C. Faulkner on the Possessive Antecedent Proscription

[Lesa Dill]

I'm not sure.  I do remember his covering that.  When we went over usage, we
had a series of lengthy tests with all sorts of constructions.  (I still use
those in my grammar class to show the narrower interpretations of correct
usage--something students are completely ignorant of.)  Those constructions are
on those old tests.  I also think that  he discussed the error when he talked
about their needing to be a possessive case subject idea with gerunds (a
concept much more debatable than he allowed).  Since the possessive functioned
with repect to the gerund only, further references in the sentence needed to be
to the idea represented in the gerund and not to something modifying that
gerund.

"Bethany K. Dumas" wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Lesa Dill wrote:
>
> >His comment was about this type of construction--
> >
> >Faulkner's writing style makes him difficult to read.
> >
> >He claimed that as a reference error.  Is that what you were referring to?
>
> Yes. Why did he not put that in his book?
>
> Thanks,
> Bethany