Can we not use a present participle or relative clause to modify pronouns in the objective case?

Question

Actually, I alreday asked a question related with this issue. I though I was understanding it after I got the answers for my question, but now I have another fundamental doubt about whether we can not use a present participle as a objective complement or a relative clause to modify pronouns in the objective case.

"She fell in love with him dancing to the music."
"She likes him always devoting himself to his work."

"I saw you crossing the street."

Do they sound odd?

I hope you go over them and tell me whether we can modify pronouns in the objective case with present participle or a relative clause.

ps.

This is my original queston: I like her (who is) eating lunch at the table. = I like her. She is eating her lunch at the table.

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

"She fell in love with him dancing to the music." -- Not the greatest sentence ever written, in my opinion. I assume a "while" before "dancing" and understand it to mean that she was dancing, or that they were dancing together.

"She likes him always devoting himself to his work." -- Passable. She likes the fact that he does that.

"I saw you crossing the street." -- OK. Normal English. Means that I saw you in the process of doing that.

"I like her eating lunch at the table." -- Passable. Usually means that you like the fact that she does that. It could also mean "I like the female person who is eating lunch at the table". In speech the intonation would probably reveal which was meant.

"I like her who is eating lunch at the table." -- Intelligible, but not natural English.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Mr Wordy"She likes him always devoting himself to his work."

This has the problematic pattern similar to the other sentence "I like her eating lunch at the table"

Maybe it is me. But I feel "alwasy" can be ambiguous, perhaps even unclear. Does it mean "she always likes him..." or "she likes him always devoting himslef to his work" ?

If the sentence meant to say "she always likes him devoting himself to his work", it is intelligible, however, as Mr. Wordy suggested, "unnatural".

To convey the same meaning, it's more natural to say " she always likes his devotion to his work".

Lucas21c · Answer

Thank you very much, disumexpress. By the way, if I like to say it for "She likes him because he always devotes himself to his work. (He is a sincere man.)", what could be the best way to express it?

Mr Wordy · Answer

lucas21c"She likes him because he always devotes himself to his work. (He is a sincere man.)"

This is correct English.

However, it is expressed as if "He is a sincere man" explains why he always devotes himself to his work, which, to me, does not entirely work. I wonder if you really mean "sincere" or if you are looking for a different word.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Mr Wordy
lucas21c"She likes him because he always devotes himself to his work. (He is a sincere man.)"
This is correct English.

However, it is expressed as if "He is a sincere man" explains why he always devotes himself to his work, which, to me, does not entirely work. I wonder if you really mean "sincere" or if you are looking for a different word.

Well said. The one common phenomenon I've observed from some learners is swapping words or even changing the sentence structure from the original sentence to fix the unintended meaning and ask "can I say that?". Most of the time, the answer is "yes"; although the error has been corrected, but the meaning has been altered as well.

Mr Wordy"She likes him because he always devotes himself to his work. ~~(He is a sincere man.~~)"

This is a much more solid sentence and the meaning is unquestionable. That said, the meaning and sentence structure are not exactly the same anymore from the original: She likes him always devoting himself to his work.

Can we not use a present participle or relative clause to modify pronouns in the objective case?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions