English Grammar


you leaving - your leaving

GG proposes:
"I don't see any problem with you leaving early today"


What about: ..."with your leaving early today"


Which form is right? or better?

8 comments

  • "with your leaving" ?
    As long as I consider 'leaving' as a noun in the second choice, wouldn't it be better to take 'early' as an adjective and say "I don't see any problem with your early leaving today." ? It's my question.


    I for one would rather say:
    I don't see any problem with you leaving early today.
    just as
    I agree with people choosing to leave early.
    I don't agree with anyone leaving late.
    We've got problem with starting the car.
    I've no problem with you posting grammar topics.
    I'm delighted with you posting tips.


    How does that sound?
  • Hi AhQ,


    I've got a big problem with that "you" in all of your example sentences, it sounds rather inappropriate and unacceptable to my ears.


    Perhaps GG proposes to have no problems with a person who leaves early and not with the persond's leaving so early.
    CW
  • Hi Gwendo,


    "I don't see any problem with your early leaving today"
    is correct, too, but it's rather the nominal, impersonal way to
    express the regret. In case you know German, it would be the same as
    "Ich sehe (heute) kein Problem mit der Deiner frühen Abreise".
    Sounds a little bit stiff.


    It's better (more personal) to say "Ich sehe kein Problem, wenn Du heute früh abreist",
    which is expressed in English by "I don't see any problem with you leaving early today".


    Granted, the Gerund construction "...with you leaving early today" sounds somewhat
    unfamiliar to non-English ears, but it is the usual way to express it.


    I had the same problems embracing the correct sound of it when I heard it for the first time.
    Back then "Would you mind me opening the window?" sounded odd to my German ears. But in the
    course of time, it has become familiar to me. Just be patient and use a Gerund construction like this
    once in a while and it'll eventually appear normal to you.
  • What a standout that Goy! I mean an outstanding teacher, able to call in the German to make feel the many subtleties of the speech. [By the way, Goy, are you actually a goy?]


    I think Goy's note does wrap up the problem.
    Yet I'd take the liberty to add some grammar comments I see worth considering.
    But first and foremost, Gwendo, I quite catch why you had a fucking problem with the 'you' in my examples. For sure, you epitomized yourself in that 'you'.


    Apart from that, you were right thinking the 'you' wasn't the best pronoun to set an example. Why? Because 'you' doesn't work as the grammatical subject of the verb 'leave' but as indirect object of the main clause 'have no problem with'.
    What is unclear with 'you' gets clear with another person than the second: Is there a problem with me opening the window./I've no problem with him laughing./These two mommies have grandchildren but see no problem with them seeing them naked./My daughter who is 12 sees no problem with her staying out late at night.


    "I don't see any problem with you leaving early today."
    I wonder whether "with you leaving early today" is not to take as a DEFINING clause, i.e. a text that is to be taken as a whole and whithout which the sense doesn't stand.
    "I don't see any problem with you" has a totally different meaning.


    More to the point I think the relative clause is a NON-FINITE clause in the -ing form. 'Non-finite' means that the subject of the action is not expressly put as a personal subject. That subject is in fact grammatically object of the main clause. I find the non-finite clause works as a preterit. Am I right? I dunno. Just as in: Would you mind me opening the window? (Goy quoted)/ I caught him stealing my camera./ He heard her singing a song.


    Was I telling waffles? I'll have no problem with you telling me YES.


    Ah Queue
    (CW)
  • You hit the nail on the head, you both, and your thoughts were very helpful to me. But after all these wonderful explications I came to the conclusion that i had better learn these sentences by heart without considering too much.


    Thanks again!


    CW
  • Wow, AhQ. I guess you felt quite invigorated after your outburst!


    I never thought that such an awesome explanation was possible about this problem. One can only look at it whth an open mouth and think: "That's AhQ"


    Tell me, when you lectured your pupils in your English class - did they listen intrigued or did the fell dead of the chair?
  • P.S.
    In order to answer your question, AhQ: Yes, I am a goy, and, mind you, I'm a stupid goy, not even able to explain the simplest grammar in appropriate terms . You might be astonished why this stupid goy, who needs to recourse to his mother tongue to explain basic grammar, does even know the term he is refered to as. Well, I'm quite flabbergasted, too. That's why I'm a stupid goy.


    And of course you don't have problems with a stupid goy telling you that you're telling waffles. A stupid goy may say „Yes, you're telling waffles, but he'd never be able to explain why. That's why he's n stupid goy and that's why you don't have to fear stupid goys.


    Mind you, stupid goys have an astonishing feature: They understand irony. That's why stupid goys can respond to irony.
  • If an English lesson was at stake, I for sure was a pupil myself. But as a matter of fact, I never attended a single ESL lesson in secundary school. I started later. Like you, I found the Gymglish so much attractive that I am today on my 1015th lesson (as reported on the top of their mail).


    About goys, only Jews look at goys as "stupid" people - to take up your own words - and I for one am proud to be a goy, even though being atheist.


    I like very much your comments.

Please sign in to leave a comment.