Topical Guide 190
Mark Dorset
Grammar and Usage: The Gerund (Save the Gerund and the Possessive Before It)
His artistic impulses had two manifestations. One was the knickknack business, of course, and that could be considered one of the practical or applied arts; the other, the purer manifestation, was his making life interesting for himself and for his family. …
Mr. Peters had moved his family to Kittiwake Island because he needed secrecy, he needed a place where he could develop his designs without his competitors’ learning about them before they were released.
Little Follies, “Call Me Larry” [emphasis added]
Save the gerund . . .
Max, in Tom Stoppard’s The Real Thing, Act I, scene I
The gerund is variously describable as an -ing noun, or a verbal noun, or a verb equipped for noun-work, or the name of an action. Being the name of an action, it involves the notion of an agent just as the verb itself does. He went is equipped for noun-work by being changed to his going, in which his does for going the same service as he for goes, i.e. specifies the agent. . . .
Fused participle is a name given to the construction exemplified in its simplest form by ‘I like you pleading poverty.’ . . . The name was invented (The King’s English, 1906) for the purpose of labelling and so making recognizable and avoidable a usage considered by the authors of that book to be rapidly corrupting modern English style. A comparison of three sentences will show the meaning of the term.
1. Women having the vote share political power with men.
2. Women’s having the vote reduces men’s political power.
3. Women having the vote reduces men’s political power.In the first, the subject of the sentence is women, and having (the vote) is a true participle attached to women. In the second, the subject is the verbal noun or gerund having (the vote), and women’s is a possessive case (i.e. an adjective) attached to that noun. The grammar in these two is normal. In the third, the subject is neither women (since reduces is singular), nor having (for if so, women would be left in the air without grammatical construction) but a compound notion formed by fusion of the noun women with the participle having. Participles so constructed, then, are called fused participles, as opposed to the true participle of No. 1 and the gerund of No. 2. . . .
A dozen years ago, it was reasonable, and possible without much fear of offending reputable writers, to describe as an ‘ignorant vulgarism’ the most elementary form of the fused participle, i.e. that in which the noun part is a single word, and that a pronoun or proper name; it was not very easy to collect instances of it. Today, no one who wishes to keep a whole skin will venture on so frank a description. Here are some examples, culled without any difficulty whatever from the columns of a single newspaper, which would be very justly indignant if it were hinted that it had more vulgarisms than its contemporaries. Each, it will be seen, has a different pronoun or name, a sufficient proof in itself of abundant material.We need fear nothing from China developing her resources. (China’s). …
It should result in us securing the best aeroplane for military purposes (our). …
They wish to achieve this result without it being necessary to draw up a new naval programme (its).
I insisted on him at once taking the bill down (his).
… the reasons which have led to them being given appointments in these departments (their).
He is prepared to waive this prohibition upon you giving him a written undertaking as follows (your).It is perhaps beyond hope for a generation that regards upon you giving as normal English to recover its hold upon the truth that grammar matters. Yet every man who abstains from the fused participle (as most good writers in fact do, though negative evidence is naturally hard to procure) retards the progress of corruption; and it may therefore be worthwhile to take up again the statement made above, that the construction is grammatically indefensible.
H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Second Edition, 1965)
That the possessive of all pronouns that have the [pronoun attached to gerund] form should be used instead of the objective or subjective is hardly disputed. Correct accordingly:
You may rely upon me doing all in my power. —Sir W. Harcourt.
But when it comes to us following his life and example … —Daily
Telegraph.
Nothing can prevent it being the main issue at the General Election.
— Spectator.
Frederick had already accepted the crown, lest James should object
to him doing so.—Times.
... their suspicions of ease-loving, ear-tickling parsons prevent them supporting the commercial churches of our time.—Daily Telegraph.
See also: Grammar and Usage: Correspond to, Correspond with TG 6
A musical evening:
[more to come on Tuesday, February 8, 2022]
Have you missed an episode or two or several?
You can begin reading at the beginning or you can catch up by visiting the archive or consulting the index to the Topical Guide.
You can listen to the episodes on the Personal History podcast. Begin at the beginning or scroll through the episodes to find what you’ve missed.
You can ensure that you never miss a future issue by getting a free subscription. (You can help support the work by choosing a paid subscription instead.)
At Apple Books you can download free eBooks of “My Mother Takes a Tumble,” “Do Clams Bite?,” “Life on the Bolotomy,” “The Static of the Spheres,” “The Fox and the Clam,” “The Girl with the White Fur Muff,” and “Take the Long Way Home,” the first seven novellas in Little Follies.
You’ll find an overview of the entire work in An Introduction to The Personal History, Adventures, Experiences & Observations of Peter Leroy. It’s a pdf document.