[Grammar] having

[vaibhavmaskar]

We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

has word "having" been used as a gerund or participle ?

And why (you stay with us) in simple present?

 

[MikeNewYork]

We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

has word "having" been used as a gerund or participle ?

And why (you stay with us) in simple present?

"Having" is a gerund that heads a gerund phrase "having you stay with us". The phrase is the direct object of "enjoyed".


"Stay" is not a verb in the simple present, it is a bare (no "to") infinitive.

 

[vaibhavmaskar]

If "having you stay with us" is gerund phrase than word "you" is not a subject. Pl. explain.

 

[MikeNewYork]

If "having you stay with us" is gerund phrase than word "you" is not a subject. Pl. explain.

I would classify it as an indirect object. The pronoun cannot be be the subject there

 

[5jj]

I would classify it as an indirect object. The pronoun cannot be be the subject there

We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

I see no indirect object there. That said, I am not sure how the sentence would be analysed these days.

'having you stay with us' appears to be the direct object of 'enjoyed'.
Within that phrase, 'you stay with us' appears to be the direct object of' having'.
Within that phrase, 'you' is in effect the subject of 'stay' even though 'stay is a non-finite form and 'you' is an object-form (compare: We very much enjoyed having [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE]/him stay with us.)

Note that we cannot say that 'you' alone is the object of 'having' - Compare the original with We very much enjoyed having you work for us. What was 'had' was more than just 'you'. I gave this extra example because, in practical terms. there is not much difference in meaning with the verb 'stay:

We very much enjoyed having you.
We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

However, with other verbs there is a real difference between the sentence ending in 'you' and that continuing with details of what was actually 'had'.

My own opinion is that we have to say that 'you' is the subject of the non-finite form in the phrase 'you stay with us'.

 

[MikeNewYork]

We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

I see no indirect object there. That said, I am not sure how the sentence would be analysed these days.

'having you stay with us' appears to be the direct object of 'enjoyed'.
Within that phrase, 'you stay with us' appears to be the direct object of' having'.
Within that phrase, 'you' is in effect the subject of 'stay' even though 'stay is a non-finite form and 'you' is an object-form (compare: We very much enjoyed having [STRIKE]he[/STRIKE]/him stay with us.)

Note that we cannot say that 'you' alone is the object of 'having' - Compare the original with We very much enjoyed having you work for us. What was 'had' was more than just 'you'. I gave this extra example because, in practical terms. there is not much difference in meaning with the verb 'stay:

We very much enjoyed having you.
We very much enjoyed having you stay with us.

However, with other verbs there is a real difference between the sentence ending in 'you' and that continuing with details of what was actually 'had'.

My own opinion is that we have to say that 'you' is the subject of the non-finite form in the phrase 'you stay with us'.

Some would agree with your analysis. Some believe that non-finite verbs can have a subject. That creates the novel idea of a non-finite clause. I do not agree with them. For that to be be true, we must also accept that an objective case pronoun can be the subject of a clause. That breaks too many rules for me.

Change the sentence above to "We very much enjoyed having them stay with us." By the same analysis, "them" would be the subject of the infinitive (to) stay. I have heard this analysis many times and I reject it. But if it works for you, so be it.

My favorite sentence for this argument is the most simple sentence of all "See Spot run". In your analysis. "Spot" would be the subject of the infinitive "run". In my analysis, "Spot" is the indirect object of "see" and "run" is the direct object. I might be willing to accept your interpretation except that when we change the sentence to "See them run", we have the objective pronoun as a subject problem. I am not willing to go that far.

 

[5jj]

My favorite sentence for this argument is the most simple sentence of all "See Spot run". In your analysis. "Spot" would be the subject of the infinitive "run". In my analysis, "Spot" is the indirect object of "see" and "run" is the direct object.

My objection to this is that it extends the meaning of 'indirect object' somewhat beyond what is normally understood by the label. There is an enormous difference between the roles of Spot in:

a. Give Spot a bone. (A direction to someone to give a bone to Spot.)
b. Buy Spot a bone. (A direction to someone to but a bone for Spot.)
c. See Spot. (A direction to someone to look at Spot)
d. See Spot on the mat. (A direction to someone to look at Spot in a certain place.)
e. See Spot run. (A direction to look at Spot and what he is doing.)

In #a and #b, Spot is the indirect object.
In #c, Spot is the direct object.
In #d, the direct object is not an individual thing; it is Spot on the mat.
in #e, the direct object is again not an individual thing, and certainly not the verb run; it is Spot run, representing what the listener is being directed to see, Spot and the fact that he is running.

I might be willing to accept your interpretation except that when we change the sentence to "See them run", we have the objective pronoun as a subject problem. I am not willing to go that far.

I assume that 'problem' is a typo. and that you meant 'pronoun'.

Them is not the grammatical subject of the verb run in exactly the same sense that they is the subject of the verb run in They run down the road. However, as I said with the other sentence, 'them' is certainly not an indirect object. Equally, it is not, on its own, the direct object. That must be, as with the Spot sentence, them run. Within that two-word phrase (or, as some modern grammarians would heve it, clause), it is them who are doing the running, and the word them is therefore, within that phrase, the subject of run.

It is not so odd that a word can function as both subject and object. In I don't like what is in that message, what is both the direct object of like and the subject of is. It just happens that what does not have separate subject and object forms, so there is no real problem.

 

[MikeNewYork]

My objection to this is that it extends the meaning of 'indirect object' somewhat beyond what is normally understood by the label. There is an enormous difference between the roles of Spot in:

a. Give Spot a bone. (A direction to someone to give a bone to Spot.)
b. Buy Spot a bone. (A direction to someone to but a bone for Spot.)
c. See Spot. (A direction to someone to look at Spot)
d. See Spot on the mat. (A direction to someone to look at Spot in a certain place.)
e. See Spot run. (A direction to look at Spot and what he is doing.)

In #a and #b, Spot is the indirect object.
In #c, Spot is the direct object.
In #d, the direct object is not an individual thing; it is Spot on the mat.
in #e, the direct object is again not an individual thing, and certainly not the verb run; it is Spot run, representing what the listener is being directed to see, Spot and the fact that he is running. I assume that 'problem' is a typo. and that you meant 'pronoun'.

Them is not the grammatical subject of the verb run in exactly the same sense that they is the subject of the verb run in They run down the road. However, as I said with the other sentence, 'them' is certainly not an indirect object. Equally, it is not, on its own, the direct object. That must be, as with the Spot sentence, them run. Within that two-word phrase (or, as some modern grammarians would heve it, clause), it is them who are doing the running, and the word them is therefore, within that phrase, the subject of run.

It is not so odd that a word can function as both subject and object. In I don't like what is in that message, what is both the direct object of like and the subject of is. It just happens that what does not have separate subject and object forms, so there is no real problem.

Again, while I understand this new method of analysis, I will stick with the old method. You might want to check out this link. This is just an opinion, but it is one I agree with.

The Grammarphobia Blog: Object lessons

 

[MikeNewYork]

My objection to this is that it extends the meaning of 'indirect object' somewhat beyond what is normally understood by the label.

A couple of additional points.

Yes, the use of "indirect object" is a small stretch here. But, for me, this is the lesser of two evils. The bigger evil is turning a verbal into a main verb, turning a phrase into a clause, and turning objective case pronouns into subjects.

<<<It is not so odd that a word can function as both subject and object. In I don't like what is in that message, what is both the direct object of like and the subject of is. It just happens that what does not have separate subject and object forms, so there is no real problem.>>>

I disagree with that analysis. In my opinion "what" is not the direct object of "like". It is the subject of a clause that is the direct object of like. When the word who/whom is the head word in a clause that is the direct object of the verb, we use "who", not "whom". That is based on it being a subject, not an object.

 

[panglossa]

Sorry, Mike, but I agree with 5jj: In 'See Spot run', 'Spot' cannot be called an indirect object according to any normal understanding of the term (as it would in e.g. 'Give Spot the ball').

Two grammatical wrongs don't make a right! If you are concerned about calling 'Spot' simply a 'subject' (which, I agree, is not an entirely comfortable notion!), why not simply modify the term, e.g. to 'implicit subject'? The point is surely that 'Spot' is the implied doer of the action of the infinitive, whatever term you may use to get that point across!

 

[MikeNewYork]

Sorry, Mike, but I agree with 5jj: In 'See Spot run', 'Spot' cannot be called an indirect object according to any normal understanding of the term (as it would in e.g. 'Give Spot the ball').

Two grammatical wrongs don't make a right! If you are concerned about calling 'Spot' simply a 'subject' (which, I agree, is not an entirely comfortable notion!), why not simply modify the term, e.g. to 'implicit subject'? The point is surely that 'Spot' is the implied doer of the action of the infinitive, whatever term you may use to get that point across!

I understand what you are saying, but I am more comfortable with "indirect object". It solves the problem of having to invent terms like "implicit subject" to explain the structure. That still means that the "implicit" subject is the subject of a non-existent verb.

 

[5jj]

I understand what you are saying, but I am more comfortable with "indirect object".

As panglossa said, two wrongs don't make a right. I haven't been able to find any leading grammarian who uses 'indirect object' in the way you and the site you linked us to do.

It solves the problem of having to invent terms like "implicit subject" to explain the structure.

Invented terms are more appropriate than misused ones, in my opinion.

That still means that the "implicit" subject is the subject of a non-existent verb.

But the verb does exist.

 

[MikeNewYork]

As panglossa said, two wrongs don't make a right. I haven't been able to find any leading grammarian who uses 'indirect object' in the way you and the site you linked us to do.Invented terms are more appropriate than misused ones, in my opinion.But the verb does exist.

Even when we end up disagreeing, I enjoy discussing grammar with you. ;-)