I am fine with you doing your work later after your back heals.
Jong-Hoon Kim
Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
(a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
(b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as well?
Thank you.
the Omrud
They are both correct, but they use different grammatical components.
In a), "doing" is a verb. In b), "doing" is a gerund - a verbal
participle acting as a noun. When you use a gerund, the noun or pronoun
before it is in the possessive form, as you have written.
b) is the less common form. If it bothers you, stick with a) which is
perfectly OK.
--
David
Don Phillipson
news:e6f79f05-f051-4993...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
1. In phrases like this, English speakers use YOU and YOUR
almost indiscriminately. Neither breaks any rule of grammar.
2. The main problem here is I AM FINE WITH which is
colloquial and non-literary (probably derived from US teenage
slang, originally used with only a noun as the predicate -- not
a subordinate clause.) Standard English puts the sentence in the
negative by using I DO NOT MIND. . . . More formally, you
could write I APPROVE . . . .
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
James Silverton
>> Dear English teachers:
>>
>> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>>
>> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>>
>> If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as
>> well?
> 1. In phrases like this, English speakers use YOU and YOUR
> almost indiscriminately. Neither breaks any rule of grammar.
> 2. The main problem here is I AM FINE WITH which is
> colloquial and non-literary (probably derived from US teenage
> slang, originally used with only a noun as the predicate --
> not a subordinate clause.) Standard English puts the sentence
> in the negative by using I DO NOT MIND. . . . More formally,
> you could write I APPROVE . . . .
Isn't "I'm good" more usual then "I'm fine"?
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
aquachimp
> Dear English teachers:
Err, OK, so I'm not actually one of those.
>
> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>
> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
I would go for (a) though in practice I would have expressed it
differently.
Perhaps;
1) If you get that work done after you recover, that will be fine by
me
2) I'm OK with you doing that work after ° you recover / ° your back
heals
In both examples "later" is already implied. So with your own examples
you could also say:
a) I'm fine with you doing your work after your back heals
>
> If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as well?
I'm unsure what you are asking there perhaps:
I am fine with him doing your work later ...
I am fine with him doing his work later after his back heals.
>
> Thank you.
James Silverton
>> Isn't "I'm good" more usual then "I'm fine"?
> Not in BrE. I think that in both BrE and AmE I'd expect to see
> either usage on its own, rather than "I'm fine with X" or "I'm
> good with X".
I think you may well be correct. It is only within the last year or two
that I've become used to hearing "I'm good" from adults. Both my son and
son-in-law use it.
Stan Brown
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com>:
(b) used to be the only correct form, but I think it's a lost cause
now.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
<not.jim....@verizon.net>:
> I think you may well be correct. It is only within the last year or
> two that I've become used to hearing "I'm good" from adults. Both
> my son and son-in-law use it.
I find it extremely grating when used as a substitute for "No, thank
you."
Ian Jackson
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes
>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:46:06 GMT from the Omrud
><usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com>:
>>
>> Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
>> > Dear English teachers:
>> >
>> > Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>> >
>> > (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>> > (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>> >
>> > If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as well?
>>
>> They are both correct, but they use different grammatical components.
>> In a), "doing" is a verb. In b), "doing" is a gerund - a verbal
>> participle acting as a noun. When you use a gerund, the noun or pronoun
>> before it is in the possessive form, as you have written.
>>
>> b) is the less common form. If it bothers you, stick with a) which is
>> perfectly OK.
>
>(b) used to be the only correct form, but I think it's a lost cause
>now.
>
it would benefit from a comma after "you"?
--
Ian
Mark Brader
>>>> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>>>> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
Ian Jackson writes:
> Hardened purists might concede that (a) is acceptably correct, but maybe
> it would benefit from a comma after "you"?
That produces the wrong parse.
--
Mark Brader | "... There are three kinds of death in this world.
Toronto | There's heart death, there's brain death, and
m...@vex.net | there's being off the network." -- Guy Almes
Eric Walker
> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>
> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
"Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun; it
thus requires the genitive case, "your".
You will no doubt find numerous apologists for "anything goes" English
who will tell you that (a) is satisfactory; to them it is, to people who
take their language seriously, it is not.
> If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as well?
It needs to be "his". If you believe in grammar, that is.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
James Hogg
>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:37:36 -0700, Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
>
>> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>>
>> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>
>"Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun; it
>thus requires the genitive case, "your".
>
>You will no doubt find numerous apologists for "anything goes" English
>who will tell you that (a) is satisfactory; to them it is, to people who
>take their language seriously, it is not.
People who take their language that seriously would probably
object to the stylistic infidelity of combining the formal and
correct "your" with the informal and horrible "I am fine with"
and would recommend something like:
"I have no objection to your doing your work later."
--
James
Eric Walker
[...]
> People who take their language that seriously would probably object to
> the stylistic infidelity of combining the formal and correct "your" with
> the informal and horrible "I am fine with" and would recommend something
> like:
>
> "I have no objection to your doing your work later."
The question was about "correct" usage, not optimally felicitous usage;
clearly the point of the inquiry was the case of the pronoun. Virtually
any sample sentence submitted to the forum can be improved stylistically.
Guy Barry
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:h9pikv$h1a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:37:36 -0700, Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
>
> > Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
> >
> > (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
> > (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>
> "Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun; it
> thus requires the genitive case, "your".
The problem with the above analysis is that it becomes impossible to express
sentiments such as "there is no possibility of that happening", because
there is no possessive form of "that". Also if the agent is a lengthy noun
phrase then the resulting construction is rather awkward: "I have no
objection to the chairman of the board's attending the committee" is
arguably less clear than "... the chairman of the board attending the
committee".
(a) is one of those classic constructions that are condemned by prescriptive
grammarians but are too convenient in practice to avoid. Fowler called it
"the fused participle": I don't know what technical term is used now. My
own preference is to use (b) when the agent is a personal pronoun and
otherwise to use (a).
--
Guy Barry
Stan Brown
<em...@owlcroft.com>:
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:37:36 -0700, Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
>
> > Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
> >
> > (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
> > (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>
> "Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun; it
> thus requires the genitive case, "your".
It happens I agree with you, but IMHO that ship has sailed.
As others have pointed out, when the sentence begins with "I am fine
with", it's kind of beside the point worrying whether "doing" is a
gerund or a fused participle.
Jeffrey Turner
> Don wrote on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:48:11 -0400:
>
>>> Dear English teachers:
>>>
>>> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>>>
>>> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>>> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>>>
>>> If (a) is correct, then is "him" correct rather than "his" as
>>> well?
>
>> 1. In phrases like this, English speakers use YOU and YOUR
>> almost indiscriminately. Neither breaks any rule of grammar.
>> 2. The main problem here is I AM FINE WITH which is
>> colloquial and non-literary (probably derived from US teenage
>> slang, originally used with only a noun as the predicate --
>> not a subordinate clause.) Standard English puts the sentence
>> in the negative by using I DO NOT MIND. . . . More formally, you
>> could write I APPROVE . . . .
>
> Isn't "I'm good" more usual then "I'm fine"?
I'm down with that.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
> news:h9pikv$h1a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:37:36 -0700, Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
> >
> > > Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
> > >
> > > (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
> > > (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
> >
> > "Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun; it
> > thus requires the genitive case, "your".
>
> The problem with the above analysis is that it becomes impossible to express
> sentiments such as "there is no possibility of that happening", because
> there is no possessive form of "that".
How about "There is no possibility that that will happen"? Or is
write-around not permitted in this exercise?
I do confess that with longer, more detailed constructions of this
sort the write-around can be quite a task.
For a defense of the so- called "fused participle," see, e.g.,
<http://www.wordcourt.com/archives.php?show=2004-09-27>. You can find
lots more through Google. Also,the AUE FAQ has an item on it that
seems to me to stake out a position right in the middle of the road
(the better to be run over by a truck):
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxyousay.html>. We've had
several prior threads on the topic, accessible through Google Groups.
> Also if the agent is a lengthy noun
> phrase then the resulting construction is rather awkward: "I have no
> objection to the chairman of the board's attending the committee" is
> arguably less clear than "... the chairman of the board attending the
> committee".
I'd happily argue the opposite, but I have nothing to go on but my own
very American pair of ears. And yes, at a certain point nothing seems
to work.
> (a) is one of those classic constructions that are condemned by prescriptive
> grammarians but are too convenient in practice to avoid. Fowler called it
> "the fused participle": I don't know what technical term is used now. My
> own preference is to use (b) when the agent is a personal pronoun and
> otherwise to use (a).
I have seen a more up-to-date label, but I can't remember it, and for
once Google is not my friend. In my experience, "fused participle" is
still the standard term.
Actually, I'm pretty much a middle-of-the-roader myself, if a bit
genitive-of-center. When in doubt, I do go with the genitive (as in
"brother-in-law's being late"). But I'd hate to lose all
opportunities to use the "fused" form. Sometimes it really does seem
as if nothing else will work.
--
Bob Lieblich
Trucks whooshing by
Guy Barry
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4AC0E1DA...@yahoo.com...
> I have seen a more up-to-date label, but I can't remember it, and for
> once Google is not my friend. In my experience, "fused participle" is
> still the standard term.
I don't like the term "fused participle", because in my view the verbal form
in the construction is not a participle but a gerund (or verbal noun
in -ing, or what you will). Take the following set of examples:
(1) It's easy to say that.
(2) It's easy for you to say that.
(3) It's easy saying that.
(4) It's easy you saying that.
I think that (4) relates to (3) in the same way that (2) relates to (1). In
other words, "you" functions as the subject of the gerund "saying" in (4),
in the same way as "for you" functions as the subject of the infinitive "to
say" in (2).
If you don't like the analogy with the "for-to" construction, try the
following:
I want you to leave.
Here "you to leave" undoubtedly functions as a single unit, with "you" as
the subject of "to leave". Neither "you" nor "to leave" can be construed as
the object of "want". Would you call it a "fused infinitive"?
--
Guy Barry
James Hogg
The ideal sentence is of the following kind:
"I have no objection to her taking the day off."
However, there may be people who would refrain from using that
for fear that the genitive "her" might be mistaken for an
accusative "her", in which case the sentence would have to be
reworded.
--
James
Skitt
> Eric Walker:
>> Jong-Hoon Kim wrote:
>>> Which would be a correct usage, (a) or (b)?
>>>
>>> (a) I am fine with you doing your work later ...
>>> (b) I am fine with your doing your work later ...
>>
>> "Doing" is a gerund, which is a verb form that functions as a noun;
>> it thus requires the genitive case, "your".
>
> It happens I agree with you, but IMHO that ship has sailed.
>
> As others have pointed out, when the sentence begins with "I am fine
> with", it's kind of beside the point worrying whether "doing" is a
> gerund or a fused participle.
Talking about ships that have sailed, when hearing what's spoken on TV, I
hardly ever hear the proper, objective form "my wife and me". Instead, it
is almost without exception something like "they invited my wife and I to
their wedding", and such.
To me, it grates fiercely, but that also seems to be a ship that has sailed.
--
Skitt (AmE)
left on shore, waving ...
Eric Walker
[...]
> The problem with the above analysis is that it becomes impossible to
> express sentiments such as "there is no possibility of that happening",
> because there is no possessive form of "that". Also if the agent is a
> lengthy noun phrase then the resulting construction is rather awkward:
> "I have no objection to the chairman of the board's attending the
> committee" is arguably less clear than "... the chairman of the board
> attending the committee".
>
> (a) is one of those classic constructions that are condemned by
> prescriptive grammarians but are too convenient in practice to avoid.
> Fowler called it "the fused participle": I don't know what technical
> term is used now. My own preference is to use (b) when the agent is a
> personal pronoun and otherwise to use (a).
The consensus of informed opinion seems to be that one invariably uses
the genitive unless it is utterly impossible, which occasionally it is,
in which case one rewrites to avoid the issue. Bernstein sums up his
unusually long entry on the topic so (eliding numerous specific examples):
One general guide is to use the genitive with the gerund whenever it is
possible . . . . When the genitive does not seem to be possible, a
slight reconstruction of the sentence--frequently accompanied by
improvement--is a possibility that should be examined. . . . Despite
all diligent effort, however, the writer will find that some "fused
participles" will simply have to remain fused . . . . Still, it is hard
to take issue with [Fowler] when he says that it is corrupting English
style. . . . We can agree with Fowler when he says, "Every just man who
will abstain from the fused participle (as most good writers do, though
negative evidence is naturally hard to procure) retards the process of
corruption."
I think that a good summation of the case. (And note his interpolation
on improvement).
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4AC0E1DA...@yahoo.com...
>
> > I have seen a more up-to-date label, but I can't remember it, and for
> > once Google is not my friend. In my experience, "fused participle" is
> > still the standard term.
>
> I don't like the term "fused participle",
I don't like the term "possessive case," preferring "genitive." But I
only work here.
> because in my view the verbal form
> in the construction is not a participle but a gerund (or verbal noun
> in -ing, or what you will).
I agree. And I know there's another term out there, but I simply
can't recall it. Nevertheless, people call things what they call
them, and mostly they call this construction the "fused participle."
I suspect that you, like me, acknowledge reality even though you
dislike it.
> Take the following set of examples:
>
> (1) It's easy to say that.
> (2) It's easy for you to say that.
> (3) It's easy saying that.
> (4) It's easy you saying that.
>
> I think that (4) relates to (3) in the same way that (2) relates to (1). In
> other words, "you" functions as the subject of the gerund "saying" in (4),
> in the same way as "for you" functions as the subject of the infinitive "to
> say" in (2).
But what would you do with (5) "It's easy your saying that"? Note
that like (4), it sounds much better without the dummy subject and
inverted.
>
> If you don't like the analogy with the "for-to" construction, try the
> following:
>
> I want you to leave.
>
> Here "you to leave" undoubtedly functions as a single unit, with "you" as
> the subject of "to leave". Neither "you" nor "to leave" can be construed as
> the object of "want". Would you call it a "fused infinitive"?
No need. It's simply that the two forms have different syntaxes.
This sort of variation in idiom extends down to individual words, as
in my frequent example "capable to succeed" and "able of succeeding."
Try reversing them.
--
Bob Lieblich
I like you posting
Eric Walker
[...]
> . . . . Nevertheless, people call things what they call them, and
> mostly they call this construction the "fused participle." I suspect
> that you, like me, acknowledge reality even though you dislike it.
It's more reasonable than it sounds. Fowler's development shows these
three sentences:
1. Women having the vote share political power with men.
There, "having" is a true participle.
2. Women's having the vote reduces men's political power.
There, "having" is a gerund.
3. Women having the vote reduces men's political power.
There, as he puts it, the fusion is of the noun "women" and the
participle form of "having".
Guy Barry
> It's more reasonable than it sounds. Fowler's development shows these
> three sentences:
>
> 1. Women having the vote share political power with men.
>
> There, "having" is a true participle.
>
> 2. Women's having the vote reduces men's political power.
>
> There, "having" is a gerund.
>
> 3. Women having the vote reduces men's political power.
>
> There, as he puts it, the fusion is of the noun "women" and the
> participle form of "having".
But what justification is there for saying that "having" is a participle in
this construction? As (1) demonstrates, if "having" were a true participle
modifying "women", then the verb would be plural, not singular. It strikes
me that it's far more sensible to analyse the subject of the verb in (3) as
the gerund "having" (which takes a singular verb), and regard "women" as
standing in relation to "having" in much the way "for women" does to the
infinitive "to have" in (4):
4. For women to have the vote would be highly controversial.
In other words, it forms the expressed subject of a verbal form ("having")
whose subject is normally implied by the context.
The debate is fairly academic, especially since some people deny the
existence of a gerund at all in English. I would point out that if "women"
is replaced by a pronoun in (3) then it has to be "them", not "they" -
although this is one occasion when I would avoid the construction completely
and use "their" instead.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eFhwm.195062$Ne3....@newsfe15.ams2...
Another thought: in the "true participle" construction it's possible to use
a past participle:
"Women given the franchise share political power with men."
This is not possible with the so-called "fused participle". It's impossible
to say
*"Women given the franchise reduces men's political power."
Curiously enough, the Fowler brothers themselves point this out in The
King's English, in the section on "The Gerund":
"Now the passive of 'violating' is either 'violated' or being 'violated'. It
is quite natural to say, Privacy violated once is no longer inviolable. Why
then should it be most unnatural to say, The worst of privacy violated once
is that it is no longer inviolable? No one, not purposely seeking the
unusual for some reason or other, would omit 'being' before 'violated' in
the second. Yet as participles 'violated' and 'being violated' are equally
good-not indeed always, but in this context, as the simpler Privacy sentence
shows. The only difference between the two participles (except that in
brevity, which tells against 'being violated') is that the longer form can
also be the gerund, and the shorter cannot. The almost invariable choice of
it is due to the instinctive feeling that what we are using is or ought to
be the gerund."
One might think that this would have led them to abandon the description
"fused participle" for the construction, but apparently not.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
read:
"Now the passive of 'violating' is either 'violated' or 'being violated'."
[Quotes placed to reflect original italics]
--
Guy Barry