Thanks, Herb.
My cowriter and I are about to undertake a revision of all our articles, and
we will certainly be able to strengthen this one by clarifying the
difference between the possessive and the genitive.
We have another article on the subject of using possessive pronouns before
gerunds. Wouldn't the same logic apply there, too?
Since our primary audience for these articles consists of people who already
find grammar and usage frustrating (although some of them are grammar snobs,
too, I'm afraid), we try not to get too technical; however, teachers to the
core, we cannot resist the opportunity to explain how and why certain
constructions have come to be considered "right" or "wrong"--and also how
those "rules" have evolved (and how they continue to change). We hope that
along the way we are gently steering people away from rigid prescriptive
positions while at the same time acknowledging the fact that they are often
judged in the business world by their mastery of what is currently
considered "correct" English grammar, mechanics, and usage.
Thank you for taking time to read the article and for your careful and clear
explanation! I hope your students will benefit from the site, and I also
hope that you won't hesitate to let me know if you stumble across any other
holes or fuzzy spots (or downright mistakes!) in our explanations.
Best,
Nancy
Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
Professor of English
Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
Columbia College
Columbia, South Carolina
[log in to unmask]
803-786-3706
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: to HERBQuestion re: introducing grammar
Nancy,
That's useful and well developed site that my students will find a valuable
reference. There is, however, a common confusion that occurs when talking
about -'s forms, namely, the assumption that they are possessives.
Possessive is one possible function of this form, but the form itself is the
sole survivor of Old English case marking, and the orthographic -'s marks
not possessive meaning but genitive case, and the genitive has a wide
variety of functions. "My prescription", for example, is clearly
possessive, since I paid for it, but "my doctor's prescription" contains no
possessives. I don't possess the doctor and the doctor doesn't possess the
prescription. Rather the genitive "doctor's" has subjective function, since
my doctor did the prescribing. And if I say "John's appointment to the
Supreme Court", John is an objective genitive, at least as long as the
president is named George. Possession can't be used as the criterion, so
paraphrasing with "for" rather than "of" doesn't distinguish an -'s form
from an attributive plural. The confusion arises from the identity of
plural and genitive for all but a few irregular English nouns, as a result
of which the genitive/plural distinction has been blurring for a long time,
one result of which is uncertainty over whether to use an apostrophe or not.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Nancy Tuten
Sent: Fri 5/12/2006 3:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: to HERBQuestion re: introducing grammar
This is for Linda DiDesidero, but I didn't know how to reach her outside of
the list, so my apologies to the rest of you:
Linda, a colleague of mine and I wrote a brief article addressing the
question of why some expressions are written as possessives (Father's Day)
and others as attributives (English Majors Society). You can read it at
http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/082504.htm. I would be interested in
your reaction.
The ones that always cause the most consternation are the irregular
plurals-children, men, women, and so forth. You could argue that the club
doesn't belong to the English Majors but is, instead for them, thus arguing
for the omission of the apostrophe. But what if it's a club for women? The
Women Club? I don't think so.
Best,
Nancy
Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
Professor of English
Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
Columbia College
Columbia, South Carolina
[log in to unmask]
803-786-3706
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Linda DiDesidero
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: to HERBQuestion re: introducing grammar
Hi, Herb.
I probably sounded like some condescending English prof, and I didn't mean
to do that. My children's experiences in elementary school with respect to
grammar and usage were very uneven. But I did find myself 'unteaching' some
of the 'rules' that they had been taught. My daughter would bring in Diana
Hacker's Rules for Writers and show her teachers some of the
inconsistencies. And many of her teachers were happy to know, I think. This
one teacher in particular actually taught the kids that anytime a phrase
meant possession and had an (s) in it, the (s) was ('s). The teacher was
clearly misinformed, and had developed her own rule which she applied
enthusiastically to writing in letters home, on bulletin boards, etc. We all
have students who have stories about things that they were taught
incorrectly.
But I don't mean to criticize school teachers. I think that this simply
speaks to the necessity of MORE focus on language, not less. And I do think
that people (including teachers) need to acknowledge that there are things
we do understand about language and grammar, and other things that we need
to look up or figure out. Being able to acknowledge someone's expertise in
usage rules and having that person as a designated resource is not a bad
thing. (And in this elementary school, it got so bad that the principal
insisted on proofreading all of the letters that teachers sent home to
parents. She would send the drafts back to the teachers full of red marks.
Of course, this was extremely insulting to the teachers, and had the effect
of diminishing written communication between teachers and community.)
And I am aware of the problems with that little apostrophe. I imagine that
the ('s) is on its way out. I often see noun phrases that cause me to ask
myself: what is the function of that (s)? For example, a student in my fall
grammar class brought in literature on the "Presidents Cup" (golf
championship) What does that (s) mean? Why is there no apostrophe? I have
not studied that in particular, and there may be a history with the name
that I'm not aware of. I work in Prince George's County, Maryland, and
there are many public and private organizations with "Prince George's" in
the title without the apostrophe. I'm sure that some people see it as
optional. And perhaps one day it will be so. Or can we say that it is
already optional?
Linda
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/
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/
|
