Don and Rebecca did an excellent job of catching my (unintentionally
expressed) meaning in the difference between "Rebecca's taking over" and
"Rebecca taking over," although I disagree with Rebecca if she is
implying that the two are almost identical in meaning. I agree with
Jesperson that there is a difference in the two between "nexus" and
"junction." The noun absolute, as direct object, expresses the nexal
meaning -- "Rebecca" and "taking over" are equally important. On the
other hand, the gerund, modified by a possessive, emphasizes the "taking
over."
     Martha says that no grammarian considers the noun absolute as a
noun, but Paul Roberts does, in Understanding Grammar (p. 355). He gives
two examples, one of a subject -- "Linda in trouble was ample reason for
my going." and one as an appositive -- "That's Pagahead for you, the
right hand not keeping the left aware of what is going on."
    As for Quirk, we need to know what his philosophical bias is. By
that I mean that the structuralist and early transformational grammars
were developed with NO interest in what a sentence MEANS. Of course, my
primary objection to Martha, Quirk, and now Richard Veit, is that they
like grammar (and grammar books)  too much.   Their explanations are too
long, too complex, and, ultimately, too sterile for the general public.
Martha, for example, says that we should teach the noun absolute, but
what does that mean? We have been "teaching" grammar for decades, but
there is little evidence that students have learned much from it.
     As Richard says, "But for those who love playing with these things,
there are further
complications to keep us busy."  My problem is that while "we" are busy
"playing," most students, and teachers, cannot recognize basic subjects,
verbs, clauses, etc. In the KISS approach, noun absolutes are in the
last level -- the level at which students mop up any words that they
cannot otherwise analyze. That means that they would be forced to see
the noun absolute in "My hand behind my back, I couldn't catch the
ball." Students would not need to see the absolute as direct object.
They could analyze "They saw the soldiers leaving." as "soldiers," (DO)
and "leaving" as a gerundive (participle). Doing so, of course, would
make them miss the fine points of meaning that Don and Rebecca caught,
but for most students, that would be a fine point.
      Paul Doniger raised a good question about my statement that most
teachers are not prepared. There are, of course, no studies on this. My
impression is based on things such as the many questions and comments
that I received while editor of SIS, and, for example, on the fact that
the intended standardized tests in England were canceled because the
teachers noted that they themselves could not identify clauses. It
might, by the way, be an interesting project for ATEG to see what the
current state of knowledge about grammar actually is. Could the group
come up with a test that would be administered to teachers in a number
of school systems? (I'd bet that even if the group came up with such a
test, the teachers would object -- because they do not feel comfortable
with their knowledge of grammar.)
Ed V.