can you correct the below article for me? [Archive]

View Full Version : can you correct the below article for me?

bubblebath

01-10-2006, 06:42 PM

danmahaffey

01-10-2006, 07:13 PM

can you correct the below article for me?
thank you very much!

" The*chart is the difference price/dozen of A, compared to B in UK.

Due to Quota no.123 is the limited quota in UK,*our branch company issue the " B" paper with the unit price that will be lower than A price.We do need your*confirmation as to Buyer accept it or not.

We need to issue the paper befor the goods ship out (about 2 weeks).

Today is the deadline, but*I still hold this paper first to avoid buyer rejecting us."

*

"The chart is the difference in price/dozen of A, compared to B in the UK.

Due to Quota no.123, which is the limiteding quota in the UK, our branch company will issue the B paper with the a unit price that will be lower than A's price. We do need your confirmation as to whether the Buyer will accept it or not.

We need to issue the paper before the goods ship out (about 2 weeks).

Today is the deadline, but I am still holding this paper first to avoid the buyer's rejecting us."

Good luck.

bubblebath

01-10-2006, 07:37 PM

thank you! ^^

Temico

01-11-2006, 12:00 AM

"The chart is the difference in price/dozen of A, compared to B in the UK.

Due to Quota no.123, which is the limiteding quota in the UK, our branch company will issue the B paper with the a unit price that will be lower than A's price. We do need your confirmation as to whether the Buyer will accept it or not.

We need to issue the paper before the goods ship out (about 2 weeks).

Today is the deadline, but I am still holding this paper first to avoid the buyer's rejecting us."

Good luck.

Today is the deadline, but I am still holding this paper first to avoid the buyer's rejecting us.

What does the apostrophe "'s" after the noun "buyer" stand for, may I ask?

danmahaffey

01-11-2006, 04:44 AM

What does the apostrophe "'s" after the noun "buyer" stand for, may I ask?

In the strictest sense, "rejecting" is a gerund, an ing-form of a verb that is treated as a noun. So "buyer rejecting" is two nouns in a row. A possessive form is needed here so that "rejecting" is by, or related to, "buyer." Like Temico's computer, we have the buyer's rejecting. You may leave off the 's if it feels too awkward to you and everybody will understand you perfectly, and nobody will complain.

Temico

01-11-2006, 09:09 AM

In the strictest sense, "rejecting" is a gerund, an ing-form of a verb that is treated as a noun. So "buyer rejecting" is two nouns in a row. A possessive form is needed here so that "rejecting" is by, or related to, "buyer." Like Temico's computer, we have the buyer's rejecting. You may leave off the 's if it feels too awkward to you and everybody will understand you perfectly, and nobody will complain.

....to avoid the buyer's rejecting us.

I disagree with you. "..to avoid the buyer's rejecting us" is grammatically incorrect. "rejecting" is not a gerund(verb-noun) because it is qualifying the pronoun "us" ( "rejecting us"). There is no such grammatical structure whereby a gerund qualifies a pronoun. The correct form is ".....to avoid the buyer rejecting us(our offer)." or "..to avoid the buyer's rejection of our offer."

"...to avoid the buyer rejecting us." ------"rejecting" here, is a present participle indicating an action that is taking place. http://www.tolearnfrench.com/free/news/0gpresentparticiples.htm

danmahaffey

01-11-2006, 02:30 PM

I disagree with you. "..to avoid the buyer's rejecting us" is grammatically incorrect. "rejecting" is not a gerund(verb-noun) because it is qualifying the pronoun "us" ( "rejecting us"). There is no such grammatical structure whereby a gerund qualifies a pronoun. The correct form is ".....to avoid the buyer rejecting us(our offer)." or "..to avoid the buyer's rejection of our offer."

"...to avoid the buyer rejecting us." ------"rejecting" here, is a present participle indicating an action that is taking place. http://www.tolearnfrench.com/free/news/0gpresentparticiples.htm

On the contrary, rejecting is a gerund, another -ing form of the verb reject. Gerunds are to be treated as nouns and need possessive modifiers, whether the modifiers be nouns or pronouns. That is, whether the construction is buyer's rejecting or his rejecting they are both possessive.

For example, (1) "The buyer, rejecting all our proposals, forced us to reduce our price," is a use of the present participle modifying buyer. On the other hand, (2) "The buyer's rejecting all our proposals forced us to reduce our price," is a use of the gerund as subject of the predicate forced us to....

In sentence (1), the buyer forced us to reduce our price. In sentence (2), the rejecting forced us to do the same.

Rewriting (2) without possessive to say, "The buyer rejecting all our proposals forced us to reduce our price," though not perfect, is acceptable, shifts the emphasis once again to the buyer, and is the kind of phrasing used in everyday speech and writing.

As I read bubblebath's inquiry, he/she is not trying to avoid the buyer but the rejecting, thus I structured my advice that way.

I tried to keep as much of the original sentence as possible, but I personally would rewrite the final sentence to say "buyer's rejection[ of us]."

I'd be happy to continue this discussion if you'd like.

Pete

01-13-2006, 08:20 AM

I'd like to add a bit more about the construction "the buyer's rejecting us". Indeed, here "rejecting" is a gerund, i.e. the "ing" form of a verb, used as a noun. Although a gerund is used in the same places that a noun is used, it retains some of the characteristics of a verb. Thus in this case, it can have "us" as an object. As danmahefey said, with a gerund, if you show the one doing the action, you do use a possessive form:
- The crowd's chanting / the chanting of the crowd worried the officials.

(Note that when a gerund is qualified by a determiner, the recipient of the action is specified with an "of" phrase; I can see where this might be confusing):
- The burning of the city was a shameful act by the conquering force.

Temico

01-13-2006, 08:49 AM

Pete

01-13-2006, 02:00 PM

How about, "The crowd's chanting slogans worried the officials."? Is it grammatically correct? Or is "The crowd chanting slogans, worried the officials." grammatically correct? Or are they both correct??
Both are correct (though the comma in the second should not be there). There is a slight difference in meaning. In the first sentence, it is the chanting that worries the officials; we are told that the chanting is being done by the crowd. In the second, it is the crowd that is the source of the worry; we are told that the crowd is chanting slogans.

In practice, of course, the difference is slight, one of emphasis. In both cases, there is a crowd that is chanting slogans, and the situation worries the officials.

Temico

01-13-2006, 11:48 PM

Both are correct (though the comma in the second should not be there). There is a slight difference in meaning. In the first sentence, it is the chanting that worries the officials; we are told that the chanting is being done by the crowd. In the second, it is the crowd that is the source of the worry; we are told that the crowd is chanting slogans.

In practice, of course, the difference is slight, one of emphasis. In both cases, there is a crowd that is chanting slogans, and the situation worries the officials.
The crowd's chanting slogans worried the officials.
If the above sentence is grammatically correct, as you claim, then the following sentence must also be correct:-
"The chanting slogans' crowd worried the officials." (Remember, it was you who claimed that "chanting" is a gerund and used as a noun)

In my opinion, the above sentence is grammatically incorrect and the correct form is:-
" The crowd chanting slogans, worried the officials."
-----"chanting slogans" is an adjective phrase qualifying the noun "crowd". The adjectival attribute is evident when the sentence is rephrased as,
"The 'chanting slogan' crowd worried the officials." Here "chanting slogan" is an adjective phrase and used like the adjective "angry" in the following example:-
"The angry crowd worried the officials."

Do you still not agree with my analysis??

Pete

01-14-2006, 04:10 AM

If the above sentence is grammatically correct, as you claim, then the following sentence must also be correct:-
"The chanting slogans' crowd worried the officials." (Remember, it was you who claimed that "chanting" is a gerund and used as a noun)

In my opinion, the above sentence is grammatically incorrect and the correct form is:-
" The crowd chanting slogans, worried the officials."
-----"chanting slogans" is an adjective phrase qualifying the noun "crowd". The adjectival attribute is evident when the sentence is rephrased as,
"The 'chanting slogan' crowd worried the officials." Here "chanting slogan" is an adjective phrase and used like the adjective "angry" in the following example:-
"The angry crowd worried the officials."

Do you still not agree with my analysis??

- "The chanting slogans' crowd worried the officials." [This is not a correct English sentence.]

As I said before, both of the following sentences are correct; their grammatical structure is different and their meanings are different:
- The crowd chanting slogans worried the officials.
= There was a crowd that was chanting slogans; this crowd worried the officials.

- The crowd's chanting slogans worried the officials.
= There was a crowd that was chanting slogans; the fact that they were chanting slogans (maybe instead of cheering for the president) worried the officials.

Grammatically, it is the possessive "crowd's" that tells us that in that sentence, "chanting" is a gerund. Of course in the other sentence, "chanting" is a present participle that modifies "crowd".

Here are other examples of the possessive used with gerunds; do any of them sound natural to you, or is this just a construction that you don't use?
- Joe's drinking is causing problems in his personal life.
- John's hitting his brother was the reason for his being punished.
- I was pleased by Terry's winning the match.

danmahaffey

01-14-2006, 05:02 AM

Makes you long for the days of sentence diagramming, doesn't it?

Temico

01-14-2006, 06:31 AM

- "The chanting slogans' crowd worried the officials." [This is not a correct English sentence.]

As I said before, both of the following sentences are correct; their grammatical structure is different and their meanings are different:
- The crowd chanting slogans worried the officials.
= There was a crowd that was chanting slogans; this crowd worried the officials.

- The crowd's chanting slogans worried the officials.
= There was a crowd that was chanting slogans; the fact that they were chanting slogans (maybe instead of cheering for the president) worried the officials.

Grammatically, it is the possessive "crowd's" that tells us that in that sentence, "chanting" is a gerund. Of course in the other sentence, "chanting" is a present participle that modifies "crowd".

Here are other examples of the possessive used with gerunds; do any of them sound natural to you, or is this just a construction that you don't use?
- Joe's drinking is causing problems in his personal life.
- John's hitting his brother was the reason for his being punished.
- I was pleased by Terry's winning the match.
The crowd's chanting slogans worried the officials.
FYI, the above "sentence" is also "not a correct English sentence" just like, "The chanting slogans' (or slogans chanting's) crowd worried the officials." is not a correct English sentence. The sentence can only be relegated to colloquial(not formal or literary) English, if ever, it can be called that. The proper form is:-
"The crowd's chanting of slogans worried the officials" Here, "chanting" is a "gerund" and "slogans" is a noun, object of the preposition "of". I repeat again, there is no such grammatical construct whereby a gerund qualifies a noun or pronoun (The crowd's chanting slogans... ).

The same applies to the other two of your given examples:-
i) John's hitting of his brother was the reason for his being punished.( "his brother", object of the prep. "of" )
ii) I was pleased by Terry's winning of the match. ( "the match", object of the preposition "of" )

Temico

01-14-2006, 06:38 AM

Makes you long for the days of sentence diagramming, doesn't it?
Actually, it makes you long for the day when native speakers will stick to the rules they themselves made and shuff them down their own throats instead of using them to mislead others!!

danmahaffey

01-14-2006, 07:48 AM

FYI, the above "sentence" is also "not a correct English sentence" just like, "The chanting slogans' (or slogans chanting's) crowd worried the officials." is not a correct English sentence. The sentence can only be relegated to colloquial(not formal or literary) English, if ever, it can be called that. The proper form is:-
"The chanting of slogans worried the officials" Here, "chanting" is a "gerund" and "slogans" is a noun, object of the preposition "of". I repeat again, there is no such grammatical construct whereby a gerund qualifies a noun or pronoun (The crowd's chanting slogans... ).

The same applies to the other two of your given examples:-
i) John's hitting of his brother was the reason for his being punished.( "his brother", object of the prep. "of" )
ii) I was pleased by Terry's winning of the match. ( "the match", object of the preposition "of" )
Temico, not true. I believe you have over analyzed the sentence. Your finding another contruction that is equivalent does not invalidate the first construction. Be very careful of a dogmatic approach. Over 1,500 years of Anglo-Saxon grammar is not to be dismissed by a language student today.

Gerunds can take objects, whether prepositional phrases or direct objects. And in the clause, "the crowd's chanting slogans...," be not misled. Chanting does not modify slogans, nor does slogans modify chanting. Using of does not help because the clause needs no help; it changes the clause to something else.

Here is the analysis:
Chanting slogans is a noun phrase. It is the name of an activity or event in this example, as are other gerund/noun phrases such as hunting bear, crying foul, offering help, and so on. Slogans is the object of chanting. Chanting does not modify slogans, which would mean that we were referring to slogans that chant, like singing birds, or swimming fish.

Crowd is in the possessive case, signified by the ending 's, actually a modern version of the Anglo-Saxon genitive case. Crowd possesses, owns, or has a an limiting association with the chanting slogans. So the full expression, the crowd's chanting slogans, refers to the activity of chanting slogans as performed by the crowd.

Certainly you can rewrite the clause. But it is better to understand its correctness rather than seek another construction you alread understand.

Temico

01-14-2006, 11:12 AM

Temico, not true. I believe you have over analyzed the sentence. Your finding another contruction that is equivalent does not invalidate the first construction. Be very careful of a dogmatic approach. Over 1,500 years of Anglo-Saxon grammar is not to be dismissed by a language student today.

Gerunds can take objects, whether prepositional phrases or direct objects. And in the clause, "the crowd's chanting slogans...," be not misled. Chanting does not modify slogans, nor does slogans modify chanting. Using of does not help because the clause needs no help; it changes the clause to something else.

Here is the analysis:
Chanting slogans is a noun phrase. It is the name of an activity or event in this example, as are other gerund/noun phrases such as hunting bear, crying foul, offering help, and so on. Slogans is the object of chanting. Chanting does not modify slogans, which would mean that we were referring to slogans that chant, like singing birds, or swimming fish.

Crowd is in the possessive case, signified by the ending 's, actually a modern version of the Anglo-Saxon genitive case. Crowd possesses, owns, or has a an limiting association with the chanting slogans. So the full expression, the crowd's chanting slogans, refers to the activity of chanting slogans as performed by the crowd.

Certainly you can rewrite the clause. But it is better to understand its correctness rather than seek another construction you alread understand.

Over 1,500 years of Anglo-Saxon grammar is not to be dismissed by a language student today.

So, that's what is bugging you! BTW, beating about the bush with "out-of-the-blue concoctions" like "gerunds can take objects", without proof, of course, is not going to get you anywhere with me. You either come up with verifiable proof or just call it quits. I repeat again, rubbish is rubbish no matter who says it, be it a native speaker or a non-native speaker!!

Pete

01-14-2006, 06:48 PM

danmahaffey

01-14-2006, 07:14 PM

So, that's what is bugging you! BTW, beating about the bush with "out-of-the-blue concoctions" like "gerunds can take objects", without proof, of course, is not going to get you anywhere with me. You either come up with verifiable proof or just call it quits. I repeat again, rubbish is rubbish no matter who says it, be it a native speaker or a non-native speaker!!

Allow me to help you with citations. Here are four: one from Wikipedia, one from Perdue University, and two from The University of Oregon.

Gerund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund

In linguistics, a gerund is a kind of verbal noun. It behaves as a verb within a clause (so that, for example, it may be modified by an adverb or have an object), but the clause as a whole (sometimes consisting only of one word, the gerund) acts as a noun within the larger sentence. For example

Editing this article is very easy.

Within the clause "Editing this article," the word "Editing" behaves as a verb; in particular the phrase "this article" is the object of that verb. But the whole clause "Editing this article" acts as a noun within the sentence as a whole; it is the subject of the verb "is".

+ + + + + + + + + +

Verbals: Gerunds, Participles and Infinitives
Brought to you by the Purdue University Online Writing Lab at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/index.htm.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/print/grammar/g_verbals.html

A Gerund Phrase is a group of words consisting of a gerund and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the gerund, such as:

Finding a needle in a haystack would be easier than what we're trying to do.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence.
Finding (gerund)
a needle (direct object of action expressed in gerund)
in a haystack (prepositional phrase as adverb)

I hope that you appreciate my offering you this opportunity.

The gerund phrase functions as the direct object of the verb appreciate.
my (possessive pronoun adjective form, modifying the gerund)
offering (gerund)
you (indirect object of action expressed in gerund)
this opportunity (direct object of action expressed in gerund)

Newt's favorite tactic has been lying to his constituents.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject complement.
lying to (gerund)
his constituents (direct object of action expressed in gerund)

You might get in trouble for faking an illness to avoid work.

The gerund phrase functions as the object of the preposition for.
faking (gerund)
an illness (direct object of action expressed in gerund)
to avoid work (infinitive phrase as adverb)

Being the boss made Jeff feel uneasy.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence.
Being (gerund)
the boss (subject complement for Jeff, via state of being expressed in gerund)

+ + + + + + + + + +

GERUND PHRASE
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/phrases/gerundP.html

The gerund phrase includes the gerund and the object of the gerund or any modifiers related to the gerund.

* Flying above the lake at this time of night seems a little dangerous.
o FLYING is the subject of the sentence. A subject is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. FLYING is a gerund.

* Bill decided that scrambling over the pile of debris was not safe.
o SCRAMBLING is the subject of the dependent clause. A subject is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. SCRAMBLING is a gerund.

* Ethan avoided doing his homework because the Ducks were playing the Cougars.
o DOING is the direct object of the verb AVOIDED. An object is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. DOING is a gerund. HOMEWORK is the object of the gerund.

* The student gathered signatures for increasing the hours of the library.
o INCREASING is the object of the preposition FOR. An object is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. INCREASING is a gerund. HOURS is the object of the gerund.

* Philip Morris continues its fight to prevent government from regulating tobacco; nevertheless, the government is placing restrictions on marketing cigarettes to youth.
o Both REGULATING and MARKETING are objects of prepositions (FROM and ON).

* The young man opposes marketing smoking cigarettes as if it were glamorous.
o MARKETING is the direct object of the verb OPPOSES. SMOKING is a gerund andthe object of the gerund MARKETING. CIGARETTES is the object of the gerund SMOKING.

* Andrew continues his crusade to prevent the university from limiting free speech.
o LIMITING is the object of the preposition FROM. SPEECH is the object of the GERUND.

+ + + + + + + + + +

THE OBJECT OF THE VERBAL
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/objectV.html

Verbals are forms of verbs used as other parts of speech such as nouns, adjectives or adverbs.

In some cases a noun will follow the verbal and "receive" it. That noun is called the object of the verbal.

As with other objects, it can be identified by asking what? or who? about the verbal.

* Running the mile is a requirement for the course.
o RUNNING is a verb used as a noun (a gerund) and MILE is the object of that verbal.

* Most doctors warn their patients to quit smoking.
o You can find the object of the verbal by asking the question what about the verbal. e.g. TO QUIT what? SMOKING.

* Planning a surprise attack, the children hid behind their baby-sitter's chair.
o The participle PLANNING modifies the subject (CHILDREN), but the object of PLANNING, in other words, the thing "receiving" PLANNING, is the object of the verbal ATTACK.

* The contract offered the workers remains unsigned.
o CONTRACT is the subject of the sentence and REMAINS is the verb. OFFERED is a participle modifying the subject. WORKERS is the object of that verbal.

Sometimes the object of a verbal may be an entire clause rather than a single word.

* Hoping the child was still alive, the rescue crews dug through the rubble.
o The participle HOPING modifies the subject (crews). The object of HOPING (i.e. the thing "receiving" HOPE) is the entire idea: THE CHILD WAS STILL ALIVE.

* Tamala never stopped to think she might be in danger.
o TO THINK is an infinitive. Question: TO THINK WHAT? Answer: She might be in danger.

* Patrick wondered whether signing the contract would make him rich.
o SIGNING is a gerund. The contract is the object of the gerund. It "receives" the gerund.

Not every verbal has an object. Sometimes, verbals are followed by prepositional phrases.

* Prepared for the worst, the neighbors waited outside of the burning house.
o The participle PREPARED modifies the subject (neighbors). Rather than answering the question what, the information following the verbal describes PREPARED. In other words, what kind of prepared was it.

* Alan, described by most as a "fanatic," had his entire body tattooed green and gold.
o DESCRIBED modifies ALAN. The prepositional phrase tells how or by whom he was described.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Temico, I wish there was something else I could provide you. I'm sorry this use of the gerund comes as a surprise. To me, surprise is part of the joy of learning.

Temico

01-15-2006, 02:50 AM

Allow me to help you with citations. Here are four: one from Wikipedia, one from Perdue University, and two from The University of Oregon.

Gerund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund

In linguistics, a gerund is a kind of verbal noun. It behaves as a verb within a clause (so that, for example, it may be modified by an adverb or have an object), but the clause as a whole (sometimes consisting only of one word, the gerund) acts as a noun within the larger sentence. For example

Editing this article is very easy.

Within the clause "Editing this article," the word "Editing" behaves as a verb; in particular the phrase "this article" is the object of that verb. But the whole clause "Editing this article" acts as a noun within the sentence as a whole; it is the subject of the verb "is".

+ + + + + + + + + +

Verbals: Gerunds, Participles and Infinitives
Brought to you by the Purdue University Online Writing Lab at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/index.htm.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/print/grammar/g_verbals.html

A Gerund Phrase is a group of words consisting of a gerund and the modifier(s) and/or (pro)noun(s) or noun phrase(s) that function as the direct object(s), indirect object(s), or complement(s) of the action or state expressed in the gerund, such as:

Finding a needle in a haystack would be easier than what we're trying to do.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence.
Finding (gerund)
a needle (direct object of action expressed in gerund)
in a haystack (prepositional phrase as adverb)

I hope that you appreciate my offering you this opportunity.

The gerund phrase functions as the direct object of the verb appreciate.
my (possessive pronoun adjective form, modifying the gerund)
offering (gerund)
you (indirect object of action expressed in gerund)
this opportunity (direct object of action expressed in gerund)

Newt's favorite tactic has been lying to his constituents.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject complement.
lying to (gerund)
his constituents (direct object of action expressed in gerund)

You might get in trouble for faking an illness to avoid work.

The gerund phrase functions as the object of the preposition for.
faking (gerund)
an illness (direct object of action expressed in gerund)
to avoid work (infinitive phrase as adverb)

Being the boss made Jeff feel uneasy.

The gerund phrase functions as the subject of the sentence.
Being (gerund)
the boss (subject complement for Jeff, via state of being expressed in gerund)

+ + + + + + + + + +

GERUND PHRASE
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/phrases/gerundP.html

The gerund phrase includes the gerund and the object of the gerund or any modifiers related to the gerund.

* Flying above the lake at this time of night seems a little dangerous.
o FLYING is the subject of the sentence. A subject is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. FLYING is a gerund.

* Bill decided that scrambling over the pile of debris was not safe.
o SCRAMBLING is the subject of the dependent clause. A subject is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. SCRAMBLING is a gerund.

* Ethan avoided doing his homework because the Ducks were playing the Cougars.
o DOING is the direct object of the verb AVOIDED. An object is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. DOING is a gerund. HOMEWORK is the object of the gerund.

* The student gathered signatures for increasing the hours of the library.
o INCREASING is the object of the preposition FOR. An object is a noun. A form of the verb ending in ING and used as a noun is a gerund. INCREASING is a gerund. HOURS is the object of the gerund.

* Philip Morris continues its fight to prevent government from regulating tobacco; nevertheless, the government is placing restrictions on marketing cigarettes to youth.
o Both REGULATING and MARKETING are objects of prepositions (FROM and ON).

* The young man opposes marketing smoking cigarettes as if it were glamorous.
o MARKETING is the direct object of the verb OPPOSES. SMOKING is a gerund andthe object of the gerund MARKETING. CIGARETTES is the object of the gerund SMOKING.

* Andrew continues his crusade to prevent the university from limiting free speech.
o LIMITING is the object of the preposition FROM. SPEECH is the object of the GERUND.

+ + + + + + + + + +

THE OBJECT OF THE VERBAL
http://grammar.uoregon.edu/nouns/objectV.html

Verbals are forms of verbs used as other parts of speech such as nouns, adjectives or adverbs.

In some cases a noun will follow the verbal and "receive" it. That noun is called the object of the verbal.

As with other objects, it can be identified by asking what? or who? about the verbal.

* Running the mile is a requirement for the course.
o RUNNING is a verb used as a noun (a gerund) and MILE is the object of that verbal.

* Most doctors warn their patients to quit smoking.
o You can find the object of the verbal by asking the question what about the verbal. e.g. TO QUIT what? SMOKING.

* Planning a surprise attack, the children hid behind their baby-sitter's chair.
o The participle PLANNING modifies the subject (CHILDREN), but the object of PLANNING, in other words, the thing "receiving" PLANNING, is the object of the verbal ATTACK.

* The contract offered the workers remains unsigned.
o CONTRACT is the subject of the sentence and REMAINS is the verb. OFFERED is a participle modifying the subject. WORKERS is the object of that verbal.

Sometimes the object of a verbal may be an entire clause rather than a single word.

* Hoping the child was still alive, the rescue crews dug through the rubble.
o The participle HOPING modifies the subject (crews). The object of HOPING (i.e. the thing "receiving" HOPE) is the entire idea: THE CHILD WAS STILL ALIVE.

* Tamala never stopped to think she might be in danger.
o TO THINK is an infinitive. Question: TO THINK WHAT? Answer: She might be in danger.

* Patrick wondered whether signing the contract would make him rich.
o SIGNING is a gerund. The contract is the object of the gerund. It "receives" the gerund.

Not every verbal has an object. Sometimes, verbals are followed by prepositional phrases.

* Prepared for the worst, the neighbors waited outside of the burning house.
o The participle PREPARED modifies the subject (neighbors). Rather than answering the question what, the information following the verbal describes PREPARED. In other words, what kind of prepared was it.

* Alan, described by most as a "fanatic," had his entire body tattooed green and gold.
o DESCRIBED modifies ALAN. The prepositional phrase tells how or by whom he was described.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Temico, I wish there was something else I could provide you. I'm sorry this use of the gerund comes as a surprise. To me, surprise is part of the joy of learning.
I'm sorry this use of the gerund comes as a surprise.
Well, frankly your "explanations" do come as a surprise to me because they prove that you do not practise what you preach. FYI, the given examples have no similarity nor inkling whatsoever to the sentence in question which I repeat below:-
A. "The crowd's chanting slogans worried the authorities."

Using just two sentences from your above examples, e.g.

i) Running the mile is a requirement for the course.
ii) Hoping the child was still alive, the rescue crews dug through the rubble.

and rephrasing them like the sentence in question, I get,
a) The course's running the mile is a requirement.
b) The rescue crew's hoping the child was alive, dug through the rubble.

Are sentences(a) & (b) "standard" English, may I ask??
Also, in sentence(2), who is doing the digging, the crew or is it their hoping the.....??
While you are at it, allow me you give you another example to illustrate my point:-
"That dog's chasing the cats is creating havoc." (By your and Pete's reckoning, the sentence is grammatically correct, right?) Now, please note that in the sentence, the dog can be innocent, it's only its chasing the cats that is causing a havoc, just like( in the following sentence) the man can be innocent and its only his son who is causing a havoc:-
"That man's son is causing a havoc."
It's just like saying that a thief is not guilty, it's only his "stealing" that is guilty! What a joke!

I guess you now know what I mean when I say, "Rubbish is still rubbish no matter who utters it."

danmahaffey

01-15-2006, 06:47 AM

Well, frankly your "explanations" do come as a surprise to me because they prove that you do not practise what you preach. FYI, the given examples have no similarity nor inkling whatsoever to the sentence in question which I repeat below:-
A. "The crowd's chanting slogans worried the authorities."

Using just two sentences from your above examples, e.g.

i) Running the mile is a requirement for the course.
ii) Hoping the child was still alive, the rescue crews dug through the rubble.

and rephrasing them like the sentence in question, I get,
a) The course's running the mile is a requirement.
b) The rescue crew's hoping the child was alive, dug through the rubble.

Are sentences(a) & (b) "standard" English, may I ask??
Also, in sentence(2), who is doing the digging, the crew or is it their hoping the.....??
While you are at it, allow me you give you another example to illustrate my point:-
"That dog's chasing the cats is creating havoc." (By your and Pete's reckoning, the sentence is grammatically correct, right?) Now, please note that in the sentence, the dog can be innocent, it's only its chasing the cats that is causing a havoc, just like( in the following sentence) the man can be innocent and its only his son who is causing a havoc:-
"That man's son is causing a havoc."
It's just like saying that a thief is not guilty, it's only his "stealing" that is guilty! What a joke!

I guess you now know what I mean when I say, "Rubbish is still rubbish no matter who utters it."
Sentences i and ii above cannot be rephrased into your examples a and b. They don't contain the proper elements.

Look at this sentence: The child's rescuing her sister surprised everyone.

It means that the child's act of rescuing was a surprise. It does not mean that the child surprised anyone.

The back story may be that the child was very small, or handicapped, or unassisted. So the rescue may have been unexpected or unlikely, and everyone was surprised that is was accomplished.

Try this sentence: The child rescuing her sister surprised everyone.

It means that the child, in rescuing her sister, surprised everyone. It does not mean that the rescuing was a surprise.

Here, the story may be that a number of people rushed to the rescue, and the child emerged as the one who saved her sister. It is the surprise of the identity of the rescuer, the child rather than a fireman, for instance, that is the essence of the sentence.

With regard to your havoc and stealing issues, English language grammar rules operate without moral judgment. A sentence that asserts that the man's thieving distressed the committee is grammatically correct and properly formed even if you'd prefer the committee to be distressed with the thief rather than with the theft.

In the original question as proposed by bubblebath, he/she wanted to avoid a rejected shipment at the hands of the buyer. So the construction "avoid the buyer's rejecting us" is appropriate. If she wanted to avoid rejection by the buyer but would accept rejection by the expediter, broker, or customs agent, the sentence could be "avoid the buyer rejecting us." However, in practical usage, "avoid the buyer rejecting us," though ambiguous, can be used in both cases, and no one's the worse for it.

There's not much more I can do here. I'm sorry the point is eluding you. I know you're frustrated.

Temico

01-15-2006, 09:02 AM

Sentences i and ii above cannot be rephrased into your examples a and b. They don't contain the proper elements.

Look at this sentence: The child's rescuing her sister surprised everyone.

It means that the child's act of rescuing was a surprise. It does not mean that the child surprised anyone.

The back story may be that the child was very small, or handicapped, or unassisted. So the rescue may have been unexpected or unlikely, and everyone was surprised that is was accomplished.

Try this sentence: The child rescuing her sister surprised everyone.

It means that the child, in rescuing her sister, surprised everyone. It does not mean that the rescuing was a surprise.

Here, the story may be that a number of people rushed to the rescue, and the child emerged as the one who saved her sister. It is the surprise of the identity of the rescuer, the child rather than a fireman, for instance, that is the essence of the sentence.

With regard to your havoc and stealing issues, English language grammar rules operate without moral judgment. A sentence that asserts that the man's thieving distressed the committee is grammatically correct and properly formed even if you'd prefer the committee to be distressed with the thief rather than with the theft.

In the original question as proposed by bubblebath, he/she wanted to avoid a rejected shipment at the hands of the buyer. So the construction "avoid the buyer's rejecting us" is appropriate. If she wanted to avoid rejection by the buyer but would accept rejection by the expediter, broker, or customs agent, the sentence could be "avoid the buyer rejecting us." However, in practical usage, "avoid the buyer rejecting us," though ambiguous, can be used in both cases, and no one's the worse for it.

There's not much more I can do here. I'm sorry the point is eluding you. I know you're frustrated.
I'm sorry the point is eluding you. I know you're frustrated.
I think you made a terrible mistake. It's actually you who is frustrated and that is because you don't realise that you are eluding nobody but yourself! Read your own following paragraph closely again,

"So the construction "avoid the buyer's rejecting us" is appropriate. If she wanted to avoid rejection by the buyer but would accept rejection by the expediter, broker, or customs agent, the sentence could be "avoid the buyer rejecting us."

...and then ask yourself why didn't you use "the rejecting" instead of "rejection", since you are so sure that "rejecting" is the correct word to use in the context?? FYI, the correct sentence in bubblebath's post should either be "to avoid the buyer rejecting us" or "to avoid the buyer's rejection of our offer." I think that it should for me to say your "There's not much more I can do here." instead!

danmahaffey

01-15-2006, 10:22 AM

Temico

01-15-2006, 12:27 PM

So be it. English grammar is what it is whether you agree with me or not.

My offer to help is genuine. And you are a student. My English language skills are available to you and others for the asking. If you bridle at this and choose to balk at learning, you are free to do so. I would simply ask you to respect the time, attention and vulnerability of the others who come here to learn.
I would simply ask you to respect the time, attention and vulnerability of the others who come here to learn.
I would also ask you to do the same and if possible, which I doubt very much, to rid yourself of that inherent notion that a native English speaker is automatically a reliable authority in questions pertaining to the English language. I personally, know COUNTLESS native English speakers who can't even write a simple note in English without making silly mistakes and some of these semi-illiterate fellows even have the audacity to apply for English teaching jobs/teach English in the Far East!
Another piece of advice( if you are still susceptible to considering advices from non-native speakers) is to rid yourself of that "jumping to conclusions" habit. "Look before you leap" is a well known time-tested adage but a student need not necessarily be an English language student!!