ATEG Archives

June 2006

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 5 Jun 2006 09:59:47 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (111 lines)
This harks back to a discussion of two or three weeks ago.   A major
part of the problem is calling the -'s form in English a possessive.
It's a genitive, and possessive is only one of its functions.  JS Bear
points out very nicely that the meaning of many phrases under dispute
here is not possessive.  The meanings JS identifies for them are all
common functions of the genitive, though.  Once again, it's important to
distinguish form from function.

BWT, the difference between 1,950,000 and 1,920,000 is probably below
the level of chance.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of js bear
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Possessive form

Call me ignorant (you'd be accurate) but I don't buy the attributive 
quality of a noun as opposed to a possessive quality.  I don't see the 
difference between Presidents day and Father's day.  Father's day is a 
day for fathers as Presidents day is a day for presidents.  I see no 
difference.  What is a day 'of fathers'?  Is nobody allowed (and where?)

that day but fathers?  Or is everybody a father that day?  I think what 
has happened with President's Day is that some people left off the 
apostrophe.  They should not have.  Some other people saw it and assumed

that because it was printed it was right.  They should not have.  For 
fun, I went to google and looked for "President's Day" and got 1.95 
million results.  When I searched for "Presidents Day" I only got 1.92 
million results.  So, I guess most people with websites or blog entries 
think it should have the apostrophe. 

I think the real issue with a kid's website versus a kids' website is 
not whether it is possessive or attributive but rather whether it is 
plural or singular.  Is it a website for one kid or many kids?  
Obviously it is for many kids as a restroom is for many men.  But... 
when the writer calls it is a kid's website, are they trying to 
personalize it?  Are they trying to say it is for you (the kid) and not 
all the rest of them and so it is for just one kid and so it is a kid's 
website?  Are they making us feel special?  Like us fathers on father's 
day?  Or the president on President's day?  What is 'right depends' on 
what is intended, but quite often what is used depends on what the 
writer was told was right.  But really, what is right is what gets the 
message across with the least amount of static.  And if we all go around

writing Presidents' day, people will look at what we wrote and be 
distracted by that apostrophe hanging off the end.  But maybe what we 
had to say about President's day wasn't all that important anyway.

Scott Lavitt wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> As callers say on radio talk shows, "long time
> [listener], first time [caller]." I've been following
> the interesting topics on this list for a few years,
> since a prof in grad school recommended it.
>
> Will someone please clarify for me which is the proper
> possessive form in the sentence "NickJr.com is a
> kid's/kids' website"?
>
> I'm trying to see the difference between an
> attributive quality, such as Presidents Day (a day
> _for_ presidents) and a possessive quality, such as
> Father's Day (a day _of_ fathers).
>
> My inclination is that TV programming for kids
> (plural) is "kids' programming," just like a rest room
> for men is a "men's room," not a man's room. Another
> example, of course, is "women's room." So one would
> say a website for children, such as Nickjr.com, is a
> children's website, right? Therefore, if a more casual
> term for children is "kids," isn't it a "kids'"
> website?
>
> Even though I've investigated a couple of my favorite
> grammar books on the subject--Googled for examples
> too--my current understanding of the matter is
> evidenced above.
>
> Respondents, thank you very much for your time.
>
> Scott
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>   

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2