[Grammar] Sheep's wool vs. sheep wool

[Isobela]

Hi,

what is correct and why?

a sheep's wool duvet

or

a sheep wool duvet

Thanks very much!

 

[charliedeut]

"A wool duvet" would most likely be my choice.

 

[Raymott]

Hi,

what is correct and why?

a sheep's wool duvet

or

a sheep wool duvet

Thanks very much!

Sheep wool.
Cow hide.
Fish scales.
Chicken skin
(The non-possessive will usually be right).

 

[charliedeut]

Sheep wool.
Cow hide.
Fish scales.
Chicken skin
(The non-possessive will usually be right).

Although I am aware of the existence of a term like "cotton wool", wouldn't it be redundant to say "sheep wool" in most contexts? I mean, except for the fashion or clothing industry (maybe another context escapes me), wouldn't most people understand that the duvet is/was made from (sheep, not, say, horse) wool?

 

[SoothingDave]

Although I am aware of the existence of a term like "cotton wool", wouldn't it be redundant to say "sheep wool" in most contexts? I mean, except for the fashion or clothing industry (maybe another context escapes me), wouldn't most people understand that the duvet is/was made from (sheep, not, say, horse) wool?

Wool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States the term wool is usually restricted to describing the fibrous

protein derived from the specialized skin cells called follicles in sheep, although in the UK it may be used of any long curling fiber such as wood wool, wire wool, etc.[SUP][3]

I agree with you. "Wool" is from sheep unless otherwise specified.[/SUP]

 

[konungursvia]

Not to be the gadfly, but I'm sure I've heard 'sheep's wool' hundreds of times, with the genitive as the OP suggests; like houndstooth, isn't it a fixed idiotism of widespread use?

 

[SoothingDave]

Not to be the gadfly, but I'm sure I've heard 'sheep's wool' hundreds of times, with the genitive as the OP suggests; like houndstooth, isn't it a fixed idiotism of widespread use?

I agree. I would use "sheep's wool" if I had to be more specific.

 

[Raymott]

Not to be the gadfly, but I'm sure I've heard 'sheep's wool' hundreds of times, with the genitive as the OP suggests; like houndstooth, isn't it a fixed idiotism of widespread use?

I'm not saying "sheep's wool" is wrong. I'm suggesting to learners that using the non-possessive will get them by usually.
Of course, what this applies to could be contentious. I might say "goat milk" but never "cow milk". It's "cow's milk". I don't have a problem with "sheep's wool".
I think that applying the non-possessive to the skins/hair of animals is probably always right - snake skin, human skin, horse hair, peacock feather, eider down (or eiderdown) - without implying that some possessive usages couldn't be right too.

 

[konungursvia]

And then there's this: Lambswool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konungursvia]

I'm not saying "sheep's wool" is wrong. I'm suggesting to learners that using the non-possessive will get them by usually.
Of course, what this applies to could be contentious. I might say "goat milk" but never "cow milk". It's "cow's milk". I don't have a problem with "sheep's wool".
I think that applying the non-possessive to the skins/hair of animals is probably always right - snake skin, human skin, horse hair, peacock feather, eider down (or eiderdown) - without implying that some possessive usages couldn't be right too.

You're correct I'm sure, and I don't believe anyone read you as saying they were wrong, but that you were offering one solution among others.

 

[emsr2d2]

I might say "goat milk" but never "cow milk". It's "cow's milk".

I work in the industry (in a way) and it's "goat's milk", "cow's milk", "sheep's milk", "goat's yoghurt" etc.

 

[Isobela]

Thank you all for your opinions. This is a bit confusing for a non-native speaker when to use/not use the aposthrophe. Some grammar books/sites say that aposthrophe works only for living creatures, and not for inanimate objects. Is this basicaly true? But, then again, I have read somewhere that if the phrase can be re-worded in the "of" form, the original phrase needs the aposthrophe.

How it would be, for example, with "church bell"? I can say "the bell of the church" (if I am not mistaken), should it be "the church's bell" then?
Thanks.

 

[Raymott]

Thank you all for your opinions. This is a bit confusing for a non-native speaker when to use/not use the aposthrophe. Some grammar books/sites say that aposthrophe works only for living creatures, and not for inanimate objects. Is this basicaly true?
No, it's not. "The ship's bow" is perfectly normal. "The ship bow" is unusual. "The bow of the ship" is fine.

But, then again, I have read somewhere that if the phrase can be re-worded in the "of" form, the original phrase needs the aposthrophe. Maybe.

How it would be, for example, with "church bell"? I can say "the bell of the church" (if I am not mistaken), should it be "the church's bell" then?
Thanks.

I would say "the church bell". As you've seen, there are regional and individual preferences. There might also be contextual information that makes "the church's bell" preferable.

 

[emsr2d2]

It's perfectly reasonable for you to be confused. Some things in English aren't logical and they're sometimes contradictory. Take these two examples:

My jumper is made of goat's wool.
My coat is made of horsehair.