Geekiest Convo of my Life- Possibly

I said:
Did she just come in here and not mention the witty repertoire of banter?

He said:
Just because you love correction, are you using words without knowing their full definition again, Liesel? Even if you take the definition of repertoire in its loosest form, as being the entire stock of something, and allow the something to be banter, you should have written the witty repertoire of our banter, as our banter does not represent the entirety of banter in general, as there is a lot of banter out there. And yes... she did. How dare she, right?

I said:
That is a perfectly acceptable use of the word repertoire. It is not the "loosest" definition. It's the collection of what we said, and that is implied by the fact that it was obvious what, and who, I was talking about. I don't have to use a determiner in a statement where the pronoun is implied.

He said:
You do, if the object can also be used in the context of a noun. You used banter as an object, and not a subject...

I said:
Wait, a preposition can't link two subjects, so isn't that implied too?
(sensing a loss in this battle at this point)

He said:
A cataphoric subject often requires a subject of it, followed by a verb, preposition and the remainder of the subject... so no. In any case I meant that because it was an object a pronoun isn't implied. For example if you take a glass of water from me, and I say "give back water", it sounds weird... because I am asking after specific water, not water in general. You had to talk about our banter specifically, otherwise you're claiming she should have commented on the stock attributes of all the word's banter located within the page.

I surrender with:
Gotcha... you are so right... damn. I see it now. Mention/banter is the verb/object, just as you said. I was thinking of it more in terms of a modifier/compliment, but that's not really relevant. I'm using reportoire as an object compliment. So, I guess you are right in that sense too. I'm using the word incorrectly. Actually, all of this confusion stems from the incorrect use of reportoire. Lol. You're right. It needs a possessive determiner, either way, because it's a dependent clause. I don't know... If I even have it straight in my head now. It's been four years since I've taken a structural writing class...

I am confused about which of my pronouns are co-referential though (to make it a cataphoric pronoun, I thought that was necessary). Is it "she" and the implied "our".. Oh, wait, am I describing antecedent pronouns... Man, you are stretching me...

I said:
Okay, I had them reversed in my head... I thought that in order to be a cataphoric pronoun the sentence must contain a subordinate clause where the pronoun refers to the main clause, and that isn't happening here.


He said:
*grin* Good catch. True... however I never claimed you used a cataphoric subject sentence... I was using the cataphoric pronoun as an example of where a preposition can be between two subjects. Which you said couldn't happen.

I said:
Well, give me an example of a preposition between two subjects in the manner I was using reportoire and banter. I mean, can it happen subject/subject rather than in my situation where it's a subject/object? Can a dependent phrase even have two subjects? I guess not.

He said:
It doesn't matter now, because you realised you were using it wrong... the two subjects was just me being a smartarse, showing one example of where it has to occur.

I said:
Realized.