An object complement

korona21c

New Member
Korean
Could you tell me wether the following sentences are fine or not?
It seems to me that the structures of them are same, but someone told me that #4 was wrong. He told me that 'eating' of #4 is a gerund and not a present participle. However, I think the "eating" is a present participle and it modifies the object 'her' as an object complement.
I hope you to go over it.
Thanks.

===========

1. I like my turkey cooked well-done.

2. I like the lady having lunch at the table.

3. I like him eating lunch at the table. (= I like him that is eating lunch at that table.)

4. I like her eating lunch at the table. (= I like her that is eating lunch at that table.)
 
  • Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    Both of the sentences are more likely to be understood as saying "eating lunch at the table" is what you like, both when he does it and when she does it.

    3) I like him eating lunch at the table. Properly speaking, eating at the table describes him, and the sentence is as you understand it. However, this the way people say "I like the fact that he is eating lunch at the table" [instead of eating somewhere else, for instance].

    For the other meaning we might say: "I like the [man/boy] who is eating lunch at the table."

    4) I like her eating lunch at the table. This is trickier, because her can be either the object form or the possessive form. If we understand her as the object, then the sentence works in the same way as (3).

    However, in traditional grammar, the doer of a gerund form (eating) is in the possessive. If we understand her as the possessive, eating at the table is the object of like, and this is a perfectly grammatical way to say I like the fact that she is eating lunch at the table. Following the same rule, sentence (3) would be:
    I like his eating lunch at the table.
    This traditional rule is less often followed these days, and people are more likely to express this idea by using the form of sentence (3).
     
    Last edited:

    edictzero

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    3 and 4 are correct in structure, but they mean something different than what you're trying to say.

    It seems like you would have to be more specific, so you'd have to say:

    I like the man/boy/guy/lady/woman/girl who is eating lunch at that table.

    The way you're saying it, it sounds like you enjoy the fact that that person is eating at the table rather than somewhere else, and not as though you like the person who is eating at the table.
     

    e174043

    Senior Member
    Turkish,Azerbaijani
    Reduction of the relative clauses should be done in general situations.
    I think the first example is OK but 2, 3 and 4 are not OK.
    Because If you say ;
    " I like the man sitting on the chair.",
    it means
    "There is someone who always sits on the chair. "
    Instead of making reduction, to make the meaning more obvious,I'd say;
    " I like the man who sits on the chair."
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    I like the man sitting on the chair.
    The normal understanding of this sentence would be that you are pointing out a man whom you like, one who is currently sitting in a chair. It would be a perfectly idiomatic way of expressing the idea, and one that is often used. It is possible that in ordinary speech, we use this form more frequently than the relative clause.

    The version with the relative clause is also idiomatic.
     

    e174043

    Senior Member
    Turkish,Azerbaijani
    You're right Cagey. I'd wanted to write" sitting a chair." Of course instead of using a loong relative clause structure, I'd use the reduction,too.
    But I think if it is like this,that is,
    "I like a man sitting on a chair."
    This sounds wierd to me. Because this is something general.If you say this, it means that you like everyone who sits on any chair. Of course I'm not sure.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top