Object: She objected to him being treated so badly.

[Ana Laura]

Hi

I would like to know if these sentences are correct. The structure needed for the verb 'to object' confuses me a bit.

A) She objected to him being treated so badly.

B) I object to you shouting at me.

c) I object to your shouting at me (is this structure more formal?)

Thank you!

[Fallingstar8]

We can alternate them as above with "disgree" or be dispeased with sb/sth

1. She was not dispeased with him being treated so badly
2. I oppose you shouting at me./ i hate you shouting at me

i am not very clear whether it is formal or not?

[Ana Laura]

Thanks for your help, but what I'd like to know is if the structure of these sentences is correct, i.e. if they are well-written and if the tense is correct.

Thank you again.-

[Cerberus™]

Short answer: both are considered correct by many modern writers.

Long answer: "I object to you shouting" is, strictly speaking, contrary to proper grammar. It is called a fused participle. You object to the fact that someone shouts (to the shouting), not to the person himself (to you); that is why many traditional writers have disapproved of "to you shouting", in favour of "to your shouting". "To you shouting" could be defended by arguing that there are many other ungrammatical oddities considered established idiom, and by bringing forward that this construction was also prevalent in the classical languages, where it is called "dominant participle". Caesar victus (participle) senatui placuit: the defeated Caease pleased the senate, whereas what was really meant is: the fact that Caesar was defeated pleased the senate. As to modern English, it is your choice to make. Note that today the possessive is much oftener used with pronouns than with other nouns: "to your shouting" is much more common than "to the man's shouting".

I don't like it and try not to use it if I can help it. The construction with the possessive, "to your shouting", is approved by all.