I'd argue that the problem is not one of grammar but of categories. We are establishing plurals in -s, genitives in -s, and attributive nouns as clearly distinct categories, and it's not at all clear that they are, as the problems raised in this thread demonstrate. We have the problem not because we have to figure out the appropriate grammatical tests, although that's part of it, but because we are imposing external categories on the language that simply don't always work, as is generally true of grammatical categories.
There has been confusion of plurals and genitives since Old English. Is the -s- in "herdsman" plural or genitive? What about the -s- in "spokesman", since there is no free root "spoke" that can take any -s suffix. One approach to this is to observe that in a compound, like "herdsman", the first element of the compound can take a derivational ending but not an inflectional ending. So the -s- can't be either plural or genitive, because those are both inflectional. It must be derivational. I have a paper on this coming out in Word this year or next year. I've emailed it to a few listers already.
This -s forms a derived, abstract or collective noun from noun and adjective stems. That suggests that the construction that started this thread is an attributive noun, not a genitive.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Scott Lavitt
Sent: Fri 6/2/2006 10:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Possessive form
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/
|
