In the furor over 'that' vs. 'who', I don't think your original question has
been answered.

As far as I know, even pedants (and least grammatically savvy pedants) would
not prefer "his coming" in this particular context. Even in the most fussy
traditional grammar, there has always been a place for "him coming" and the
like, depending on the context.

Traditional grammar balks at an object case pronoun + a gerund (as, for
example, in subject position: "Him failing the test surprised us all.") not at
an object pronoun + a modifying participle.

So, for example, both of the following have always been considered
unimpeachably grammatical in even the most formal standard English, although
they don't mean quite the same thing:

I heard him singing.
I heard his singing.

The difference is one of focus. In the former, we are focused on the person;
in the latter, on the action.

In your cited example, trying to "correct" the original only makes things
worse. "We are honored to have his coming" sounds utterly wrong to my ear. I
don't think that this idiom permits a gerund in the direct object position.

Karl

DD Farms wrote:
> At 09:09 AM 1/17/2009, Brad Johnston wrote:
>> Paulson's Next Stop: Johns Hopkins
>>  "We are honored to have him coming", said Felisa Neuringer Klubes, a
>> SAIS spokeswoman. . . /
> 
> DD: Is that now the preferred High Standard English way to go? "him
> coming"? Is it only the ardent pedants that prefer, "his coming"?
> 
> 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/