Use of 's

Status
Not open for further replies.

gklcity

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Dear All,

I know that you use an apostrophe followed by an s to indicate possesion (Jim's car).

Why is it however that in some cases that look like it should be used it is not, e.g. we say company house rather than company's house? Reading a book on English Medieval history, at some point it was saying Paston tomb where I though it should be Paston's tomb.

Is there any rule for differentiating?

Regards,
George
 

2006

Key Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
"the company's house" :tick: "company's" is a possessive noun.
"the company house" :tick: "company is an adjective modifying "house".

The above explanation also applies below.

"Paston's tomb" :tick:
"the Paston tomb" :tick:
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
As 2006 has indicated, both are possible. From a technical viewpoint the two forms differ in that the possessive-case form is classified as a determiner, whereas the common-case form (i.e. without -'s) is classified as a modifier.

This technical difference, however, is important, since it relates directly to the use of articles: determinative NPs take the article that is appropriate to them, the entire phrase thus formed standing as determiner to the head noun, so that the head noun itself can take no article. A modifier, on the other hand, takes no article, and is therefore preceded by the article appropriate to the head noun.

Thus, we have, e.g.

This is [Paston's] [tomb].

(Not: *...[the Paston's] [tomb], since proper names cannot normally be preceded by articles.)

but

This is [the Paston tomb].


(with 'the' relating to 'tomb' and adjective 'Paston' simply interposed like any other adjective).

As to which kind of adjunct, the determinative or the modificative, is appropriate in any given case, the difference may be negligible (as in the case above: provided we understand that Paston was a person who died, there is no risk of ambiguity according to choice of adjunct), but may in other cases impact to a more or less significant extent on meaning/reference, or may simply be fixed by convention.

Instances are too numerous to cite, so you would probably do best to check any doubtful cases with a native. A good learners' dictionary, however, should provide some guidance.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Dear All,

I know that you use an apostrophe followed by an s to indicate possesion (Jim's car).

Why is it however that in some cases that look like it should be used it is not, e.g. we say company house rather than company's house? Reading a book on English Medieval history, at some point it was saying Paston tomb where I though it should be Paston's tomb.

Is there any rule for differentiating?

Regards,
George

a woman's heart :tick:
a her heart :cross:

[a woman]'s
[she]'s = her

a woman's heart
her heart
:-o:)

Set up on the basis of their position in the noun phrase in relation to each other, there are three classes of determiners:

-central
-pre
- post

In tree's trunk, tree's belong where? I really do not know.

the tree's trunk -- the seems to hinge on tree and not trunk, the head noun
my tree's trunk ≠ my trunk
my tree's trunk = my tree

my tree's two trunk = two trunk (genetically modified tree)

Conclusion: Determiners formed by the use of a generic noun plus a possessive suffix can't be preceded by another determiner that defines directly the head noun. But they can be followed by a postdeterminer. Central determiners comes to mind tentatively. But I have another thought: The taxonomical system of determiners relates to the closed class of words. tree's can't be classified on such basis. Closed class of words can.
What do you think, Philo? Am I correct?
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
The taxonomical system of determiners relates to the closed class of words. tree's can't be classified on such basis. Closed class of words can.
What do you think, Philo? Am I correct?

Not really: determiners are not a closed set (you are perhaps thinking of prepositions or conjunctions, which are), since any possessive-case NP can function as one, and the set of English nouns is, of course, quite open.

Otherwise, your remarks here appear to be correct.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Not really: determiners are not a closed set (you are perhaps thinking of prepositions or conjunctions, which are), since any possessive-case NP can function as one, and the set of English nouns is, of course, quite open.

Otherwise, your remarks here appear to be correct.

Coolio! Gracias!
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary

What is your relationship with transformational grammar, Philo? I waded myself through two books. Baas Arts and Radford reformulated my ideas about several concepts that I have learnt in traditional books. Why do you think this forum is mainly traditional in the sense only traditional ideas are discussed?
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
What is your relationship with transformational grammar, Philo? I waded myself through two books. Baas Arts and Radford reformulated my ideas about several concepts that I have learnt in traditional books. Why do you think this forum is mainly traditional in the sense only traditional ideas are discussed?

I think this is meat for a new thread, Corum, but my view in a nutshell is extremely simple: if the correct structuring of a sentence can be explained satisfactorily with reference to traditional grammar (and at least, in my experience, 99% can), why bother attempting to explain the same linguistic phenomena via other methods? In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Thanks for your comment, Philo. I can reverse your idea and ask: If the correct structuring of a sentence can be explained satisfactorily with reference to transformational grammar, why bother attempting to explain the same linguistic phenomena via other methods?

Is TG less popular because it came later?
 

bertietheblue

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Thanks for your comment, Philo. I can reverse your idea and ask: If the correct structuring of a sentence can be explained satisfactorily with reference to transformational grammar, why bother attempting to explain the same linguistic phenomena via other methods?

Is TG less popular because it came later?

Erm, err ... I'll stick with traditional grammar. Can you give an example of a sentence - simple, please ;-) - which cannot be explained by traditional grammar.

Thanks
Bertie
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Erm, err ... I'll stick with traditional grammar. Can you give an example of a sentence - simple, please ;-) - which cannot be explained by traditional grammar.

Thanks
Bertie

I can ask you back the reverse: Can you give an example sentence which can't be explained in terms of transformational grammar? I was talking about the marked preference for the traditional approach to grammar and the apparent deep aversion to TG, markedly different attitudes to two different approaches to grammar which obviously manifest themselves here at usingenglish.com. What is the source of favoritism?

One more question: You stick with traditional grammar. Can you explain why you like it more than transformational grammar?

I do not know which approach I like more, but I know that the theoretical approach to grammatical phenomena adopted in TG very much appeals to me.
 
Last edited:

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Thanks for your comment, Philo. I can reverse your idea and ask: If the correct structuring of a sentence can be explained satisfactorily with reference to transformational grammar, why bother attempting to explain the same linguistic phenomena via other methods?

Is TG less popular because it came later?

Although I would still strongly urge you to start a new thread for this....

You can ask the question whichever way around you like but, to my mind, the only meaningful way to pursue an answer is in relation to specific cases. If a syntactic system - be it 'traditional' or otherwise - can account for the construction of any standard locution in a way that is clear and comprehensible to the average language-user (most particularly without excessive recourse to terminology that cannot be readily and relatively simply defined*), then that system should be deemed adequate for the description of the language. Further, it does not seem in any way beyond the bounds of possibility that more than one system could satisfy the above criteria (in which case one simply opts for, and champions, that which, for whatever reason, one happens personally to prefer) or indeed that a combination of traditional and non-traditional approaches might even, on occasion, prove to be the most effective modus operandi.

EOC

(* E.g. a term such as 'prepositional postmodifier' - as daunting as it might look to a non-grammarian - can be simply defined by way of example, and thus presents, in and of itself, no real barrier to effective analysis/explanation.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top