I take it all back, Mince. THIS is a load of b******s:
fused participle
The progressive form of a verb (ending in -ing), in addition to its primary function, may serve as either a noun or an adjective, in which case it is called a gerund or a present participle, respectively. One often faces a choice between these two usages. For example, when a gerund is modified by a possessive pronoun or noun and appears as the object of a verb or preposition, the modifier may in some cases be replaced by its objective form. The gerund is thereby transformed into an adjectival participle, and the meaning of the sentence changes accordingly. Thus, I heard your crying becomes I heard you crying. As Brown observes, "In the use of participles and of verbal nouns, the leading word in sense, should always be made the leading or governing word in the construction." Thus, he favors the construction He was sensible to his strength's declining, in which he takes the gerund to be "the leading word in sense", but rejects the possessive in He felt his strength's declining, insisting on strength as the direct object and relegating declining to the role of attached adjective.
In some cases, the wrong choice results in nonsense, as illustrated by another of Brown's examples. The sentence He mentions Newton's writing of a commentary, though somewhat awkward, is preferable in his judgement to the alternative, He mentions Newton writing a commentary, which "though not uncommon, is still more objectionable because it makes the leading word in sense the adjunct in construction." In fact, the latter version defies grammatical analysis altogether, for Newton, which has the unmistakable form of a substantive, cannot be cast as the direct object here, as it is the writing and not the writer that is being mentioned.
The same problem is seen in the statement below.
We witnessed them being dragged off on ropes to their death, and could hear them being killed. *
