I agree with you, Craig, with a minor difference in nomenclature: what you
call a "noun phrase version" I call a "gerund phrase."


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Michael,
>     The fact that "their President" follows means "undermining" is
> functioning as non-finite verb, not as noun. (How else could it carry
> direct object in its construction?) That would be my thinking.
>     "Democrats' undermining of their President" would be a noun phrase
> version and the possessive would be more appropriate.
>     Traditional grammar uses gerund far too readily.
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gerunds into participles -- this time it's right!
>
> I'm not sure that it's really a matter of possessives with gerunds getting
> rare as that both forms have been in mixed use for a long time. I recommend
> the entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, which gives
> an extensive history of both the construction itself and the voluminous
> commentary on the matter. It might also be worth looking at what the
> Cambridge Grammar of English has to say about the distinction between
> gerunds and participles.
>
> I do teach the possessive in front of the gerund-participle, but as a
> possibility, not as a requirement. I see it as primarily a mater of
> intended focus. Are we stressing the action (if so, use the possessive) or
> the object (if so, use the plain case)? In this instance, I find the plain
> form of "Democrats" preferable, as that's where I would put the focus. In
> other words, I read "undermining..." as a participial modifier of
> "Democrats" rather than as the head word in the object of the preposition.
>
> Karl
>
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Michael Kischner <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry about my sending troubles.  This should be readable.
> >
> > From The Economist (Feb. 22):  "Indeed, the idea that [trade deals] will
> not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining
> their president."  I would have written "for Democrats' undermining their
> president," but the possessive before gerunds seems to be getting rare in
> both speech and writing.  I hear a lot of "That's no excuse for them
> speaking rudely."  So in parsing such sentences, do we consider the -ing
> words to be participles modifying the preceding noun?  How many teachers
> out there still try to teach that gerunds are preceded by possessives?
>  Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Michael Kischner
> > 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/
>
> 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/