He objected to the accusations being raised.
What he objects to is: the accusations that were being raised or the proposal that they should be raised?
-
A native speaker usually chooses to avoid that sort of ambiguity, that is, between [the content of] the accusations themselves or [the fact of] their being raised. Not sure why you mention 'the proposal that they should be raised'.Michael Harvey– Michael Harvey2025-09-25 20:33:00 +00:00Commented Sep 25 at 20:33
-
I was about to write 'He objected that the accusations (should) be made'. But I remembered reading about 'object that..' being different from 'object to..'. So, I decided to stick to a version with a preposition.hrv– hrv2025-09-26 14:27:21 +00:00Commented Sep 26 at 14:27
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
As Seowjooheng Singapore says, to clearly make the object of "objected to" the act of raising the accusations, you should use the possessive form. But we can only tell the difference in writing, not in speech, so the sentence is ambiguous.
Context would usually disambiguate. It's more common to object to accusations rather than the process of raising them, so that would probably be the default interpretation. If you want to say the opposite clearly you can reword:
He objected to raising the accusations.
In more formal use, what he objected to are the accusations. To make the raising the thing being objected to, we use the possessive accusations':
He objected to the accusations' being raised.
In informal use, the original example can have both interpretations.
-
The other way "To make the raising the thing being objected to" is of course to rephrase as He objected to the raising of the accusations. (For those who find 'bare' possessive apostrophe after plural noun ending in s confusing and/or intimidating! :)FumbleFingers– FumbleFingers2025-09-25 15:58:29 +00:00Commented Sep 25 at 15:58
-
1When spoken you can't tell if there's an apostrophe, so it's ambiguous.Barmar– Barmar2025-09-25 16:01:46 +00:00Commented Sep 25 at 16:01
-
@Barmar - a careful speaker would anticipate that, the construction being as formal as it is.Michael Harvey– Michael Harvey2025-09-25 16:40:06 +00:00Commented Sep 25 at 16:40
-
1Perhaps due these ambiguities, I would argue that the most careful and formal writing would turn to other patterns, instead of making a full subject-verb-object clause function as an entire object. "He argued forcefully against the diamond being re-cut"—no one supposes he argued against the diamond. But one might simply rewrite as "He argued forcefully against recutting the diamond.Andy Bonner– Andy Bonner2025-09-25 17:47:33 +00:00Commented Sep 25 at 17:47
-
@Andy Bonner, you mean no one supposes- its being re-cut? Is re- cut used as a noun here?hrv– hrv2025-09-29 09:51:18 +00:00Commented Sep 29 at 9:51
The "the" is the fulcrum of the sentence.
🔹 With “the”:
“He objected to the accusations being raised.”
He’s responding to specific, actual accusations.
He may disagree with their content, timing, or tone — but he’s not rejecting the concept of accusation itself.
It implies: “These particular accusations are flawed.”
🔹 Without “the”:
“He objected to accusations being raised.”
He’s rejecting the act of accusing altogether.
It’s a broader stance — suggesting that no accusations should have been made.
It implies: “There should be no accusations at all.”
NOTE: purely my idea - a bot polished the presentation.
