’he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates‘

Hi, Deepcosmos,

The Poss-ing construction can never function as an absolute clause.  It will always be nominal (subject, object, object to preposition).

In the example you have given:

@deepcosmos posted:

“We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.” (from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language p.1220)

"him" is a variant of nominative "he." I don't think this is an Acc-ing construction, which can normally be replaced with a Poss-ing construction. Please compare:

- We appointed Max, he being the most qualified candidate. (absolute construction)
- We appointed Max, him being the most qualified candidate. (absolute construction)
- We appointed Max, his being the most qualified candidate.

- I don't agree with Max/him/his being the most qualified candidate (Acc- or Poss-ing construction in nominal function: I don't agree with that).
- Max/Him/His being the most qualified candidate led to his immediate appointment (Acc- or Poss-ing construction in nominal function: That led to his immediate appointment).

Hi, Deepcosmos—I agree with everything Gustavo has said above. Regarding the sentence you give under (3) (We appointed Max, with <his> being much the best qualified of the candidates), it doesn't work at all with his.

If you wish to use the POSS-ing construction in a paraphrase, it'd be better to use it as a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction like on account of: We appointed Max, on account of his being the best qualified candidate.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

The Poss-ing construction can never function as an absolute clause.  It will always be nominal (subject, object, object to preposition).

"him" is a variant of nominative "he." I don't think this is an Acc-ing construction, which can normally be replaced with a Poss-ing construction. Please compare:

- We appointed Max, he being the most qualified candidate. (absolute construction)
- We appointed Max, him being the most qualified candidate. (absolute construction)
- We appointed Max, his being the most qualified candidate.

- I don't agree with Max/him/his being the most qualified candidate (Acc- or Poss-ing construction in nominal function: I don't agree with that).
- Max/Him/His being the most qualified candidate led to his immediate appointment (Acc- or Poss-ing construction in nominal function: That led to his immediate appointment).

@David, Moderator posted:

I agree with everything Gustavo has said above. Regarding the sentence you give under (3) (We appointed Max, with <his> being much the best qualified of the candidates), it doesn't work at all with his.

If you wish to use the POSS-ing construction in a paraphrase, it'd be better to use it as a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction like on account of: We appointed Max, on account of his being the best qualified candidate.

Hello, Gustavo and David, for two days I've reviewed where I'm wrong about "an ACC-ing/Poss-ing construction“.  Now I revise my opinion as follows and I would really appreciate it, if you kindly correct it;

1. The original sentence with “adverbial clause’ is;

• We appointed Max, because he was much the best qualified of the candidates.

2. Abbreviated form with “nominative absolute construction“ is (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, he being much the best qualified of the candidates.

3. Abbreviated form with "with"-variety of absolute construction as an ACC-ing/Poss-ing construction“ is (here ”being“ as gerund);

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

4. Transformed form with “a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction” (here ”being“ as gerund) is;

• We appointed Max, on account of his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

5. Abbreviated form with “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

@deepcosmos posted:

1. The original sentence with “adverbial clause’ is;

• We appointed Max, because he was much the best qualified of the candidates.

Yes, that is correct. I'm not sure I'd use the comma before "because."

@deepcosmos posted:

2. Abbreviated form with “nominative absolute construction“ is (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, he being much the best qualified of the candidates.

OK.

@deepcosmos posted:

3. Abbreviated form with "with"-variety of absolute construction as an ACC-ing/Poss-ing construction“ is (here ”being“ as gerund);

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

As we told you in our replies, the absolute construction does not accept a possessive (at least in this position after the main clause, as clarified at the end of this post), so only the form with "him" is correct.

I think this V-ing form would be considered a present participle in traditional grammar.

@deepcosmos posted:

4. Transformed form with “a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction” (here ”being“ as gerund) is;

• We appointed Max, on account of his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

OK. This shows how the possessive can work in a construction that is not absolute.

@deepcosmos posted:

5. Abbreviated form with “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

This is the same as (3).

Now, I think there is a case where "with" can introduce an abridged adverbial clause with a possessive or an accusative. I have searched for "with his being" on COCA and, although most of the occurrences involve prepositional phrases complementizing verbs and adjectives, we can find these interesting examples:

- And now, with his being in the war zone, she still didn't want to hear, though she saw that reading the papers and talking to others was a help to his parents.

-  Once again, with his presence, with his being "on track," he wanted to point out the difference between himself and George W. Bush's management during Hurricane Katrina.

- With his being on the road so much, he wanted Dusty to be able to defend herself and her mother.

Unlike in the initial examples from CGEL, the preposition "with" is not optional but required (as is always the case with this type of POSS-ing constructions) and the clause introduced by "with" needs to be placed before the main clause. As for the meaning of the clause, it is similar to that of absolute clauses, being a combination of causal and temporal sense.

Perhaps I should take back what I said at the beginning about the possessive never introducing absolute constructions. I think this works:

- With his being much the best qualified of the candidates, Max was appointed manager.

Hi, Gustavo, really appreciate your time sharing to give a nice answer. As of now I still have the problem with (3) and (5) above.

(3)

@deepcosmos posted:

3. Abbreviated form with "with"-variety of absolute construction as an ACC-ing/Poss-ing construction“ is (here ”being“ as gerund);

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CaGEL), p.1220, 'A difference in internal form: case of the subject NP'

There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:                                                                                                      [39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.

In (3) according to the underlined explanation above, after the preposition "with" the genitive case - his  (“a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction”) also could be possible as in "We appointed Max, on account of his being much the best qualified of the candidates", I think.

(5)

@deepcosmos posted:                                                                                                           5. Abbreviated form with “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

I feel "with his being in the war zone", "with his being on track", "With his being on the road" are all not “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” but “a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction”.

However, I think the sentence in (5) above belongs to “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” as in "The ocean looks very beautiful with the moonlight glimmering on its surface." in the reference below. Thus, I think in the absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’, "with" can be omitted. Ah, in (5) above the comma should have been deleted after 'Max';  https://thegrammarexchange.inf...y=583405316546049072

I would deeply appreciate it, if you could clarify again my two questions above when it is convenient for you.

@deepcosmos posted:

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CaGEL), p.1220, 'A difference in internal form: case of the subject NP'

There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:                 

[39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.

Please note that the explanation above refers to POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions, not to absolute constructions specifically.

@deepcosmos posted:

I feel "with his being in the war zone", "with his being on track", "With his being on the road" are all not “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” but “a complement of a prepositional-phrase construction”.

Absolute constructions are adverbial in function, as are the structures above. I don't see much difference.

@deepcosmos posted:

However, I think the sentence in (5) above belongs to “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” as in "The ocean looks very beautiful with the moonlight glimmering on its surface." in the reference below. Thus, I think in the absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’, "with" can be omitted. Ah, in (5) above the comma should have been deleted after 'Max'

I don't think the comma can be deleted after "Max," and I don't think the sentence starting with The ocean provides a better example of an absolute construction than the ones I quoted from COCA.

Hi, Gustavo, thanks for your explanation. I would like to revise my two questions in simpler form.

@deepcosmos posted:

3. Abbreviated form with "with"-variety of absolute construction as an ACC-ing/Poss-ing construction“ is (here ”being“ as gerund);

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Please note that the explanation above refers to POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions, not to absolute constructions specifically.

(3)  [39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.

Since in the [39] i above CaGEL denotes both the possessive and objective cases are allowed in POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions, I think with same logic two cases should be also allowed in the following sentence in POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions in nominal function (not an abridged adverbial phrase), don't I?;

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

@deepcosmos posted                                                                                                             5. Abbreviated form with “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’” (here ”being“ as participle);

• We appointed Max, (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I don't think the comma can be deleted after "Max," and I don't think the sentence starting with The ocean provides a better example of an absolute construction than the ones I quoted from COCA.

(5) Can I transform (A) in “nominative absolute construction“ below into (B) in “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’ (adverbial phrase)”;

(A) We appointed Max, he being much the best qualified of the candidates.      (B) We appointed Max (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

Would hope to hear your reply once again.

@deepcosmos posted:

(3)  [39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.

Since in the [39] i above CaGEL denotes both the possessive and objective cases are allowed in POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions, I think with same logic two cases should be also allowed in the following sentence in POSS-ing and ACC-ing constructions in nominal function (not an abridged adverbial phrase), don't I?;

• We appointed Max, with him / his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

As an aside, please note that the question tag "don't I?" should be "shouldn't they?"

The answer is negative, because the example under [39] is not a case of an absolute construction. Both "his" and "him" are possible in [39], but not in the sentence about Max's appointment, where there is an absolute construction. "With his being ..." is incorrect.

Let's see if this helps clarify things:

- I resented him/his being appointed to the position, I being much more qualified than him / with me being much more qualified than him. (I chose the first person because "her" can be both possessive and accusative, and I want you to see the difference.)

"him/his being appointed to the position" is what "I" resented (object), while the other two structures are absolutes (clauses indicating the reason why "I" resented the appointment).

@deepcosmos posted:

(5) Can I transform (A) in “nominative absolute construction“ below into (B) in “absolute constructions introduced by ‘with’ (adverbial phrase)”;

(A) We appointed Max, he being much the best qualified of the candidates.
(B) We appointed Max (with) him being much the best qualified of the candidates.

As you can see above, absolutes are preceded by commas, so you need a comma after "Max" in (B) for the sentence to be correct.

Hi, Gustavo, thanks a million for your endurance so far.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

As an aside, please note that the question tag "don't I?" should be "shouldn't they?"

Noted that it is related to not 'I' but 'two cases'.

By the way, Gustavo, though I've taken much of your time, following is my last inquiry, indeed (the only one not yet understood);

We appointed Max, with his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

If I think the sentence above not as an absolute construction but as an POSS-ing  construction and "his being" as a complement of preposition "with" as in "We appointed Max, on account of his the best qualified candidate." (in David's reply), where am I wrong?

I, as an EFL learner, don't feel much difference in functioning between "with" and "on account of (= because of)".

@deepcosmos posted:

We appointed Max, with his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

If I think the sentence above not as an absolute construction but as an POSS-ing  construction and "his being" as a complement of preposition "with" as in "We appointed Max, on account of his the best qualified candidate." (in David's reply), where am I wrong?

I, as an EFL learner, don't feel much difference in functioning between "with" and "on account of (= because of)".

I understand you. I'd like to see David's opinion, but as I said further above, my impression is that a "with" + POSS-ing construction can substitute for an absolute clause in front position, for example:

- With his having been appointed manager, she could not hide her resentment. (Not an absolute but an adverbial clause, there being no pause between "his" and the V-ing form.)
- With him having been appointed manager, she could not hide her resentment. (Absolute clause; a brief pause can be heard between "him" and the V-ing form.)

or be a prepositional phrase (with "with" expressing subject-matter rather than cause), not an absolute clause, functioning as an adverbial after the main clause (without a comma):

- She could not hide her resentment with his / him having been appointed manager. (Not an absolute; "him" is merely less formal, or more informal, than "his.")

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I understand you. I'd like to see David's opinion, but as I said further above, my impression is that a "with" + POSS-ing construction can substitute for an absolute clause in front position, for example:

- With his having been appointed manager, she could not hide her resentment. (Not an absolute but an adverbial clause, there being no pause between "his" and the V-ing form.)
- With him having been appointed manager, she could not hide her resentment. (Absolute clause; a brief pause can be heard between "him" and the V-ing form.)

or be a prepositional phrase (with "with" expressing subject-matter rather than cause), not an absolute clause, functioning as an adverbial after the main clause (without a comma):

- She could not hide her resentment with his / him having been appointed manager. (Not an absolute; "him" is merely less formal, or more informal, than "his.")

Hi, Gustavo, now I've understood what you're trying to tell me upto now. Really appreciate your supports so far for several days. How can I thank you, Gustavo?