1

Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

1.) We are grateful to X for her proofreading this paper.

Or alternatively:

2.) We are grateful to Y for him proofreading this paper.

I think that the following sentences would be better

3.) We are grateful to X for her proofreading of this paper.

Or:

4.) We are grateful to X for proofreading this paper.

But I'm interested in the first sentence and would like to know whether this is a correct English sentence (even if it is maybe a bit 'odd').

Edit: I am interested in the structure "for him/her proofreading". Is this a construct that can be generally used? Is it acceptable in this sentence? I know that it's twice in this sentence and that the sentence can be improved (see 3. and 4.). But I saw this sentence in the acknowledgments sections of a paper and would be interested if it's grammatically correct (in a very 'mechanical' way, i.e., could a parser find a way to classify this sentence as grammatically possible?).

1
1

The issue can be solved by simplifying the sentence eliminating her or him entirely. Ex: We are grateful to X for proofreading this paper. To me, X or Y is likely connoted by name, thus making an additional identifier unneeded.

Having so stated, if the paper in question has yet to be identified in previous sentences and/or context, then this would be a good place to make a more exact reference. Ex: We are grateful to Y for proofreading this article regarding jurisprudence (whatever subject it's supposed to be).

1
  • Thanks for your answer. However, I'm interested in the structure "for him/her proofreading" (see the edit in my original question). I'd like to know if the above sentence (1.) is correct English, independent of its content or style (i.e., in a very mechnical way).
    – Pold
    Apr 13 '18 at 23:27

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.