| 词组 | possessive with gerund |
| 释义 | possessive with gerund The gerund, or verbal noun, in English is the present participle of a verb used as a noun. Since the end of the 17th century, and probably before—Hall 1917 found a couple of 15th century examples—a construction involving the gerund and a preceding pronoun or noun has infiltrated the written language from speech. Sometimes the pronoun or noun is in the possessive case: • ... in hopes of his being able to join me —Lewis Carroll, letter, 11 Mar. 1867 • I have consulted your father on the subject of your attending Mr. Godon's lectures —Thomas Jefferson, letter, 9 May 1809 • ... in spite of ... the company's not having any intention of issuing a new edition —Ian Ballantine, letter, 5 Aug. 1939 And sometimes the pronoun or noun is not in the possessive case: • ... however I suppose the music prevented any of it being heard —Lewis Carroll, letter, 11 Mar. 1867 • ... I couldn't abide him being such a splendid man —Russell Baker, Growing Up, 1982 • ... in spite of the book being out of print for many years —Ian Ballantine, letter, 5 Aug. 1939 The dates of these passages show you that one example of each construction comes from a single author in a single letter. One of the curious facts about this construction is that it is not at all uncommon for an author to use both forms and to use them close together. From the middle of the 18th century to the present time, from George Harris's Observations on the English Language of 1752 to Harper 1985 and Cook 1985, grammarians and other commentators have been baffled by the construction. They cannot parse it, they cannot explain it, they cannot decide whether the possessive is correct or not. The earliest commentators, Harris and Lowth 1762, were distinctly hostile to the possessive case. Campbell 1776 thought the possessive ought not to be repudiated, Priestley 1761 allowed either form, Lindley Murray 1795 favored the possessive, Noah Webster in Dissertations on the English Language ( 1789) prescribed the possessive as the true form of the idiom. But opposition to the possessive had not died; Goold Brown 1851 opposed it, and so, apparently, did some other 19th-century grammarians who objected to the possessive case being used with inanimate nouns. The dispute (along with some undisputatious discussion) continued right on into the 20th century. Fowler 1926 was a notable proponent of the virtue, even the necessity, of the possessive. (He labeled nonuse of the possessive the fused participle.) Otto Jespersen's profusely illustrated S.P.E. Tract 25 (1926) was intended to overpower some of Fowler's contentions with a volley of quotations from literature. Hall 1917 treated the subject extensively, too, with lists and charts based on his investigations of literature. And so it has gone, down to the present time. A prominent feature of many discussions is the attempt to analyze the construction by means of traditional grammar, which, as it is still taught in most schools, is Latin grammar grafted onto English. Otto Jespersen has pointed out the problem with such an approach: the present participle in English has features of both noun and verb. Jespersen in S.P.E. Tract 25 makes the point succinctly with "there is no resisting him" in which the adjective no shows resisting to be a noun and the objective him shows resisting to be a verb. Almost the only really important information in the enormous amount of analysis and comment written about the construction is contained in Hall's lists and Jespersen's quotations. These demonstrate beyond a doubt what our few examples at the beginning showed: the same authors commonly use both constructions. From this fact it should be obvious that the selection of the possessive or the selection of the "fused participle" is simply not a matter of right and wrong. But why, you may ask, would Boswell, George Eliot, Dickens, or Thackeray use one form one time and the other form another time? The answer must lie in something akin to notional agreement. The factors governing the choice between the possessive and the common (or objective or nominative) case in this construction appear to be rather complex. One of the factors appears to be a matter of what element is to be stressed. • She approves of this one's being a girl —Flannery O'Connor, letter, 8 May 1955 In this example the object of approves of is a noun phrase this one's being a girl; the whole phrase is the object and there is no particular emphasis intended for the pronoun one. • ... but I can't see me letting Harold C. condense it —Flannery O'Connor, letter, 11 Dec. 1956 But in this second example additional emphasis is placed on the pronoun me; it serves as the direct object of the main verb and is followed by a complementizing phrase. The same contrast can be found with nouns. In the first example below weaning seems to be the most important term; in the second the writer is thinking about the person: • ... its episodes too neatly arranged to build to the quiet crescendo of the boy protagonist's weaning from his family —Tom Dowling, San Francisco Examiner, 19 Nov. 1985 • I keep thinking of Don Castro not smoking on the maiden voyage of that goddam zeppelin —James Thurber, letter, 18 July 1952 There seem to be a number of other considerations that may militate against using the possessive in particular situations. For instance, the noun or pronoun may be of such a form that it resists the genitive form. Jespersen has many examples in which the noun or pronoun is followed by a modifying phrase that would make the genitive form moot. But even simple nouns and pronouns can resist the genitive: • ... to find out what is responsible for my feet swelling —Flannery O'Connor, letter, 30 Apr. 1960 • ... I would certainly ... insist on you all coming here —William Faulkner, letter, 1959 A noun ending in -s or a plural noun ending in -5 sounds like the genitive and is consequently likely to be unmarked by an apostrophe: • ... without the parties having any choice —Samuel Johnson, in James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791 • The Grants showing a disposition to be friendly and sociable, gave great satisfaction —Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, 1814 • I was glad to hear of the bills being paid —Harry S. Truman, letter, 7 Sept. 1947 While our backing is far from conclusive, we do have much evidence of the possessive's not being used in speech of recent vintage: • ... could have been a part of my background, my experience, without me knowing it —William Faulkner, 11 Mar. 1957, in Faulkner in the University, 1959 • I'll miss Moe screaming at me —Dan Issel, quoted in Springfield (Mass.) Daily News, 23 Jan. 1985 • ... him getting that interception —Ronnie Lott, television interview, 29 Dec. 1984 • ... the possibility of him being there —radio newscast, 23 Oct. 1985 But in writing, even recent writing, the chances are that an ordinary personal pronoun will be in the possessive: • ... thy being in London is such a mystery —George Farquhar, Love and a Bottle, 1698 • ... gave his consent to my returning again to Philadelphia —Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, 1771 • ... hope this note may reach you in time to warn you of its coming —Lewis Carroll, letter, 5 Jan. 1867 • ... the possibility of my filling the vacancy —George Bernard Shaw, preface, The Shaw-Terry Letters, 1931 • ... a performance I wouldn't mind your seeing — Alexander Woollcott, letter, 1 Apr. 1940 • You don't know how much I appreciated your going to all the trouble —Harry S. Truman, letter, 4 Oct. 1957 • My story of Houdini... begins with my meeting his widow —James Thurber, letter, 17 May 1961 • ... the danger of his dwindling into a employee — Gerald Weales, Smithsonian, December 1985 Let's recapitulate. This construction, both with and without the possessive, has been used in writing for about 300 years. Both forms have been used by standard authors. Both forms have been called incorrect, but neither is. Those observers who have examined real examples have reached the following general conclusions: 1. A personal pronoun before the gerund tends to be a possessive pronoun in writing (of course, with her you cannot tell the case). Fries 1940 found that the possessive predominated even in letters written by the less educated. 2. The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized. 3. In speech the possessive pronoun may not predominate, but available evidence is inconclusive. 4. Both possessive and common-case (uninflected) nouns, including proper nouns, are used before the gerund. Fries's evidence presented almost no possessive nouns, but our literary evidence shows plenty of possessives, and so does Jespersen's. It is clear, however, that the possessive case does not predominate with nouns to the extent it does with personal pronouns. 5. Complicating factors such as modifying phrases tend to militate against use of the possessive form. 6. Plurals and other nouns ending in -s also are often unmarked for the possessive inflection. 7. Many writers use both forms of the construction. Clearly there are times when one or the other sounds more euphonious, is clearer, or otherwise suits the purpose better. We suspect that this is one of those idiomatic usages that seldom give the native speaker trouble. It will trouble learners of English much more. We can only advise learners that the possessive will almost always be safe for pronouns and will probably work most of the time with nouns. But in doubtful cases, you may need to consult a native speaker. |
| 随便看 |
英语用法大全包含2888条英语用法指南，基本涵盖了全部常用英文词汇及语法点的翻译及用法，是英语学习的有利工具。