Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her.

JungKim(1) Is this grammatical?

Yes.

JungKim(2) What does did mean here?

It's a "pro-verb", filling in for led.

"Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her."

Aspara GusIt's a "pro-verb", filling in for led.

Is it grammatically possible that did fills in for not just "led" but "led with all the grace and wisdom"?

JungKimIs it grammatically possible that did fills in for not just "led" but "led with all the grace and wisdom"?

I say no, though some may disagree with me. The relative pronoun that stands in for grace and wisdom, so the idea that did (or led) substitutes the entire phrase makes little sense to me.

I somehow lost track of this thread-or probably I might have looked at it but gotten distracted and failed to follow up-and I'd like to belatedly follow up on it, if I may.
The original sentence was:
"Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her."

Aspara GusThe relative pronoun that stands in for grace

JungKimSo you're saying that "grace" and "wisdom" are the antecedents of the relative pronoun that, right?

Yes.

If that were the case, the original sentece, if it were to be grammatical, would require a preposition with at the end, and the sentence would have to be: "Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her with."

If, however, the antecedent were "kingdom", there would be no need for the preposition with.

Am I mi

Yes, and I was too, apparently. Led as the antecedent of did suggests that her parents led grace and wisdom, which is nonsense.

Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents led her kingdom with before her.

This makes the most sense to me. Did substitutes the underlined verb phrase, not just the verb.

JungKim"Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her."(1) Is this grammatical?(2) What does did mean here?

Yes, it is grammatical.

The analysis is a bit tricky though because there's a that-relative clause containing a pro-VP.

The pro-VP "di

"Beloved by all, she led her kingdom with all the grace and wisdom that her parents did before her."

BillJThe pro-VP "did" has "led her kingdom before her with ___" as its antecedent

You mean, "led her kingdom with ___", right?
(Since the pro-VP did apparently does NOT include "before her" in the original sentence.)

Then, Aspara Gus an