Pet Peeves of Writing

[javasaurus]

Many people like to complain about bad spelling, gross punctuation, and other common writing gaffs. There is one about which I'd like to complain, not only because it is common, but because many people are completely unaware of it. Of what do I speak? Owning one's gerunds!

Huh?

A gerund is a verbal, i.e., a word resembling a verb that acts as a different part of speech. In particular, gerunds are verbals with the -ing ending that act as nouns. In the sentence, "I like shopping," the word "shopping" is a gerund.

Consider the following sentence: Jane likes John kissing her.

Most people would be hard-pressed to find anything wrong with this example. However, the direct object of the sentence is not John, but the gerund, kissing. We do not know whether Jane likes John or not. We don't even know if Jane likes John while he is kissing her. We do know, however, that Jane enjoys John's kisses. Kissing is the object of likes.

So what's the problem? John should be John's. The name should be a possessive adjective to show that it describes the gerund. The sentence should read thus: Jane likes John's kissing her.

Oddly enuogh, every grammar book I've seen agrees (yes, I'm paranoid enough to check many sources before ranting), yet few people have even heard of this rule. It doesn't help that many professional authors and editors let such errors slide, if they are even aware of it. Because of extreme use of the wrong form of such gerunds, the correct form seems strange. This is similar to the issues of split infinitives and terminal prepositions. Speaking of terminal prepositions, many people "know" that it is wrong to end a sentence with one. The rule is actually a little more than that. You should not end a clause with a dangling prepostion. It is just as wrong to say, "If you know where you're going to, then you should leave soon," as it is to ask, "Do you know where you're going to?"

An important point of all this bothers me, though. If so many people accept and even fight for split infinitives, terminal prepositions, and unowned gerunds, then why are they considered wrong?

Comments

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting story behind dangling prepositions.

Do you remember sentence diagraming? The people who worked out how to diagram sentences found that their theory worked flawlessly, except for prepositions at the end of the sentence. So, they concluded that every English speaker on the planet was making a mistake, and so their theory then worked correctly. From that time on, it was incorrect to use a preposition at the end of a sentence.

Since then, the English language has largely ignored this imposed rule.

Your example is also a feature of correct English, no matter what the books say. Why? Jane .noun. Likes .verb. John Kissing Her .object phrase.

Since there is no appropriate noun, it's permissible in spoken English to substitute a phrase. Example: Jane likes riding bicycles. Riding-Bicycles acts like a single idea. If we remove either riding or bicycles, the meaning of the sentence changes. It's only with BOTH words, used as a phrase, that the sentence achieves meaning. So in your example, the phrase "John kissing her" describes an action which makes sense only when taken as a whole and in context.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Yes, you can have object phrases. But even in such phrases, the words still play a logical role. "Kissing" is a gerund here. That means it acts as a noun, but as a verbal, can take its own object. "Her" is the object of the verbal. "John's" is a possessive adjective describing the verbal. In your example, "riding" is a gerund, with the object "bicycles."

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

I still don't see where the posessive comes in. I see John's action (kissing), but not his posession (John's kisses). I see his action here, and I see his action toward Jane.

What I think we have here is an irregular sentence structure that violates some of the normal rules. This structure is used to describe timing sensitive events. However, the structure is English, as it makes sense to most people. If you give most people your sentence, they would say that you were wrong. If it sounds wrong, that means it is wrong. (This is not always true, but the exceptions have to do with formal English, which is a slightly different beast than common English.)

I forgot to add, I come from the school of thought that says, "English is as it is spoken, and the rules of English describe this." If there is a conflict between the language and the rules, I always side with the language. If you were raised speaking English, you speak your native dialect correctly.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Certainly you are not alone in your views on gerund usage. Check out the following site regarding using non-possessives with gerunds.

Another site argues mostly for possessives and starts with an excellent example, though it points out the awkwardness of possessives in complex sentences.

I would argue that an awkward sentence is no excuse for bad grammar (I mean this generally, not specifically to the gerund issue).

In any event, you make two points that I wish to address specifically. The first is that you "don't see where the possessive comes in." Technically you are correct. John doesn't own the kissing. I should have said that the genitive should be used before gerunds. The genitive case, while used for possessives, is also used at other times. Site that details other uses of genitive.

The second is (paraphrased), English is as English does. I alluded to my own discomfort with such "rules" as possessing one's gerunds, split infinitives, and terminal prepostions in my initial post. Many people (perhaps most?) break these rules, including many professional writers. Certainly I break them myself unless I'm focusing on them. So why keep these rules? Why have grammar "rules" at all? Or spelling for that matter? The reason is that such rules provide a basis for communication. Without a set of standards, local idiom and dialect would quickly lead to sublanguages that don't play well together. Such standards also stabilize a language, so that we are able to enjoy the writings of 300 years ago without a translator.

Don't get me wrong. Language should be able to grow and change, and certainly we gain new words, and lose archaic ones, every year. Idiom and dialect give the language flavor and vigor and diversity. When such changes spread and become commonplace, it may be time to reexamine old rules. Such change should, however, take a long time. Otherwise, we risk linguistic chaos.

Now I've gotten a bit into generality and away from the gerund issue, so I'll stop my ranting. I will end with a question: You make a distinction between formal and common English. How do you differentiate the two, and why do you think they exist?

Thanks for your comments,
Java

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

Formal and Common is a distinction made in Linguistics.

Formal Written English - the most fixed rules, the fewest errors (laws, decrees, etc)
Common Written English - looser rules, few errors (newspapers, paperbacks)
Formal Spoken English - many fixed rules, frequent speaker errors (government proceedings, law)
Common Spoken English - looser rules, frequent speaker errors (newscasts, television, etc)
English Dialects - what you actually speak

Not perfect definitions, but enough to give you the flavor of my meanings.

What keeps English from drifting? There are social penalties for using the inappropriate version of English at the wrong time in the wrong place. (For instance, black dialects of english only have four rules that are different, but these are enough to make it very clear to a native speaker that you are using the wrong dialect.)

Thus, both you and I can be right, as the rules for formal written English (yours) differs in many ways from common written/spoken English (me). If I were writing, I would completely avoid the above usage, as that is not appropriate to the setting. If I were blogging, that would be appropriate, as blogging is not formal writing.