Before I correct someone else's grammar, am I right?

[momofkhm 932]

the statement in question is this:

 

However, at this point, with Todd’s no longer serving on the Vestry, we earnestly desire the leadership of our Rector & the current Vestry to assist us in completing our mission.

 

Shouldn't it be "with Todd no longer serving on the Vestry"?

 

This is another adult, so I just want to be sure.

[Tree House Academy 71]

Yes, you are correct.

[OnTheBrink 1,932]

Your way is correct.

 

Or, you could say, "With Todd's resignation from the Vestry..."

 

In the first example (the wrong one), there is nothing for Todd to be possessing; hence, a possessive is wrong. In my example, he's possessing a resignation.

 

Make sense?

[momofkhm 932]

Your way is correct.

 

Or, you could say, "With Todd's resignation from the Vestry..."

 

In the first example (the wrong one), there is nothing for Todd to be possessing; hence, a possessive is wrong. In my example, he's possessing a resignation.

 

Make sense?

 

This is the reason I was thinking it was wrong! Thanks!

[lionfamily1999 171]

Your way is correct.

 

Or, you could say, "With Todd's resignation from the Vestry..."

 

In the first example (the wrong one), there is nothing for Todd to be possessing; hence, a possessive is wrong. In my example, he's possessing a resignation.

 

Make sense?

:iagree: Lol, I was wondering why they would say, with Todd is.... didn't even think of the possessive.

[Ellie 34,312]

the statement in question is this:

 

 

Shouldn't it be "with Todd no longer serving on the Vestry"?

 

This is another adult, so I just want to be sure.

Isn't this a gerund construction thingie? I think the original is correct.

[ekarl2 31]

the statement in question is this:

 

 

 

Shouldn't it be "with Todd no longer serving on the Vestry"?

 

This is another adult, so I just want to be sure.

 

Okay, in the original, "serving" is a gerund (a verb that acts as a noun). Therefore Todd's is correct; it modifies "serving." "No" and "longer" are adverbs and "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "serving." Grammatically those are modifiers and serve no job or purpose in the sentence; they can be removed to see the actual structure which is "Todd('s) serving."

 

If you take the possessive away, you've got "Todd no longer serving on the Vestry" acting as the object of the preposition "with." "Todd no ... the Vestry" is not a grammatical entity. It's not a noun clause because "serving" isn't a verb, it's a verbal (a gerund) and can't stand on its own. That's how we know that it would be incorrect.

 

The original version (Todd's) is correct.

[Deidre in GA 65]

Okay, in the original, "serving" is a gerund (a verb that acts as a noun). Therefore Todd's is correct; it modifies "serving." "No" and "longer" are adverbs and "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "serving." Grammatically those are modifiers and serve no job or purpose in the sentence; they can be removed to see the actual structure which is "Todd('s) serving."

 

If you take the possessive away, you've got "Todd no longer serving on the Vestry" acting as the object of the preposition "with." "Todd no ... the Vestry" is not a grammatical entity. It's not a noun clause because "serving" isn't a verb, it's a verbal (a gerund) and can't stand on its own. That's how we know that it would be incorrect.

 

The original version (Todd's) is correct.

 

i read this answer and thought Wow! I bet that person's really good at diagramming! Then i realized who made the post. See! I knew it!

 

Although I couldn't have articulated why without laboring through my copy of Analytical Grammar, I felt the original sentence was correct. However, though people use that construction often in speaking, it feels awkward in a written piece to me and i would have gone for the resignation rewording if it were my piece.

[Parrothead 6,958]

Maybe it is because I have no context, but the entire sentence sounds convoluted to me. I'd have to change the whole thing to one of these:

 

Although Todd is currently no longer serving on the Vestry, we earnestly desire the leadership of our Rector and the current Vestry to assist us in completing our mission.

 

Although Todd is no longer serving on the Vestry, at this time we earnestly desire the leadership of our Rector and the current Vestry to assist us in completing our mission.

 

Are you sure the words vestry and rector should be capitalized? Drop the ampersand too.

[Laura Corin 41,922]

Okay, in the original, "serving" is a gerund (a verb that acts as a noun). Therefore Todd's is correct; it modifies "serving." "No" and "longer" are adverbs and "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "serving."

 

I would previously have been tempted to used the possessive in this sentence, but wouldn't have known why.

 

Laura

[ekarl2 31]

i read this answer and thought Wow! I bet that person's really good at diagramming! Then i realized who made the post. See! I knew it!

 

Although I couldn't have articulated why without laboring through my copy of Analytical Grammar, I felt the original sentence was correct. However, though people use that construction often in speaking, it feels awkward in a written piece to me and i would have gone for the resignation rewording if it were my piece.

 

 

LOL! You're too funny, Deidre! You've exposed me! ROFL!

 

A good point, though. There are plenty of grammatically correct constructions in our language that just don't sound that good. I'm trying to think of an example, but my screaming son is hindering me!

Sometimes it is better to just reword it so it's not only correct, but sounds nice, too!

[Cadam 865]

I think they can both be correct. The original sounds fine verbally but is awkward when written. I would go for your version to simplify the written form but is is just preference.

[Deidre in GA 65]

LOL! You're too funny, Deidre! You've exposed me! ROFL!

 

 

your precise understanding of grammar exposed you not me, umm, i mean not i, ummm, no, not me...oh nuts...

 

:)

[ekarl2 31]

your precise understanding of grammar exposed you not me, umm, i mean not i, ummm, no, not me...oh nuts...

 

:)

 

You crack me up! :lol::lol::lol:

 

"exposed ME" (direct object) Pllbbbt!

 

I'm going to duck back under my black cloak now, ha ha ha ...

[Guest CherryKissies]

Ok I was actually looking on the internet for the use of the words (someone else's) to see if else's was correct..Then I saw this forum and was totally in love with the group by the time I finished reading all the answers..I love proper grammar though I know little about it as far as, but I do try..Don't take my sentence structure and grammer skills as an example I just write like I think...

ekarl2 Hive Mind Royal Larvae ... I love you... :001_wub:  Good Lord the things you could teach me about things I know not... Sentence structure and the use of proper grammar in writing....LOL :hurray:
I became lost during the reading of:

"Okay, in the original, "serving" is a gerund (a verb that acts as a noun). Therefore Todd's is correct; it modifies "serving." "No" and "longer" are adverbs and "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "serving." Grammatically those are modifiers and serve no job or purpose in the sentence; they can be removed to see the actual structure which is "Todd('s) serving."

If you take the possessive away, you've got "Todd no longer serving on the Vestry" acting as the object of the preposition "with." "Todd no ... the Vestry" is not a grammatical entity. It's not a noun clause because "serving" isn't a verb, it's a verbal (a gerund) and can't stand on its own. That's how we know that it would be incorrect."

But I was so intrigued... I bow to the master of the Analytical Grammar... ekarl2 Hive Mind Royal Larvae...And who is this Mask man ???   LOL

 

[zoo_keeper 112]

Okay, in the original, "serving" is a gerund (a verb that acts as a noun). Therefore Todd's is correct; it modifies "serving." "No" and "longer" are adverbs and "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "serving." Grammatically those are modifiers and serve no job or purpose in the sentence; they can be removed to see the actual structure which is "Todd('s) serving."

 

If you take the possessive away, you've got "Todd no longer serving on the Vestry" acting as the object of the preposition "with." "Todd no ... the Vestry" is not a grammatical entity. It's not a noun clause because "serving" isn't a verb, it's a verbal (a gerund) and can't stand on its own. That's how we know that it would be incorrect.

 

The original version (Todd's) is correct.

I understand this is an old thread, but I'm stuck on why "no" and "longer" are classified as adverbs.  I get that in sentences such as "Todd no longer serves on the Vestry" "no longer" would be an adverb.  However, in the original sentence, if "Todd's" is an adjective modifying the gerund/noun "serving" and thus "on the Vestry" is a prepositional phrase acting like an adjective also modifying the gerund "serving," what verb/adverb/adjective is "no longer" modifying to be classified as an adverb?

 

IMO, the sentence would be much easier if it were worded: "with Todd's discontinued service on the Vestry"!

 

ETA: Can an adverb modify a prepositional phrase?  If so, would "no longer" be an adverb because it modifies the adjective prepositional phrase "on the Vestry"?  Although, to me, it sounds like "on the Vestry" could be dropped from the sentence and "no longer" could still remain, in which case "no longer" isn't modifying on the Vestry."

[ekarl2 31]

Just stopped back by.  In either case, to me, NO and LONGER still modify SERVING.  They tell is "how" or "when" (depending on how you look at it) he's serving.  Verbals are funny things.  A gerund can be modified by both adjectives (modifying it's noun function) or adverbs (modifying it's verb function). 

 

Cool discussion!

 

(Oh, and thanks for the love, Cherry Kissies!)

[jhschool 689]

They are BOTH correct.

 

They mean slightly different things.

 

Todd's serving:  

similar:  my doing, your climbing, his helping, etc.

 

Todd serving:

similar:  me doing, you climbing, him helping, etc.

 

Both are correct.

 

Figure out which meaning you want, then pick.

[Candid 735]

Gosh, listen to Erin on the grammar part, but I'd never correct another adult's grammar unless asked. You were asked to edit something, right? (wish I could sign Judith Martin but I can't). 

[Guest fuzebawX]

For anyone that might have the same issue, the reason I came here is because after writing a message in Gmail, it kept auto correcting the word "else's", I then found that it doesn't exist on dictionary.com either,

with or without a capital "E", so after thinking I was going crazy and had made up the word, I googled it, and I guess because of the topic, it brought me to this post.

Which I found ironic due to it being about correcting someone else's grammar, and "else's" not being a word. 

I'm just glad that the good people at merriam-webster decided to include the word "else's" in their dictionary, along with thousands of other simple words that English speaking people use often...

[Mrs. Hound 813]

This thread just shows me how much I don't know. I now have a slight headache and am dreading the upcoming years of teaching dd grammer. Darn my public school education.

 

 

It's a good thing I get a chance to learn all of this through dcs homeschooling.. I already learned a lot last year... and that was kindergarten :glare: