Grammar discussion CQ blog Jul 12, 2012

[grapes]

Just a thought. Has anyone considered how CosmoQuestors (CosmoQuestians? CosmoQuistadors?) feel about this.

We used to use the term "BAUTians", so I like CosmoQuestians, but I've already used CosmoQuestions so I'll stick with that. :)

(Because I can't help it.)

CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of Fraser Cain, Phil Plait, and I working to communicate ...

"... of Fraser Cain, Phil Plait and me working to communicate ..." (This always grates.)

I would've thought that "I" is correct. It's the subject of the phrase "I working", which as a phrase is the object of the preposition.

ETA: The blog post referenced is here:
http://cosmoquest.org/blog/2012/07/b...yone-together/

This discussion was removed from the general merge discussion thread:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-Change-quot-)

[agingjb]

I'd go for "me" - "the result of me working" rather than "the result of I working" (and "the result of us working" rather than "the result of we working"); but Gillian will tell us.

[Noclevername]

I'd go for "me" - "the result of me working" rather than "the result of I working" (and "the result of us working" rather than "the result of we working"); but Gillian will tell us.

Gillian's out of town until Monday.

[slang]

She'll tell us monday then

Just a heads-up that there are still some import/fixing scripts being run, which may affect performance, but should help out the original CosmoQuest usergroup.

[HenrikOlsen]

We used to use the term "BAUTians", so I like CosmoQuestians, but I've already used CosmoQuestions so I'll stick with that.

I would've thought that "I" is correct. It's the subject of the phrase "I working", which as a phrase is the object of the preposition.

Remove the other people from the sentence to see which one of Me and I is correct (I think I learned that one from a post by Gillian).

"CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of me working to communicate"
"CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of I working to communicate"

Suddenly it's a lot easier to see why "me" is correct here.

[Extravoice]

Suddenly it's a lot easier to see why "me" is correct here.

Actually, "my" sounds better to me, as in:
"CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of my working to communicate"...but what do I know?
(I'd recommend that this be broken to a new thread, but Gillian will resolve it in one post.)

[R.A.F.]

I'd recommend that this be broken to a new thread, but Gillian will resolve it in one post.

Gillianren is "out of town" until Sunday...

[Paul Beardsley]

Gillianren is "out of town" until Sunday...

Whilst I acknowledge Gillian's position as queen of grammar, teaching English grammar is my day job. The following is correct.

"CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of Fraser Cain, Phil Plait, and me working to communicate ..."

If it was just Fraser, the speaker could say, "CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of him working to communicate ..."

If it was just Fraser and Phil, the speaker could say, "CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of them working to communicate ..."

If it was just the speaker, the speaker could say, "CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of me working to communicate ..."

It's possible to replace "I" with "my" (treating "working" as a gerund) but you'd really have to make the other names possessive too: CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of Fraser Cain's, Phil Plait's, and my working to communicate ..." though it does sound a bit clumsy.

[Extravoice]

[Maxwell Smart] I missed it by that much. [/Maxwell Smart]

[grapes]

I've moved this thread to OTB so we can clear this up. I, of course, was wrong. :)

I, at first, saw the "I/me working" as a separate clause, and so thought that "I" would be correct, but it's not. The object of the preposition is the gerund "working" (ten years of working!), and should be modified by "my", as Extravoice suggested.

It's possible to replace "I" with "my" (treating "working" as a gerund) but you'd really have to make the other names possessive too: CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of Fraser Cain's, Phil Plait's, and my working to communicate ..." though it does sound a bit clumsy.

That's not necessary. When a list of names all possess the same object, it is only necessary to make the final name possessive.

Here's a link to the first discussion that popped up when I googled this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you...tems_in_a_list
Go down to the part about "Bob and Karen's son"

[Paul Beardsley]

That's not necessary. When a list of names all possess the same object, it is only necessary to make the final name possessive.

Go down to the part about "Bob and Karen's son"

True, but there is ambiguity - it could mean Karen's son and somebody called Bob who is not the father. I also think possessive adjectives sound awkward after more than two names. "Philip is Helen and my friend" sounds fine but I don't like "Philip is Helen and Sally and my friend."

[grapes]

True, but there is ambiguity - it could mean Karen's son and somebody called Bob who is not the father.

Ambiguity is legion. In that example, one might say "Karen's son and Bob".

At that link, it uses the example "Sarah's and Leslie's daughters", which has a different meaning than "Sarah and Leslie's daughters"

I also think possessive adjectives sound awkward after more than two names. "Philip is Helen and my friend" sounds fine but I don't like "Philip is Helen and Sally and my friend."

In the case under discussion, I don't think it sounds awkward though:

"... of Fraser Cain, Phil Plait and my working to communicate ..."

And, I don't think it's ambiguous.

[Perikles]

The following is correct.

"CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of Fraser Cain, Phil Plait, and me working to communicate ...".

To be honest, that sounds terrible to me. The "working" is a gerund, and I don't see how you could say "me working" any more than "me trousers". Having said that, what you wrote is quite common

If it was just Fraser, the speaker could say, "CosmoQuest is the culmination of roughly 10 years of him working to communicate ...".

Seeing that we are on a grammar thread, surely you would need a subjunctive here? You are citing a hypothetical condition, because it was not just Fraser. If it were just Fraser .....(Assuming your are writing UK English, anyway)

[Tinaa]

Isn't the whole prepositional phrase consider one of the subjects and working one of the verbs of the compound sentence?

[grapes]

Isn't the whole prepositional phrase consider one of the subjects and working one of the verbs of the compound sentence?

That was, more or less, my thinking originally, but I've come around to recognizing "working" as the (gerund) object of the preposition (ten years of working), so "my" would modify that.

[Paul Beardsley]

Seeing that we are on a grammar thread, surely you would need a subjunctive here? You are citing a hypothetical condition, because it was not just Fraser. If it were just Fraser .....(Assuming your are writing UK English, anyway)

You can have a subjunctive "were" if you wish but according to the current EFL text books it's no longer a requirement.

[Perikles]

You can have a subjunctive "were" if you wish but according to the current EFL text books it's no longer a requirement.

I really find this sad. The subjunctive is a valuable mood, exploited in other European languages much more than English. What kind of English do EFL textbooks teach? Would you really say "If I was you" instead of "If I were you" ? I'm shocked, shocked!

[Paul Beardsley]

I really find this sad. The subjunctive is a valuable mood, exploited in other European languages much more than English. What kind of English do EFL textbooks teach? Would you really say "If I was you" instead of "If I were you" ? I'm shocked, shocked!

Yes, really.

Quite honestly, I don't like the subjunctive "were". I don't think it adds anything to the communication of feeling, and it can sound very affected.

[Perikles]

Quite honestly, I don't like the subjunctive "were". I don't think it adds anything to the communication of feeling, and it can sound very affected.

We shall have to disgree on this. In my book (or me book if you like) "If I was you" sounds primitive. If your students are from anywhere in Europe, they would find it perfectly natural. (That was an open conditional statement, not requiring a subjunctive. You lose a nuance by ignoring the difference.) But then who cares about linguistic subtlety these days?

[profloater]

English is the most common language used internationally and therefore subtleties present in other languages should not be lost by debasing english.
The original phrase used "working" as a gerund but there is also the noun "work". "the result of..... ten years.... of work" is a little different from "the result of...ten years.. of working. The latter implies a continuation.

"my work" and "my working" sound a little different too.

But in both cases "I work" (verb) and "me work" are just wrong. There is a surpressed ownership in " resulting from a and b and my work" from a's and b's and my work" whereas "from a working and b working and my working" has the continuation of the work in the past.

[Ara Pacis]

I enjoy the conditional a lot, so I'd stick with were, If I were you. But if I was you, then I want "if I was you" because I am you.

[profloater]

If I were to remember why I ran it might be that it was a plan to hurry if I was to catch my plane. If I were to miss my plane it should be remembered that I could have been running.

[grapes]

There is a surpressed ownership in " resulting from a and b and my work" from a's and b's and my work" whereas "from a working and b working and my working" has the continuation of the work in the past.

It's not suppressing ownership so much, as emphasizing the cooperation in the work. To add the 'ses (hee hee) would imply that they worked more separately, rather than together. It'd suppress their spirit of cooperation! :)

[profloater]

Never want to suppress that cooperation; as in others and my contributing
(I note the emoticons are not working just making question marks)

[grapes]

Yeah, I've gone to [noparse] :) [/noparse]. :)

[Paul Beardsley]

We shall have to disgree on this.

Okay.

In my book (or me book if you like) "If I was you" sounds primitive.

Fair enough.

If your students are from anywhere in Europe, they would find it perfectly natural. (That was an open conditional statement, not requiring a subjunctive. You lose a nuance by ignoring the difference.) But then who cares about linguistic subtlety these days?

I must confess I'm not familiar with this structure.

First conditional: "If your students are from anywhere in Europe, they will find it perfectly natural."

Second ("unreal") conditional: "If your students were from anywhere in Europe, they would find it perfectly natural." That is to say, they are not from Europe, but we can imagine a situation (and outcome) where they were from Europe.

[Ara Pacis]

It's not suppressing ownership so much, as emphasizing the cooperation in the work. To add the 'ses (hee hee) would imply that they worked more separately, rather than together. It'd suppress their spirit of cooperation! :)

If you want to emphasize cooperation, then use a collective noun or pronoun and place the names in apposition.

[grapes]

We didn't write it, so we can't, at this point, impute intent, but we can decide which of the three possibilities (I, me, my) is correct. I'm coming down on the side of my.

[Paul Beardsley]

We didn't write it, so we can't, at this point, impute intent, but we can decide which of the three possibilities (I, me, my) is correct. I'm coming down on the side of my.

"My" certainly sounds nicest, but the object pronoun works too.

Consider this:

John is a careless driver.
Here is video footage of him driving carelessly.
The accident was caused by him driving carelessly.
The accident was caused by his driving carelessly.
The accident was caused by he driving carelessly.

The third sentence places the blame on the person and the fourth places the blame on the action. The fifth - using the subject pronoun - is simply incorrect.

[agingjb]

As people have said, "my" would seem to require "Fraser Cain's, Phil Plait's and my working".

"Fraser Cain, Phil Plait and myself working"? I'd stick with "me".

Actually I'd probably write something like:

"We, that's Fraser Cain, Phil Plait and myself, have been working for roughly 10 years to communicate astronomy to the public, and Cosmoquest is the culmination of this work."