Why not a third analysis?  "being" as a participle, as in "I found him fishing in the White River."  ""See" allows all three constructions.  "Find" does not.  Other perception verbs allow the participial construction as well:

	I felt the breeze blowing on my back.
	I smelled the paper burning.
	I heard the sirens blaring as the fire trucks went by.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DD Farms
Sent: 2008-12-13 01:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clause or Phrase

At 10:44 PM 12/12/2008, John Curran wrote:
>The boy was very happy that his mother did not see him being such a pig.
. . .

DD: The analysis went off into what sort of clause followed, 
"that."  Arrgh. Shouldn't some attention have been placed on the use 
of "him" instead of "his?" If the emphasis is on whom the mother saw, 
then I will allow "him," but insist on a comma after. If the emphasis 
is on what the mother saw, I suggest it was the action following a 
possessive, "his."  It is awkward in the first case, as that comma 
might be interpreted to his mother's being the pig. Still, I think 
that if you allow less than high standard English to prevail, the 
possessive and the gerund connection is ignored.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/