preclude sb doing sth / preclude sb FROM doing sth

Proszę o pomoc w wytłumaczeniu różnicy pomiędzy:

His religious beliefs precluded him from serving in the army.
His religious beliefs precluded him/his serving in the army.

Rozumiem użycie him/his; chodzi mi o 'from'. Wyczuwam nacisk w pierwszym zdaniu na 'him' w drugim na 'his serving', ale czy jest róznica znaczeniowa?

może nie ma różnicy?

preclude jak prevent?

Szkoda, że nie ma różnicy. Nuda :)

tak powiedział moderator po moim referacie na pierwszej konferencji, w której uczestniczyłem. Był Rosjaninem, więc może wymówił dwa słowa po rosyjsku :-)

Odgryzłeś się?

Jeśli zdążę w tym życiu przerobić Quirka to wezmę się za 'Mowa zależna w języku angielskim w ujęciu leksykalnym'. Ciekawe czy dam radę. Szkoda tylko, że nie jest po angielsku :)

możesz przetłumaczyć na angielski :-)

nie, nie odgryzłem się :-)

(1)…precluded him from serving..=…he didn't serve.
(2)…precluded him serving…= precluded him (from something else) [while he was] serving… (surprise, surprise)
(3)…precluded his serving…= either (i) he didn't serve as a result of his religious beliefs or (ii) he served despite and contrary to his religious beliefs.
Reading (ii) can also be found in (3).

Janski:
http://arts-ccr-002.bham.ac.uk/ccr/patgram/ch03.html
I.4 The `stop' group
These verbs are concerned with stopping someone doing something, or preventing something happening.

What they want above all is to avoid it degenerating into a full-scale military conflict.
They signed an agreement with the National Trust which precluded the land being used for a bridge.
The Betting, Gambling and Lotteries Act of 1963 prohibits any cash bet being struck on a Sunday.
I think she really would have liked to stop us seeing each other.

Janski, what was the land being used for a bridge involved in that was precluded by the agreement with the National Trust?

Nie będę robił za kogoś zadania. Sam autor powinien przetłumaczyć :) Chyba, że będzie mi się nudzić to przetłumaczę, ale będę je wklejał tutaj, żebyście sprawdzili poprawność :)

In preschool, children hear the first of the forbidden things that come in triads:
When the leaves are three, let it be.

In middle school, they graduate to the next triad of banned things, this time in the realm of basic syntax and linking at the sentence level:
1. (no) danglers
2. (no) comma splices
3. (no) fused participles

In preparation for the high school prom, they often hear the third of the never-ever trinities, this time from their parents. You are not there yet, so let's skip this one.

I charge and always collect US$ 120/hr from high-school hooky players for solicited help in doing mid-school grammar exercises.

How is this emphasis/stress/... realized? The speaker waves his hands energetically to imply... which? How is it done over the phone? In writing?

Thank you, Janski.

There is no emphasis in any of the sentences. I used the bold text i.e. from to indicate where I struggle to understand the difference. The emphasis I wrote about below the two sentences is immaterial here as it was my attempt to find a difference between them.

There is also no context that could help us analyse the sentences. They are just examples like those given by mg, who, it is worth noting, controverted the difference in meaning that you kindly proposed.

And what should I make of this now? :)

Half of the English-speaking world has never heard of the grammatical concepts of gerund and (present) participle. Half of the enlightened fifty percent does not know the difference. Half of the half of the half does not care about the difference.
You may wonder then what is the big deal all about. Well, there is this small ten-percent minority (I am being generous) that cares about the difference, and what these people think you might—I presume—care about because, as you say, you read grammar books.

Can you discriminate between the participle and the gerund? Below there are attributive adjectives (the particles and gerunds alike are often called "participial adjectives" or "adjectival participles", just to make your life more difficult):

Is "walking" a gerund or participle in "a walking stick"? How about other examples like
driving license?
falling leave?
Dancing Queen (old ABBA song)?
loving memory?
ironing board?
blotting paper?

Some of them are more difficult to judge than you think.

When your mother shows you a picture of her family and asks you, "Can you recognize your uncle Ben standing in the back row?", you are expected to recognize (i) your uncle Ben's face and (ii) the –ing thing "standing" as a present participial modifier that helps you recognize the man.

In "your uncle Ben's standing," the –ing thing would be a gerund and would be unacceptable unless his standing posture were a peculiar enough characteristic of his persona and therefore helpful as a modifier to go by.

It's participles that do modification duty when in apposition with nouns in objective case (modifying them backwards, or post hoc); gerunds undergo modification by attributive possessives his, my. its... Nouns and pronouns in objective case saturate the object-argument of a transitive verb and reject following them gerunds.

You owe me US$17.35.





.

My halfpenny's worth-
I've said this before: 'English language is going to the dogs.'
No one cares about its usage except the chosen few.

"gerunds undergo modification by attributive possessives his, my. its... "

Janski won't accept objective pronouns as gerundial modifiers. Others do.


"reject following them gerunds. " - is that actually correct English?

@Janski

I think $17.35 in Zimbabwean dollars would be a fair price for your input here.

I owe you nothing.

Since we are speaking business, I am a Value Buyer and the value for which you are claiming to be paid is worth nothing to me particularly because its quality was questioned here:


Your not having addressed it is an example of a lack of objection handling skills, which makes you a poor salesman.

In my attempts to understand language, I have noticed, rightly I hope, that purely grammatical explanations are insufficient, and that they should be complemented by semantic perspective. It seems to me that the ‘stop’ group of verbs add the perspective.

Although I am not trying to set you against others, I would learn a great deal from a confrontation of the opposite views on the difference in meaning between the two sentences, or constructions, from my first post in the thread. It was exactly that hope that I tried to express by asking:

He actually did address this issue by insisting that pronouns cannot be used in objective case before gerundives. My example had a noun in that position, so it was inconclusive.

BrE vs UsE ..to jest wytłumaczenie .

Does it mean the the below differences apply?

Re: I owe you nothing.

Since we are speaking business,
We are trying to speak English, and you are not talking business.

I am a Value Buyer
You are not a value buyer, because you are not willing to pay for services rendered.

Your not having addressed it is an example of a lack of objection handling skills, which makes you a poor salesman
Why not "you not having addressed it is an example of …" I demand an explanation.

And could you itemize the "objection handling skills" on my part that you didn't hesitate to pluralize as "skills." Mind you, there should be more than one item on your list to justify the plural.

They signed an agreement with the National Trust which precluded the land being used for a bridge…..
Is grammatical and OK. I preclude the land being used… I recognize uncle Ben standing…Both are participles…, lo and behold. How come?

You'd better get back to the participle vs. gerund difference, and I am not kidding:
writing paper?
blotting paper?
walking stick?
Take a walking stick with you.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a walking stick.

No.
In the USA, in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia, and even in New Zealand, the same English grammar applies. Actually, it was a Brit who first objected (officially in writing) to this gerund vs. participle confusion. And it was a Dane who first objected to the Brit's objection. Yanks had nothing to do with it at that time.

Neither did you offer any service nor did I accept it, hence, no contract was formed. There is no need to waste time on quibbling (participle) about this obviousness. Also, please spare me your authoritative and arrogant manner of speaking (gerund?) as I am not keen on insulting (participle) each other, which usually leads to a vicious circle of retaliation.


Let’s start again, shall we?


It would be ungrammatical. I used the possessive pronoun because it is the only way to make a subject here, I think.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘itemize’ here. Do you mean using the ‘an’ article: ‘an objection handling skill’? I hate articles. As for the pluralised ‘skills’, point taken.

Good, I thought that I had made more mistakes :)

And now the participle vs gerund. Should the below expressions not be used in a sentence to discriminate them correctly? I’ll try, regardless.

driving license - gerund
falling leave - participle
Dancing Queen - participle
loving memory - gerund
ironing board - gerund
blotting paper – either depending on a sentence/context?
writing paper? - gerund
walking stick – gerund unless it refers to the basketball player (thanks for the hint)

I think that the example with ‘walking stick’ proves my point that context is necessary.

All righty, but would your context required be figurative context, textual context, non-textual context, or co-text? All of these -texts are real examples of the present-day usage by renowned linguists who articulate them in public with a straight face.

Back to the bone of contention:
(1)…precluded him serving in the army…
(2)…precluded his serving in the army…

In both (1) and (2), preclude needs its object.
In (1), "serving in the army" post-modifies "him," because, as we know, the modifier serving… is a participle and cannot be a gerund.

Sanity check: …. His religious beliefs precluded him. It works. Check.

Thus, …precluded him standing in the back row behind the infidels of lower rank, …precluded him serving in the military, …precluded him being married to Sue…, ...precluded him scratching his back…

All of them are grammatical, unambiguous, and capable of standing on their own; the participles denote states or activities (=situations) that the subject He was engaged in when precluding was applied. The verb scopes this far.

Meaning to say (2) and saying (1) instead is common and, well, illiterate.

The possessive that coerces a gerund reading of the –ing often fixes such problems (possessive pronouns being a prime example), but it is not a universal solution. Most inanimate common nouns refuse to accept the possessive in 's. No wonder the blunder is so common.

Homework for the enthusiast in you: What's wrong with (a) and (b)?
(a) I take no pleasure in oboe music being out of favor.
(b) The chances of that happening are slim.

Any context that would enable me to discriminate between gerund and participle.

Thank you for the lesson.
I should know now how to do the homework, however, it is still complicated :)

I am not sure if there is anything wrong with the sentences.

The chances of that happening are slim. - Here, we have a participle. Can I prove it by adding an adverb, like: The chances of that happening (again, now) are slim.?
I cannot think of any interpretation if ‘happening’ were a gerund.

I take no pleasure in oboe music being out of favor. The same comment applies here. I can’t seen anything wrong with the sentence.


And was I right here?

Any context that would enable me to discriminate between gerund and participle.

Was it any context that let you figure out "falling leave"? What is "falling leave"?

(a) I take no pleasure in oboe music being out of favor.
(b) The chances of that happening are slim.

In (a), the grammar is OK, (here being is clearly a participle) but the style is unacceptable. As you read it, you encounter an unexpected bump after "music." That's not done. Despite its correct grammar, the sentence should be repaired. It just goes to show that correct grammar is not enough.

In (b), "that" should be replaced with "its" (because "happening" is a gerund), and no one would say "chances of that's happening".

We could manipulate things a little to preserve "that," if "that" has to stay for some reason: In "Could you imagine the chances of that happening?" " happening would be a participle.

But you did good (well would be better grammar, but good feels better.)

Re:objection handling skills
Skill is a noun parallel to knowledge, theory, experience...
Something can be done with skill, ...showing lots or no skill, ... proving diplomatic skill, etc.
Pluralized skills calls for some kind of itemization, which may be hard to do.
Children in preschool are said to acquire alphabet skills. They can tell A from B?

If it's going to snow up there in PL, drive safe.

hmmmmm I don't think it's right in this case ..unless you put " I can't BE seen as..."

Just when I thought I was better than Quirk I found out I cannot disitinguish gerunds from participles :)


It's a fused participle :)