2

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird:

If I could have explained these things to Miss Caroline, I would have saved myself some inconvenience and Miss Caroline subsequent mortification, but it was beyond my ability to explain things as well as Atticus, so I said, “You’re shamin’ him, Miss Caroline. Walter hasn’t got a quarter at home to bring you, and you can’t use any stovewood.

Shouldn't it be Miss Caroline's subsequent mortification? Since mortification is a noun and it belonged to Miss Caroline, so it should be her mortification rather than she mortification in my mind.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
CYC
  • 3,009
  • 10
  • 34
  • 63

2 Answers2

4

In this usage, the idea conveyed is a little different from what you're imagining. Think of it this way. Break the sentence into two parts.

If I could have explained these things to Miss Caroline, I would have saved myself some inconvenience.

And...

If I could have explained these things to Miss Caroline, I would have saved Miss Caroline subsequent mortification.

In this case, you can see that the object being saved is not Miss Caroline's mortification, but Miss Caroline herself. She is being saved from her mortification.

user2989653
  • 439
  • 3
  • 4
3

The sentence is a coordinate clause where the subject and verb have been elided. The I would have saved from the previous clause still applies to the one with Miss Caroline:

I would have saved myself some inconvenience and I would have saved Miss Caroline subsequent mortification.

The meaning is that Miss Caroline would be saved subsequent mortification. The mortification does not actually belong to her, it is a separate phrase in the sentence. Miss Caroline is an object and subsequent mortification another object.

The verb to save can be used with two objects and in this case has the meaning of:

Avoid, lessen, or guard against (source (number 4))

Vlammuh
  • 5,082
  • 1
  • 17
  • 32