Analyzing 'genitive/accusative + V-ing phrase (gerund-participle phrase)' as different constructionsGerund preceded by a genitive?When must a gerund be preceded by a possessive pronoun as opposed to an accusative one?Adverbs modifying nouns?Accusative and genitive constructions - interchangeability; usage of “of” in genitivewith/without + possessive/accusative + V-ingWhat I resented was [Kim mistreating my cat]. Why is [] a subordinate clause?
When is the exact date for EOL of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS?
Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?
Output visual diagram of picture
Would a primitive species be able to learn English from reading books alone?
Trouble reading roman numeral notation with flats
Unfrosted light bulb
Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bosendorfer?
Is there any common country to visit for persons holding UK and Schengen visas?
Are hand made posters acceptable in Academia?
What is this high flying aircraft over Pennsylvania?
Put the phone down / Put down the phone
What do the positive and negative (+/-) transmit and receive pins mean on Ethernet cables?
Is this saw blade faulty?
Non-Borel set in arbitrary metric space
Strange behavior in TikZ draw command
New Order #2: Turn My Way
C++ lambda syntax
Air travel with refrigerated insulin
Showing mass murder in a kid's book
Should I warn a new PhD Student?
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
Why is implicit conversion not ambiguous for non-primitive types?
How to split IPA spelling into syllables
How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?
Analyzing 'genitive/accusative + V-ing phrase (gerund-participle phrase)' as different constructions
Gerund preceded by a genitive?When must a gerund be preceded by a possessive pronoun as opposed to an accusative one?Adverbs modifying nouns?Accusative and genitive constructions - interchangeability; usage of “of” in genitivewith/without + possessive/accusative + V-ingWhat I resented was [Kim mistreating my cat]. Why is [] a subordinate clause?
(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].
(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].
(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].
(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].
Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:
If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?
This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.
Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).
So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.
PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH
CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):
The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.
Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.
SUGGESTED APPROACH
What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?
In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.
Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".
This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).
More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).
QUESTION
I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.
possessives personal-pronouns possessive-vs-oblique
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from JK2 ending ending at 2019-03-23 20:53:38Z">in 4 days.
Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
Unearthing paper(s)/book(s) suggesting treating 'genitive/accusative NP + gerund-participial phrase' not as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal) but as different constructions (as suggested here or otherwise) would definitely lead to the bounty
|
show 8 more comments
(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].
(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].
(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].
(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].
Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:
If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?
This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.
Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).
So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.
PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH
CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):
The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.
Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.
SUGGESTED APPROACH
What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?
In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.
Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".
This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).
More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).
QUESTION
I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.
possessives personal-pronouns possessive-vs-oblique
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from JK2 ending ending at 2019-03-23 20:53:38Z">in 4 days.
Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
Unearthing paper(s)/book(s) suggesting treating 'genitive/accusative NP + gerund-participial phrase' not as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal) but as different constructions (as suggested here or otherwise) would definitely lead to the bounty
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42
|
show 8 more comments
(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].
(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].
(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].
(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].
Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:
If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?
This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.
Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).
So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.
PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH
CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):
The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.
Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.
SUGGESTED APPROACH
What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?
In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.
Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".
This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).
More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).
QUESTION
I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.
possessives personal-pronouns possessive-vs-oblique
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].
(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].
(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].
(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].
Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:
If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?
This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.
Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).
So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.
PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH
CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):
The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.
Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.
SUGGESTED APPROACH
What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?
In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.
Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".
This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).
More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).
QUESTION
I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.
possessives personal-pronouns possessive-vs-oblique
possessives personal-pronouns possessive-vs-oblique
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
edited Mar 16 at 22:15
JK2
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
asked Mar 7 at 12:02
JK2JK2
38211751
38211751
This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from JK2 ending ending at 2019-03-23 20:53:38Z">in 4 days.
Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
Unearthing paper(s)/book(s) suggesting treating 'genitive/accusative NP + gerund-participial phrase' not as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal) but as different constructions (as suggested here or otherwise) would definitely lead to the bounty
This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from JK2 ending ending at 2019-03-23 20:53:38Z">in 4 days.
Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
Unearthing paper(s)/book(s) suggesting treating 'genitive/accusative NP + gerund-participial phrase' not as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal) but as different constructions (as suggested here or otherwise) would definitely lead to the bounty
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42
|
show 8 more comments
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42
|
show 8 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Take the analogous case of the transitive verb 'like'.
(1) I like his (x),
(2) I like him
(1) requires a NP in the argument position of 'like', a position that is modified by the possessive pronoun. (2), however, is perfectly well-formed.
The point is this. In your example, the fragment [leaving the firm] in the first case becomes a noun phrase, and that phrase is modified by the possessive. In the second case, the NP position is fulfilled by 'him'.
In other words, 'his' - and not 'him' - binds [leaving the firm]. This fact is also suggested by the fact that *[I regretted his] is syntactically ill-formed, but [I regretted him] is not, assuming a liberal universe of discourse / relevant anaphor conditions.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488640%2fanalyzing-genitive-accusative-v-ing-phrase-gerund-participle-phrase-as-dif%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Take the analogous case of the transitive verb 'like'.
(1) I like his (x),
(2) I like him
(1) requires a NP in the argument position of 'like', a position that is modified by the possessive pronoun. (2), however, is perfectly well-formed.
The point is this. In your example, the fragment [leaving the firm] in the first case becomes a noun phrase, and that phrase is modified by the possessive. In the second case, the NP position is fulfilled by 'him'.
In other words, 'his' - and not 'him' - binds [leaving the firm]. This fact is also suggested by the fact that *[I regretted his] is syntactically ill-formed, but [I regretted him] is not, assuming a liberal universe of discourse / relevant anaphor conditions.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Take the analogous case of the transitive verb 'like'.
(1) I like his (x),
(2) I like him
(1) requires a NP in the argument position of 'like', a position that is modified by the possessive pronoun. (2), however, is perfectly well-formed.
The point is this. In your example, the fragment [leaving the firm] in the first case becomes a noun phrase, and that phrase is modified by the possessive. In the second case, the NP position is fulfilled by 'him'.
In other words, 'his' - and not 'him' - binds [leaving the firm]. This fact is also suggested by the fact that *[I regretted his] is syntactically ill-formed, but [I regretted him] is not, assuming a liberal universe of discourse / relevant anaphor conditions.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Take the analogous case of the transitive verb 'like'.
(1) I like his (x),
(2) I like him
(1) requires a NP in the argument position of 'like', a position that is modified by the possessive pronoun. (2), however, is perfectly well-formed.
The point is this. In your example, the fragment [leaving the firm] in the first case becomes a noun phrase, and that phrase is modified by the possessive. In the second case, the NP position is fulfilled by 'him'.
In other words, 'his' - and not 'him' - binds [leaving the firm]. This fact is also suggested by the fact that *[I regretted his] is syntactically ill-formed, but [I regretted him] is not, assuming a liberal universe of discourse / relevant anaphor conditions.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Take the analogous case of the transitive verb 'like'.
(1) I like his (x),
(2) I like him
(1) requires a NP in the argument position of 'like', a position that is modified by the possessive pronoun. (2), however, is perfectly well-formed.
The point is this. In your example, the fragment [leaving the firm] in the first case becomes a noun phrase, and that phrase is modified by the possessive. In the second case, the NP position is fulfilled by 'him'.
In other words, 'his' - and not 'him' - binds [leaving the firm]. This fact is also suggested by the fact that *[I regretted his] is syntactically ill-formed, but [I regretted him] is not, assuming a liberal universe of discourse / relevant anaphor conditions.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
answered 6 hours ago
Jeremiah CashoreJeremiah Cashore
1
1
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jeremiah Cashore is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488640%2fanalyzing-genitive-accusative-v-ing-phrase-gerund-participle-phrase-as-dif%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:28
Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 14:29
@TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:28
@TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
– JK2
Mar 7 at 15:35
Perhaps some speakers who have both him leaving and his leaving in their idiolects might differentiate in that manner, where "his leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he left" and "him leaving" could be paraphrased "the fact that he in particular left". I don't think it's a general rule, and I know tens of thousands of speakers who would never use his leaving under any circumstances; the possessive was long taught as the "proper" form and him was flagged as substandard, and these speakers never learned that dubious "rule".
– TRomano
Mar 7 at 18:42