The delay could have caused/resulted in order cancellation by the customer.

however, if you leave the structure as is, then you have it right: "resulted in customer canceling the order"

"resulted in customer's canceling the order" - это вообще на каком языке? турецком??
зачем апостоф?
As the result of the delay the customer was about to cancel the order

http://grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html

Внизу список правильных и неправильных вариантов.

Начнем с того, что cancelling с двумя l пишется. Ваш вариант невероятно коряво звучит, уж праститэ.

Dictionary: can·cel (kăn'səl)
v., -celed also -celled, -cel·ing -cel·ling, -cels -cels.

http://www.answers.com/cancel

2. Я для аскера отметил грамматическую ошибку (переводить я бы так не стал). Но по собственно грамматике у Вас есть какие-нибудь аргументы? Если нет, признайте это.

"Спокойствие, ТОЛЬКО спокойствие!" (с)

Mike you know what 'hater base' is? :)

1. Professor Villa was amazed by her students working as hard as they did.
2. The class working collaboratively was somebody else's idea.
3. It was a case of old age getting the better of them.

Коньтекст, кароче.

А лучше, конечно, предложение сформулировать по-другому.

When the noun preceding the gerund is plural, collective, or abstract, use the common form of that noun, not the possessive.

1. Professor Villa was amazed by her students working as hard as they did.
2. The class working collaboratively was somebody else's idea.
3. It was a case of old age getting the better of them.

Думаю, что примеры коллеги Kid взяты из какого-нибудь электронного учебника/справочника по грамматике не британского происхождения. Может американского ... . Это один из, так называемых, "dubious cases".Т.е. все три примера нельзя считать однозначно "gerundial constructions".
В первом и втором примере working можно рассматривать в качестве причастия-1 в функции определения существительных students и class, а в третьем примере getting причастие в такой же функции определения существительного age.
Но, при этом, оттенок и свойства герундиальности в этих предложениях полностью не пропадает.
Все зависит какой смысловой акцент делает говорящий или любой человек, использующий это предложение (в том числе и не носитель языка или переводчик на другой язык).

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/028.html#GERUNDANDPOS

gerund and possessives (fused participle). Some people insist that when a gerund is preceded by a noun or pronoun, the noun or pronoun must be in the possessive case. Accordingly, it is correct to say I can understand his wanting to go, but incorrect to say I can understand him wanting to go. But the construction without the possessive, sometimes called the fused participle, has been used by respected writers for 300 years and is perfectly idiomatic. Moreover, there is often no way to “fix” the construction by inserting the possessive. This is often the case with common nouns. Thus you can say We have had very few instances of luggage being lost, but not … of luggage’s being lost.

i.e. resulted in the customer cancel(l)ing the order

Dear SirReal, you write the following.

правильно: "resulted in customer's canceling the order"

This is grammatically INCORRECT and completely wrong. There is no need for an apostrophe + S ('s) here. The original sentence was not incorrect as you said, but was correct.

I am a NATIVE English speaker, TEACHER of English and TRANSLATOR. Trust me, I am correct, irrespective of any links to grammar websites or quotes from grammar books you may post here.

Adam, can you actually construct an argument or am I supposed to be awed by your using CAPS?

As far as I can tell, you signed up on this forum because someone told you about this particular forum topic and asked you to submit a posting to prove me wrong.

Your using caps doesn't hurt me - it merely highlights your lack of arguing skills.

You have yet to prove anything to me.

This is roughly correct: "resulted in customer cancel(l)ing the order" (needs THE)
This is incorrect: "resulted in customer's canceling the order"
In addition this is correct: "As a result of the delay the customer was about to cancel the order"
This would also be correct: "This resulted in his/her cancel(l)ing the order" (possessive pronoun) - although this is a less common construction

By the looks of it though, it was a mistake posting an answer here in the first place. In future I will not bother to answer.

I construe "Adam, can you actually construct an argument or am I supposed to be awed by your using CAPS?" to be incredibly rude, unnecessary and arrogant. It strikes of someone who has been told that s/he is wrong and does not like it, most likely someone who has a high post count on the forum and does not like a newcomer justifiably challenging his/her responses.

I was not attempting to construct an argument, I was merely highlighting two sentences - one as being correct, one as being incorrect. In addition, I was telling you who I am so that you can have an element of trust in the response that I provided. I do not see that I have done anything wrong.

I do not see that conducting this disagreement here is useful or constructive - neither for the original poster nor those who are reading and looking for answers. I hope that the information that I have provided has been useful to someone here, but I can clearly see that my help and advice is not welcome. Strange, I thought that this was an open forum.

Good evening.

If you wish to continue to dish out incorrect advice then please be my guest, but you will not be doing yourself, nor others, any justice.

You're not even a Russian-English translator. Admit you came here on someone's tip-off and then we'll talk.

I am not attempting to start an argument. I felt that I should post something on this topic as there seemed to be an awful lot of discussion on it. I thought some input would be appropriate and even welcomed - I did not expect to come up against a wall, in yourself, preventing me from bringing across a point of view.

I'm sorry but I have more important things to do than argue on here with someone that I don't know. Indeed I also have more important things to do than act on a 'tip-off' from someone on a Saturday night - I don't know anyone on this forum, as far as I know, and I wouldn't set out merely to tell someone that they are wrong. I don't understand why someone would tell me to come here merely to argue with you - it doesn't sound like my idea of a fun evening.

You are correct in that I am not a Russian-English translator, but then I never said that I was. I am, nevertheless, a translator.

Good evening, again, I shall not darken your door again.

Ido apologize for our colleague´s arguing.
He is a good guy, trust me.

Please stay at our forum. Don't leave!
We really need more teachers of English - especially native speakers - here, on the forum.

You claim my version is wrong. I'll grant you the definite article issue - I actually did not address it in my initial post. But I'm not at all convinced about the possessive.

Are these American laywers and scientists as wrong as I am?

During 1990 and 1991, approximately 77% to 97% of sales (depending on the type of part) ***resulted in the customer's providing*** a core back to Consolidated.
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/05/98-9027.htm

The writer claims as one advantage of this type of rate that this method of determining the rate based upon the load factor and the meter capacity has in many instances ***resulted in the customer's changing*** his method of using the connected load to longer periods, so as to secure the benefit of a smaller Initial Volume and a correspondingly lower average rate.
http://www.archive.org/stream/ratereseach11natirich/ratereseach11natirich_djvu.txt

A client is admitted to the Emergency Department after a motorcycle accident that resulted in the client's skidding across a cement parking lot.
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_kozier_fundamentals_8/61/15679/4013900.cw/content/index.html

The clinician's use of Open-Ended Questions resulted in the client's using fewer Explorations questions that pertained to the therapeutic relationship.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uO9MVtggWucC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq="resulted+in+the+client's"&source=bl&ots=lJs6JzXyYe&sig=g7sKRuFyU6mnRWrZKeQJZr19leg&hl=en&ei=YLmpSb-VJI-U0AWjvZSzAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

This resulted in the client's holding a private meet and greet with the speaker directly after the keynote.
http://www.greensheet.com/gs_online.php?story_id=186

He testified that out of 100 completed audits, 41 percent ended in no additional charge to the taxpayer. He said the other 59 percent resulted in the client's paying additional taxes.
http://www.cjonline.com/indepth/renaissance/stories/022701_renaissancemain.shtml

Where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/nov1999/gr_133750_1999.html

I doubt you will take any notice of these words, you will, as seems to be your custom, cast them off in a rant of aggression just like you do everything else that someone says, because let us not forget you are SirReal. Well I can think of many other words to use and I really suggest that you brush up on your English 'politeness' skills because they are seriously lacking. I suspect you actually revel in all of this, sitting there at your computer in the wee sma' hours, knowing that no-one knows you and that you can say what you like. You make my blood boil.

"Little boy?" - grow up please. There is no-one smaller here than you.

Now to address the more important matter of this sentence. I have spent some time thinking about this, in addition I have consulted the "Practical English Usage, Swann - OUP 2005" grammar book in order to be doubly sure. I grant you half a point. I will revise my INCORRECT to ROUGHLY CORRECT. Your quotes from various googled sources are not incorrect in the slightest, well done. However I still cannot accept your suggestion as being right, because it is not. Your problem is the article. You admit yourself to not having addressed this and having reviewed your posts this is a fundamental error on your part. While any sentence in which an article is missing remains understandable, it is not right. If it were, we would not use articles at all. The rules purtaining to articles are complicated, and I would refer you to a comprehensive grammar if you wish to check. So I can accept the sentence 'resulted in customer cancelling the order' because it is quite clear that an article is lacking. However the sentence 'resulted in customer's cancelling the order' I cannot accept due to its ambiguity. You see, this sentence introduces the possibility of 'customer' being plural, which it is not. Many people, native English speakers included, insert apostrophes incorrectly and your sentence could very easily be read as 'customers', merely with the apostrophe inserted incorrectly. This would therefore render the translation incorrect. Excluding the article makes your sentence, SirReal, incorrect, roughly correct - however you prefer, but I am sorry - it is NOT correct. That is the difference between your sentence and those that you have quoted.

You cannot deny that your sentence lacked this vital article, whether that was intentional or not. Your initial post states: "грамматически некорректно" but your sentence, if we accept that the original is grammatically incorrect, is as "грамматически некорректно" as the original. However you look at it, and regardless of what I have said prior to this comment, any sentence lacking an important article is, in grammar terms, wrong. The extent to which it is wrong/accepted may vary, depending on the person who is reading it. But both the original and your sentence are incorrect/rougly correct for the same reason. From my position, the incorrect/roughly correct part is the missing article, there is nothing further, in particular reference to your "грамматически некорректно" relating to the original sentence, that is incorrect. I understand that the absence of articles in Russian makes it a somewhat tricky aspect of those languages that use them to Russian speakers.

I must point out that this construction using a possessive is not common, and it is much better to use a sentence without it, i.e. 'Resulted in the customer cancelling the order'. Why complicate things? It just gives rise to mistakes.

So I grant you half a point, but nothing more. The extent to which the initial sentence is "грамматически некорректно" is the same as that of your own. The only difference is the way in which you have formulated your sentence could lead to there being more ambiguity in its meaning. Either way, both are incorrect/roughly correct but absolutely NOT correct.

******

To all of those who have welcomed me here, many thanks. However given the attitude of others, I have no intention of hanging around. Life is too short for confrontation and I am not interested in participating any longer, it has become clear to me that this forum is more about abusing and mick taking of those who offer genuine advice. Your resident knight does not entertain the idea of allowing me into his realm, and the profound arrogance with which he conducts himself is a canny good reason to bolt. I question though, whether such an attitude would prevail were your knight not sat at a computer in the comfort and safety of his own home. I daresay not. It's very easy to be rude when you don't actually have to meet those to whom you are being rude.

So adamrhaynes is signing off. Good night and good luck. Fight arrogance.

And don't worry, I am polite when I need to be. It's not a matter of using English or Russian.

We'll miss you.

And you are very welcome here. See? That was easy.

Over and out .... for good.

All your posts before the huge one one had no linguistic reasoning. I did it for you, actually. I made you look in a grammar book and realize the possessive was an option after all. Cool, huh?

Granting me half a point was the right thing to do. Now that's it's done, I apologize for my rude comments and I welcome you with open arms.

If you wanna hold a grudge at this whole forum because of one little me - well, it's your loss.

P.S. Oh, and when I'm not splitting hairs about English grammar and usage at 3 in the morning, I'm WORKING. I never denied you the right to choose your sleeping schedule, did I?

Peeps... cool it, will ya? :)

peace.

I just asked my husband who is a) a native speaker of English and b) a professional journalist and c) knows enough Russian to "qualify" to be on this forum even though it doesn't really matter since we are dealing with the_English_ grammar in this particular case.

So... his response is 100% in sync with Adam's (although it means that I was wrong in my advice --- MAJOR blushing!). Without even blinking twice, he said:

"... resulted in THE customer canceling the order" (sorry, I tried to type "cancelling", but my yankee spellchecker flagged it as "wrong" hehee )) )

So, just to double-check, I asked: "not customer's cancelling"? He said: "well, it depends... if there's more than one customer..."

I rest my case. )))

My point being... Sometimes (language issues included) there's more than one correct answer. So jsut try to accept that someone else might be as correct as you are (or... maybe even "more correct" than you are!), you'll be a happier man/woman for it...

2 SirReal, I am amazed by how good your English is (not just Turkish then, eh?) and I'm raising my hat. I hope I can be as good as you one day.

It's just a shame that you have now scared a real native away :'(((

For anyone who wants to pick on my typos, I will point them out myself. "laywers," "one one," "that's it's" and possibly a few more. Also, when I said "Re-read your first post and see that I'm not making this up," I was wrong - Adam never said that (but he did get mixed up with his correct/incorrect/roughly/also correct rankings later on).