67

I assume that the following sentences are all acceptable:

  • He resents your being more popular than he is.
  • Most of the members paid their dues without my asking them.
  • They objected to the youngest girl’s being given the command position.
  • What do you think about his buying such an expensive car?
  • We were all sorry about Jane’s losing her parents like that.

I’m still getting used to this “possessive with 'gerund' ” structure. It sounded so weird to me at first.

Is this structure used in both formal and informal contexts, both oral and written alike? Are there any alternative structures that result in the same meaning and are more frequently used?

(Examples taken from Grammar Tips: Possessives Precede Gerunds)

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
b.roth
  • 21,782
  • 9
    It's one variant, and falutes slightly higher, but with pronouns there are many idioms. Gerund clauses have two complementizers: the normal Acc-ing complementizer (without him* telling me), and the Poss-ing complementizer (without his telling me*). Both are correct, both are common, but Acc-ing is somewhat more common in practice. – John Lawler Dec 20 '14 at 18:10
  • 1
    @John Lawler Professor Lawler, I wasn't able to find "falute" as a verb in M-W U or in other dictionaries. It might be in the OED. Your meaning here seems to be "being pretentious," but I'd appreciate your take on it. – Marius Hancu Apr 01 '15 at 10:01
  • 7
    Look up "high-faluting" and apply a morphological filter. – John Lawler Apr 03 '15 at 02:48
  • 1
    @JohnLawler: help! I cannot understand why my edit to the title of the post (replacing 'pronoun' with 'adjective or determiner') was rejected! – user58319 Feb 27 '16 at 09:28
  • 5
    @JohnLawler As far as the UK is concerned, the "poss -ing variety (albeit perhaps less common) is certainly associated with a better educated and more erudite individual. For that reason I would always encourage any young person to prefer it to the alternative. Though I certainly use both forms myself, and the choice of which, as with many expressions, could well depend on whom I am talking to. – WS2 Jan 03 '17 at 17:56
  • 2
    @WS2 being perceived as "better educated and more erudite" is not always desirable for any given linguistic intercourse. If one's interlocutors are speaking in basilect, use of highfalutin grammar may not serve your communications purpose. The advice I would give is to choose the form that best matches the formality level of the discourse. – nohat Mar 05 '19 at 00:38
  • @nohat I think I made that point in my comment. Unfortunately one cannot discuss the use of the English language without trespassing into the minefield of social class. Only last night I heard a radio interview with Nell Dunn, author of such as Up the Junction and Poor Cow. She and others, such as Dennis Potter, writing in the 1960s explored this in depth. – WS2 Jul 22 '20 at 08:45
  • 1
    @WS2 As is often the case, I strongly disagree. Although I'm with nohat about adjusting register judiciously (ie being open to the use of either variant where both are possible), there are times when the Poss-ing and the Acc-ing have different meanings. "She didn't like his singing" means that the rendition was not her favourite music while "She didn't like him singing" might mean that she considered it unwise for a person in the Witness Protection Scheme to appear on stage. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 16 '21 at 16:06
  • The last seems a fair point. But I'm still not clear what it is that you "stronly disagree" with. And I'm not sure if the way you are using "his singing" is strictly an example of what is under discussion here. "She didn't like his singing but enjoyed his dancing" is one thing. But I think we are talking here, more about "Bearing in mind the sad news that had just been delivered, she didn't like his singing". They seem two quite different things to me. And I thought we were discussing the latter.
    WS2     – WS2 Oct 17 '21 at 18:29
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth I guess the point I'm making is that "singing" is not a good example - since "singing" has a well-established noun status already - which is how you are using it. It's rather different if we say "She didn't like his helping himself to the sherry trifle". – WS2 Oct 17 '21 at 19:10
  • I'd say that 'As far as the UK is concerned, the "poss -ing variety (albeit perhaps less common) is certainly associated with a better educated and more erudite individual. For that reason I would always encourage any young person to prefer it to the alternative. is encouraging all young people to sound at times pompous / rarefied. "What do you think about Jane's coming too?" – Edwin Ashworth Oct 18 '21 at 11:39
  • @EdwinAshworth No. I said "prefer it". And the choice of which I use "depends on who I'm talking to". You may be having difficulty finding a suitable pigeon-hole in which to put me, but I spent my childhood in rural Norfolk - where the people around me spoke something far removed from received English. Indeed I went to grammar school believing that the past tense of "snow" was "snew". And there are probably still people around with whom I would use "snew". But I would encourage a young person to say "snowed". How is the possesive gerund any different. – WS2 Oct 18 '21 at 21:37
  • @WS2 Come on. "I would always encourage any young person to prefer it to the alternative" is what you wrote. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 19 '21 at 10:27
  • @EdwinAshworth So? You really will have to begin articulating your objections succinctly. What is the point you are making? – WS2 Oct 20 '21 at 07:57
  • @WS2 "I would always encourage any young person to prefer it to the alternative" is a bald statement; moderating it later on does not change this but merely confuses. It's bad advice, because (a) sometimes the POSS-ing gives a meaning not intended and the ACC-ing is the only correct choice and (b) even where not incorrect from a semantic perspective, the use of the ACC-ing often sounds grandiloquent (nohat puts this better). – Edwin Ashworth Oct 20 '21 at 11:57
  • @Edwin Ashworth As Queen Gertrude might have put it (Hamlet) - thou protesteth too much. But by all means flag it as in need of moderator intervention - should it be causing you a loss of sleep. – WS2 Oct 20 '21 at 18:15
  • @WS2 The snag is that people come here expecting advice about best practice. Both nohat and myself have stated clearly that care should be taken in avoiding pretentious-sounding alternatives. This relates to G Pullum's "If there's someone at the door and when you ask 'Who is it?' they answer 'It is I', steer clear of them' [paraphrased]. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 20 '21 at 18:48
  • @EdwinAshworth Nohat in his excellent answer (which I upvoted) uses the terms more formal, and less stuffy - which I certainly agree with. Contrary to what you say he has not used the term pretentious-sounding - only you have used that. – WS2 Oct 21 '21 at 20:47
  • @WS2 From Passmore's thesis comparing/contrasting the POSS-ING and ACC-ING structures: << Hudson describes (5a) as "forced and formal" in British English (2003: 603), while many Americans would actually prefer the POSS-ING (5a) to the ACC-ING (5b) structures: (5) a. John's knowing the answer surprised us. b. John knowing the answer surprised us. >> The relevant definition of 'forced' from Lexico is 'affected or unnatural'. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 22 '21 at 11:48
  • @EdwinAshworth Oh dear! I have no idea who in the world Hudson is, nor how I got to my advanced age without anyone ever previously pointing out to me that my choice of language was "forced", "affected" or "unnatural"? I am deeply humbled! – WS2 Oct 22 '21 at 17:40
  • @WS2 Richard Hudson (Wikipedia), whose linguistic credentials obviously outrank mine. At least. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 22 '21 at 18:25
  • @EdwinAshworth Well the relevant passage in Passmore is: (2003: 581). Hudson does not provide much evidence to support a difference between British and American English; if there is a difference, it is probably not very large. However, Hudson describes (5a) as "forced and formal" in British English (2003: 603), while many Americans would actuaUy prefer the POSS-ING (Sa) to the ACC-ING (5b): So in American it appears acceptable, but "forced and formal" (and hence affected) in British. Yet there is little evidence to support a difference between the two! – WS2 Oct 22 '21 at 19:24
  • And on that basis you have deduced my position where I have come down on the American side of a dichotomy which is "probably not very large" as "affected or unnatural". You probably need to take a walk in the fresh air for a few minutes and have a think. – WS2 Oct 22 '21 at 19:27
  • It's not something that most people are consistent about. If you actually investigate, like sociolinguists do, you find that individuals sometimes use one and sometimes the other, and their opinions about what they say and how they "always say it" are extremely unreliable. Every individual is unique in their habits, and every individual is a member of several groups whose speech they can imitate. – John Lawler Jul 14 '22 at 19:04

5 Answers5

64

When I first heard about this usage in a grammar lesson in middle school, it sounded weird to me, too. As in the linked page in your answer, my teacher taught us that using possessive pronouns (also known as genitives) is the only grammatical way to mark subjects of gerund clauses. While that way is more traditional and formal, using object pronouns (accusatives) is also quite common.

In chapter 14, section 4.3, of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, entitled “Non-finite and verbless clauses”, the main thrust lays waste to the traditional distinction between gerund clauses and present participle clauses, by arguing they all belong to a single inflectional category; namely, gerund-participles. However, there is a paragraph explaining the use of genitives with gerunds:

There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:
[39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.
       ii. We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

In other words, gerunds (as in example 39i) can take either the genitive (his) or the accusative (him) as subject, with genitive being more formal and accusative less formal. The nominative (he) is not possible as the subject of a gerund.

In participial clauses with a subject (as in example 39ii), there is a similar situation: both the nominative (he) and accusative (him) are possible, again with accusative being less formal, but the genitive (his) is not possible.

The page of “grammar tips” linked in the question confuses informal style with incorrect grammar, a common problem in grammar advice. The versions of the examples with accusative instead of genitive (e.g. What do you think about him buying such an expensive car?) are perfectly grammatical and simply a less stuffy style.

You will find many examples of gerunds with accusative subject—even in formal academic writing—so you should feel free to use whichever of the two formulations seems natural.

JJJ
  • 7,148
nohat
  • 68,560
  • 2
    Great explanation! I had wondered about this too. Btw, do you agree with Steve about examples 3 and 5? – Jonik Sep 06 '10 at 19:52
  • 15
    There actually can be cases where the two forms are semantically distinct. "I hate John driving" means that you hate the idea of John driving, while "I hate John's driving" means that you hate John's style of driving. Just an interesting added factoid — I don't really have a good analysis of it. – Kosmonaut Sep 06 '10 at 22:49
  • 2
    @Jonik, the only one where I might use the genitive form would be #1. All the rest I would almost certainly use the accusative with. On editing, though, I might change them to genitive. Old habits inculcated by strict teachers die hard. – nohat Sep 07 '10 at 00:06
  • 5
    I will throw in a link to the wonderfully informative Language Log entry that was published two weeks after this question (and your answer) had been posted: Possessive with gerund: Tragic loss or good riddance? – RegDwigнt Oct 12 '10 at 11:50
  • You might like this reference, which follows up to @RegDwigнt's reference with a bit of corpus analytics. – tchrist Jun 29 '14 at 16:29
  • stuffy style? What do you think about what do you think about () buying such an expensive car? – vectory Mar 04 '19 at 21:16
  • @vectory not sure what your question is, but if you can clarify I'd be happy to explain what I mean. – nohat Mar 05 '19 at 00:40
  • I'm asking whether you think your version is less stuffy than that without the pronoun. For sake of the argument there is no semantic difference, because the answer could still go, "I think, he's ... for doing it". – vectory Mar 05 '19 at 08:52
31

It is perhaps worth adding the contrast identified in the ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’:

When the possessive alternative is used, it focuses attention on the action described in the ‘-ing’ clause. In contrast the regular Noun Phrase form puts more emphasis on the person doing the action.

Barrie England
  • 140,205
  • 3
    +1 I always thought this was the primary distinction, not an additional feature -- that there indeed is a distinction. – Kris Apr 11 '13 at 06:24
  • 6
    @Kris: For it to be a primary distinction would require that most competent speakers normally make that distinction consciously, which I think is highly unlikely. – FumbleFingers May 16 '13 at 02:56
  • @FumbleFingers As I have commented to John Lawler, I believe (in the UK, as with so many things) it boils down to who you are talking to. If it's a professor in the history department the possessive would apply. If it's the bloke sitting next to me at a football match the accusative would undoubtedly come out first. – WS2 Jan 03 '17 at 18:05
  • 2
    @WS2: As John so charmingly puts it, [the possessive] falutes* slightly higher.* So I might make the same distinction as you for the same reason, but to be honest I'd be as likely to deliberately flout that "convention" just because I can. There's no danger of being misunderstood, unless you include the possibility that the history professor might mistakenly suppose I don't know how to use English properly (in which case I'd be gleefully thinking Bring it on! You ignorant pedant!). – FumbleFingers Jan 03 '17 at 18:26
  • @FumbleFingers This may not be the best example, since it is not especially incorrect to use the "lower faluting" alternative. However no one in Britain is liberated to the extent that they are as happy speaking to a professor in the same way they would speak to Alf Garnet and (importantly) vice-versa - consciously or unconsciously. The smart thing is to be able to be all things to all people. – WS2 Jan 03 '17 at 18:35
  • 1
    @WS2: There's clearly an implication from your not especially* incorrect* that you genuinely feel there's at least some degree of possible "incorrectness" in this area. Whilst I accept John's "high falutin'" distinction without question, and I'm fully prepared to accept that Barrie's distinction could apply with some exceptionally Lit-Crit-minded speakers (definitely with some literary writers), I give no credence whatsoever to the idea that either form is more syntactically correct. It's just petty pedantic one-upmanship for those who want to play that particular game. – FumbleFingers Jan 03 '17 at 18:52
  • 2
    ...I always think "good" use of language is that which maximises the chance of the other person understanding exactly what you're trying to convey, not that which more closely adheres to often-outdated syntax rules. – FumbleFingers Jan 03 '17 at 18:55
  • @FumbleFingers You are in conversation here with someone, the story of whose youth was juxtaposing the Norfolk dialect spoken at home and in the village, with that of my bourgeois peers at grammar school in Norwich. I could not possibly have progressed into professional life had I stuck with the broad Norfolk. Having said all that I do think it would be a pity if UK English just became dumbed down to a flat estuary format. There is a certain elegance in such things as using the possessive with the gerund, where personally I would find it a pity if it were lost entirely. – WS2 Jan 03 '17 at 19:58
  • @WS2: Indeed - and I'm certainly not suggesting it would be good to discard either of the alternatives under consideration here. And in general I agree with your point that it's good to be able to be all things to all people (so if you know your interlocutor "expects" a certain register that you can comfortably reproduce, you should probably do so). But because I think such expectations often reflect unwarranted prejudice, sometimes I can't help flouting the "register matching" principle just to undermine those expectations (if I can afford to be negatively but wrongly assessed! :) – FumbleFingers Jan 04 '17 at 13:44
  • ...apropos which, I was rather charmed yesterday to see a motorway gantry sign warning me not to use my mobile *whilst* driving. It's not that I have a strong preference one way or the other with *while / whilst, but I like the fact that I can choose which to use in most contexts. And while I'm aware some people might think whilst* is a bit "dated" (or even "dialectal, rustic"), I reckon to some other people it actually falutes higher, to further leverage John's excellent description. – FumbleFingers Jan 04 '17 at 13:54
  • @FumbleFingers The OED has some interesting material on the etymology of *highfalutin* (as they have chosen to spell it). The below is but a small extract.

    1836 U.S. Songster 216, I play upon de cymbal an I makes de handsome sound, I's a high feluting nigger dat dey calls Jim Brown. Other suggestions include influence from U.S. English †high-saluting performing the regulation military salute precisely, apparently used (in military slang) in a derogatory manner to refer to men who were perceived to be trying to ingratiate themselves with officers (early 19th cent.

     – WS2 Jan 05 '17 at 12:23
7

Just to comment on common usage (in British English, at least):

Examples 1, 2 and 4, which use possessive pronouns, look OK, but are somewhat formal. I'd be more likely to use the accusative forms, namely:

He resents you being more popular than he is.

Most of the members paid their dues without me asking them.

What do you think about him buying such an expensive car?

I can believe that examples 3 and 5, which use nouns, may be grammatically correct, but they look wrong, and I do not recall seeing or hearing that particular construction used. I would drop the "-'s" in both cases.

Community
  • 1
Steve Melnikoff
  • 6,331
1

This would be my "common usage" (and non-formal) take:

  • He resents your being more popular than he is. (either your-you)
  • Most of the members paid their dues without my asking them. (my preferred)
  • They objected to the youngest girl's being given the command position. (girl only)
  • What do you think about his buying such an expensive car? (either his-him)
  • We were all sorry about Jane's losing her parents like that. (Jane only)

I'm not an expert on all usage, but these are based on my "formality-detector" radar working. Pronouns are easier to work with - if the possessive of the gerund is called for ("Jane's", etc) it needs to be treated with some care, so as to not sound overly correct.

Cargill
  • 1,792
-1

By using a direct object and not possessive pronoun, the gerundive (adjectival) clauses describe the subject of the sentence, which is not what you intend to do in your examples.

For example, these sentences have a completely different meaning than your original ones (punctuation and word order changed to illustrate this):

  • He [e.g., Joe] resents you, [Joe] being more popular than he [e.g., Bob] is.
  • Most of the members, asking them, paid their dues without me.
  • They, being given the command position, objected to the youngest girl.
  • What do you, buying such an expensive car, think about him?
  • We, losing her parents like that, were all sorry about Jane.
Geremia
  • 722