Correct usage on this sentence?

Question

I read this in a newspaper column recently:
"Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk to him, him not being a big-shot writer or anything."
Is the second "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or "his"?

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]"Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk to him, him not being a big-shot writer or anything." Is the second "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or "his"?[/nq]
It should be 'his'. Others will be able to tell you why. Still others will, doubtless, differ.
Michael Hamm NB: Of late, my e-mail address is being AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis 'spoofed' a bit. That is, spammers send (Email Removed) e-mail that seems to be from me. Please http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ realize that no spam is in fact from me.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk ... "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or "his"?[/nq]
[nq:1]It should be 'his'. Others will be able to tell you why. Still others will, doubtless, differ.[/nq]
I would have said "he" in that sentence. But "with his not being" would work for me. I'm looking forward to a grammarian's response.

rzed

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I read this in a newspaper column recently: "Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk to him, him not being a big-shot writer or anything." Is the second "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or "his"?[/nq]
The old-fashioned English-grammar name for this construction is "nominative absolute", for reasons which elude me; this suggests that traditional English grammarians would prescribe "he", since "he" is the nominative pronoun.
"Him" sounds better to my ear.
"His" is certainly wrong.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]"Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk ... "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or "his"?[/nq]
[nq:1]It should be 'his'. Others will be able to tell you why. Still others will, doubtless, differ.[/nq]
Doubtless. Isn't the nominative "he" called for there?
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia

Usenet · Answer

}
}> I read this in a newspaper column recently:
}>
}> "Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk to him, him not }> being a big-shot writer or anything."
}>
}> Is the second "him" grammatically correct? Or should it read "he" or }> "his"?
}
} The old-fashioned English-grammar name for this construction is } "nominative absolute", for reasons which elude me; this suggests that } traditional English grammarians would prescribe "he", since "he" is the } nominative pronoun.
}
} "Him" sounds better to my ear.
}
} "His" is certainly wrong.
I don't recall ever hearing of "nominative absolute" (which doesn't mean it wasn't there to be known), but it did remind me of "ablative absolute", which had slipped away from me over the years, but my trusty old American Heritage Dictionary (I) brought it back for me:
In Latin grammar, an adverbial phrase syntactically independent from the rest of the sentence and containing two main elements both in the ablative case. It is usually used to express cause, circumstance, or time; for example, in the sentence Regibus expulsis, leges respublica condit ( The kings having been expelled, the republic sets up laws ), The phrase Regibus expulsis is the ablative absolute.

I don't know if this is relevant, but there it is.

It does remind me that quotation marks, italics, and underlining (here representing AHD's italics) are often interchangeable, and that the plural of a possibly quoted string (now especially a short one like '"a"') is simply the unquoted string followed by an apostrophe-s: "a's". It is also common to see slogans either quoted or italicized, so it's not uncommon to see something that is to be emphasized without irony simply quoted, as in the greengrocer's '"APPLE"' (whose plural would naturally be "APPLE'S").

Now that is surely not relevant.

R. J. Valentine
But it's my contribution to thread drift.

Usenet · Answer

Today, at 00:20:17 GMT, Michael West (Email Removed) wrote, in part:
[nq:2]It should be 'his'. Others will be able to tell you why. Still others will, doubtless, differ.[/nq]
[nq:1]Doubtless. Isn't the nominative "he" called for there?[/nq]
Listen,(1) I can't be right all the time. That'd be scary.

Thanks for the correction. I learn something new every day. (Incidentally, was that originally a statement of fact or a piece of advice? One should* or *does learn soemthing new daily?)

(1) Or, actually, read.
Michael Hamm NB: Of late, my e-mail address is being AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis 'spoofed' a bit. That is, spammers send (Email Removed) e-mail that seems to be from me. Please http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ realize that no spam is in fact from me.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Doubtless. Isn't the nominative "he" called for there?[/nq]
[nq:1]Listen,(1) I can't be right all the time. That'd be scary. Thanks for the correction. I learn something new every day. (Incidentally, was that originally a statement of fact or a piece of advice? One should* or *does learn soemthing new daily?)[/nq]
You asking me? I think that in strict grammatical terms, the nominative "he" has to be used there. But it seems to me that the author is trying for a deliberately down-market register there, so "him" is probably fine for the sought-after effect. I don't think "his" fits, either way. "His not being a (whatever)" could serve as the subject or object of a verb, but in this case, there is no verb for it connect with, so it is just adjectival, and could be inverted as: "Not being a (whatever), he ..."

Michael West
Melbourne, Australia

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]} }> I read this in a newspaper column recently: }> }> "Then he asked if Manchester would really want ... from me over the years, but my trusty old American Heritage Dictionary (I) brought it back for me:[/nq]
Yeah, exactly: an English so-called nominative absolute is the most straightforward way of translating a Latin ablative absolute (and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that English just borrowed the construction direct from Latin and called it "nominative absolute" for lack of an English ablative case). For lots of references to this construction as "nominative absolute", just do a Google search on the name; you'll find lots of references to this construction and lots of references to something in Greek.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Doubtless. Isn't the nominative "he" called for there?[/nq]
[nq:1]Listen,(1) I can't be right all the time. That'd be scary. Thanks for the correction. I learn something new every day. (Incidentally, was that originally a statement of fact or a piece of advice? One should* or *does learn soemthing new daily?)[/nq]
I like the version that goes, 'You learn something new every day... if you're not careful.'

john

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It should be 'his'. Others will be able to tell you why. Still others will, doubtless, differ.[/nq]
[nq:1]I would have said "he" in that sentence. But "with his not being" would work for me. I'm looking forward to a grammarian's response.[/nq]
Well, now we have all three possibilities accounted for, each definitive, each authoritative, and all contradictory. Good job. An excellent example of the virtues of old-fashioned Authority in grammar.

This grammarian would like to point out that there are two varieties of gerund (or participle) construction in Modern English; one variety has its subject marked as possessive,
Mary could envision Franks's waiting two hours for her. With Frank's having waited two hours already, Mary was in a hurry.

and the other doesn't.
Mary could envision Frank waiting two hours for her. With Frank having waited two hours already, Mary was in a hurry.

These two varieties are called (respectively) POSS-ing and ACC-ing in the trade, after the cases that their respective pronouns would have had if they had been Latin pronouns. ACC-ing is so-called because it marks pronoun subjects with the post-verbal (variously called "objective" or "dative/accusative") form where it is distinct from the nominative and possessive forms (i.e, only in the words "me, him, us", and "them").

Mary could envision him/*he waiting two hours for her. With him/*he having waited two hours already, Mary was in a hurry.

The sentence in question is a garden-variety case of ACC-ing, with the preposition 'with' suppressed. To annotate the example:

Then he asked if Manchester would really want to talk to him, (with) him not being a big-shot writer or anything.

Another example of a mildly idiomatic construction with ACC-ing is

Here's me/*I/*my thinking it's a simple matter.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays - Kipling, And every single one of them is right!" 'In the Neolithic Age'

Correct usage on this sentence?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions