Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Death for we who deserve it Message-ID: <19@spar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 07:46:48 EST Article-I.D.: spar.19 Posted: Thu Jan 3 07:46:48 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 08:07:19 EST References: <275@ho95b.UUCP> <692@ihnp4.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 77 Keywords: pedants, hot air, trivia In article <692@ihnp4.UUCP> Lyn Cole appears to have added yet more confusion to Robert Neinast's initial error. Maybe I'll screw things up even more... ======================================================================== Robert's original error was here: >>... >>Let me rewrite the sentences with what I think are >>illustrative phrasal groupings: >> >>"Death for (we who deserve it) is one thing." >>In this case, the object of the preposition >>is a gerund phrase (so that "we" is correct as >>nominative case). The object of the preposition >>is specifically "we who deserve it" as a group, >>and death is intended only for that specific group. As Lyn correctly pointed out, there are no gerunds here. Sorry, Robert, your idea about "specific groups" has absolutely no bearing on the case of anything! The correct sentence is: Death for us who deserve it is one thing. In classical grammar, one would say that `us' is the object of the preposition `for', and is thus objective case; `who' is the subject of `deserve', and is thus nominative case. One would, however, select the nominative `we' in the sentence below: We, who deserve it, get death. ..since `we' is the subject of the main verb `get' in the outer (independent) clause. While we're on the subject of case, a very common error, even (especially) in highbrow prose, is confusing the case in: Death for who(m)ever deserves it is one thing. An apparent conflict occurs because the relative pronoun acts as both the object of a preposition and the subject of a subordinate clause. The relative pronoun should be in the case required by the imbedded (subordinate) clause; `whoever' is correct. Perhaps Robert's faded high school memories of this rule are the source of his error. ======================================================================== Now it's Lyn's turn {MY COMMENTS BRACKETED}: >>Two similar sentences are >>1) My father objects to me picking my nose, {NP + PARTICIPLE} >>and >>2) My father objects to my picking my nose. {POSSESSIVE + GERUND} > >In the two "similar sentences", besides not being >similar, the first is incorrect. For that meaning, >there should be a comma after "me": "My father >objects to me, picking my nose." I simply cannot accept Lyn's statement that sentence 1 is incorrect! If Lyn were correct, then statements like the below: (np + participle) A1) My father objects to children eating frogs. B1) My father objects to limburger cheese smelling up the house. ..should be reworded: (possessive + gerund) A2) My father objects to children's eating frogs. B2) My father objects to limburger cheese's smelling up the house. Which sound more natural to you? I'll take the "incorrect" ones any day. And WITHOUT commas, thank you. -michael `prepositions are things you can end sentences with' ellis