0

Consider the sentence "What is the probability of Bob winning?"

What is the function of "Bob winning"? It's certainly acting as the object of the preposition, but I don't recognize this type of construction from any of my English courses. Is it even correct usage?

Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed
  • 133

2 Answers2

0

Some call it the "fused participle" because the participle "winning" is fused with the preceding noun, "Bob". I've heard a few people say it is improper, and that you should fix it to say "What is the probability of Bob's winning?" "Winning" is clearly a gerund in that case.

However, I don't see a problem with the construction as the way you have it. To me, I see "Bob winning" as indeed one thing, but it's easy to look at "winning" as an object complement for "Bob".

AJK432
  • 420
  • 1
    Does this match case 3 here: https://www.grammar.com/Fused-Participle-Solutions "For fused participles, when the noun combo conveys meaning and serves a noun role (object of preposition), don’t make the noun or pronoun possessive. Let the fused participle stay. For example, "Many will question the wisdom of government departments straying into competitive commercial areas." Here the noun combo, government departments straying, is what many are questioning the wisdom of. The structure—the fused participle—acts as the object of the preposition of. – Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed Jul 30 '19 at 18:37
  • 1
    There's no fusion involved. The clause "Bob winning" is simply complement of the prep "of". Its internal structure consists of "Bob" as subject and "winning" as the predicate VP. – BillJ Jul 30 '19 at 18:46
  • @Elem-Teach-w-Bach-n-Math-Ed You are correct. – AJK432 Jul 30 '19 at 18:47
0

This is correct usage.

"Bob winning" is a subordinate clause serving as a NOUN PHRASE serving as the object of the preposition of "of".

Noun phrases can be simple adjective noun constructions or a clause like "Bob winning."

For example you could also say.

Bob winning is a good thing.

In this sentence, "Bob winning" is the subject of the sentence.

"Bob's winning" changes the syntax used making winning the direct noun of the sentence and making it simpler to understand syntactically, but that makes "winning" in and of itself a noun being modified by "Bob's"

This article explains noun phrases well.

Karlomanio
  • 1,291
  • 7
  • 13
  • "Winning" can take a direct object ("Bob winning the cup"), so "Bob winning" must be a clause headed by the verb "winning". – BillJ Jul 30 '19 at 18:14
  • @BillJ I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. "Bob winning the cup" could also also be a noun phrase and object of the preposition. I'm NOT saying that "Bob winning" is NOT a clause. (Double negative intended.) :) That is what I'm saying it is. A phrase is a clause. – Karlomanio Jul 30 '19 at 19:46
  • @Karlomanio Getting into the specifics of clauses and phrases and the differences between them is quite confusing in times like these, since the parameters have been seemingly redefined. – AJK432 Jul 30 '19 at 19:50
  • @AllexKramer Clauses are confusing and many people have many different ideas about that word means. What intrigues me is what you mean by "seeming redefined." Please explain. – Karlomanio Jul 30 '19 at 20:30
  • @Karlomanio What falls under "clause" has been expanded. – AJK432 Jul 30 '19 at 20:35
  • How can it be an NP? It can only be a clause since it has a subject,"Bob", and a predicate "winning the cup", where "winning" has a direct object, "the cup", and thus must be a verb. Note that nouns don't take direct objects. Phrases do not have a subject-predicate structure and hence are not clauses. Note also that in addition to NPs, PPs and AdvPs, prepositions can take clauses as complement. – BillJ Jul 31 '19 at 06:15
  • @BillJ Terminology is always a tricky thing- especially it seems in English grammar It is a subordinate clause serving as a noun phrase. "Bob winning" is a verb clause serving as a noun phrase, which is the direct object of "of" in the sentence. – Karlomanio Jul 31 '19 at 14:55
  • No it isn't! Clauses and phrases are not the same; it's nonsense to say otherwise. A clause has a subject-predicate structure, while a phrase doesn't. Again, "Bob winning" is a clause with "Bob" as subject and "winning" as predicate. And There's no such thing as a verb clause. I've already told you that prepositions can take clauses as complement. – BillJ Jul 31 '19 at 15:36
  • @BillJ I disagree and more than likely we are in agreement, but just using different terminology. – Karlomanio Jul 31 '19 at 15:37