being his only leverage

[rainous]

My husband, who up until that moment had been physically abusive towards the family and had repeatedly threatened me with the divorce paper being his only leverage, seemed quite shell-shocked to hear me say that I would actually sign the paper.

Could you take the trouble to check the sentence?

Any room for improvement?

Thanks

[JohnParis]

Hi Rain - Sometimes it's better to break it up and make two sentences. May I suggest:

My husband seemed shell-shocked to hear me say that I would actually sign the paper. Up until that moment, had been physically abusive towards the family and had repeatedly threatened me with his only bit of leverage, the divorce paper.

John

[rainous]

Thanks John.

All things aside, I got another quick question for you or anyone else who's willing to help.

In my original sentence, I wrote "...threatened with the divorce paper being his only leverage...".

Is that part grammatical especially with regard to the use of "being"?

Is "being" a gerund or a participle? And am I right to take that as a more shortened version of "the divorce paper (which was) being his only leverage?

Or am I barking up the completely wrong tree?

Enlighten me.

[emsr2d2]

Thanks John.

All things aside, I got another quick question for you or anyone who's willing to help.

In my original sentence, I wrote "...threatened with the divorce paper being his only leverage...".

Is that part grammatical especially with regard to the use of "being"?

Is "being" a gerund or a participle? And am I right to take that as a more shortened version of "the divorce paper (which was) being his only leverage?

Or am I barking up the completely wrong tree?

Enlighten me.

As you wrote it, it's incorrect. You could have said:

He had threatened me, with the divorce paper being his only leverage.
He had threatened me with the divorce paper, which was his only leverage.

I would say that I'm not sure you threaten someone with "a divorce paper". You normally threaten them with divorce, meaning you threaten to start divorce proceedings against them. I suppose if he actually has the paperwork in his hand and is brandishing them in your face, you could say you were being threatened with the actual papers but it sounds unlikely to me.

[rainous]

Thanks for the explanation. It's been really helpful.

Let me make another wild guess regarding your first suggestion. (hope I am right this time)

"He had threatened me, with the divorce paper being his only leverage."

Is it correct to assume that "the divorce paper being his only leverage" is a more colloquial version of "the divorce paper's being his only leverage"?

[bhaisahab]

Thanks for the explanation. It's been really helpful.

Let me make another wild guess regarding your first suggestion. (hope I am right this time)

"He had threatened me, with the divorce paper being his only leverage." Yes.

Is it correct to assume that "the divorce paper being his only leverage" is a more colloquial version of "the divorce paper's being his only leverage"? No.

Bhai.

[rainous]

"with the divorce paper being his only leverage"

Could someone help me parse the phrase?

Has something been omitted before "being" or something?

[JohnParis]

your questions were answered (in red) in post 6

[rainous]

Is it correct to assume that "the divorce paper being his only leverage" is a more colloquial version of "the divorce paper's being his only leverage"?

Are you referring to this quote? It was me who asked the question in post #5 and Bhai said, as you can see in post #6, it's not correct. Are you saying my assumption is correct then?

[JohnParis]

No -
The phrase "the divorce paper being his only leverage" is NOT a more colloquial version of the phrase "the divorce paper's being his only leverage."

colloquial = adjective (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.

emsr2d2 also gave you a great answer in his post. Either of his two sentences will resolve your problem.