0
Anonymous Posted 21 years ago
Grammar

gerunds - "john being involved" or "john's being involved" ??

Hi All,

Can any one clarify why this is wrong ?

Any allegations of John being involved in that kind of crime are purely ridiculous.

Well, according to grammarians, the above statement is wrong and that correct version
has John's being involved. For some reason, John's doesn't sound correct to me..Since
we are using being, we don't need the possessive form, correct? I am not sure, what's it
abt this example that is so much confusing abt it..

Possessive form would be needed if sentence were changed to

Any allegations of John's involving in that kind of crime are purely ridiculous.



thanks in advance,
Sharad
  

Top answer

Hello Sharad I would say like: Any allegations of John's involvement in the crime are ridiculous. or (though very stilted) Any allegations of John's being involved in the crime are ridiculous. Note-1) : "Involve" is a transitive verb.

  • Hello Sharad I would say like: Any allegations of John's involvement in the crime are ridiculous.
  • or (though very stilted) Any allegations of John's being involved in the crime are ridiculous.
  • Note-1) : "Involve" is a transitive verb.
  • , "John was involved in the crime".
  • Note-2) : ( x ) "Someone alleged somebody" ( o ) "Someone alleged something" paco
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.

7 Answers
0
Hello Sharad

I would say like:
Any allegations of John's involvement in the crime are ridiculous.
or (though very stilted)
Any allegations of John's being involved in the crime are ridiculous.

Note-1) : "Involve" is a transitive verb.
i.e., "John was involved in the crime".
Note-2) : (x) "Someone alleged somebody"
0
Hello Sharad

In English, there is some relation between a noun phrase and its corresponding sentence from which the noun phrase is made.
The army destroyed the city. --> the army's destruction of the city.
The city was destroyed (by the army). --> the city's destruction (by the army).

paco
0
why this is wrong
I'm not completely convinced that it is wrong. It's just in a lower register, less formal.
Still, I do see the point that we allege something, not someone.
On the other hand, we allege something of someone, so why not allege 'being involved ...' of John?

As for possessives not being used before "being"
0
Hello guys

I might be wrong as usual, but at least in writing level I differentiate the use "a person + ing" and that of "a person's + ing" in a way like : when the verb can take a person as its object, use "a person + ing", and when the verb cannot take a person as its object, use "a person's + ing". In the case of "allege", this verb cannot take a person as its object. So I would say "
0
So I would say "They alleged his killing her at the hotel" rather than "They alleged him killing her at the hotel", though both constructions sound a bit weird.
They do sound weird; I think I'd have to say "They alleged that he had killed her".

MrP
0
SharadPossessive form would be needed if sentence were changed to

Any allegations of John's involving in that kind of crime are purely ridiculous.

Hello Sharad

This wouldn't be possible, unfortunately: you have to use a form of "to be involved in", in this context. Cf.

1. MrQ is involved in money-laundering.
0
SharadHi All,

Can any one clarify why this is wrong ?

Any allegations of John being involved in that kind of crime are purely ridiculous.

Well, according to grammarians, the above statement is wrong and that correct version
has John's being involved. For some reason, John's doesn't sound correct to me..Sinc

Related Questions