0
Electrum Posted 15 years ago
Grammar

Gerundial pharse vs. Relative clause

What do you think about Bill's driving?

A question like this seems to presuppose that Bill drives, and the speaker wants to know the hearer's opinion on how well Bill drives.

What do you think about Bill driving? (Is this or is this not grammatical?)

This questipn seems to offer Bill as a possible choice among others to be the driver on a mutual outing.

Notice that the sentences cannot be interchanged. But can the second senteence be considered legitimate?. It looks likes a relative clause used as a noun phrase.
  

Top answer

electrum can the second senteence be considered legitimate? Yes. I don't see why not.

— CalifJim

  • electrum can the second senteence be considered legitimate?
  • Yes.
  • I don't see why not.
  • CJ
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
electrumcan the second senteence be considered legitimate?
Yes. I don't see why not.

CJ
0
0
CalifJimte]Yes. I don't see why not.
How would you parse Bill driving?

Driving cannot be restrictive, because we know who Bill is.

It cannot be non-restrictive, because we cannot omit it without changing the meaning of the ssentence.

It cannot be a gerund. which would require Bill's.

So what is it?
0
0
How about calling driving a participle?

CJ
0
0
CalifJimHow about calling driving a participle?
It's a participle all right, and would ordinarily have to be either restrictive or non-restrictive, but the meaning won't allow either of these modes.

I saw a man driving a car. ...restrictive

I saw Bill, driving a car...non-restrictive
0
0
If you accept, "What do you think about Bill driving?" you would probably accept, "What do you think about me fighting Chisora?" If you accept that, you might accept what Wladimir Klitschko said, "Me fighting Chisora first is good promotion..." The ungrammatical nature of the construction surfaces here.
0
0
I'm not much of a purist when it comes to the subject of a gerund clause. Either possessive or objective case is usually fine with me, though I'm aware that the possessive is preferred for formal situations.

At any rate, I don't think this is a case where 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' applies. It doesn't apply when Bill is the subject of a clause like "Bill is driving" or "
0
0
CalifJimI'm not much of a purist when it comes to the subject of a gerund clause.
In conversation, I would say any of those things you listed. The question is, "What is the most prescriptive rule here?" I'd like to know what a real stickler would say, and then I can decide whether to adhere or not.

Can your sentences be lumped with those that have fac
0
0
electrumThe question is, "What is the most prescriptive rule here?"
Use the possessive with the gerund.

electrumCan your sentences be lumped with those that have factitive compliments?
They want Bill dead or alive.
They want Bill here in ten minutes.
I would lump them that way, though further study might re
0

Related Questions