10

(1) I regretted [his leaving the firm].

(2) I regretted [him leaving the firm].

(3) I regretted [leaving the firm].

(4) He didn’t bother [giving me a copy].

Regarding the above sentences The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1190) has this to say:

If (1) and (2) are analysed as quite different constructions, with only the bracketed portion in (2) a clause, then which of the constructions would (3) belong to?

This problem would be particularly difficult to resolve with those gerund-participials where it is not possible to include an NP before the verb, as in (4). We avoid these problems by treating the optionality of the initial NP as simply a matter of the optionality of subjects in non-finite clauses.

Here, CGEL is basically arguing that the bracketed construction in (1) is no less a non-finite clause (with his as its subject) than that in (2) is (with him as its subject).

So, CGEL is basing this argument on the presumption that the bracketed portion in (2) is a non-finite clause. But I wonder why that has to be the case.

PROBLEM of CGEL's APPROACH

CGEL's approach cannot explain the potential semantic difference between (1) and (2), as explained in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (as quoted in this Language Log):

The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized.

Because CGEL's approach analyzes (1) and (2) as the same construction only with some difference in register (formal vs. informal), I think it fails to accommodate the semantic difference shown above.

SUGGESTED APPROACH

What if we considered the verb 'regret' as taking two complements in (2), one being him and the other being leaving the firm, where the former is construed as the semantic--but not syntactic--subject of the latter?

In this approach, him in (2) would be a raised object of the verb 'regret', whereas the verb 'regret' in (1) would be analyzed as taking only one complement, a non-finite clause shown in the bracketed portion.

Then, (1) and (2) would be "analysed as quite different constructions".

This way, there would be no "problem" analyzing (3) or (4).

More importantly, the suggested analysis treats (1) and (2) as different constructions, thereby possibly accommodating the semantic difference quoted in the Language Log (shown above).

QUESTION

I'd like to know what others think of this suggested approach vis-à-vis CGEL's, and if any existing grammar employs something like the suggested approach.

Improve this question
19
  • To what does "it" refer in "The accusative pronoun is used when it is meant to be emphasized"?
    – TimR
    Commented Mar 7, 2019 at 14:28
  • Would you make the same two-complement argument for the verbs champion and stand behind?
    – TimR
    Commented Mar 7, 2019 at 14:29
  • @TRomano I think "it" refers to "the accusative pronoun". For example, him in (2) is meant to be emphasized, compared to his in (1).
    – JK2
    Commented Mar 7, 2019 at 15:28
  • @TRomano As for champion and stand behind, you'd have to give me examples.
    – JK2
    Commented Mar 7, 2019 at 15:35
  • 2
    I don't see any difference between (1) and (2), and I don't see why there is a problem here. Supposedly there is a difference in emphasis, which I don't notice, but even if there is, why does that amount to a difference in meaning? It's a tempest in a teapot.
    – Greg Lee
    Commented Mar 16, 2019 at 23:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

I don't think the approach shown in CGEL is problematic. Basically, their internal structures are the same and there is no syntactic difference between 1 and 2. Choosing accusative or genitive is a matter of style. A syntactic analysis does not have to show you the semantic difference and I don't see any semantic difference between 1 and 2. If somebody claims that there is semantic difference, the syntactic analysis does not have to deal with this

Your suggested approach is more problematic. If "him" is the object of regret, you are saying that you regret him. But what you regret is the fact that he left. You don't regret him.

Improve this answer
6
  • Hello, and welcome to the ELU. On this site the users try to provide reliable information, with references when possible, rather than just express an opinion. The tour of this site might help you understand what makes a good answer.
    – fev
    Commented Jun 7, 2021 at 9:59
  • @fev It would be a problem if we were only allowed to refer to other people's work in our answers. It similar telling people that they can only read old books, and outlawing the writing of new books. If you're not allowed to say something unless someone said it already, 50 years ago, then no new research will ever be done.
    – Toothpick Anemone
    Commented Jun 8, 2021 at 2:28
  • 1
    This answer speaks about things that were dealt with by others. It's just nice to acknowledge it. Bringing existing examples or occurrences which support the information you are giving can only help I am sure.
    – fev
    Commented Jun 8, 2021 at 8:34
  • @Samuel Muldoon But the advice given here at the Help Center is that references should be included wherever possible. Plenty of research other than that given by CGEL is available (CGEL is almost 20 years old now, for a start). We are privileged to have at least one published Professor Emeritus of Linguistics who contributes regularly on ELU (and he usually adds sound references), but unsupported answers from most people often come across as (and may be no more than) mere opinion. They may well be wrong. ELU strives for scholarly, reliable, evidenced analysis.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jul 7, 2021 at 10:46
  • 1
    ... Note that in 'I liked him singing' and 'I liked his singing' there is quite a change in meaning. The first may be paraphrased 'I liked the fact that he sang' while the second means 'I liked his performance/delivery'. I'd say that the ACC-ing structure might well need to be analysed differently even in terms of syntax. 'His singing' is a DO, of course.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jul 7, 2021 at 10:52
-1

1 is the correct form. "his leaving the firm" is a noun phrase, and can be treated as a noun in the sentence of 1.

2 does not logically make sense grammatically, although it is commonly used colloquially in British English.

3 is a variation on 2, and could equally be written as "I regretted [my leaving the firm]".

Improve this answer
2

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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