komplikated.
Participles, gernunds, adjectives, adverbs, ete, etc.
Seems to me that there are only four basic kinds of words in
English:
- thing-words, which hardly change at all, except for an s or an
's
- how-words, which do not change at all
- like-words, which do not change at all
- do-words, which are pretty flaky.
Now, about this "you taking", "your taking" business.
If we class "taking" as a thing-word, it needs a "your".
Can we class it as a "do-word".
Nope. You can make a "do-word" _phrase_ (which a German or
Indonesian would probably turn into one word) by sticking a
little do-word in front:
"you are taking", "he was taking".
I would argue that "taking" still remains a "thing-word": "are"
& "is" are the do-words.
I reckon this approach will revolutionize English grammar. Only
problem is, the working titles don't work, and I need better
names for the four categories.
Now in Ozzan we could call them "thingies", "howies", "likies"
and "doeies", but I am not sure that all non-Ozzans would be
comfortable.
So I am open to suggestions.
Comments?
--
Izzy
"One day as I sat brooding, depressed, alone, with no one to
turn to -
suddenly a voice came to me from out of the gloom, saying:
'Cheer up! After all, things could be worse!"
So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse."
from "My Struggle", Alfred E Neuman
P&DSchultz
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> ...
> If we class "taking" as a thing-word, it needs a "your".
>
> Can we class it as a "do-word".
>
>
> I would argue that "taking" still remains a "thing-word": ...
Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
right. So keep thinking.
//P. Schultz
j. lyle
Sure a "thing-word" can have a direct object, if it is either an
infinitive or an "-ing"-thing formed from a "do-word." "Taking" is a
(dooby-dooby-)do-based-word that names an action, and the name of an
action is treated as if it were a thing (it can be the subject of a
sentence, the object of another verb, or the object of a preposition);
P&DSchultz
j. lyle wrote:
> ... thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
Exactly. Which is why putting "your" and not "you" in front of
it cannot be logically defended as the only "grammatical" form.
//P. Schultz
j. lyle
But how can you logically defend the objective form of a pronoun in front
of it if it's the taking of time that you appreciate and not the person?
What part is "you" playing in "I appreciate you taking the time" if you
mean something parallel to "I appreciate your help"? Would you say "I
appreciate your help" but "I appreciate you helping me"? "Help" and
"helping out" have the exact same role here, unless you mean "I appreciate
you for helping me"--in which case, that's a much better way to put it!
The objective form of the pronoun certainly is used a lot before these
verbal substantives; there is no question about that. But when the
intended object is an entire phrase, not the person him- or herself, it's
an idiomatic use, not one that is somehow more grammatically defensible
with respect to the structure of the sentence. And in this example, it's
clearly the person's help that you appreciate.
Compare "I saw you running through the rain to get the mail" and "I
appreciate your running through the rain to get the mail." In the first
one, it is you I saw; "running through the rain to get the mail" modifies
"you." In the second one, I am saying that I appreciate a certain act on
your part, and that is your running through the rain to get the mail.
Or compare "I appreciate your willingness to help me" and "I appreciate
your being willing to help me." They mean the same thing, and "being
willing" is playing exactly the same part in the sentence as
"willingness." Thus if you want to express yourself precisely or formally,
it takes the same modifier.
Jane
Stan Brown
Long ago, in a galaxy far away, the entity known only as
adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) wrote in <adinkin-
ya02318000300...@news.nii.net>:
>Neil, I'm sure, can explain in more detail.
Fowler and Gowers have already done so, at "fused participle" in MEU2.
P&DSchultz
j. lyle wrote:
> But how can you logically defend the objective form of a pronoun in front
> of it if it's the taking of time that you appreciate and not the person? ...
Because English grammar says that the subject of a non-finite verb
clause is in the objective case. "I don't want him hanging around."
"She wants me to mow the lawn." "Him operate on my daughter?!" There
is nothing modern about this analysis; it's mentioned in my 1940
"Scribner Handbook of English."
Please note that I am not saying "... your taking the time..." is
wrong or objectionable. What I am saying is that "...you taking
the time ..." is not wrong or objectionable.
//P. Schultz
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> English grammar says all sorts of seriously weird stuff.
>
> NESs are just too close to the forest to see the inherent, may I
> say beautiful simplicity of the language.
>
> There is some deep compulsion to _create_ complexity.
>
> Stand back, take a long objective look, and learn to apprectiate
> the true beauty and simplicity of English.
>
> Hell, if it were really all that complicated, nobody would
> bother with it.
No argument here. One way to drive home that point is by hoisting
the "English grammar" sticklers on their own petard.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
> P&DSchultz wrote:
> > ...
> > Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> > ("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> > right. So keep thinking.
>
> Nope. There is no such thing as an "object".
>
> The thingie "taking" is the the name of the thing, and the thing
> is a process, which points to another thingie, "time".
>
> Jeez, I am trying to make it simple, and you are trying to
> rekomplikate it.
Gosh, you're right. I'm sorry. Forget I said "Object." "Taking" is
something that you do, so it's a "do-word," and "time" is something
you do something to, so it's a "thing-word." And the thing that is
doing what the do-word says is the thing-word "you." Did I say it
right?
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
j. lyle wrote:
> ...
> Of course, your second two examples involve infinitives, which don't
> exactly parallel gerunds (the subject of an infinitive is almost always
> the *object* of another verb); and in your first example, "hanging" is a
> participle, not a gerund. "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an
> option!
>
Since participles, gerunds, and infinitives can all function as
non-finite verbals in clauses with the subjects in the objective case,
you are making a distinction that doesn't exist. If an infinitive
clause can have an obective-case subject because the clause is the
object of another verb, then so can a gerund or participle clause,
which was the case with the original example.
> ...
> No, it's very common--it just isn't grammatically defensible, that's all.
> (And I am using "grammatically" here in its traditional sense, having to
> do with how the parts of speech fit together to form a sentence.)
Since it is the way the language operates, it doesn't need a defense.
I have made a try at an explanation.
> In speech, it is probably more common than "your taking the time." But in
> formal English, "your" is still preferred.
Yes, I agree that that is the case. And fifty years ago, total
avoidance of split infinitives was preferred. Here you are talking
about fashion, not grammar.
//P. Schultz
Vesa Raiskila
j. lyle wrote:
> In article <359A4C...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> >> I would argue that "taking" still remains a "thing-word": ...
> >
> >Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> >("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> >right. So keep thinking.
> Sure a "thing-word" can have a direct object, if it is either an
> infinitive or an "-ing"-thing formed from a "do-word." "Taking" is a
> (dooby-dooby-)do-based-word that names an action, and the name of an
> action is treated as if it were a thing (it can be the subject of a
> sentence, the object of another verb, or the object of a preposition);
> thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
"The taking of the wows was a memorable event."
In the above sentence I'd regard 'taking' as a 'thing-word'.
"Taking the wows was a memorable event."
In this I wouldn't.
Vesa
--
http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
I welcome corrections to my English. To reply via e-mail, please delete
DEL. from my e-mail address.
Iskandar Baharuddin
P&DSchultz wrote:
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> > ...
> > If we class "taking" as a thing-word, it needs a "your".
> >
> > Can we class it as a "do-word".
> >
> > Nope. ...
> >
>
> Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> ("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> right. So keep thinking.
Nope. There is no such thing as an "object".
The thingie "taking" is the the name of the thing, and the thing
is a process, which points to another thingie, "time".
Jeez, I am trying to make it simple, and you are trying to
rekomplikate it.
GMAB!
Iskandar Baharuddin
j. lyle wrote:
>
> In article <359A4C...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> >> ...
> >> If we class "taking" as a thing-word, it needs a "your".
> >>
> >> Can we class it as a "do-word".
> >>
> >> Nope. ...
> >>
> >> I would argue that "taking" still remains a "thing-word": ...
> >
> >Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> >("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> >right. So keep thinking.
>
> infinitive or an "-ing"-thing formed from a "do-word." "Taking" is a
> (dooby-dooby-)do-based-word that names an action, and the name of an
> action is treated as if it were a thing (it can be the subject of a
> sentence, the object of another verb, or the object of a preposition);
> thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
Aha! Someone who understands!
Sweet Jane, your voice of reason is always so welcome!
And out of place.
Except you _are_ tryint to improve on an already perfect system.
I have to think about this do-cum-thing stuff.
Don't thing Occam would be too pleased.
Iskandar Baharuddin
English grammar says all sorts of seriously weird stuff.
NESs are just too close to the forest to see the inherent, may I
say beautiful simplicity of the language.
There is some deep compulsion to _create_ complexity.
Stand back, take a long objective look, and learn to apprectiate
the true beauty and simplicity of English.
Hell, if it were really all that complicated, nobody would
bother with it.
--
j. lyle
In article <359AB5...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>j. lyle wrote:
>
>> But how can you logically defend the objective form of a pronoun in front
>> of it if it's the taking of time that you appreciate and not the person? ...
>
>Because English grammar says that the subject of a non-finite verb
>clause is in the objective case. "I don't want him hanging around."
>"She wants me to mow the lawn." "Him operate on my daughter?!" There
>is nothing modern about this analysis; it's mentioned in my 1940
>"Scribner Handbook of English."
Of course, your second two examples involve infinitives, which don't
exactly parallel gerunds (the subject of an infinitive is almost always
the *object* of another verb); and in your first example, "hanging" is a
participle, not a gerund. "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an
option!
>Please note that I am not saying "... your taking the time..." is
>wrong or objectionable. What I am saying is that "...you taking
>the time ..." is not wrong or objectionable.
No, it's very common--it just isn't grammatically defensible, that's all.
(And I am using "grammatically" here in its traditional sense, having to
do with how the parts of speech fit together to form a sentence.) In
j. lyle
In article <359AA880...@cc.jyu.fi>,
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
>"The taking of the wows was a memorable event."
>
>In the above sentence I'd regard 'taking' as a 'thing-word'.
>
>"Taking the wows was a memorable event."
>
>In this I wouldn't.
Then what is your definition of a thing-word? Can any other kind of word
be the subject of a verb? "Taking the wows makes me happy." Can any other
kind of word be the object of a preposition? "I love thinking about
taking the wows." Can any other kind of word be the object of a verb? "I
love taking the wows." Doesn't that make this "-ing" word as much a
thing-word equivalent as the other kind?
There *is* a difference, as we've discussed before. The second kind of
"-ing" can take an object and has to be qualified by an adverb, not an
adjective. And not too long ago (less than a hundred years, I would say),
it could not "properly" have been used in subject and object position as
we're using it; it was confined to being used as the object of a
preposition.
Here's some of what Edward D. Johnson has to say in _The Handbook of Good
English_:
"_I dislike that man's wearing a mask_ and _I dislike that man wearing a
mask_ are different statements. In the first, the wearing of the mask is
disliked; in the second, the man is disliked. In the first statement,
_wearing_ is a gerund--that is, a special verb form that functions as a
noun--and it is the object of the sentence, with the possessive phrase
_that man's_ modifying it. Such a possessive 'owns' the action implied by
the gerund and thus is considered the subject of the gerund. In the
second statement, _wearing_ is a participle--that is, a special verb form
that functions as an adjective--and _that man_ is the object of the
sentence, with the participial phrase _wearing a mask_ modifying it.
However, very often the objective case rather than the possessive case is
used for the subject of a gerund, especially when it is unlikely that the
gerund will be misperceived as a participle, as in _I dislike him wearing
a mask_. Many writers and editors, and some of the grammarians whose
books they use for reference, consider use of the objective case for the
subject of a gerund to be standard idiomatic English, and certainly it is
common. Other writers and editors, and the grammarians they prefer,
condemn use of the objective case if the possessive case is possible.
Since such use of the objective case will not escape criticism, I advise
against it. I also believe that it eliminates a useful grammatical signal
and permits an annoying fuzziness of syntax. A sharper understanding of
what a gerund is may help reduce the fuzziness.
There are two types of gerund. One type is exactly like a noun--it can be
the subject or object of a verb, it is modified by articles and
adjectives, and it cannot take a direct object. The other type is mostly
like a noun but has some of the characteristics of a verb or
participle--it too can be the subject or object of a sentence, but it is
modified by adverbs and can take a direct object. In _The inappropriate
wearing of a mask is forbidden_, the gerund _wearing_ is of the first
type; in _Inappropriately wearing a mask is forbidden_, the same gerund
is of the second type. Of course, a gerund with no modifier and no object
or _of_ phrase following it cannot be assigned to either type. We do not
mix the types in modern English, though fluent users of the language did
mix them in previous centuries. The journals of the eighteenth-century
explorer James Cook are full of examples, such as _The trouble and
vexation that attended the bringing these animals thus far is hardly to
be conceived_, in which _bringing_ is modified by _the_, just as a noun
would be, but has the direct object _these animals_, just as a verb or
participle would have.
Every modern fluent user of English automatically uses the possessive for
the subject of gerunds of the first type--_I dislike that man's
inappropriate wearing of a mask_--because the 'nounness' of the gerund is
so evident. But a great many fluent speakers and writers use the
objective for the subject of gerunds of the second type--_I dislike that
man inappropriately wearing a mask_--because the 'nounness' of the gerund
is obscured by its adverbial modifier and direct object. When the
objective is used instead of the possessive, the gerund can be perceived
as a participle modifying _man_ rather than a gerund modified by _man_,
and the meaning is likely to be different. Sometimes it makes little
difference to the sense of a sentence whether a verb form ending in _ing_
is understood as a participle or a gerund. For example, _I don't remember
his ever being angry_ and _I don't remember him ever being angry_ mean
very nearly the same thing, and an argument could be made for preferring
the latter--the thought is of the man angry more than of the man's anger.
But often there is a difference, and if we mean the _ing_ word to be a
gerund rather than a participle, we should use the possessive case for
its subject.
_She approves of the teacher handing out extra homework as punishment_
would probably not be misunderstood; almost certainly the approval is of
the handing out of the homework, not of the teacher observed to be
handing it out. But a usage that is unlikely to be misunderstood is not
necessarily a usage that should be accepted as correct. At least in
principle the example is just as wrong as _She approves of the teacher
discipline_, in which the gerund phrase has been replaced by a noun. The
subject of a gerund 'owns' the action of the gerund, and owning is
expressed by the possessive case. _She approves of the teacher's handing
out extra homework as punishment_ is therefore preferable."
Whew. I need to ice down my wrists after this one!
Jane
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6nekvm$jt7$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> In article <359AB5...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >j. lyle wrote:
> >
> >> But how can you logically defend the objective form of a pronoun in front
> >> of it if it's the taking of time that you appreciate and not the
person? ...
> >
> >Because English grammar says that the subject of a non-finite verb
> >clause is in the objective case. "I don't want him hanging around."
> >"She wants me to mow the lawn." "Him operate on my daughter?!" There
> >is nothing modern about this analysis; it's mentioned in my 1940
> >"Scribner Handbook of English."
>
> Of course, your second two examples involve infinitives, which don't
> exactly parallel gerunds (the subject of an infinitive is almost always
> the *object* of another verb);
No it's not. To take the second case first, in "Him operate on my
daughter?!" there isn't even another verb for "him" to be the object of.
And in "She wants me to mow the lawn," surely you're not saying that "me"
is the object of "wants". It's not "me" that she wants, it's the mowing -
that is, either the infinitive "to mow" or the infinitive phrase "me to mow
the lawn" in the object of "wants" - not "me" alone. When I was in eighth
grade, I was taught to diagram such sentences thus-wise:
me |
----|
|\
\to
\ mow | lawn
\------------
| \
| \the
She | wants | | \
-----|---------------
|
> and in your first example, "hanging" is a participle, not a gerund.
No it's not. What I don't want is the hanging around, not him. Since this
is a confusing example, as not wanting a person is much the same as not
wanting them hanging around, I'll substitute a clearer example: "I don't
want you doing that." Whether or not I want you is not at issue - it's the
doing that is the object of "want".
> "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an option!
Which ought to indicate that the real way the subject of a gerund phrase is
constructed in English is in the accusative, not the possessive.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 2 Jul 1998 01:08:40 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
lyle), quoting a grammarian, wrote:
[ ]
>.................................................................................. We do not
>mix the types in modern English, though fluent users of the language did
>mix them in previous centuries. The journals of the eighteenth-century
>explorer James Cook are full of examples, such as _The trouble and
>vexation that attended the bringing these animals thus far is hardly to
>be conceived_, in which _bringing_ is modified by _the_, just as a noun
>would be, but has the direct object _these animals_, just as a verb or
>participle would have.
>
Cook was a man of the people and a Yorkshireman to boot. I
wonder just how common this turn of phrase really was. For
example, did Bligh, who was neither of these things, ever pepper
_his_ journals with such expressions?
[ ]
(continuing the quoted materia0
>
>_She approves of the teacher handing out extra homework as punishment_
>would probably not be misunderstood; almost certainly the approval is of
>the handing out of the homework, not of the teacher observed to be
>handing it out. But a usage that is unlikely to be misunderstood is not
>necessarily a usage that should be accepted as correct. At least in
>principle the example is just as wrong as _She approves of the teacher
>discipline_, in which the gerund phrase has been replaced by a noun. The
>subject of a gerund 'owns' the action of the gerund, and owning is
>expressed by the possessive case. _She approves of the teacher's handing
>out extra homework as punishment_ is therefore preferable."
>
In my view this whole quotation, necessarily and regretfully
shortened here, is admirable and while it will not give the
quietus to the "intuition" ridden (because it is possible to
seize upon a word here and there) it ought to put an end to
ludicrous discussions based on ludicrous snatches of imagined
English usage.
>Whew. I need to ice down my wrists after this one!
>
>Jane
You deserve a whip-around for a spanking new refrigerator for the
effort.
j. lyle
In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
Aaron J. Dinkin <adi...@commschool.org> wrote:
>In article <6nekvm$jt7$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
>
>> In article <359AB5...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >j. lyle wrote:
>> >
>> >> But how can you logically defend the objective form of a pronoun in front
>> >> of it if it's the taking of time that you appreciate and not the
>person? ...
>> >
>> >Because English grammar says that the subject of a non-finite verb
>> >clause is in the objective case. "I don't want him hanging around."
>> >"She wants me to mow the lawn." "Him operate on my daughter?!" There
>> >is nothing modern about this analysis; it's mentioned in my 1940
>> >"Scribner Handbook of English."
>>
>> Of course, your second two examples involve infinitives, which don't
>> exactly parallel gerunds (the subject of an infinitive is almost always
>> the *object* of another verb);
>
>No it's not. To take the second case first, in "Him operate on my
>daughter?!" there isn't even another verb for "him" to be the object of.
There is a verb implied, though--"Have him operate on my daughter?" "Let
him operate on my daughter?" I would consider this ellipsis.
>And in "She wants me to mow the lawn," surely you're not saying that "me"
>is the object of "wants". It's not "me" that she wants, it's the mowing -
>that is, either the infinitive "to mow" or the infinitive phrase "me to mow
>the lawn" in the object of "wants" - not "me" alone.
The whole thing is the object of "wants," but "me" alone is also the
object of "wants." That's how infinitives work. I would consider "to mow
the lawn" to modify "me" just as "dead" modifies "me" in "She wants me
dead."
Evans and Evans: "The agent of the action named by an infinitive is called
the subject of the infinitive, as _him_ in _there is no need for him to
come_. Very often, as in the example, the subject is introduced by _for_.
This is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others. As a
rule, the subject of an infinitive is the object of a verb or preposition,
but it may also be the subject of a passive verb, as _he_ in _he was heard
to say_. This fact might conceivably affect the case of a personal
pronoun following _to be_, but otherwise is of no importance."
Frederick Crews, in his _Random House Handbook_, says, "Note that subjects
and objects of infinitives, when they are pronouns, take the objective
case form. You may wonder why this one kind of 'subject' is always
objective in case. The answer is that every subject of an infinitive is
also an object (direct or indirect) of a preceding verb: _asked her to
concentrate_." He also gives the example "He wanted her to become
enlightened."
>> and in your first example, "hanging" is a participle, not a gerund.
>
>No it's not. What I don't want is the hanging around, not him. Since this
>is a confusing example, as not wanting a person is much the same as not
>wanting them hanging around, I'll substitute a clearer example: "I don't
>want you doing that." Whether or not I want you is not at issue - it's the
>doing that is the object of "want".
It's the you that is doing that that I don't want, isn't it? "Want"
*can't* take a gerund in this sense. It is always followed by the
infinitive.
>> "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an option!
>
>Which ought to indicate that the real way the subject of a gerund phrase is
>constructed in English is in the accusative, not the possessive.
No, it indicates that you have selected a verb that can be used in only a
limited way.
We can say "I like to swim" and "I like swimming," but we can't say "I
enjoy to swim," only "I enjoy swimming." We can say "The fence wants
mending," using "want" in another sense, but we can say only "I want to
eat now," not "I want eating now." Similarly, we can't use a gerund with
"hope," "expect," "promise," "wish," and a number of other verbs. And we
can't use an infinitive after "appreciate," "suggest," "adore," and a
number of other verbs.
P&DSchultz
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
> P&DSchultz wrote:
> >
> > Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > > Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> > > > ("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> > > > right. So keep thinking.
> > >
> > > Nope. There is no such thing as an "object".
> > >
> > > The thingie "taking" is the the name of the thing, and the thing
> > > is a process, which points to another thingie, "time".
> > >
> > > Jeez, I am trying to make it simple, and you are trying to
> > > rekomplikate it.
> >
> > something that you do, so it's a "do-word," and "time" is something
> > you do something to, so it's a "thing-word." And the thing that is
> > doing what the do-word says is the thing-word "you." Did I say it
> > right?
> > //P. Schultz
>
>
> "Taking" is a thingie. A process is a thing, therfore the name
> of the process is a thingie.
Iskandar, you're not LIIIIISSStening!!
I'm sticking to your logic here, but you're not getting it exactly.
You're the one who wanted to simplify things by going with meaning
instead of form. So now, "taking" is something you do, so it's a
dooey. "Process," since it is also something you do, is a dooey too.
So are "hunting" and "tennis." "Time" and "you" have nothing to do
with doing, so they're thingey words. So it HAS to be "you taking
the time." And thank you for straightening this issue out in my mind.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
Lars Eighner wrote:
>
> In our last episode <359A65...@erols.com>,
> the lovely and talented P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> <j. lyle wrote:
> <
> <
> <Exactly. Which is why putting "your" and not "you" in front of
> <it cannot be logically defended as the only "grammatical" form.
>
> "I do not resent him. I resent his taking the last of the ice cream."
>
> If "his" is replaced with "him," how could anyone make
> sense of this exchange?
Maybe I don't understand your intention. It would be quite plain.
What would be in the least obscure about it?
//P. Schultz
P.S. Are you a native speaker of English?
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
> So now, "taking" is something you do, so it's a dooey.
^^^^^
Uh-oh. I think I see a problem here. If it's something, doesn't that make it
a thingie? And if you do it, doesn't that make it a dooey?
And isn't that why we disagree on whether its pronoun (old term, but I forget
the new one) is in the namey or in the belongie case?
Gary Williams
P.S. After we get this sorted out, do you think we could come up with a
similarly improved system for the moods of verbs. Maybe we could call them
"attitudes", and there could be the "really" and the "maybe" and the "no-way"
attitudes. And probably some others.
gw
P&DSchultz
I think you and Iskandar are onto something useful here. Names
like "the no-way attitude" and "a thingey word" are probably what
our traditional stodgy grammatical words sounded like to the original
Greeks and Romans who made them up. They are illustrative and lead
to intuitive thinking, and will reinterest the children in the
grammar of their language.
It reminds me of a movement which took place in 19th-century Arkansas
or Missouri to change the names of all those pagan-named heavenly
bodies -- such as Jupiter and Venus -- into something more American,
like Elmer and Lizzie.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
j. lyle wrote:
>
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> Aaron J. Dinkin <adi...@commschool.org> wrote:
> >No it's not. To take the second case first, in "Him operate on my
> >daughter?!" there isn't even another verb for "him" to be the object of.
>
> There is a verb implied, though--"Have him operate on my daughter?" "Let
> him operate on my daughter?" I would consider this ellipsis.
Now you're just making things up. Anything can be forced to accord
with some supposed rules by claiming that there is an "ellipsis" of
"implied" words. In fact, linguists have been calling this kind of
sentence a Mad Magazine sentence, after that magazine's famous "What,
me worry?" (which really does not seem to mean "What, let me worry?")
Since they don't have finite verbs, they have head nouns in the
objective case.
//P. Schultz
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>I think you and Iskandar are onto something useful here. Names
>like "the no-way attitude" and "a thingey word" are probably what
>our traditional stodgy grammatical words sounded like to the original
>Greeks and Romans who made them up. They are illustrative and lead
>to intuitive thinking, and will reinterest the children in the
>grammar of their language.
Doubtless it will; doubtless it will. Wouldn't you just love to study a verb
with an attitude? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for a
presentation to the curriculum committee of a prestigious school district.
>It reminds me of a movement which took place in 19th-century Arkansas
>or Missouri to change the names of all those pagan-named heavenly
>bodies -- such as Jupiter and Venus -- into something more American,
>like Elmer and Lizzie.
Well, since Elmer and Lizzie lost their chance at astronomical immortality,
perhaps we can give them another shot. You may recall that Neil suggested--and
I concurred and there was no dissent so I declare debate closed and the motion
adopted by acclamation--that the collection of verb forms which is frequently
used in English to describe an event that happened prior to the time of
speaking, but which is also used to describe counter-factual or hypothetical
situations, could be called just as readily the Fred tense as the past tense.
Since "Fred" is taken, either Elmer or Lizzie is going to lose out, as
apparently there is only one other set of verb forms in English, buy maybe we
can name some obscure spelling convention for the other one as a sort of
consolation prize.
Gary Williams
Gerry Cechony
PP> Please note that I am not saying "... your taking the time..." is
PP> wrong or objectionable. What I am saying is that "...you taking
PP> the time ..." is not wrong or objectionable.
You saying that is not objectionable to me. But your saying
that is objectionable to me.
---
* RM 1.31 3115 *
Mark Barton
>In our last episode <359A65...@erols.com>,
>the lovely and talented P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
><j. lyle wrote:
><
><> ... thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
><
><Exactly. Which is why putting "your" and not "you" in front of
><it cannot be logically defended as the only "grammatical" form.
>
>"Do you resent him?"
>"I do not resent him. I resent his taking the last of the ice cream."
>
>If "his" is replaced with "him," how could anyone make
>sense of this exchange?
British/Australian speakers would think the person who asked "Do you
resent him?" was being deliberately obtuse. Unless the person was someone
in authority being schoolmarmish,
"I do not resent him. I resent him taking the last of the ice cream."
would be a perfectly sensible reply, and would probably be delivered in an
exasperated tone.
It is perfectly well understood among people who use the construction or
who are exposed to it regularly that "him taking the last of the icecream"
is a unit. The pattern can be used both in positions where "taking" is the
link to the rest of the sentence (as above), or in positions where "him"
is. However the clear understanding is that the concept is indivisible -
it's not "him" per se or the "taking" per se but the combination.
Cheers,
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Iskandar Baharuddin
P&DSchultz wrote:
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> >
> > P&DSchultz wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> > > ("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> > > right. So keep thinking.
> > > //P. Schultz
> >
> > Nope. There is no such thing as an "object".
> >
> > The thingie "taking" is the the name of the thing, and the thing
> > is a process, which points to another thingie, "time".
> >
> > Jeez, I am trying to make it simple, and you are trying to
> > rekomplikate it.
>
> Gosh, you're right. I'm sorry. Forget I said "Object." "Taking" is
> something that you do, so it's a "do-word," and "time" is something
> you do something to, so it's a "thing-word." And the thing that is
> doing what the do-word says is the thing-word "you." Did I say it
> right?
> //P. Schultz
No! Pay attention!
"Taking" is a thingie. A process is a thing, therfore the name
of the process is a thingie.
One thingie can point to another thingie, and the context
determines meaning. As I pointed out earlier, close-coupled
likie-thingie links, and howied-doeie links, and indeed
howie-likie links, are not context sensitive.
Now, "take" is a doeie.
There is also the homonym "take", a thingie, e g "Today's take
is $12,450."
Lots of doeie-thingie pairs, and doe-thingie-likie triplets.
Why is so much harder to convince people of simple things than
of complicated things?
Why do human beings revel in unnecessary complexity.
Perhaps it is another variant of the Cuckoo-Clock Principle,
which has shaped modern software.
I will meditate on this and get back to you.
P&DSchultz
Gerry Cechony wrote:
> You saying that is not objectionable to me. But your saying
> that is objectionable to me.
I saying what? I mean, myself saying what?
//P. Schultz
Skitt
P&DSchultz wrote in message <359C5F...@erols.com>...
Well said.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
--Emo Phillips
K. Edgcombe
In article <359badfb...@news.bctel.ca>,
<a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
<j.lyle wrote>
>>mix them in previous centuries. The journals of the eighteenth-century
>>explorer James Cook are full of examples, such as _The trouble and
>>vexation that attended the bringing these animals thus far is hardly to
>>be conceived_, in which _bringing_ is modified by _the_, just as a noun
>>would be, but has the direct object _these animals_, just as a verb or
>>participle would have.
>>
>
>wonder just how common this turn of phrase really was. For
This type of phrase (The ----ing <direct object>) is common in the writing of
Charlotte Yonge, who was neither "of the people" nor from Yorkshire.
I think I have also seen it quite often in other early nineteenth-century
writers, but can't give references.
It hasn't much to do with the original point, but I don't think the association
with class or with Yorkshire would be found to hold water.
Katy
j. lyle
Well, I sure hope this works. This post is going to be out of order, but
this $!#*! news server keeps losing not only individual posts but entire
threads. So I'm working from the cc I got by e-mail. Sorry for the
inconvenience.
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
> In article <6ngrda$df1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
>
> > >No it's not. To take the second case first, in "Him operate on my
> > >daughter?!" there isn't even another verb for "him" to be the object of.
> >
> > There is a verb implied, though--"Have him operate on my daughter?" "Let
> > him operate on my daughter?" I would consider this ellipsis.
>
> But the form it takes in ellipsis need not be the same form it takes in
> context. For instance:
>
> "You'll operate on my daughter!" "I will?"
> "You'll operate on my daughter!" "Me?"
>
> That is, the fact that in P. Schultz's example "him" has the same case it
> would have in context is irrelevant. The case it takes on its own ought to
> be considered the "base case" (if you will).
>
> "He is reported to have operated on your daughter."
> "Him operate on my daughter?"
"They let *him* operate on my daughter?" "They chose *him* to operate on
my daughter?" There are zillions of possibilities. But none of them are
important. This is *idiom*. We use this kind of ellipsis all the time; we
don't even have to fill in the missing words to understand the meaning.
And in your scenario, I think that most people would say "*He* operated on
my daughter???" or something else in past tense. "Him operate on my
daughter?" would be more common before the operation.
> > >And in "She wants me to mow the lawn," surely you're not saying that
> > >"me" is the object of "wants". It's not "me" that she wants, it's the
> > >mowing--that is, either the infinitive "to mow" or the infinitive phrase
> > >"me to mow the lawn" in the object of "wants" - not "me" alone.
> >
> > The whole thing is the object of "wants," but "me" alone is also the
> > object of "wants." That's how infinitives work. I would consider "to mow
> > the lawn" to modify "me" just as "dead" modifies "me" in "She wants me
> > dead."
> >
> > >> and in your first example, "hanging" is a participle, not a gerund.
> > >
> > >No it's not. What I don't want is the hanging around, not him. Since this
> > >is a confusing example, as not wanting a person is much the same as not
> > >wanting them hanging around, I'll substitute a clearer example: "I don't
> > >want you doing that." Whether or not I want you is not at issue - it's
> > >the doing that is the object of "want".
> >
> > It's the you that is doing that that I don't want, isn't it? "Want"
> > *can't* take a gerund in this sense. It is always followed by the
> > infinitive.
>
> No, it's not the you that is doing that that I don't want. It's merely you
> doing it that I don't want. (Read that over a few times. You will begin to
> feel drowsy....) You can't say that "want" can't take a gerund in this
> sense, because it manifestly does (perhaps the rule is that "want" can only
> take a gerund when the gerund has an expressed subject).
No, "want" in the sense of "desire" *cannot* take a gerund. If you look
in any good usage book, you will find it in the list of such words.
Evans and Evans: "When _want_ means desire it may be followed by an
infinitive. . . . It cannot be followed by an _-ing_ form of a verb or by
a clause."
_The Little, Brown Handbook_: "Gerunds and infinitives may follow certain
verbs but not others. And sometimes the use of a gerund or infinitive with
the same verb changes the meaning of the verb. . . .
A gerund or infinitive may follow these verbs with no significant
difference in meaning:
begin hate love can't bear hesitate prefer can't stand
intend pretend continue like start
. . . With four verbs, a gerund has quite a different meaning from an
infinitive:
forget stop remember try. . . .
Do not use an infinitive after these verbs [27 examples]. . . .
Do not use a gerund after these verbs: [20 examples, including "want,"
"wish," "pretend," "decide"]. . . ."
You can't say "I want kissing you" or "I have decided kissing you," but
you *can* say "I like kissing you" or "I enjoy kissing you."
> The base of the sentence is not "I don't want you," it's "I don't want
> doing that" (though that is ungrammatical).
Yes, the basis of the sentence is "I don't want you." This may be a
slightly different use of the word "want," but that doesn't change the
structure of the sentence.
She wants me to mow the lawn. She asked me to mow the lawn. She told me to
mow the lawn. She ordered me to mow the lawn.
Whom does she want to mow the lawn? It's me she wants to mow the lawn. I
am the one she wants to mow the lawn.
How can you say that "whom" and "me" and "the one" are not the objects of
"want"?
You may want to argue that this use of "want" is slightly different from
the use in your example; here the emphasis is on who is wanted, whereas in
your reading of "She wants me to mow the lawn" the emphasis is on what is
wanted of you. But that shift in *meaning of the word* does not change the
*structure of the sentence*.
> > >> "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an option!
> >
>
> > >
> > >Which ought to indicate that the real way the subject of a gerund
> > >phrase is constructed in English is in the accusative, not the
> > >possessive.
> >
> > No, it indicates that you have selected a verb that can be used in only a
> > limited way.
>
> All right, suppose I choose a different verb: "I don't like you doing
> that." In this case, why doesn't the same argument you used (and quoted)
> for the infinitive hold?
Because "like" is one of those words that can be followed by either a
gerund or an infinitive! And here I definitely would say "I don't like
your doing that" if it is only your doing that that I don't like, and not
you yourself in the process of doing that. Moreover, apparently only fifty
years ago, the use of the gerund after "like" was frowned upon. Evans and
Evans again (written in the 1950s): "_Like_ may be followed by an
infinitive, as in _she likes to travel_. It may also be followed by an
_-ing_ form, as in _she likes traveling_. Some people object to this but
it is generally acceptable in the United States. _Like_ cannot be
followed by a clause. We cannot say _I like that you are here_. In order
to say what amounts to the same thing we must insert _it_ as the object of
_like_, as in _I like it that you are here_. The clause then qualifies the
word _it_ instead of functioning as the object of _like_."
> In "She wants me to mow the lawn", you say that "me" is accusative
> because it is the object of "wants" as well as the subject of "mow".
> But what she wants isn't me - the true object of her desire is the
> mowing.
The true object of her desire may be the mowing, but the object of the
verb in your sentence is "me"!
> Why not, then, in "I don't like you doing that," say that even though
> what I don't like is not you but the doing, "you" is the object of "like"?
Going by what Evans and Evans say above, it appears that "like" has
changed in use over the last 75 years or so. It isn't uncommon for words
to take on new meanings and new uses, especially if they are similar to
other words that started out being used differently. English is nothing
if not adaptable. In the sentence "I don't like you doing that," "you"
*is* the object of "like" with respect to the structure of the sentence.
The fact that your intended meaning is different is a matter of idiom, of
semantics, not of structure.
I am off work until Tuesday, so I am limited to the usage books I have
here at home. All five of them say exactly the same thing about the
subject of an infinitive. (Edward D. Johnson: "The reason that the
subject of an infinitive is always in the objective case is that it is
always also the object of a verb, as _him_ is the object of _call_ in [I
told him to call me], or the object of a preposition, as in _For him to
call was rare_, in which _him_ is the object of the preposition _for_ as
well as the subject of _to call_.") Could you please cite a few
authoritative sources that state that this is no longer considered true,
and how the objective case can be otherwise explained?
Jane
While I have these usage books out, here is what they have to say about
the possessive with a gerund:
Little, Brown: "A gerund is the _-ing_ form of the verb (_running,
sleeping_) used as a noun. Like nouns, gerunds are commonly preceded
by possessive nouns and pronouns: _our vote_ (noun), _our voting_ (gerund).
The coach disapproved of their lifting weights.
The coach's disapproving was a surprise.
A noun or pronoun before an _ing_ verb form is not always possessive.
Sometimes the _-ing_ form will be a present participle modifying the
preceding word:
Everyone had noticed him weightlifting. [The emphasis is on _him_.]
Everyone had noticed his weightlifting. [The emphasis is on the activity.]
Note that a gerund usually is not preceded by the possessive when the
possessive would create an awkward construction.
Awkward: A rumor spread about everybody's on the team wanting to quit.
Less awkward: A rumor spread about everybody on the team wanting to quit.
Better: A rumor spread that everybody on the team wanted to quit."
Random House: "The subject of a gerund is usually written in the
possessive case:
Biff didn't know why everyone laughed at his saying he would like to be
an astronaut. . . .
But the rule is hard to apply in many instances. For example, if the
gerund's subject is separated from the gerund by other words, that
subject goes in the objective case instead of the possessive:
People were surprised at him, a veteran speaker on many campuses, having
no ready reply when Stanley seized the microphone and called him an
irrelevant murderer.
Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
can appear in a nonpossessive form:
We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <6nj091$it6$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>Little, Brown:
>Everyone had noticed him weightlifting. [The emphasis is on _him_.]
>Everyone had noticed his weightlifting. [The emphasis is on the activity.]
Is the difference here not that in the first sentence, "weightlifting" is a
participle, not a gerund?
>Random House:
>Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
>can appear in a nonpossessive form:
>
>We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
May it not also be the case that here the phrase is analyzed as a noun
(catastrophe) modified by a participial phrase (striking again)? I wonder if
some of the confusion, nay, perhaps even a change in the grammar, is due to the
number of cases where the line between gerund and participle is rather fine.
Gary Williams
j. lyle
In article <6nj1r6$huv$1...@news.cudenver.edu>,
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>In article <6nj091$it6$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>
>>Little, Brown:
>
>>Everyone had noticed his weightlifting. [The emphasis is on the activity.]
>
>participle, not a gerund?
Yes, as the preceding sentence (which I also quoted) stated: "A noun or
pronoun before an _-ing_ verb form is not always possessive. Sometimes the
_-ing_ form will be a present participle modifying the preceding word."
>>Random House:
>
>>Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
>>can appear in a nonpossessive form:
>>
>>We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
>
>May it not also be the case that here the phrase is analyzed as a noun
>(catastrophe) modified by a participial phrase (striking again)?
Their point is that you can say either "the danger of catastrophe's
striking again" or "the danger of catastrophe striking again" without a
difference in meaning. The meaning of "We cannot ignore the danger of
catastrophe striking again" if you analyze "striking" as a participle is a
little bit different from the meaning when "striking" is a gerund. With
the gerund it means something like "We cannot ignore the danger that
catastrophe will strike again," whereas with the participle it means "We
cannot ignore the danger of re-striking catastrophe." But the hearer or
reader is not going to interpret this sentence in the latter way.
>I wonder if some of the confusion, nay, perhaps even a change in the
>grammar, is due to the number of cases where the line between gerund and
>participle is rather fine.
I think that's true to some extent. But more of the confusion, I think, is
that people just don't understand how these verbals work. An _-ing_ word
can be of four different types, and the specific type being used in a
particular instance has to be discerned from the context.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6nj091$it6$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> Well, I sure hope this works. This post is going to be out of order, but
> this $!#*! news server keeps losing not only individual posts but entire
> threads. So I'm working from the cc I got by e-mail. Sorry for the
> inconvenience.
Thanks. I don't think anything I posted yesterday ever even got to my own
server, so I was lucky to have e-mailed a copy.
> On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>
> > In article <6ngrda$df1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> >
> > > >No it's not. To take the second case first, in "Him operate on my
> > > >daughter?!" there isn't even another verb for "him" to be the object of.
> > >
> > > There is a verb implied, though--"Have him operate on my daughter?" "Let
> > > him operate on my daughter?" I would consider this ellipsis.
> >
> > But the form it takes in ellipsis need not be the same form it takes in
> > context. For instance:
> >
> > "You'll operate on my daughter!" "I will?"
> > "You'll operate on my daughter!" "Me?"
> >
> > That is, the fact that in P. Schultz's example "him" has the same case it
> > would have in context is irrelevant. The case it takes on its own ought to
> > be considered the "base case" (if you will).
> >
> > "He is reported to have operated on your daughter."
> > "Him operate on my daughter?"
>
> "They let *him* operate on my daughter?" "They chose *him* to operate on
> my daughter?" There are zillions of possibilities. But none of them are
> important. This is *idiom*. We use this kind of ellipsis all the time; we
> don't even have to fill in the missing words to understand the meaning.
But the fact that it takes "him" in ellipsis is irrelevant to whether it
takes "him" in context. You cannot say that "him" in "Him operate on my
daughter?" is accusative because it is the object of some elided verb,
because removing the verb may change the case. Consider again "I will?"
versus "Me?" above. "Me" isn't the object of the elided verb - it's the
subject. But the process of ellipsis makes the pronoun accusative despite
the role it plays in context. The fact that "him" appears in "Him operate
on my daughter?" and the fact that it appears in "They let him operate on
my daughter?" are unrelated.
This is nonsense. "I don't want you doing that." "Want" obviously can be
followed the "-ing" form of a verb. I've just done it. And grammatically,
too. The rule must be that the "-ing" form can only follow "want" if the
subject of the "-ing" is expressed.
> _The Little, Brown Handbook_: "Gerunds and infinitives may follow certain
> verbs but not others. And sometimes the use of a gerund or infinitive with
> the same verb changes the meaning of the verb. . . .
>
> A gerund or infinitive may follow these verbs with no significant
> difference in meaning:
>
> begin hate love can't bear hesitate prefer can't stand
> intend pretend continue like start
That's not right. I don't think a gerund can follow "hesitate" or "pretend"
and all, and if "intend" can take a gerund, it's only in very restricted
circumstances (though I can't think of any such circumstances right now).
> . . . With four verbs, a gerund has quite a different meaning from an
> infinitive:
>
> forget stop remember try. . . .
>
> Do not use an infinitive after these verbs [27 examples]. . . .
>
> Do not use a gerund after these verbs: [20 examples, including "want,"
> "wish," "pretend," "decide"]. . . ."
What's "pretend" doing on two lists?
> You can't say "I want kissing you" or "I have decided kissing you," but
> you *can* say "I like kissing you" or "I enjoy kissing you."
But then again, you can say "I like him kissing you," "I enjoy him kissing
you," and "I want him kissing you," but not *"I have decided him kissing
you."
You can say "I like to kiss you," "I have decided to kiss you," or "I want
to kiss you," but not *"I enjoy to kiss you."
But then again, you can say "I like him to kiss you" or "I want him to kiss
you," but nor *"I have decided him to kiss you" or *"I enjoy him to kiss
you."
The set of verbs for which "him"+infinitive is grammatical is not the same
as the set for which the infinitive alone is grammatical. Why can the same
not be said for the gerund?
> > The base of the sentence is not "I don't want you," it's "I don't want
> > doing that" (though that is ungrammatical).
>
> Yes, the basis of the sentence is "I don't want you." This may be a
> slightly different use of the word "want," but that doesn't change the
> structure of the sentence.
>
> She wants me to mow the lawn. She asked me to mow the lawn. She told me to
> mow the lawn. She ordered me to mow the lawn.
>
> Whom does she want to mow the lawn? It's me she wants to mow the lawn. I
> am the one she wants to mow the lawn.
>
> How can you say that "whom" and "me" and "the one" are not the objects of
> "want"?
"Whom does she want to mow the lawn?" is not the question to ask to find
what the object of "want" is; that question finds the subject of "to mow".
The question to ask if you want the object of "want" is (as we're all
taught in seventh grade when they tell us what an object is) "What does she
want?" The answer to that is not "me". It's "me mowing the lawn" - the
whole phrase, not any part of it.
> You may want to argue that this use of "want" is slightly different from
> the use in your example; here the emphasis is on who is wanted, whereas in
> your reading of "She wants me to mow the lawn" the emphasis is on what is
> wanted of you. But that shift in *meaning of the word* does not change the
> *structure of the sentence*.
And the structure of the sentence is subject-verb-object. The subject is
"she", the verb is "wants", and the object is "me to mow the lawn" - the
whole phrase.
You didn't respond to my "Mission: Impossible" scenario at all, in which I
give two examples of "I don't want you doing that" - one in which "doing"
is a participle and the other in which it's a gerund - and showed that they
have very different meanings. Why not?
> > > >> "I don't want his hanging around" is not even an option!
> > > >
> > > >Which ought to indicate that the real way the subject of a gerund
> > > >phrase is constructed in English is in the accusative, not the
> > > >possessive.
> > >
> > > No, it indicates that you have selected a verb that can be used in only a
> > > limited way.
> >
> > All right, suppose I choose a different verb: "I don't like you doing
> > that." In this case, why doesn't the same argument you used (and quoted)
> > for the infinitive hold?
>
> Because "like" is one of those words that can be followed by either a
> gerund or an infinitive!
So? I go on to apply your argument as follows:
> > In "She wants me to mow the lawn", you say that "me" is accusative
> > because it is the object of "wants" as well as the subject of "mow".
> > But what she wants isn't me - the true object of her desire is the
> > mowing.
>
> The true object of her desire may be the mowing, but the object of the
> verb in your sentence is "me"!
Suppose I accept that for the time being. Then I go on to say:
> > Why not, then, in "I don't like you doing that," say that even though
> > what I don't like is not you but the doing, "you" is the object of "like"?
That is: In "She wants me to mow the lawn," "you" is the object of "wants",
even though semantically, what she wants is the mowing. Then in "I don't
like you doing that," what's wrong with saying that "you" is the object of
"like", even though semantically, what I don't like is the deed. That is,
what's wrong with observing that a gerund and an infinitive can behave
similarly?
> Going by what Evans and Evans say above, it appears that "like" has
> changed in use over the last 75 years or so. It isn't uncommon for words
> to take on new meanings and new uses, especially if they are similar to
> other words that started out being used differently. English is nothing
> if not adaptable. In the sentence "I don't like you doing that," "you"
> *is* the object of "like" with respect to the structure of the sentence.
> The fact that your intended meaning is different is a matter of idiom, of
> semantics, not of structure.
Why is "you" the object of "like"? Why can't a nonfinite verb phrase be the
object of a verb. We can say "I don't like doing that," in which the object
of "like" is "doing that"; what's wrong with acknowledging that in "I don't
like you doing that," the object is "you doing that"?
> I am off work until Tuesday, so I am limited to the usage books I have
> here at home. All five of them say exactly the same thing about the
> subject of an infinitive. (Edward D. Johnson: "The reason that the
> subject of an infinitive is always in the objective case is that it is
> always also the object of a verb, as _him_ is the object of _call_ in [I
> told him to call me], or the object of a preposition, as in _For him to
> call was rare_, in which _him_ is the object of the preposition _for_ as
> well as the subject of _to call_.")
"Him" is not the object of "for". "For" is an expletive that simply shows
up when an infinitive with a subject is used as the subject of a sentence.
If "for him to call" is a prepositional phrase, what does it modify? A
prepositional phrase must be used adjectivally, adverbially, or as the
object of another preposition. Which of those is the case here?
> Could you please cite a few authoritative sources that state that this is no
> longer considered true, and how the objective case can be otherwise
> explained?
Donald W. Emery, _Sentence Analysis_ (1961, Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 62:
"Notice this sentence:
"They wanted us to go home.
"Since the verb 'wanted' is a transitive verb, one might at first glance
think that the direct object is the pronoun 'us'. More careful analysis,
however, shows that this interpretation is illogical. For one thing, 'us'
is obviously not the thing that is 'wanted'; furthermore, if 'us' is to be
called the direct object, no logical grammatical function can be found for
the infinitive phrase 'to go home'. Actually, the direct object in this
sentence is the infinitive, since the act of 'going' is the thing that is
wanted; and the 'us' is the subject of the infinitive. When an infinitive
has a subject, it will be a substantive which is the doer of the action of
the infinitive ('They wanted *us* to go home'), or the thing to be renamed
or described by the infinitive ('We consider *him* to be honest'). An
infinitive plus subject combination differs from a subject plus finite verb
in that (1) the combination does not make an actual statement and hence
cannot stand by itself, and (2) the subject of an infinitive, as the
pronouns in the examples show, is in the objective case."
No inquiry is made as to why it's in the objective case, but why should
there be? Why is an object in the objective case? Different cases are used
for different roles in a sentence, and all we can do is observe which is
which. Why is an entirely different question, and a matter for
etymologists, not grammarians.
> While I have these usage books out, here is what they have to say about
> the possessive with a gerund:
>
> Little, Brown: "A gerund is the _-ing_ form of the verb (_running,
> sleeping_) used as a noun. Like nouns, gerunds are commonly preceded
> by possessive nouns and pronouns: _our vote_ (noun), _our voting_ (gerund).
Not all that commonly, if you ask me.
> The coach disapproved of their lifting weights.
> The coach's disapproving was a surprise.
To me, this sentence is ungrammatical. It'd have to be either "The coach
disapproving was a surprise," or, preferably, "The coach's disapproval was
a surprise."
> A noun or pronoun before an _ing_ verb form is not always possessive.
> Sometimes the _-ing_ form will be a present participle modifying the
> preceding word:
>
> Everyone had noticed him weightlifting. [The emphasis is on _him_.]
> Everyone had noticed his weightlifting. [The emphasis is on the activity.]
These sentences have different meanings, not different emphasis. The first
means that they had actually seen him weightlifting - he was weightlifting
out in the middle of the street, for example. The second merely means that
they had noticed that he had been weightlifting - whether they saw him at
it or merely observed that he was spending a lot of time in the gym and
that his muscles were expanding.
> Note that a gerund usually is not preceded by the possessive when the
> possessive would create an awkward construction.
>
> Awkward: A rumor spread about everybody's on the team wanting to quit.
> Less awkward: A rumor spread about everybody on the team wanting to quit.
> Better: A rumor spread that everybody on the team wanted to quit."
If I were going to use the possessive here, it would be "...everybody on
the team's wanting to quit." _That_ is awkward. The example called
"awkward" above isn't awkward; it's ungrammatical.
> Random House: "The subject of a gerund is usually written in the
> possessive case:
>
> Biff didn't know why everyone laughed at his saying he would like to be
> an astronaut. . . .
I would call this ungrammatical. I read it and it looks like something no
native speaker would ever come up with.
> But the rule is hard to apply in many instances. For example, if the
> gerund's subject is separated from the gerund by other words, that
> subject goes in the objective case instead of the possessive:
>
> People were surprised at him, a veteran speaker on many campuses, having
> no ready reply when Stanley seized the microphone and called him an
> irrelevant murderer.
>
> Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
> can appear in a nonpossessive form:
>
> We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
All this again seems to indicate that the "real" case of the subject of a
gerund is accusative, and the use of the possessive is nothing but an
artificial imposition.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 18:51:13 -0400, P&DSchultz
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>Lars Eighner wrote:
>>
>> In our last episode <359A65...@erols.com>,
>> the lovely and talented P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
>> broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>> <j. lyle wrote:
>> <
>> <> ... thus "taking" is a do-cum-thing word.
>> <
>> <Exactly. Which is why putting "your" and not "you" in front of
>> <it cannot be logically defended as the only "grammatical" form.
>>
>> "Do you resent him?"
>> "I do not resent him. I resent his taking the last of the ice cream."
>>
>> If "his" is replaced with "him," how could anyone make
>> sense of this exchange?
>
>Maybe I don't understand your intention. It would be quite plain.
>What would be in the least obscure about it?
>//P. Schultz
>P.S. Are you a native speaker of English?
Lars Eighner used precisely the same formulation I
recommended to Neil Coffey at the start of this woeful business.
I told him to make a question of his "watching TV" example -- "I
resent him watching TV".
"Him?"
"No. His watching TV".
If you cannot see/hear/feel the difference you ought not to be
asking silly questions but rather curtailing your watching TV.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 3 Jul 1998 10:31:14 GMT, ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe)
wrote:
>In article <359badfb...@news.bctel.ca>,
> <a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
><j.lyle wrote>
>>>mix them in previous centuries. The journals of the eighteenth-century
>>>explorer James Cook are full of examples, such as _The trouble and
>>>vexation that attended the bringing these animals thus far is hardly to
>>>be conceived_, in which _bringing_ is modified by _the_, just as a noun
>>>would be, but has the direct object _these animals_, just as a verb or
>>>participle would have.
>>>
>>
>>Cook was a man of the people and a Yorkshireman to boot. I
>>wonder just how common this turn of phrase really was. For
>
>This type of phrase (The ----ing <direct object>) is common in the writing of
>Charlotte Yonge, who was neither "of the people" nor from Yorkshire.
>
>I think I have also seen it quite often in other early nineteenth-century
>writers, but can't give references.
>
>It hasn't much to do with the original point, but I don't think the association
>with class or with Yorkshire would be found to hold water.
>
>Katy
Well that's possibly true, but as far as Yonge is concerned she
is remembered as a novelist (unread by me) and novelists often
use idiom which is not their own, especially historical romance
novelists. If her tracts and such habitually dispense with the
"of" after the gerund I concede, though her language acquisition
was probably over by the time Victoria's uncle died, and
(hastened by the advance of literacy) that curiosity of idiom was
vanishing, even among the conservative 'people'. The point is
that omitting the "'of" after the gerund is not now (if it ever
was) 'standard' English.
As for Yorkshire, it is -- or was -- one of the great dialect
preserves: I have even heard that Yorkshire hill-farmers count
their sheep in a sort of Welch.
You are right, though; this whole digression has little to do
with the quoted grammarian's admirable dictum that the gerund is
owned by its subject. A gerund is a _verbal_ noun after all's
said and done, and (to quote that worthy again) "a usage that is
P&DSchultz
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
> ...
> Lars Eighner used precisely the same formulation I
> recommended to Neil Coffey at the start of this woeful business.
> I told him to make a question of his "watching TV" example -- "I
> resent him watching TV".
>
> "Him?"
>
> "No. His watching TV".
>
> If you cannot see/hear/feel the difference you ought not to be
> asking silly questions but rather curtailing your watching TV.
That really is an absurd assertion -- that if truncating a sentence
changes the meaning, then the sentence must be ungrammatical.
"I don't want him to come here if he brings his dog to pee on the rug."
"Oh, you don't want him to come here?"
"No, I meant IF he..."
Stopping a sentence in the middle does NOT show that the original
sentence was ungrammatical.
//P. Schultz
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I think you and Iskandar are onto something useful here. Names
> like "the no-way attitude" and "a thingey word" are probably what
> our traditional stodgy grammatical words sounded like to the original
> Greeks and Romans who made them up.
Well, let's see some of those Latin words:
"noun" - "nomen", 'name'
"verb" - "verbum", 'word'
"tense" - "tempus", 'time'
"case" - "casus", 'fall'
"indicative" - "indicativus", 'revealing'
"imperative" - "imperativus", 'commanding'
"perfect" - "perfectus", 'finished'
"object" - "obiectus", 'barrier'
"conjunction" - "coniunctio", 'joining'
"plural" - "pluralis", 'more'
Not bad, all in all, for the few it occurred to me to look up.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6nj5i4$j83$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> In article <6nj1r6$huv$1...@news.cudenver.edu>,
> Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
> >In article <6nj091$it6$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
> >
> >>Random House:
> >>
> >>Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
> >>can appear in a nonpossessive form:
> >>
> >>We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
> >
> >May it not also be the case that here the phrase is analyzed as a noun
> >(catastrophe) modified by a participial phrase (striking again)?
>
> Their point is that you can say either "the danger of catastrophe's
> striking again" or "the danger of catastrophe striking again" without a
> difference in meaning. The meaning of "We cannot ignore the danger of
> catastrophe striking again" if you analyze "striking" as a participle is a
> little bit different from the meaning when "striking" is a gerund. With
> the gerund it means something like "We cannot ignore the danger that
> catastrophe will strike again," whereas with the participle it means "We
> cannot ignore the danger of re-striking catastrophe." But the hearer or
> reader is not going to interpret this sentence in the latter way.
THEN THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS! The difference between "the danger of
catastrophe striking again" and "the danger of catastrophe's striking
again" is not meaning - they mean the same thing. It's that the latter is
ungrammatical. A native speaker is not likely to come up with a sentence
like that.
P&DSchultz
Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
> ...
> Donald W. Emery, _Sentence Analysis_ (1961, Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 62:
> "Notice this sentence:
> "They wanted us to go home.
> pronouns in the examples show, is in the objective case."
>
> No inquiry is made as to why it's in the objective case, but why should
> there be? Why is an object in the objective case? Different cases are used
Here is one explanation (not mine). The default case is the objective,
but a pronoun can be assigned nominative case -- TURNED INTO the
nominative. Nominative case is assigned to a pronoun by the finite
verb of which it is the subject. We say "I like cats," and not "Me
like cats," because the finite verb "like" (which is finite because
it has tense and possibly mood) TURNS IT INTO nominative; i.e., it
turns "me" into "I." From that, it would follow that subjects of
non-finite verbals like gerunds, participles, and infinitives could
not be in the nominative because there is nothing to make them INTO
nominative. That also explains why pronouns which have no verb at
all are in the objective case, such as in "Who wants to go? Me!"
and "What? Him, a doctor?!"
//P. Schultz
j. lyle
>jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
>
>But the fact that it takes "him" in ellipsis is irrelevant to whether it
>takes "him" in context. You cannot say that "him" in "Him operate on my
>daughter?" is accusative because it is the object of some elided verb,
>because removing the verb may change the case. Consider again "I will?"
>versus "Me?" above. "Me" isn't the object of the elided verb - it's the
>subject. But the process of ellipsis makes the pronoun accusative despite
>the role it plays in context. The fact that "him" appears in "Him operate
>on my daughter?" and the fact that it appears in "They let him operate on
>my daughter?" are unrelated.
Again, as I said, this is idiom. Many idioms are not regularly formed with
respect to the grammar of English. "Him operate on my daughter" is
informal and idiomatic; this kind of "him" or "them" or "us" expression is
a set expression of sorts, used in a set type of context. I highly doubt
you will find it in English of any level of formality. It doesn't really
matter what the implied verb is. And this construction really has nothing
at all to do with gerunds.
>What's "pretend" doing on two lists?
Good question! Obviously one of them was supposed to be something else.
>> You can't say "I want kissing you" or "I have decided kissing you," but
>> you *can* say "I like kissing you" or "I enjoy kissing you."
>
>But then again, you can say "I like him kissing you," "I enjoy him kissing
>you," and "I want him kissing you," but not *"I have decided him kissing
>you."
In all your examples, "kissing you" is a participle modifying "him," not a
gerund. A participle can be used anywhere any other adjective (including
phrases functioning adjectivally) is used. I want him dead. I want him
kissing you. I want him out of the house. I want him naked in my bed.
>> Whom does she want to mow the lawn? It's me she wants to mow the lawn. I
>> am the one she wants to mow the lawn.
>>
>> How can you say that "whom" and "me" and "the one" are not the objects of
>> "want"?
>
>"Whom does she want to mow the lawn?" is not the question to ask to find
>what the object of "want" is; that question finds the subject of "to mow".
>The question to ask if you want the object of "want" is (as we're all
>taught in seventh grade when they tell us what an object is) "What does she
>want?" The answer to that is not "me". It's "me mowing the lawn" - the
>whole phrase, not any part of it.
So you're saying that if you say to me, "I knew that Susan wanted someone
to mow the lawn, but I thought she was going to ask John. But now I hear
that she wants *me* to mow the lawn," that "She wants me to mow the lawn"
is different in its grammatical structure from the "She wants me to mow
the lawn" in "Susan says that I can't go out for a beer right now; she
wants me to mow the lawn"? The meaning is different, yes; the grammatical
structure, no. And in the first case, as I indicated in my previous post
by pointing out the different emphases this sentence can take, the
question would indeed be "Whom does she want to mow the lawn?"
>And the structure of the sentence is subject-verb-object. The subject is
>"she", the verb is "wants", and the object is "me to mow the lawn" - the
>whole phrase.
Yes, as I said the first time, the whole phrase is the object--"me" plus
its modifiers is the object. "To mow the lawn" is modifying "me." She
wants me. She wants me fat and happy. She wants me over her knee. She
wants me to mow the lawn.
>You didn't respond to my "Mission: Impossible" scenario at all, in which I
>give two examples of "I don't want you doing that" - one in which "doing"
>is a participle and the other in which it's a gerund - and showed that they
>have very different meanings. Why not?
Because it was more repetition of the constructions I consider object +
modifier. Again, the difference was simply one of emphasis. But I can't
remember your examples now, so I can't comment on them. I think it had
something to do with "I don't want *you* doing that" and "I don't want you
*doing* that." In both of those, I would consider "doing" to be a
participle.
Why are we using these examples in a discussion of "I appreciate your
taking the time," anyway? These are two different kinds of verbs--and with
"want," we are talking about a verb that belongs in a small group of verbs
that change meaning somewhat when a subject is added to a following
infinitive. Little, Brown cites only "ask," "expect," "need," "want," and
"would like" in this group; can you think of any others? Their example is
"He expected to watch/He expected his workers to watch." We would be doing
all the learners of our language on this newsgroup a big favor by talking
about a verb that isn't used in such specialized way.
>> > All right, suppose I choose a different verb: "I don't like you doing
>> > that." In this case, why doesn't the same argument you used (and quoted)
>> > for the infinitive hold?
>>
>> Because "like" is one of those words that can be followed by either a
>> gerund or an infinitive!
>
>So? I go on to apply your argument as follows:
>
>> > In "She wants me to mow the lawn", you say that "me" is accusative
>> > because it is the object of "wants" as well as the subject of "mow".
>> > But what she wants isn't me - the true object of her desire is the
>> > mowing.
>>
>> The true object of her desire may be the mowing, but the object of the
>> verb in your sentence is "me"!
>
>Suppose I accept that for the time being. Then I go on to say:
>
>> > Why not, then, in "I don't like you doing that," say that even though
>> > what I don't like is not you but the doing, "you" is the object of "like"?
>
>That is: In "She wants me to mow the lawn," "you" is the object of "wants",
>even though semantically, what she wants is the mowing. Then in "I don't
>like you doing that," what's wrong with saying that "you" is the object of
>"like", even though semantically, what I don't like is the deed. That is,
>what's wrong with observing that a gerund and an infinitive can behave
>similarly?
"You" *is* the object of "like"--and "doing that" modifies "you." If the
sentence were "I don't like your doing that," "doing" would be the
object, and "your" would modify it--the equivalent of any other
adjective. If you mean "doing" to be the object and simply choose to use
"you" as the modifier, the meaning is clear enough--but "you" is not the
usual form of the pronoun that is used to modify a noun.
>Why is "you" the object of "like"? Why can't a nonfinite verb phrase be the
>object of a verb. We can say "I don't like doing that," in which the object
>of "like" is "doing that"; what's wrong with acknowledging that in "I don't
>like you doing that," the object is "you doing that"?
"You doing that" *is* the object. "You" plus its modifiers is the object.
With anything other than a pronoun, you don't have to worry about a change
in case: "The man in the brown coat is ugly. I don't like the man in the
brown coat." "He in the brown coat is ugly. I don't like him in the brown
coat." "The man in the brown coat" and "him in the brown coat" form the
phrases that are the object of "like." But the pronoun changes in the
second one.
>> (Edward D. Johnson: "The reason that the
>> subject of an infinitive is always in the objective case is that it is
>> always also the object of a verb, as _him_ is the object of _call_ in [I
>> told him to call me], or the object of a preposition, as in _For him to
>> call was rare_, in which _him_ is the object of the preposition _for_ as
>> well as the subject of _to call_.")
>
>"Him" is not the object of "for". "For" is an expletive that simply shows
>up when an infinitive with a subject is used as the subject of a sentence.
>If "for him to call" is a prepositional phrase, what does it modify? A
>prepositional phrase must be used adjectivally, adverbially, or as the
>object of another preposition. Which of those is the case here?
Who says that a prepositional phrase can't function nominally? It doesn't
often, but it certainly can--as here, in Johnson's example, or in another
of his examples, "Before breakfast is the time for prayers in the
monastery." Another example might be "Across town is too far to walk in
this hot weather."
>> Could you please cite a few authoritative sources that state that this is no
>> longer considered true, and how the objective case can be otherwise
>> explained?
>
>Donald W. Emery, _Sentence Analysis_ (1961, Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 62:
OK, that's one!
>"Notice this sentence:
>
> "They wanted us to go home.
>
>"Since the verb 'wanted' is a transitive verb, one might at first glance
>think that the direct object is the pronoun 'us'. More careful analysis,
>however, shows that this interpretation is illogical. For one thing, 'us'
>is obviously not the thing that is 'wanted'; furthermore, if 'us' is to be
>called the direct object, no logical grammatical function can be found for
>the infinitive phrase 'to go home'.
Of course there can be. An infinitive phrase, like a prepositional
phrase, can function adjectivally or adverbially or nominally.
>Actually, the direct object in this
>sentence is the infinitive, since the act of 'going' is the thing that is
>wanted; and the 'us' is the subject of the infinitive. When an infinitive
>has a subject, it will be a substantive which is the doer of the action of
>the infinitive ('They wanted *us* to go home'), or the thing to be renamed
>or described by the infinitive ('We consider *him* to be honest').
They wanted us dead. We consider him stupid.
>An
>infinitive plus subject combination differs from a subject plus finite verb
>in that (1) the combination does not make an actual statement and hence
>cannot stand by itself, and (2) the subject of an infinitive, as the
>pronouns in the examples show, is in the objective case."
>
>No inquiry is made as to why it's in the objective case, but why should
>there be? Why is an object in the objective case? Different cases are used
>for different roles in a sentence, and all we can do is observe which is
>which. Why is an entirely different question, and a matter for
>etymologists, not grammarians.
This book appears to have been written by someone wanting to try to
explain the structure of modern English in terms only of modern English,
not in terms of its history. And that's fine up to a point, but it
simplifies things too much (and in my opinion leads to many of the losses
we are seeing--but such is life; that's how language works). Does he also
claim that the "to" before the infinitive is not a preposition? Does he
discuss how "want" differs from other verbs?
>> The coach disapproved of their lifting weights.
>> The coach's disapproving was a surprise.
>
>To me, this sentence is ungrammatical. It'd have to be either "The coach
>disapproving was a surprise," or, preferably, "The coach's disapproval was
>a surprise."
Not in my dialect! "The coach disapproving was a surprise" is the one that
sounds ungrammatical to me. "Disapproving" is a gerund, a noun, and it
takes the genitive just as any other noun does.
>> A noun or pronoun before an _ing_ verb form is not always possessive.
>> Sometimes the _-ing_ form will be a present participle modifying the
>> preceding word:
>>
>> Everyone had noticed him weightlifting. [The emphasis is on _him_.]
>> Everyone had noticed his weightlifting. [The emphasis is on the activity.]
>
>These sentences have different meanings, not different emphasis. The first
>means that they had actually seen him weightlifting - he was weightlifting
>out in the middle of the street, for example. The second merely means that
>they had noticed that he had been weightlifting - whether they saw him at
>it or merely observed that he was spending a lot of time in the gym and
>that his muscles were expanding.
Correct. And what happens to that difference if "his" disappears? The
difference disappears, too.
>> Biff didn't know why everyone laughed at his saying he would like to be
>> an astronaut. . . .
>
>I would call this ungrammatical. I read it and it looks like something no
>native speaker would ever come up with.
I'm a native speaker, and I come up with things like it every day--as do
my authors. Few of them fail to use the genitive with a gerund.
>All this again seems to indicate that the "real" case of the subject of a
>gerund is accusative, and the use of the possessive is nothing but an
>artificial imposition.
It doesn't indicate that at all. If the gerund is a verbal that functions
as a noun, why would you not treat it as a noun? The use of the accusative
is idiomatic, widely used, and in that sense "grammatical," but it is not
really explainable in terms of grammar, other than by saying "That's just
the way it is." English speakers tend to want to use the objective case
after a preposition or after a verb; I think it's as simple as that--added
to the fact that when we're speaking, we aren't thinking enough ahead to
always produce perfectly grammatical sentences.
Jane
Iskandar Baharuddin
j. lyle wrote:
>
>
> No, "want" in the sense of "desire" *cannot* take a gerund. If you look
> in any good usage book, you will find it in the list of such words.
>
I have heard the expression "The cow wants milking", but I would
class it as seriously colloquial.
Iskandar Baharuddin
P&DSchultz wrote:
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> >
> > P&DSchultz wrote:
> > >
> > > Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > P&DSchultz wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Nope, it can't be a "thing word" because it has a direct object
> > > > > ("the time"), which only a "do-word" can have. So that can't be
> > > > > right. So keep thinking.
> > > > > //P. Schultz
> > > >
> > > > Nope. There is no such thing as an "object".
> > > >
> > > > The thingie "taking" is the the name of the thing, and the thing
> > > > is a process, which points to another thingie, "time".
> > > >
> > > > Jeez, I am trying to make it simple, and you are trying to
> > > > rekomplikate it.
> > >
> > > Gosh, you're right. I'm sorry. Forget I said "Object." "Taking" is
> > > something that you do, so it's a "do-word," and "time" is something
> > > you do something to, so it's a "thing-word." And the thing that is
> > > doing what the do-word says is the thing-word "you." Did I say it
> > > right?
> > > //P. Schultz
> >
> > No! Pay attention!
> >
> > "Taking" is a thingie. A process is a thing, therfore the name
> > of the process is a thingie.
>
> I'm sticking to your logic here, but you're not getting it exactly.
> You're the one who wanted to simplify things by going with meaning
> dooey. "Process," since it is also something you do, is a dooey too.
> So are "hunting" and "tennis." "Time" and "you" have nothing to do
> with doing, so they're thingey words. So it HAS to be "you taking
> the time." And thank you for straightening this issue out in my mind.
> //P. Schultz
I'll give it one last try.
"Hunt" is a doeie. Do we agree on that? Are we OK so far?
Good!
Now, let's go hunting.
What is hunting? Is it not a process? Yes!
It is the name we give to the "thing" we do when we hunt.
You obviously suffer from the widespread tendency to equate
"product" with a material object, which why we keep hearing
about "goods and services". For example, Australia is an uproar
over the proposed "Goods and Services Tax", and people are
screaming "It's not fair to tax services!" (Forgetting that
there is a hidden 8% payroll tax already there, but this belongs
in aus.politics.)
Anyhow, a "product" can be either a good (a material thing) or
an evanescent service, can it not?
In the same way, a thingie can be the name of a process. A
process is just as much of a thing as a short plank, and if you
disagree with this I would be tempted to say you are as thick as
two of them.
Off on another, but relevant tangent, I see sprinkled - nay,
_heaped_ throughout this thread enormous confusion caused by the
labels!
"You can't use a gerund.." "If it's a participle...."
These are all words without referents! They are the result of
the fevered imaginings of Latinists, possibly after excessive
intake of port, who thought it was possible to codify the
workings of the English language by reference to a language
which died because people didn't see much point in speaking it.
English is very much alive, and a lot of people see lots of
reasons to speak it - and they are subjected to all this krap!
English has traveled a long way on the journey already completed
by Chinese.
There are no "cases" of the noun. To speak of "declensions" in
English is recognized as arrant nonsense. But how do you get
cases other than be declining a noun which, if it is English,
resolutely refuses to be declined!
Do we conjugate verbs? In English, "conjugate" has only one
useful meaning, and it has nothing to do with grammar.
English is just a collection of words, and the individual words
_do_ _not_ _change_. Yeah, we can stick an s on the end, and
make it plural. Well, I argue that "cat" is one word, and
"cats" is another. And "ox" and "oxen". And "sheep" and
"sheep", uh, never mind about that. They are not "forms" of the
same word. They are just words.
The problem is that there are so many homonyms.
If English were homonym-free, like Indonesian (well, there is
"tahu" and "tahu", but that's about it) it would be easier to
grasp the way the language really works.
But it is not homonym-free, and if it were it would be seriously
boring.
English meaning is determined by context, not grammar. English
style is determined by convention, not grammar.
Perhaps the line I am pursuing is being influenced by re-reading
(likie+thingie) Francis Krick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis".
He points out, at considerable length, the impossibility of
understanding how the human brain works by studying a neuron.
It is the interaction that is the mind.
You may argue all through the next millennium about individual
words, and never approach an understanding of the workings of
English.
Whenever I heard the word "gerund" I reach for my Uzzi.
The only way to understand how English really works is to....
Uh, I'll get back to you a little later.
David McMurray
Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> j. lyle wrote:
> > No, "want" in the sense of "desire" *cannot* take a gerund. If you look
> > in any good usage book, you will find it in the list of such words.
> I have heard the expression "The cow wants milking", but I would
> class it as seriously colloquial.
I don't think that is an example of "want" in the sense of "desire",
unless one is being seriously anthropomorphic.
"Want" in the sense of "need", on the other hand, is seriously idiomatic
and has been discussed here on a number of occasions [1].
[1] As has the distinction between "anthropomorphism" and
"anthropopathy".
--
David
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <359ecd6d...@news.bctel.ca>, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 22:30:48 -0500, adi...@commschool.org (Aaron
> J. Dinkin) wrote in answer to j.lyle's attmpt to clear up
> misconceptions about gerund usage:
>
>
>
>
>
> >jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> >> Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU>
> >> wrote:
> >> >jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
> >> >>Random House:
> >> >>Again, when the subject of a gerund is an abstract or inanimate noun, it
> >> >>can appear in a nonpossessive form:
> >> >>We cannot ignore the danger of catastrophe striking again."
> >> >
> >> >May it not also be the case that here the phrase is analyzed as a noun
> >> >(catastrophe) modified by a participial phrase (striking again)?
> >>
> >> Their point is that you can say either "the danger of catastrophe's
> >> striking again" or "the danger of catastrophe striking again" without a
> >> difference in meaning. The meaning of "We cannot ignore the danger of
> >> catastrophe striking again" if you analyze "striking" as a participle is a
> >> little bit different from the meaning when "striking" is a gerund. With
> >> the gerund it means something like "We cannot ignore the danger that
> >> catastrophe will strike again," whereas with the participle it means "We
> >> cannot ignore the danger of re-striking catastrophe." But the hearer or
> >> reader is not going to interpret this sentence in the latter way.
> >
> >THEN THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS! The difference between "the danger of
> >catastrophe striking again" and "the danger of catastrophe's striking
> >again" is not meaning - they mean the same thing. It's that the latter is
> >ungrammatical. A native speaker is not likely to come up with a sentence
> >like that.
>
> You are so right -- for Brighton Beach, where a cat ass trophy
> is an award for genetic engineering and "catastrophe's" is a lot
> of them.
I don't believe any native speaker is likely to come up with "...the danger
of catastrophe's striking again" without having to think about it, unless
it's a typo for "...catastrophes striking again". It sounds woefully
un-English.
(Where's Brighton Beach?)
> And, back to the mark, both constructions are _grammatically_
> correct with the possessive, but because the ownership of the
> gerund is an abstraction called "catastrophe" it is _permissable_
> to dispense with the genitive formation without altering meaning.
No, both constructions are _not_ grammatically correct. The genitive is not
what people who speak English use in such constructions.
> To put it simply, if it were (for fun) not "catastrophe" but
> "Clinton" the two constructions could mean very different things:
>
> Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton's striking.
> Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton striking.
>
> where Clinton either strikes or (in the participle construction)
> is struck. Try striking a catastrophe. Get it?
This is utter nonsense. Those two sentences are both grammatical (except
that "striking" really ought to have an object). The difference in meaning
is not what you interpret it to be, either, in quality or quantity; for
that, the second one would have to be either "striking Clinton" or
"Clinton-striking", which is pronounced differently than "Clinton
striking".
The actual difference in meaning between these two is that the first means
that Clinton's striking is certain: either he has already struck or he is
definitely going to; it means "Do not dismiss the danger caused by
Clinton's striking." The second, on the other hand, means essentially "Do
not dismiss the danger that Clinton may strike"; it's uncertain whether he
will, and the danger _is_ the striking, not _because_ of the striking.
The reason for this distinction is because the first is what Evans & Evans
would have called a gerund, while the second is a gerundive: The first
"striking" may as well be a noun; it can be modified my adjectives or
become plural but not take subjects or objects. The second, on the other
hand, retains its verbness, taking subjects, objects, and adverbs, not
adjectives. Add an object to "striking" in both sentences to see what I
mean:
Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton's striking of Monica.
Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton striking Monica.
You can do the same trick with modifiers - "Clinton's fierce striking"
versus "Clinton fiercely striking". One is a verbal noun, the other is a
verb phrase acting as a noun. You can't mix types, though, and have
adjectives and objects (*"fierce striking Monica") or adverbs and plurals
("fiercely strikings"). The fact that people do mix types, and say
"Clinton's striking Monica", can be attributed to the fact that they have
been told to rather than a rule of grammar which does not exist; in
extemporaneous speech people are still more likely to say "Clinton striking
Monica", "catastrophe striking suddenly", and so forth.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6nofae$opv$1...@news.cudenver.edu>, will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU wrote:
> In article <359D99...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>
> >Here is one explanation (not mine). The default case is the objective,
> >but a pronoun can be assigned nominative case -- TURNED INTO the
> >nominative. Nominative case is assigned to a pronoun by the finite
> >verb of which it is the subject.
>
> It might explain why children say--until it is firmly beaten out of them,
> (and in some cases it never is), "Me and John are going to play." Putting
> the pronoun into coordination seems to suppress the case-altering rule.
>
> This doesn't help with the pronoun so often becoming nominative when in
> coordination in an object position. Any thoughts on that?
Yes. I've always believed that this appears in people who _did_ have the
usage that you describe above beaten out of them, but didn't realize that
the beating-out was only supposed to apply when the coordination was in the
subject position. They just thought that whenever they would say "me and
John", what they were supposed to say was "John and I". An overcorrection.
Arian Hokin
Peter Moylan wrote:
> (I'll leave open the question of whether there is any
> such thing as an excellent bagpipe player.)
Eric Bogle, the Scottish-Australian folk musician and national treasure,
claims facetiously that "bagpipe players are not issued with entry visas
to Australia."
Arian Hokin
Chris Conner
I still don't buy this hypercorrection theory. As Evan
Kirshenbaum pointed out when I asked about it before, objective
coordinated "I", if I may call it that, goes back to the 17th century.
He cited MWDEU.
Can anyone give any support to the hypercorrection theory other
than "it sounds plausible"?
--
Chris Conner
Evan Kirshenbaum
cco...@u.washington.edu (Chris Conner) writes:
> I still don't buy this hypercorrection theory. As Evan
> Kirshenbaum pointed out when I asked about it before, objective
> coordinated "I", if I may call it that, goes back to the 17th
> century. He cited MWDEU. Can anyone give any support to the
> hypercorrection theory other than "it sounds plausible"?
Well, he also said
My justification for regarding it as a hypercorrection is that I
don't recall ever hearing the form from anybody below the age of
about twelve, while I hear coordinated accusative subjects from
very young children and I remember hearing such forms actively
corrected both by parents and by teachers. This leads me to
believe that it is a conscious reaction to being told "Don't say
'John and me', say 'John and I'", which is internalized in a
manner different from the one the corrector intended. Another
piece of evidence is that it seems to be relatively idiosyncratic,
in that it seems to be a characteristic of particular speakers
rather than particular speech communities. I, for one, am pretty
sure that it doesn't appear in my speech (and not because I
consciously try to avoid it), while I have heard it in, for
example, my sister's.
I certainly consider these stigmata of hypercorrections, or at least
learned forms. What sort of evidence are you looking for?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
j. lyle
In article <6nrleg$fd2$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
Chris Conner <cco...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
>Aaron J. Dinkin <adi...@commschool.org> wrote:
>
>>In article <6nofae$opv$1...@news.cudenver.edu>, will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU wrote:
>
>>> In article <359D99...@erols.com>, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>> This doesn't help with the pronoun so often becoming nominative when in
>>> coordination in an object position. Any thoughts on that?
>
>>Yes. I've always believed that this appears in people who _did_ have the
>>usage that you describe above beaten out of them, but didn't realize that
>>the beating-out was only supposed to apply when the coordination was in the
>>subject position. They just thought that whenever they would say "me and
>>John", what they were supposed to say was "John and I". An overcorrection.
>
>Kirshenbaum pointed out when I asked about it before, objective
>coordinated "I", if I may call it that, goes back to the 17th century.
>He cited MWDEU.
Here is some of what the OED says. There has to be more to it than
hypercorrection--although I don't doubt that that is a major influence on
some kids. Others, I'm sure, simply continue to speak as their parents do.
I
2. Sometimes used for the objective after a verb or preposition, esp. when
separated from the governing word by other words.
This was very frequent in end of 16th and in 17th c., but is now
considered ungrammatical.
1596 Shaks. Merch. V. iii. ii. 321 All debts are cleerd betweene you
and I.
1600 Shaks. A.Y.L. i. ii. 18 My father hath no childe but I.
C. 1600 Shaks. Sonn. lxxii, And hang more praise upon deceased I.
1598 B. Jonson Ev. Man in Hum. v. iii, Brayne-worme ha's beene with
my cossen Edward and I, all this day.
1649 Nicholas Papers (Camden) 136 To give you and I a right
understanding of those particulars.
1698 Vanbrugh Prov. Wife v. ii, It must all light upon Heartfree
and I.
1698 Vanbrugh Prov. Wife, v. ii, Between you and I.
1710 Mrs. Centlivre Bickerstaff's Burying 14 Leave your Lady and I
alone.
1744 J. Steuart Letter-Bk. (1915) 449 The postscript to your
letter..gave my wife and I unexpressable joy.
1857 Hughes Tom Brown i. iii, Let you and I cry quits.
1866 Harper's Mag. Jan. 162/2, I have heard him..make a bet that
`between you and I' is correct, and refuse to be convinced of his error.
bren...@highway1.com.au
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
>
> I think that's true to some extent. But more of the confusion, I think, is
> that people just don't understand how these verbals work. An _-ing_ word
> can be of four different types, and the specific type being used in a
> particular instance has to be discerned from the context.
>
Jane, as always, you strike to the heart of the matter.
Grammar is not now, nor has it ever been, the main issue.
I would argue that there are not four forms of the same word - just four
homonyms with slightly different referents.
And _which_ homonym it is is discernible only from context.
Now, having worked out which homonym it is from context, deciding what other
word goes nicely with it is a lot easier.
Context first, then grammar can come along to tidy up.
Posting this from DejaNews because my ISP's server is _still_ broke. Three
days now.
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
j. lyle
>> correct with the possessive, but because the ownership of the
>> gerund is an abstraction called "catastrophe" it is _permissable_
>> to dispense with the genitive formation without altering meaning.
>
>No, both constructions are _not_ grammatically correct. The genitive is not
>what people who speak English use in such constructions.
Some examples I gathered over the weekend of "people who speak English"
who use the genitive in "such constructions."
My youngest sister (not an editor, not an English major--your typical
corporate executive type), upon hearing that another sister and her family
were heading right into some nasty storms: "I'm a little bit nervous about
their having to drive through those."
A woman who needed a ride to a gathering we both were attending (not an
editor, not an English major--an assistant in a biology lab): "I sure
appreciate your coming all the way out here to get me."
Two examples from my latest manuscript (by a professor of religion):
"Wilkerson's disinterest in the cultures of the young people he has come
to save is evident in his persistently calling dark-skinned Puerto Ricans
'Negroes.'"
"An ill-conceived plan to demolish the elevated train station at 163rd
Street following a botched robbery attempt that ended in the would-be
robbers' setting fire to the eighty-year-old wooden structure was
abandoned after strong protest on the part of the community and local
merchants."
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>Well, he also said
>
> My justification for regarding it as a hypercorrection is that I
> don't recall ever hearing the form from anybody below the age of
> about twelve, while I hear coordinated accusative subjects from
> very young children and I remember hearing such forms actively
> corrected both by parents and by teachers.
I think it would be powerful evidence against the hypercorrection theory if we
could produce speakers who use accusative forms for subjects in coordination
and nominative forms for objects in coordination. I kind of doubt we would
find them, though.
Gary Williams
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
>Aaron J. Dinkin <adi...@commschool.org> wrote:
>>No, both constructions are _not_ grammatically correct. The genitive is not
>>what people who speak English use in such constructions.
>
>Some examples I gathered over the weekend of "people who speak English"
>who use the genitive in "such constructions."
<examples snipped>
I agree that many, many people continue to use the genitive in these
constructions, so it must at a minimum be acceptable, if not required.
But I did think of a counter-example while in the shower this morning.
Would anyone say, "I am counting on this's happening"?
If not, is the reason because the phrase is different in structure from
"I am counting on his being here", or is it just the clumsiness of the
pronunciation of "this's"?
Gary Williams
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I think it would be powerful evidence against the hypercorrection
> theory if we could produce speakers who use accusative forms for
> subjects in coordination and nominative forms for objects in
> coordination. I kind of doubt we would find them, though.
Actually, I know several. Bear in mind, though, that the substitution
in either case is more statistical than hard-and-fast. Why would this
be "powerful evidence against the hypercorrection theory"? Many
hypercorrections have a distribution that sometimes corrects
correctly, sometimes fails to correct, and sometimes overcorrects.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
P&DSchultz
>
> In article <6nj5i4$j83$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> >
>
> > I think that's true to some extent. But more of the confusion, I think, is
> > that people just don't understand how these verbals work. An _-ing_ word
> > can be of four different types, and the specific type being used in a
> > particular instance has to be discerned from the context.
> >
> Jane, as always, you strike to the heart of the matter.
>
> Grammar is not now, nor has it ever been, the main issue.
>
> I would argue that there are not four forms of the same word - just four
> homonyms with slightly different referents.
>
> And _which_ homonym it is is discernible only from context.
>
> Now, having worked out which homonym it is from context, deciding what other
> word goes nicely with it is a lot easier.
>
> Context first, then grammar can come along to tidy up.
I agree with what Jane said here too, but grammar certainly IS
at the heart of the matter. "Discerning which homonym it is" is
another way of saying "applying grammar rules." Grammar is not
just cases and endings; it is the assigning of a function to a
word or phrase by relating it grammatically with other words and
phrases. There is no context without grammar.
//P. Schultz
bren...@highway1.com.au
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> Aaron J. Dinkin <adi...@commschool.org> wrote:
> >
> >> correct with the possessive, but because the ownership of the
> >> gerund is an abstraction called "catastrophe" it is _permissable_
> >> to dispense with the genitive formation without altering meaning.
> >
> >No, both constructions are _not_ grammatically correct. The genitive is not
> >what people who speak English use in such constructions.
>
> who use the genitive in "such constructions."
>
Attagirl, Jane!
But is it not wearying, your ongoing struggle to encourage their
perception of the obvious?
Salaam
j. lyle
>constructions, so it must at a minimum be acceptable, if not required.
>
>But I did think of a counter-example while in the shower this morning.
>Would anyone say, "I am counting on this's happening"?
>
>If not, is the reason because the phrase is different in structure from
>"I am counting on his being here", or is it just the clumsiness of the
>pronunciation of "this's"?
I would say that both are true. Demonstrative pronouns don't have a
possessive form. Can you think of an example in which we would ever make
"this" or "that" possessive in English?
Chris Conner
>> Kirshenbaum pointed out when I asked about it before, objective
>> coordinated "I", if I may call it that, goes back to the 17th
>> hypercorrection theory other than "it sounds plausible"?
>
>Well, he also said
[what he said; what I snipped]
>I certainly consider these stigmata of hypercorrections, or at least
>learned forms. What sort of evidence are you looking for?
Well, how's this: the hypercorrection theory seems to be in
conflict with the centuries of examples that have been posted. I'm
looking for an explanation of the hypercorrection theory that takes this
into account. If it also explained why so many other potential
hypercorrections _don't_ occur, so much the better.
--
Chris Conner
j. lyle
David McMurray <ik0...@kingston.net> wrote:
>j. lyle <jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> I would say that both are true. Demonstrative pronouns don't have a
>> possessive form. Can you think of an example in which we would ever make
>> "this" or "that" possessive in English?
>
>
>No cigar?
Close!
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>In article <6nte68$e95$8...@news.cudenver.edu>,
>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>>Would anyone say, "I am counting on this's happening"?
>>
>>If not, is the reason because the phrase is different in structure from
>>"I am counting on his being here", or is it just the clumsiness of the
>>pronunciation of "this's"?
>
>I would say that both are true. Demonstrative pronouns don't have a
>possessive form. Can you think of an example in which we would ever make
>"this" or "that" possessive in English?
I think you are right; I believe we would generally turn the demonstrative
pronoun into a demonstrative adjective and say "this one's...". However, we
can't do that when the referent of the pronoun is an abstraction. Does that
leave us with a concept that it is not possible to express in grammatical
English? Does it mean that the genitive of "this" is "this"? Does it mean
that we can extrapolate from the use of the accusative in the construction "I
am counting on this happening" to allow the accusative in similar
constructions, such as "I am counting on him/his being here"?
Or does it just mean that extreme cases make bad law?
Gary Williams
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
cco...@u.washington.edu (Chris Conner) writes:
> Well, how's this: the hypercorrection theory seems to be in
>conflict with the centuries of examples that have been posted.
But do we _know_ that little Willie Shakespeare did not have his mouth washed
out with soap every time he said, "Me and Yorie are going down to the
cemetery to play."
Gary
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
>There is no context without grammar.
But it also appears that at times context is a part of the grammar.
Gary Williams
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>Attagirl, Jane!
>
>But is it not wearying, your ongoing struggle to encourage their
>perception of the obvious?
>
>Salaam
>
>Izzy
I am reminded of the admiral of the sea-dyaks whose expedition
produced a single dove.
The pantun ends: "ada-kah lembu memakan daging?" and I always
took it to mean that the instinct for exploration does not demand
or guarantee consumption. But Malays can be more scornful I
know.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Accounting) writes:
I think we can be pretty sure of that. I don't recall when the
"correction" fad started, but I think it was at least decades later.
In any case, the hypothesis isn't inconsistent with the data. It's
certainly possible (although Occam argues against it) that the form
was common, became less so, and then became more so for a different
reason. This is not the least hypothesis, but I'm uncomfortable with
assuming a continuum given that the form is so idiolectical and
doesn't seem to occur very often in pre-school-age children.
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing if this was the case in
Shakespeare's day.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |support of government. Truth can
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Skitt
j. lyle wrote in message <6nt9dd$a3v$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>Some examples I gathered over the weekend of "people who speak
English"
>who use the genitive in "such constructions."
>
>My youngest sister (not an editor, not an English major--your typical
>corporate executive type), upon hearing that another sister and her
family
>were heading right into some nasty storms: "I'm a little bit nervous
about
>their having to drive through those."
>
>A woman who needed a ride to a gathering we both were attending (not
an
>editor, not an English major--an assistant in a biology lab): "I sure
>appreciate your coming all the way out here to get me."
>
>Two examples from my latest manuscript (by a professor of religion):
>
>"Wilkerson's disinterest in the cultures of the young people he has
come
>to save is evident in his persistently calling dark-skinned Puerto
Ricans
>'Negroes.'"
>
>"An ill-conceived plan to demolish the elevated train station at
163rd
>Street following a botched robbery attempt that ended in the would-be
>robbers' setting fire to the eighty-year-old wooden structure was
>abandoned after strong protest on the part of the community and local
>merchants."
You is my woman now, Jane! <g>
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Merritt Island, FL USA
bren...@highway1.com.au
I am hardly in a position to complain about a person's wandering off-topic,
but do you not agree that carnivorism is not merely off-topic, but
mystifyingly irrelevant?
But I concede that pantun-pantun tend to be pregnant with meaning.
Can take nine months to figure the damn' things out.
Apa lagi bagi orang bule!
Salaam
Izzy
(my $^^$&^^&#* news server is still broke)
bren...@highway1.com.au
will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU wrote:
> In article <6nuevh$qng$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
> >In article <6nte68$e95$8...@news.cudenver.edu>,
> >>
> >>If not, is the reason because the phrase is different in structure from
> >>"I am counting on his being here", or is it just the clumsiness of the
> >>pronunciation of "this's"?
> >
> >I would say that both are true. Demonstrative pronouns don't have a
> >possessive form. Can you think of an example in which we would ever make
> >"this" or "that" possessive in English?
>
> I think you are right; I believe we would generally turn the demonstrative
> pronoun into a demonstrative adjective and say "this one's...". However, we
> can't do that when the referent of the pronoun is an abstraction. Does that
> leave us with a concept that it is not possible to express in grammatical
> English? Does it mean that the genitive of "this" is "this"? Does it mean
> that we can extrapolate from the use of the accusative in the construction "I
> am counting on this happening" to allow the accusative in similar
> constructions, such as "I am counting on him/his being here"?
>
> Or does it just mean that extreme cases make bad law?
>
> Gary Williams
>
This one's reasoning escapes me.
Perhaps Jane can explain.
Salaam
Izzy
Skitt
<6o00a7>But do we _know_ that little Willie Shakespeare did not have
his mouth washed
>out with soap every time he said, "Me and Yorie are going down to the
>cemetery to play."
Oh yes, many a grievous affront to English has been perpetrated under
the umbrella of poetic license. In most cases, the artist was not a
scholar of English. By gosh, an artist is somewhat apart from the
norm, isnt he? [No comments on the "he", please.] It is being done to
this day in many works, written by those who *believe* they are
writing the proper thing and others, who have to bend the rules to
make it rhyme.
Skitt
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote in message
>Does it mean that the genitive of "this" is "this"?
Pondering what a possible use of a genitive for "this" might be
besides when one wants to refer to one of the letters in "this". Come
to think of it, I just more or less did that -- no genitive!
bren...@highway1.com.au
adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) wrote:
>
snip
>
> No, both constructions are _not_ grammatically correct. The genitive is not
> what people who speak English use in such constructions.
>
> > "Clinton" the two constructions could mean very different things:
> >
> > Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton's striking.
> > Do not dismiss the danger of Clinton striking.
> >
> > where Clinton either strikes or (in the participle construction)
> > is struck. Try striking a catastrophe. Get it?
>
> This is utter nonsense. Those two sentences are both grammatical (except
> that "striking" really ought to have an object). The difference in meaning
> is not what you interpret it to be, either, in quality or quantity; for
> that, the second one would have to be either "striking Clinton" or
> "Clinton-striking", which is pronounced differently than "Clinton
> striking".
>
snip
If persistence is a virtue....
I am utterly mystified by your assertion that '"striking" really ought to have
an object'.
Surely this depends upon which member of the triplet one is using.
- the do-word "striking", as in "I saw him striking Monica", wherein Monica
is the recipient of the action referred to by the do-word.
- the thing-word "striking", as in "Clinton failed to consider the
implications of his striking [of] Monica", wherein Monica is the recipient of
the output of the process referred to by the thing-word.
- the like-word "striking", as in "For all her faults, Monica is a striking
bird", wherein Monica is the owner of the attribute referred to by the
like-word.
It is, of course, very easy to construct phrases which ring false. Like the
catastrophe business.
"Catastrophe's" rings false. Why? Because "catastrophe" is a strong
attractor, and semantic dissonance results from the attempt to shift the
emphasis to its striking.
C'mon, Aaron. Isn't it about time to give up, and live to fight another day?
Peter Moylan
>"Wilkerson's disinterest in the cultures of the young people he has come
>to save is evident in his persistently calling dark-skinned Puerto Ricans
>'Negroes.'"
Now there's an interesting challenge for Neil. Is there _any_
native speaker of English who would use "him" rather than "his"
in that sentence? I find it hard to imagine.
I suppose you could claim that the people who prefer "him" over
"his" would never construct so long a sentence; but that, to
my mind, is a cop-out.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Aaron J. Dinkin
pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au wrote:
> j. lyle <jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >"Wilkerson's disinterest in the cultures of the young people he has come
> >to save is evident in his persistently calling dark-skinned Puerto Ricans
> >'Negroes.'"
>
> Now there's an interesting challenge for Neil. Is there _any_
> native speaker of English who would use "him" rather than "his"
> in that sentence? I find it hard to imagine.
I'd probably have said "...in the way he persistently calls". I might also
use "his persistent calling of", though that might run into a bit of
trouble further down. "His persistently calling" still sounds off to me.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) wrote:
>
> > This is utter nonsense. Those two sentences are both grammatical (except
> > that "striking" really ought to have an object). The difference in meaning
> > is not what you interpret it to be, either, in quality or quantity; for
> > that, the second one would have to be either "striking Clinton" or
> > "Clinton-striking", which is pronounced differently than "Clinton
> > striking".
> >
> snip
>
> If persistence is a virtue....
>
> I am utterly mystified by your assertion that '"striking" really ought to
> have an object'.
Simple. The sentence "Clinton will strike" or "Clinton struck" or "Clinton
may strike" is ungrammatical. "Strike" in that context is transitive, and
must have an object: what does he strike? "...Clinton striking" or
"...Clinton's striking" is a rearrangement of that sentence into a gerund
phrase; "strike" still needs an object.
j. lyle
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>In article <6nuevh$qng$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>>In article <6nte68$e95$8...@news.cudenver.edu>,
>>Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.AHEC.EDU> wrote:
>
>>>Would anyone say, "I am counting on this's happening"?
>>>
>>>If not, is the reason because the phrase is different in structure from
>>>"I am counting on his being here", or is it just the clumsiness of the
>>>pronunciation of "this's"?
>>
>>I would say that both are true. Demonstrative pronouns don't have a
>>possessive form. Can you think of an example in which we would ever make
>>"this" or "that" possessive in English?
>
>I think you are right; I believe we would generally turn the demonstrative
>pronoun into a demonstrative adjective and say "this one's...". However, we
>can't do that when the referent of the pronoun is an abstraction. Does that
>leave us with a concept that it is not possible to express in grammatical
I've been thinking about this one, and I'm not sure *what* it means. But
here are some random thoughts.
I can't recall ever being taught that "this" and "that" and "these" and
"those" could not be made possessive. Nor can I recall ever hearing a
young child try to make them possessive. But I guess that's because of the
way these words are used. When we say "Give me that" or "I want this," we
are talking about something very specific, so logically that wouldn't
extend to something one step away, something belonging to this/that
specific thing that we're singling out. Thus a possessive "this's" or
"that's" would not come naturally to us--even for the purest purist, it
would be much more awkward than not using the genitive before the gerund.
There really *is* no genitive of "this," other than the partitive genitive
("Give me some of this"), and the kind of "of this" we might use if, say,
we overheard some interesting music somewhere and asked "What's the name
of this?"
Also, I think that "I am counting on this happening" would be heard in
only the most casual English. In something more formal, we would word this
statement differently. (For one thing, a demonstrative pronoun with no
clear referent is much less frequent in formal than in informal writing.
Thus it normally *would* be a demonstrative adjective rather than
pronoun.) This particular example would need restructuring (although I
guess you could say "I am counting on the fact that this will happen" or
"I am counting on having this happen"), but something such as "I am
betting on his getting there by eight o'clock" would, with "this," more
likely be written not as "I am betting on this getting there by eight
o'clock" but as "I am betting that this will get there by eight o'clock"
or even "I am betting on their/his/your getting this there by eight
o'clock."
As I said, just some random thoughts, going nowhere. I think it's the
first time I've ever stopped to think about the fact that we seem to so
carefully avoid situations where a demonstrative would need a genitive
form. Even a very young child, I think, would follow up "What's that?"
"That's an armadillo" with "What's its/his name?" rather than "What's
that's name?" Perhaps one of the linguists can explain to us why that is.
Jane
Skitt
Aaron J. Dinkin wrote in message ...
>Simple. The sentence "Clinton will strike" or "Clinton struck" or
"Clinton
>may strike" is ungrammatical. "Strike" in that context is transitive,
and
>must have an object: what does he strike? "...Clinton striking" or
>"...Clinton's striking" is a rearrangement of that sentence into a
gerund
>phrase; "strike" still needs an object.
I must confess that I have not followed the thread, but looking at
what is offered in the post that remains [extreme snipping of relevant
parts must have occurred to the extent that the post is
unintelligible], I must say: "Huh"?
None of the sentence[s] shown above are "ungrammatical". I think, the
above post has lost its reference because of indiscriminate snipping.
So be it.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
J. Dinkin) wrote:
>> I am utterly mystified by your assertion that '"striking" really ought to
>> have an object'.
>
>Simple. The sentence "Clinton will strike" or "Clinton struck" or "Clinton
>may strike" is ungrammatical. "Strike" in that context is transitive, and
>must have an object: what does he strike? "...Clinton striking" or
>"...Clinton's striking" is a rearrangement of that sentence into a gerund
>phrase; "strike" still needs an object.
>
I am not mystified but I am _very_ amused.
If I wrote:
"You see great fault in Clinton bashing"
it would mean something very different from
"You see great fault in Clinton's bashing".
I suspect the first is true for you, the second not.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
J. Dinkin) wrote:
[ ]
>
>(Where's Brighton Beach?)
>
New York or New Jersey: but that's not the point. It's a refugee
mecca immortalised by Harvey Keitel.
[ ]
For the rest, what can I say? Save that my time is even more
limited than my patience.
Keith Willis
>Oh yes, many a grievous affront to English has been perpetrated under
>the umbrella of poetic license. In most cases, the artist was not a
>scholar of English. By gosh, an artist is somewhat apart from the
>norm, isnt he? [No comments on the "he", please.] It is being done to
>this day in many works, written by those who *believe* they are
>writing the proper thing and others, who have to bend the rules to
>make it rhyme.
Sometimes for effect, more than for the rhyme. My favourite
Shakespeare mixed metaphor in this snippet from the famous Hamlet
soliloquy:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? ...."
Any fule kno that you can't take arms against a sea of anything. One
might possibly take arms against a _host_ of troubles. So was this
simply a poor choice of words, or was this metaphor carefully chosen
to imply the canute-like futility of fighting the sea?
--
The above message reflects my own views, not those of Hewlett Packard.
When emailing me, please remove the upper-case stuff from my address.
William Lieblich
>
> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 16:58:02 -0500, adi...@commschool.org (Aaron
> J. Dinkin) wrote:
> [ ]
> >
> >(Where's Brighton Beach?)
> >
> New York or New Jersey: but that's not the point. It's a refugee
> mecca immortalised by Harvey Keitel.
[snip]
This cultural reference is just so much smoke.
Bill Lieblich
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I am not mystified but I am _very_ amused.
>
> If I wrote:
>
> "You see great fault in Clinton bashing"
>
> it would mean something very different from
>
> "You see great fault in Clinton's bashing".
>
> I suspect the first is true for you, the second not.
Both are ungrammatical for me: "bashing" _definitely_ needs an object.
If you meant "Clinton-bashing", you should have said so. It's pronounced
differently than "Clinton bashing".
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) writes:
>There really *is* no genitive of "this," other than the partitive genitive
>("Give me some of this"), and the kind of "of this" we might use if, say,
>we overheard some interesting music somewhere and asked "What's the name
>of this?"
I agree; and, like you, I wonder _why_ we would not say, "What is that's name?"
Does this mean that "the governor of California" differs from "California's
governor." And how does the double genitive ("that book of John's") come into
play? Will the linguists help?
I promise to listen more respectfully this time.
Gary Williams
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Hump to hemp you think?
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
keith_...@non-hp-unitedkingdom-om1.om.hp.JUNKFREE.com (Keith
Willis) wrote:
>Any fule kno that you can't take arms against a sea of anything.
Canut Keith.