Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Possessive vs accusative case for nominalized clauses

+7
−0

Consider the following sentences:

  1. "She was against his joining the team."
  2. "She was against his joining of the team."
  3. "She was against him joining the team."

Instinctively, the first just sounds wrong to me. Thinking deeper about it though, I can't tell why it sounds wrong to me; "joining the team" should be able to act as an entire noun-phrase, and thus be able to be modified by a possessive pronoun.

The second one sounds acceptable to me though, as I have no problem nominalizing just "joining" and then modifying it with "of the team".

On the other hand, I have also been told that the third is ungrammatical, because in "him joining the team", him is the grammatical subject of the phrase, and as such should not be in the accusative case.

I'm curious to know whether there is a regular split, for instance whether one would be more acceptable in British English compared to American English, or whether there is another cause for this difference in opinion.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Before I attempt an answer, have you read [When **is** a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessi... (1 comment)

1 answer

+2
−0

verbal nouns and gerunds

This may be a case where the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds are causing some confusion. In most cases, they are somewhat interchangeable but it should be easier to differentiate in the following sentences.

Grammatical

  1. She was against his sudden joining of the team.
  2. She was against him suddenly joining the team. (Gerund)

Ungrammatical

  1. She was against his suddenly joining of the team.
  2. She was against him sudden joining the team.

Verbal nouns are treated as true nouns while gerunds have some properties of both verbs and nouns.

connotation

It’s also worth noting that the three phrasings have slightly different connotations.

  1. She was against his joining the team [his decision to join].
  2. She was against his joining of the team [how he joined].
  3. She was against him joining the team [that he is here].

Of the three, the 3rd sounds the most neutral, to me as a native speaker from America, while the other two emphasize the manner of his joining. Most likely because his hints at ownership, and therefore responsibility. I’d guess that you’ve heard the third option most often, as most people are not looking to assign blame (even subtly) in most day-to-day interactions.

Even as a native speaker, I needed to look this one up. It’s also possible that I, and many other English speakers, will readily accept forms of gerunds and noun phrases that are not by-the-book grammatical, but not eggregiously wrong.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »