at the urging of/comma question

[a***@gmail.com]

1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.

Are both grammatical?
Are both idiomatic?
Do they mean the same?

Gratefully,
Navi

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.
Are both grammatical?
Are both idiomatic?

Well, you need "the" before "owner's" in both cases, but I don't
suppose that's the point that interests you.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Do they mean the same?

Hard to say. As we've said 500 times before, if you want a precise
meaning you need to specify it.

[Richard Yates]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.
Are both grammatical?
Do they mean the same?

They are both grammatical (but add "the" before "owner's") and both
mean the same thing - probably.

But...what they mean requires inference from assumptions about the
context. So, in 2) the "grammatical" referent of "he" is "owner's son"
but that would not make sense in any likely context, so we infer that
"he" refers to a third person who is not mentioned before.

I thought the first comma might be unnecessary but without it there
could be ambiguity resolved only by emphasis and/or context.

"Why didn't he get the job?"
"He didn't get the job at the store at the urging of the owner's son
[who wanted it for himself)"

"Why did he get the job?"
He didn't get the job at the store at the urging of the owner's son.
[Rather, he got it because he was well-qualified.]"

Post by a***@gmail.com
Are both idiomatic?

Yes, at least in the sense that native speakers might very well say
either one.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.
Are both grammatical?
Are both idiomatic?
Do they mean the same?

Probably. It would be better style to connect the urging with what the
person in charge of the hiring did. "At the urging of the owner's son,
the manager decided not to hire him." (If it's clear who "him" refers to.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.
Are both grammatical?
Are both idiomatic?
Do they mean the same?

(1) suggests the speaker has a poor command of English discourse structure.

[micky]

In alt.usage.english, on Fri, 11 May 2018 22:35:23 -0700 (PDT),

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) He didn't get the job at the store, at the urging of owner's son.
2) At the urging of owner's son, he didn't get the job at the store.
Are both grammatical?
Are both idiomatic?
Do they mean the same?
Gratefully,
Navi

They're grammatical and mean the same but they are illogical, IMO.

If it said, "he was denied the job at the store, at the urging of the
owner's son", I'd like that better. The way it is now, it sounds like
the son is urging him to not get the job, but he must have been urging
the owner not to give it to him.