In Sentence 1, the subject is Attending X (not me), and the verb is gave (not attending).
Your first sentence is an example of a sentence with a gerund phrase as a subject. Wikipedia gives these examples:
In Sentence 2, the subject is I and the verb is acquired, and attending X is a prepositional object.
In short, you can say it either way without fear ...
Consider the following:
There was no scaling that steep cliff.
Going around the mountain was the sane choice, not scaling that steep
The first means that the cliff was impossible to scale. The second simply refers to the action of scaling as a non-choice, a thing that exists but which is rejected.
There was no reasoning with them.
despite is a preposition meaning not prevented by. A preposition normally attaches a noun to a sentence, for example:
He completed the marathon, despite his age.
already having paid the money is a noun phrase. We can include a verb in a noun phrase using either a gerund or an infinitive: in this case, a gerund is used. We make the present form of a ...
The title is misleading since "me" is not the subject in your first example.
Attending X gave me a sense of appreciation for Y.
By attending X, I acquired an appreciation for Y.
In  the subject of the sentence is the non-finite clause “attending X“. The predicate is the verb phrase “gave me a sense of appreciation for Y” where “me” is ...
There is no rule: both are correct and both are used. The object form is more common in speech than the possessive determiner.
As Professor Lawler elsewhere notes:
It's one variant, and falutes slightly higher, but with pronouns there are many idioms. Gerund clauses have two complementizers: the normal Acc-ing complementizer (without him telling me), and ...
This construction, a gerund clause†, has quite a different sense than a relative clause.
In the sentence “Popular television shows highlight artists who design everything ...”, the object of the verb highlight is artists:
[subjectShows] [verbhighlight] [objectartists] ...
What you are shown is people—artists—and the ...
No. Your underlying sentence I wake up and then I have a shower consists of two independent clauses. You may delete the repeated subject, but the second clause requires a finite verb.
Note also that I wake up and then I am having a shower is not acceptable either. Whether the simple present I wake up is deployed in a habitual sense ("On weekdays I wake up") ...
Being is essential here. This is not a relative clause but a 'gerund' clause--that is to say, a clause acting as a 'noun' and headed by a verb in the -ing form. The clause "larger ... number" must act as a noun because it is the object of the preposition of.
The main clause of the sentence is
An underflow is the result of X.
X here, the cause of the ...
(1) The boys who wore red shirts were Manchester U fans.
(2) The boys wearing red shirts were Manchester U fans
Both are fine. The difference is a grammatical one: In (1) "boys" is modified by the relative clause "who wore red shirts", whereas in (2) it is modified by the gerund-participial clause "wearing red shirts". There's no real difference in ...
In modern English grammar, verb + ing is catogarized into three classes:
So whether no or not will come immediately before a verb + ing will depend on which class the ing form of verb falls into. Let's make it more clear: it's only before Gerundial Noun that no occurs.
So it boils down to identifying ...
This is an excellent question—which, alas, has no very clear answer.
You are probably aware that different verbs ‘license’ different sorts of clausal complements: bare infinitive clauses, to infinitive clauses, for infinitive clauses, GEN- and ACC- gerund clauses, and that finite clauses.
The same thing is true of the sorts of predicative complements ...
I don't like him using swear words.
In the above sentence the verb like has an object that is a gerund phrase
"him using swear words".
The gerund phrase contains a full sentence "He uses swear words".
So some authors use the formulation "gerund construction with an own logical subject".
Of course, "him" is no subject in the sentence. Only if you transform ...
Both of them are examples of the passive voice, the present continuous tense, and a reduced relative clause.
The passive voice is created by using to be and the past participle of the verb. The verb in this case is to make, so the past participle is "made".
It's the present continuous tense because the form of to be is "is being".
It's a reduced relative ...
The verb is being used here in the sense of exist.
The simple statement would be:
There is a simple relationship.
There is no simple relationship.
Now, if I want to use that statement as a subclause describing a state, I used the present participle:
..., there being a simple relationship.
..., there being no simple relationship.
The thought ...
An absolute phrase combines a noun and a participle with any accompanying modifiers or objects ...
This is not accurate, even in the terms employed by the author: an absolute clause may in those terms be said to combine an NP and a participle with any accompanying modifiers or objects.
But it is more helpful to think of the absolute construction as a full ...
It is possible that the sentence is intended to mean that the system will be reviewed because
a number of malfunctions are being reported.
If that is what is meant, the sentence is properly formed. I think it more likely, however, that the sentence is intended to mean that the system will be reviewed because
a number of malfunctions have been reported....
There are semantic and syntactic differences between the things we wish and the things we hope.
When we address wishes to another person we usually employ wish as a "ditransitive" verb: that is, the syntax requires that the person addressed (you) act as the Indirect Object, the Beneficiary, and the thing wished for that person be expressed as the Direct ...
stoning of an innocent young woman for adultery by a group of radical religious hypocrites.
it is a gerund phrase as object of the preposition "about".
Yes, having a mentor when they were younger is a noun clause, but not a noun phrase. The difference is that a noun clause is an entire clause acting as a noun in the main clause and a noun phrase is a phrase built around a noun. Here are some examples:
He is the man in red. (noun phrase)
That is the man who I saw yesterday. (noun phrase)
I told you ...
Except may take an infinitival clause in this case, because what is “excepted” is a complement of the verb do, and do can in this case be ‘recategorized’ as an auxiliary taking an infinitive complement. However, it should be an ‘unmarked’ infinitive, one without to:
okThe mason did not give the order.
okThe mason did everything except give the order.
For the non-linguist, subject is the definition of agent or patient rather than the other way round. Let's look at two sentences with a finite (a form that shows the tense and subject of a verb, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/finite) form of the verb.
I beat John.
John was beaten.
In both sentences, the first word (in bold) is the ...
As TRomano said earlier, the first sentence is colloquial; it works only in informal or spoken English. As such, it is sort of out of place in a chemistry book, but the author may have been trying to achieve a specific effect. (Just look at Quantum Computing since Democritus for colloquial language being used in a highly academic book.)
What both phrases ...
Despite their already having paid the money, there was an additional tax.
-ing words are not verbs, but either participles (if modifiers) or gerunds (if nouns).
To wrap your head around the form of the sentence, consider this simpler one:
Despite the rules, there was an additional tax.
So here is an examination of what is going on with the original ...
to in this case is simply taken as a preposition.
In light of this use, you can replace what is next (together with the gerund) with a noun.
Now I'm starting with three basic principles that I think are key to it.
As StoneyB mentioned in his comment, "new people" is the direct object of the gerund "meeting." People would be the object, and new would be an adjective that describes the type of people being met. The entire phrase "meeting new people" would be considered the gerund, or more formally, a gerund phrase. The entire phrase is also the subject, not just the ...
His swimming is brilliant.
Although the word swimming is a gerund, it's best to call its grammatical use here a noun or gerund noun.
That makes everything easier. Just like you can say: "My car is nice.", you can say: "But my driving is lousy." Car and driving are nouns.
As for a noun without an object, bear in mind that verbs have objects (He played the ...
I could give you a straightforward answer, but I'm guessing you - and anyone else who finds this question later - would prefer to really understand the answer. So, this is going to take a bit of background to explain, and will be a bit long. Stick with it, and hopefully it will end up relatively clear.
There are different circumstances in which you get a ...
Gerunds are nouns. Participles are modifiers. Both are th base verb + ing.
No modifies nouns (it's an adjective/determiner) and not modifies verbs or other participles (it's an adverb).
Modifiers can follow to be and a few other verbs because these are copular verbs.
No walking was done today.
I tried to find the girl not walking.
I was not ...
It's all a matter of what kind of English we're talking about here.
The first sentence is a possessive gerund. In formal English, I believe Him knowing is incorrect; it would be His knowing instead. But here's a person who says this kind of traditional grammar is "rubbish":